Have they fixed their problems yet or are there still issues, looking at getting a 45-70 but don't want a lemon

Researching this myself. General opinion is they are making some good rifles as of late but do not buy one sight unseen.

Hold one in your hands and run some dummy rounds through the action if you can. Inspect to make sure the sights on the barrel are not canted and do a quick review for general fit and finish. I am also looking at a Henry. They are equipped with a ghost ring sight and owners speak very highly of them.

Join the Marlin forum and learn as you go
http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/

Wolfie moving to Tennessee?

Soon After the house is built and wife retires, 3 years or so.

overall impression from those of us who shoot and collect marlins............STILL JUNK!
http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...gton-screwed-me.html

http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...ce-new-1895-sbl.html

Some are, some are not:
http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...rem-made-marlin.html

Always two sides to every story.

Buy a Winchester 1886.

I went through this exact scenario just last year when I decided to buy one. I looked at the new ones, and while I didn't see any obvious functional flaws, the workmanship and fit and finish are just crap compared with the older ones.

I ended up buying one made in 1983 that is glass smooth, tight as a drum, and accurate as hell. With the amount of used guns out there, I'd say you're better off going with the JM stamp.

will try and go down the pre Rem idea, we live in a fairly isolated area so it might have to be sight unseen which I'm not sure on.
Thanks for the replies

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Some are, some are not:
http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...rem-made-marlin.html

Always two sides to every story.[/QUOT

Or one manufactured correct out of the 200 they made that day

I bought a gbl in January and the fit and finish is almost perfect. and it drives tacks. a friend of mine bought the first sbl he could find and it is as good as mine.

thanks for the replies guys, am looking at an early 70's one at the moment any thoughts on that as a good buy looks in good condition

I have a BO serial numbered 45/70 (1st year production from 1972) and it has always shot well. I don't think you can go too far wrong with a pre safety (pre 1984) gun.

They are gradually showing some improvement but they have a long way to go to equal the pre-Marlington guns...

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
I have a BO serial numbered 45/70 (1st year production from 1972) and it has always shot well. I don't think you can go too far wrong with a pre safety (pre 1984) gun.

What does BO serial numbered mean?

And it's no big deal, but if you're referring to the .45-70 M336 as being first produced in 1972, it wasn't. I owned one in 1971...what Marlin called their "Centennial" Model at the time, with a straight grip and a Monte Carlo comb (no cheek piece). It also had a "centennial medallion" in the right side of the butt stock.

can any Marlin experts tell me what year this serial # is from, it's stamped JM 92206146

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
I have a BO serial numbered 45/70 (1st year production from 1972) and it has always shot well. I don't think you can go too far wrong with a pre safety (pre 1984) gun.

What does BO serial numbered mean?

And it's no big deal, but if you're referring to the .45-70 M336 as being first produced in 1972, it wasn't. I owned one in 1971...what Marlin called their "Centennial" Model at the time, with a straight grip and a Monte Carlo comb (no cheek piece). It also had a "centennial medallion" in the right side of the butt stock.

The first 2500 1895's were marked with a BO serial number. They were fitted with Douglass Barrels and Ballard rifling. Above the 2500 serial number they got a marlin microgroove barrel. I honestly don't think that they shoot much different but the BO is worth a couple hundred more dollars to the collector, not that my guns a collectors gun.
It is always possible a 'special' run was released by Marlin, the first thing you learn is never say never with them. Very possible you could have a pre 72 gun.

Wazza...
Your 92 gun is a 2008 Marlin, the JM mark is the good news... however the bad news is 2008 was the year 'problem' guns started showing up as Remington took over management and finally production.

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by wazza56:
can any Marlin experts tell me what year this serial # is from, it's stamped JM 92206146

Thanks

1992

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:

quote:

Originally posted by wazza56:
can any Marlin experts tell me what year this serial # is from, it's stamped JM 92206146

Thanks

1992

Delro..... the 92 is not the year code. Here is the chart from the reference section of Marlinowners.com


http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...ser-1-sheet-pdf.html


92 is 2008 production and the Year Remington took over Marlin.

oops you are correct

finally got one, shoots well

I purchased my first Henry yesterday (the 45-70). It's a beautiful beast.

I cleaned the rifle last night and ran into an issue upon reassembly.
Before breaking it down, the lever was snug, smooth, and did not have any free play / was not loose. After reassembly, the lever is loose and has a lot of free play/slack in the action (however, when the lever is closed the gun is good and tight).
To clean the gun I removed the lever screw, removed the lever, removed the bolt, and removed the ejector spring. I put it back together exactly in reverse, but now the lever is loose (has a lot of free play when in the opened position).

What am I doing wrong? Has anyone had this type of issue with their lever gun and how did you correct it?

My Henry 45-70 has more play ( loose ) than the two Marlins I have when the levers are open but is tighter less movement when the lever is closed. I think its normal and have not worried about it as every thing works smoothly and accuracy is v good. I am unlikley to be able to find another to compare it with here in NZ for some time as theres not many finding there way this far south.

Buckeye: I was unaware of the BO thing denoting early rifles with Douglas barrels. I have had the 95s in both MicroGroove and the later Marlin Ballard rifling, and have to say I could not detect any accuracy difference with jacketed or cast. Good rifles, those New Haven Marlins.

FWIW, I believe it is a zero, not the letter O, following the B prefix.

e.g., my first year production 1895 is B0037xx

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Buckeye: I was unaware of the BO thing denoting early rifles with Douglas barrels. I have had the 95s in both MicroGroove and the later Marlin Ballard rifling, and have to say I could not detect any accuracy difference with jacketed or cast. Good rifles, those New Haven Marlins.

The 'old wives tale' is that the microgroove will not shoot cast well. Like you, both shoot fine for me .... I've got over a dozen in various calibers in both barrel types.

I have purchased four Marlins in the last few years. I have one of the four with a JM barrel. I have different results with each gun. The first was the JM. Everything was fine with that one as expected. The second was a stainless 44 bought used. It looked great until the first time I cleaned it. The edges were left so sharp around the action that I was bleeding from several cuts before I got done. Also so sharp I didn't notice until I saw the blood. This one is still my favorite to shoot. A 44 mag. Then a brand new 39. Pretty wood poor fit. shoots great. Last is a 336 30-30. used. everything is just like the first JM gun. I think it depends on who puts them together or how bad they need their "numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by Alabama458:
I cleaned the rifle last night and ran into an issue upon reassembly.
Before breaking it down, the lever was snug, smooth, and did not have any free play / was not loose. After reassembly, the lever is loose and has a lot of free play/slack in the action (however, when the lever is closed the gun is good and tight).

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to disassemble a brand new rifle?

Here is a further update.... Remington gun, Remington ammo and a KA-Boom!

http://www.marlinowners.com/fo...rum/156181-boom.html

Do ya feel lucky, punk? (Dirty Harry)

quote:

Originally posted by billt:

quote:

Originally posted by Alabama458:
I cleaned the rifle last night and ran into an issue upon reassembly.
Before breaking it down, the lever was snug, smooth, and did not have any free play / was not loose. After reassembly, the lever is loose and has a lot of free play/slack in the action (however, when the lever is closed the gun is good and tight).

I'm curious as to why you felt the need to disassemble a brand new rifle?

To clean it.

It's just that I hear of this type of thing all the time. The most common are with Ruger Mark series .22 auto pistols. It's one horror story after another with people taking these things apart, then having nothing but problems putting them back together. Or if they do they don't work properly afterward. One gunsmith I frequent has told me he gets at least one to two in a week in boxes because people were trying to "clean them". Now, they're gun is so clean, it doesn't work.

I own and shoot 3 Ruger Mark pistols, and I've NEVER had one apart in thousands of rounds. There is no need to. When they get dirty I simply remove the magazine and grips, and give the weapon a good wet cleaning in clean Kerosene with a stiff bristled paint brush, followed by a good blow dry with compressed air. I then relubricate, and the gun is cleaner than the day I bought it new. People take too many things apart unnecessarily, and cause nothing but problems by doing it.