Marlin 1894C JM vs 1894CS Remlin
Hello, I have recently acquired a new-in-the-box Marlin 1894C .357 Magnum, new in the box, from old stock of a deceased gun shop owner. It is manufactured in CT with a JM stamp. It is perfect new in the box. I also about two years ago bought a new Remington (NY) manufactured 1894CS in .357 magnum. It is like new. I replaced the lifter in the 1894CS with a Brownells lifter, that cured the "Marlin Jam", which it had right out of the box. I haven't shot the older one. There's a lot of talk the older JM guns are somehow far better than the ones made in NY by Remington. But I have a JM 1894 in .44 Magnum that I've owned for 40 plus years that had the dreaded Marlin Jam the whole time, until very recently when I replaced its lifter with one from Brownells. All those years it was a two-shot rifle, one in the chamber and one in the magazine tube. So, I wasn't all that impressed with the quality of the older Marlins made in CT.
The question, is there substance to the opinions about the JM guns being better somehow? I can't see anything that would show me that. And the newer rifle has prettier wood. And I don't see a problem with the safety, in fact unloading seems much safer. Your opinions and knowledge invited and appreciated!
The question, is there substance to the opinions about the JM guns being better somehow? I can't see anything that would show me that. And the newer rifle has prettier wood. And I don't see a problem with the safety, in fact unloading seems much safer. Your opinions and knowledge invited and appreciated!
0
-
When I bought Smith & Wesson revolvers in the 1970s I was told they were lousy guns, not nearly as good as 1950s made Smiths. Some of the "old timers" back then swore they'd just bought new Smiths that didn't work right out of the box because (no joke) the internals were filled with metal shavings. Of course, now everyone (including me) chases those 70s made Smiths. So I'm always suspect of the "new = lousy" mantra.
I own a bunch of older Marlins, just bought an early 336 as it happens. And I've handled the newer Marlins. Just my opinion, but the wood on the newer guns isn't well sealed and the checkering is shallow. The coloring is odd. The wood to metal fit around the tang is poor. The bluing on the receiver is uneven.
I haven't shot a newer Marlin because so far as I'm concerned if it doesn't look good I'm not interested. The guns internally may be great, I don't know. But I find their appearance lacking.
Like Smith & Wesson, it may be that while CNC and high tech manufacturing equipment produces a better spec'd product the need to come in at a certain price point cause them to economize on the external fit & finish. The "blued steel & walnut" crowd is fading and being replaced by poly frames, MIM and spray paint finishes. Seems counterintuitive on a lever action gun, perhaps just the learning curve with Marlin being taken over.
It's been a few months since I've handled one, I hear they're getting better.0 -
I had a Remington made 1895, it was stainless, so I can't say much about finish, but It was the best of all the marlin lever guns I've had. The action was smoother, parts seemed to be fitted tighter and I think the trigger was better too. 0 -
I GAVE the new Remlins a chance first one the sights were indexed at the 11:00 0clock position sent it back and the next one didn't have a firing pin took it back and exchanged it for a Henry. They were some of the first one and I hear they are getting better 0 -
The early Remlins I saw had very poor fit and finish. Picked up a 2002 .30-30 Marlin for my son who took his first deer with it a few weeks ago. 0 -
Saw me a 1895GS Remlin at my LGS not too long ago. I held it and it felt odd. The "chekering" was like rolled or stamped on so they were just decorations. The wood looked uncoated but kind a slick in the hand it was wierd. Wood to metal fit was nice on this one but the wood was just wierd, too.
Didn't try the action since I just wanted to look at it. I'll keep the one I got until the Feds comes and takes her away [:D].0 -
I have an 1895 Marlin made in 1972 that has the "Letting in two" feeding problem also known as the "Marlin jam" It is a design problem that is most often encountered on well used guns. Like many others I simply load the chamber, then one in the magazine. My Two- shooter has met my needs for many years. I won't buy a Marlin lever action made by Remington. They don't look or feel right to me. I look for the JM marked models. Recently bought a used stainless 444 with 24 inch barrel. It is JM marked and a real beauty with laminated wood and ballard rifling. 0 -
The best resource I've found for issues that have cropped up with Remington made Marlins is the Marlin Owners forums. People have gotten lucky with some of their Remlins, but others have reported some very serious issues, including cracked receivers (because they cut the mag tube threads too close to the barrel threads), canted sights, threads for receiver mounted scope base cut off-center, poor wood to metal fit (this is because they now manufacture their stocks in a separate factory site from the metallic parts and final assembly, so returning stocks for custom fitting is harder to accomplish), pressed instead of cut checkering, gritty action due to internals not cleaned or polished, etc. Supposedly, most of the serious issues have recently improved, but some of the early guns with issues could still be out in a dealer's inventory. Check over any Remlin real good before you buy. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments