[NEO Hunter]

In my search for 1985 44 mag I noticed some of the rifles that are JM stamped have serial numbers starting with 91 which from what I have read indicates a 2009 manufacture. I though that was post Remington buy out. Am I okay as long as they are JM stamped or are there some years like 2009 I need to avoid.? Thanks


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

 

[eagle359]

It is my understanding that JM is still being stamped-look to see if there is a REP stamp. REP is a Remington proof mark.

 

[Johnny Ringo]

I know absolutely nothing about this, but couldn't it be possible that there were parts already stamped with the "JM" before the buyout that were used post buyout? Either that, or perhaps eagle359 is correct.

 

[gatorboy]

Not trying to be a jerk but I would google some words and initials like Marlin, Remington, JM, etc. Mine was made in 04/05 so it's pure. I have researched this a bit and never thought about leftover barrels after the merger/takeover - whatever. I would think the chances of getting a JM barrel made by Remington would be low but I could be wrong. Through my limited research I never read they still stamped the barrels JM after Remington got involved.

Now, I have never shot a Marlington lever but Remington is no slouch at making firearms IMO. Could be the purist's are making a big deal about them over nothing? Maybe they did turn out some 'bad' ones early on and have figured it out by now? I don't know the answers but they are something to consider and investigate before buying. Good luck.

 

[MrMurphy]

When you have a couple centuries collective experience making one particular brand all go away, yeah, it does make a difference. Remington guys may know every little quirk about making 870s, but a lever action is a completely different animal.

 

[bhk]

Be careful with late production JM guns. Some are just terrible. Mine (.44 mag 1894) had a very poorly fitting stock (gaps filled with putty) and a magazine tube so 'out-of-round' that cartridges would get stuck in it. I was truly ashamed of myself for buying it.

I do not know at what date things began to really slide before the Remington purchase.

 

[mcoe74]

There is some very good info on the Marlin Owners (MO) forum pertaining to your REP vs JM stamp question: Marlin Owners Forum.

I have a Marlin 336W that I bought in 2009 and it is JM stamped. I did have a Marlin 336SS (REP stamped) that I bought in 2010 that was a decent rifle (good fit and finish, accurate, nice walnut stock set). I sold it to fund another purchase, not due to any quality issue with the rifle. I did take a hit on price due to the rumor mill.

That said, there were some posters on the MO forum that had some problems with their rifles, after Remington (the Freedom Group) bought Marlin, due to quality control. The issues were probably due to moving the operation, new equipment vs legacy equipment, training curve for new workers, etc. In the past year, the rifle quality of those that I have looked at appears to be getting back on track. Others have reported the same on the MO forum.

Best suggestion I can give is to carefully look at them to make your own decision prior to purchase.

 

[gatorboy]

Be careful with late production JM guns. Some are just terrible. Mine (.44 mag 1894) had a very poorly fitting stock (gaps filled with putty) and a magazine tube so 'out-of-round' that cartridges would get stuck in it. I was truly ashamed of myself for buying it.

That's a shame, don't feel too bad. Was it a WM gun by chance?

 

[byf43]

There is some very good info on the Marlin Owners (MO) forum pertaining to your REP vs JM stamp question: Marlin Owners Forum.

I have a Marlin 336W that I bought in 2009 and it is JM stamped. I did have a Marlin 336SS (REP stamped) that I bought in 2010 that was a decent rifle (good fit and finish, accurate, nice walnut stock set). I sold it to fund another purchase, not due to any quality issue with the rifle. I did take a hit on price due to the rumor mill.

That said, there were some posters on the MO forum that had some problems with their rifles, after Remington (the Freedom Group) bought Marlin, due to quality control. The issues were probably due to moving the operation, new equipment vs legacy equipment, training curve for new workers, etc. In the past year, the rifle quality of those that I have looked at appears to be getting back on track. Others have reported the same on the MO forum.

Best suggestion I can give is to carefully look at them to make your own decision prior to purchase.

^^^This is a very good post. :thumbsup:

I'll add, typically, any of the Marlin(s) born 2009 or earlier will have the Marlin 'pedigree'.

Here is a chart that can/will help determine what year the Marlin(s) are made.
(Take the first two digits of the serial number, and subtract it from 100. Example: 00005xxx would be "00" = 2000.)
In the example given, that's the serial number of my 1895G.



I'm not certain, but, I've heard that the Remlin/Marlington rifles have changed the prefix on the serial number to a letter designation.

The 1894CB (.44 magnum) that I bought, was built in 2009, and it is one of the last of the "JM" pedigree.

 

[byf43]

Be careful with late production JM guns. Some are just terrible. Mine (.44 mag 1894) had a very poorly fitting stock (gaps filled with putty) and a magazine tube so 'out-of-round' that cartridges would get stuck in it. I was truly ashamed of myself for buying it.

I do not know at what date things began to really slide before the Remington purchase.

I've read some horror stories of the 'transition' guns, produced by Remington crews, even on the Marlin equipment, before it was all moved.

The Marlin employees were 'told' to train the 'new' employees on how to build/manufacture the rifles, then, their employment was terminated.

Personally, "I" think it was _ _ _ _ty what the company did, to the Marlin employees.

 

[collim1]

If it doesn't have the cross bolt safety and still in good shape its good to go in my book.

 

[Wyoming]

I own several pre Remington Marlin rifles. I really don't need to know serial numbers just look at the rifle. Marlin always sanded the tang of the receiver with the wood stock for a prefect fit of metal to wood.

If you see gaps let some else buy it.

Look at older Marlins at gun shows and gun shops and once you see what the older Marlins look like you will be able to spot a Remington Marlin.

Remington can build good stuff so do know why they suck at leveraction or when they will finally figure it out.

 

[Tiro Fijo]

I've read some horror stories of the 'transition' guns, produced by Remington crews, even on the Marlin equipment, before it was all moved.

The Marlin employees were 'told' to train the 'new' employees on how to build/manufacture the rifles, then, their employment was terminated.

Personally, "I" think it was _ _ _ _ty what the company did, to the Marlin employees.

I have also heard that some were offered positions in the move, BUT at the "new & improved" lower salaries. Either way, it was FUBAR. Of course, note that this is what happens when you move to a Right to Work state and hire new monkeys for peanuts. Lower prices = lower quality.

 

[Church Key]

I was at the NRA show in Harrisburg PA in early Feb. The Marlin booth had a 39A with a JM barrel. The exhibitor said that Rem. is using up the old Marlin-made parts. The serial number is the best check for deciding who made it. Go to the marlin Forum for real info. I've got one made in 2002 (.44 w/98xxx s/n) and one in 1941 (39A w/B prefix). Both are fine.

 

[L Pete]

That "JM" is a Proof Mark. How can a gun be "Proved" before it's assembled?

Something's rotten in Denmark.......

 

[PhotoFeller]

That "JM" is a Proof Mark. How can a gun be "Proved" before it's assembled?

Something's rotten in Denmark.......

Cerberus announced it would acquire Marlin in December 2007 in a deal scheduled to close in January 2008.

Following completion of the deal, new management started implementing manufacturing process changes, including elimination of some quality inspections, in order to increase production. By 2009, the Marlin ways were quickly being displaced by Remington's 'modern' business and manufacturing practices.

Cerberus announced in March 2010 it would close the North Haven, Ct plant and move Marlin production to Ilion, NY. Production in North Haven ceased around April 2011.

I understand quality issues associated with the new operation began showing up late in 2009. I suspect problems intensified when closure of the North Haven plant was announced, and quality bottomed out during and after the transition of production to Ilion, NY.

My current personal benchmark for choosing a Marlin is a manufacturing year of 2008 or earlier. Process changes, morale problems and other issues that undermined stability of Marlin manufacturing after 2008 make rifles built post-2008 less likely to reflect traditional workmanship, in my opinion. I do own several 2009 Marlins, and these rifles are highly satisfactory in fit, finish and functionality.

 

[L Pete]

You'd be wrong.....It's proof mark. Do you even know what a proof mark is?

 

[PhotoFeller]

You'd be wrong.....It's proof mark. Do you even know what a proof mark is?

I understand the JM barrel mark was traditionally put on with a hammer and stamp after the rifle was assembled; thats why the mark often wasn't straight or complete. I have rifles that bear a JM mark that is hardly legible.

Your challenge to my statement about the proof mark is appropriate. My 'knowledge' about the decline in Marlin quality is anecdotal, and I have no official basis for such statements.

 

[PhotoFeller]

Here's an interesting Marlin Owners Forum post regarding the JM stamp:

"To my knowledge NO "JM" Proofmarked Barrels EVER left North Haven Marlin.
We kept making Barrels & Receivers up to December 2010 even after ALL our Assembly Equipment was sent to Remington in August 2010.
The Barrels were Rollstamped with North Haven Marlin by us, and Ilion, but you can't Proof Test & Proofmark a Barrel on a rifle that has NOT been Assembled.
Those Receivers would have had North Haven Marlin Serial Numbers Stamped into them, but when Assembled & Proof Tested in Ilion,NY Remington they would have had "REP" Proofmarks on their Barrels. Remington made Receivers would have the "MRxxxxxxxxx" Serial Numbers Stamped.

So, your statement is true.
"If the JM stamp was in fact a "proof stamp" reserved for only Connecticut built Marlins, it also serves as a 'fool proof' symbol for identifying rifles made in the old plants."

 

[skynyrd1911]

I purchased a new Marlin 39A in 2008 or 2009. Beautiful rifle. Turned out to be junk. Sent it back for repair. Came back in a Remington box. Still would not work. Sent back and demanded my money back. They did and I bought a GOOD used one pre crossbolt safety. AWESOME rifle. Both of my lever action Marlins are pre safety. .22 & 30-30......