Would they be $100 more better to be exact? Looking at an older one 100$ more right now but I would also have to go somewhere for tube extension.

I've never researched into it much but I read a lot of internet opinions about it. Looking to pick up a 45/70 for some property I'm buying in Montana soon.

Jm guns work great. I bought a newer one right after they were bought out and it didn’t feed worth a damn. That was several years ago. I picked up a 1895GBL a few months ago and it seems fine. All things being equal, I’d get the JM stamped gun.

Short answer, yes, I'd pay $100 more to get the JM gun. If only for the resale value, it's worth it. I probably wouldn't pay $300 more, though.

In my experience, Marlins are a mixed bag. The typical issues that you will see with them are a dislike of feeding certain bullet profiles, like semi-wadcutters, or sometimes guns chambered in a magnum cartridge will feed the longer magnum cartridges just fine, but not the "specials".

I have a pre-safety 1982 JM .357 mag that doesn't like semi-wadcutters very much...it'll feed them, but you have to baby it a bit. A buddy picked up a Remlin .357 recently that will feed anything, even empties. On the flip side, my "Remlin" .45 Colt will not.

None of these are insurmountable issues...I found loads and bullet profiles that my individual rifles like, and I stick to those.

My JM marlins I feel are a little smoother and better finished, but some of that is also probably age and use as they've both had years to wear in. My Remlin guns are both really nice rifles in their own right. They are well-balanced, accurate, and have nice wood and blueing. I'd take a Remlin over a Henry or a Rossi any day. The only issue I've had is the front sight dovetail on my .45 Colt was so loose that the sight was moving around. I was replacing it with a Williams Peep anyway, so it was a non-issue for me, but that's not something you should have to deal with out of the box on a $750 rifle.

If you have the opportunity to feed some different types of ammo through the gun before buying, definitely do that, but unless you're buying from a private party I doubt you'll have that opportunity. With the .45-70 it's never been an issue for me, though, because most loads use a rounded profile bullet anyway, and none of my Marlins have ever had an issue with those.

I have 2 (JM) of them, built a few miles from me. They simply work. The new ones are called remlins for a reason. The marlin craftsman knew how to make sure they worked when leaving the factory.

I prefer a JM. But I recently bought a Remlin 336BL that is pretty decent. Good fit on the wood, functions well and accurate.
They still use the crappy sights, though.

Yes but they don't have to be. Late Marlin guns, where the tooling was worn out and the work force not caring can be just as bad as the early Remington guns. So just because it's aq JM gun don't mean it's magic.

And the crazy prices some people think JM guns are worth is just laughable. Remember the overwhelming majority of Marlin lever action in existence were made before Remington, they're not rare.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Yes but they don't have to be. Late Marlin guns, where the tooling was worn out and the work force not caring can be just as bad as the early Remington guns. So just because it's aq JM gun don't mean it's magic.

And the crazy prices some people think JM guns are worth is just laughable. Remember the overwhelming majority of Marlin lever action in existence were made before Remington, they're not rare.

I had just one REMLIN a 39a, just a piece of shit from the start. My two other JMs are wonderful except that the 4570 didn’t like to be tightened up screw wise and it took a little while to break in or actually was that I was way too gentle with the action. One of our real old timers said slap it around work the action like you mean it. Yep he was right. I have put leather on the handles less painful to slap the 4570 around. The 357 very slick now with over 1 k round through and I went with Williams peep sight for it. The 4570 has a red dot. I suspect that the marlins made during the end of the toolings life were not good and the early RemLins I know were shit. Current crop not sure of but at least there are some competitors like Henry.

I bought a Marlin 1894 in 2012. Action is rough. Cycles .38 Specials fine but action becomes rough cycling .357 Magnums. CS kept it for 8 months and fixed nothing. I had to threaten legal action to get the gun back that came back with the same problems. About 4 or 5 years ago I bought a used JM stamped 1894 in .45 Colt. Day and night difference from the Remlin. Remlin action rough, JM action smooth.

I have heard that they are improving, but this guy will Never buy another Remington of any kind after my experience with them. Never!

I think the “Remlins” have gotten a bit better.
I have/had a couple JM stamped Marlins. I sold my JM stamped 44, but still have the 357.
Very nice rifles.

I recently bought an 1894 CST. So far it has been a nice firearm. The fit/finish is closer to the original JM guns.
It has been reliable and relatively smooth for a new SS rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by hudr:
I think the “Remlins” have gotten a bit better.
I have/had a couple JM stamped Marlins. I sold my JM stamped 44, but still have the 357.
Very nice rifles.

I recently bought an 1894 CST. So far it has been a nice firearm. The fit/finish is closer to the original JM guns.
It has been reliable and relatively smooth for a new SS rifle.

A number of my friends covet my 357 JM. I figure will have it with me along with buffalo robe when I am buried in the sky on a scaffold Lakota Indian style.

quote:

A number of my friends covet my 357 JM. I figure will have it with me along with buffalo robe when I am buried in the sky on a scaffold Lakota Indian style.

I have the same issue. Mine's getting incinerated with me on the viking longboat when I check out . Coincidentally I just had it out today...that thing makes cleaning a 6" plate rack at 50 yards a piece of cake. Of all the rifles I own, that one would be the last I'd give up.

Shouldn't it more a question of vintage rather than a simple marking? It should be noted that the JM barrel mark is also found on early Remlins, presumably due to the operation using up old inventories of parts that made before the 2007 buyout. And as markstempski noted earlier, Marlin quality was already on the down slope for a while prior to Remington's buyout of them; they weren't taking over a particularly healthy company. Remington and their Freedom Group master did however succeed in making it even worse, which I think is what people fixate on and then forget about the quality issues with Marlin in the years prior to their buyout.

JM guns from at least the 90s onward should be looked over thoroughly and with some degree of healthy suspicion before any buying consideration, in spite of what marking is on the barrel.

The gun I’m looking at was manufactured in 1994

quote:

Originally posted by OttoSig:
Would they be $100 more better to be exact? Looking at an older one 100$ more right now but I would also have to go somewhere for tube extension.

I've never researched into it much but I read a lot of internet opinions about it. Looking to pick up a 45/70 for some property I'm buying in Montana soon.

Bought a new 45/70 1895SBL last year. Great gun. Finish was nice with the laminate style stock and forend. The Ghost ring sights are just fine if you don't want to put glass on it.

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:
Shouldn't it more a question of vintage rather than a simple marking? It should be noted that the JM barrel mark is also found on early Remlins, presumably due to the operation using up old inventories of parts that made before the 2007 buyout. And as markstempski noted earlier, Marlin quality was already on the down slope for a while prior to Remington's buyout of them; they weren't taking over a particularly healthy company. Remington and their Freedom Group master did however succeed in making it even worse, which I think is what people fixate on and then forget about the quality issues with Marlin in the years prior to their buyout.

JM guns from at least the 90s onward should be looked over thoroughly and with some degree of healthy suspicion before any buying consideration, in spite of what marking is on the barrel.

.

Sir, agree some vintages should be closely inspected JM or not. Nothing like worn out machinery and a low morale working staff to turn out well junk. The Japanese forced Detroit to build better cars using american quality control techniques. Maybe Henry can do the same for Marlin. I am happy/lucky to have the ones I have. Bought before I knew about such problems many moons ago

I never even knew Jerry Miculek shot Marlins.

Have you shot a 45-70 before? Having one is not a prerequisite for buying some land in MT. or anywhere else as far as I know.
I hated the one I had and sold it. I shoot heavy caliber rifles all the time. But that thing sucked big time imho.

All of my current Marlins (1895SS .45-70, 336 .35 Remington, 336 .30.30, 1894 .44), except for a JM made Model 60, are Remington made. Haven't had any problems except with a 2016 made 1894 .44 Magnum that had a broken forend cap screw from the factory. Remington took care of that and not only that, gave me a new buyt stock and forend with incredible grain (a definite upgrade from what was on it).

I've owned a number of JM Marlins and my current Remington made Marlins are every bit the equal, probably better. In fact, my JM 336 .30-30 wasn't without issues. There were gaps in the stock/receiver fit. And the front sight came loose.

The ONLY thing I liked better about my JM Marlins were that they were drilled and tapped on the side of the receiver for Lyman peep sights. I'm using Williams on some of my current Marlins.

Just picked up this .357 built in 1980 today. Very nice fit and finish. Almost bought a new 1894CB, but got this one for about the same price. Trigger pull averages 3.5 lbs. Might put some sights on it, but that's all this one is gonna need. Seems there are always nice old JM Marlins on GB.