Remington & Marlin

[ReloaderFred]

I just read an article about Remington closing their Mayfield, Kentucky plant so they can consolidate manufacturing in their Huntsville, Alabama plant. The interesting thing I found in the story was a comment below the article from an employee of Remington in the Ilion, New York plant. Here is his comment on what happened with the Marlin line of firearms:


Andrew Rohn (https://www.facebook.com/andrew.rohn)I work in the Marlin department. The quality of the rifles after Remington purchase wasn't entirely Remington's fault. The deal for Marlin was for everything but the work force. The people that used to make Marlin rifles didn't like not being apart of the deal so they sabotage a lot of the machines used to make the rifles. Remington tried fixing them but couldn't get them back to 100% so Remington bought all new CNC machines to replace the old ones and have been working on trying to bring the quality back. They have made a lot of improvement since.
The guys that sabotaged the old CNC machines even left not so pleasant notes in the machines also. I can't blame them for being upset at losing their jobs but they are the real reason the Marlin quality plummeted.

Here is a link to the article:

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/05/05/stinko-de-mayo-remington-axes-200-jobs-closes-plant/?utm_source=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Hope this helps.

Fred

[M-Tecs]

Thirty-five years as a toolmaker makes me call BS!! Not saying that the sabotage didn't happen but it was Remington's QA that let junk out the door. That is the job of the inspection department (quality assurance). It was Remington machine operators that did the initial inspection. QA inspects the first article of production and spot checks the machine operator. QA also spot checks the finial product before shipping.

[HangFireW8]

That's right, QA shouldn't let junk ship, assuming QA has any clue. Which, if they're new to the product, they are probably working from just drawings and not institutional knowledge, which means they'll let junk ship.

Also every manufacturing move I've seen involved worn-out tooling and machinery arriving from the old plant, and zero institutional knowledge on how to get it working properly.

Management response to everything- make it work and ship it. NOW!

There's always more than one side to a story.

Also, that web rag you linked needs to hire a copy editor.

[1895gunner]

Thirty-five years as a toolmaker makes me call BS!! Not saying that the sabotage didn't happen but it was Remington's QA that let junk out the door. That is the job of the inspection department (quality assurance). It was Remington machine operators that did the initial inspection. QA inspects the first article of production and spot checks the machine operator. QA also spot checks the finial product before shipping.

EXACTLY - well said my friend!

1895gunner

[Kraschenbirn]

As someone who once (back in the dark ages when CNC was just beginning to come on line) ran a QA shop, I gotta agree with M-Tecs. In this case of the Remlins...and I've handled a few...I see three likely possibilities: (1) QA people who were inadequately trained on the product and, perhaps, didn't have clear acceptability guidelines. (2) Someone in management was over-riding QA standards to get product out the door. (3) A combination of #1 & #2. I've had to manage the rework of the returned products generated by a Sales Manager who came back from a major trade show with a handful of orders for a product that was still in pre-production...which is how I ended up running QA after I diagnosed and cleaned up the mess.

Bill

[lightload]

Other Remington products not associated with Marlin have had issues. Anyway, Remlin qc problems have continued to persist, and I sometimes wonder where they found the people who are assembling them.

[dragon813gt]

I don't believe that comment. There were a whole slew of issues when it came to making Marlins. Remington has stated the equipment was old and worn out, not sabotaged. Then there were the running changes that were never documented. When these changes are only in the minds of the workforce you didn't hire it leads to a whole lot of problems.

Remington should have been able to fix all the issues by now. The fact that they haven't falls squarely on their shoulders. What happened in the past doesn't matter anymore. Enough time has gone by and Remington hasn't gotten their act together.

[shoot-n-lead]

Thirty-five years as a toolmaker makes me call BS!! Not saying that the sabotage didn't happen but it was Remington's QA that let junk out the door. That is the job of the inspection department (quality assurance). It was Remington machine operators that did the initial inspection. QA inspects the first article of production and spot checks the machine operator. QA also spot checks the finial product before shipping.

UNLESS...your QA is inexperienced with the design and doesn't know what to look for to insure reliability.

Not excusing Remington, but something like trouble shooting production of guns would be a dynamic situation with multiple facets. And, this would be compounded when employees are thrown into producing a complex design that they are unfamiliar with.

[garym1a2]

You don't QC in quality, inspectors miss too much. For good quality product you must have good documentation, assembly procedures, material and a trained work force.

[Scharfschuetze]

I own JM Marlins dating back to 1903 and I've always enjoyed them not only for their quality, but their usability in the field. Given that, this whole "Remlin" issue has been of interest to me. I've read all the reasons for the drop in quality with them, and each excuse seems to have some relevance, but in the end, QA must rule. Winchester found that out in 1964 with the advent of their Post 63 firearms. It took them something like four years to get back on track quality wise and in many ways they never regained their reputation or customer loyalty.

A little off topic perhaps, but still germane to the issue: A couple of years ago, Remington introduced the R51 semi-auto pistol, a remake of the well thought of original pistol of decades ago. Guess what? Similar issues with it as with the Remlins. Why is that? Corporate culture? The whole fiasco is now on hold after they recalled all the R51s. In this day of CAD design and CNC machining, it all seems rather mismanaged.

While the article linked to below seems a bit biased, it lays out a corporate strategy (design, QA and marketing) that seems to be quite flawed.

Remington R-51: http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2015/09/18/more-delays-remington-r51/

If you don't read the whole article, at least scroll down to Der Fuhrer's video rant. It's great comedy if only for comedy's sake. Of course the R51 is the butt of the tirade.

[TXGunNut]

I'm not a fan of Remington but I am a JM Marlin fan and will always keep my eye out for a good older Marlin. OTOH I sometimes wish my old Guide Gun had a pistol grip. I saw a recent mfg 1895 in the used gun rack awhile back and liked the way it looked and felt. I don't much care for the wood but I'll live with it. I won't put up with poor accuracy or poor function however and this rifle has neither. It cycles and shoots as well as my Guide Gun and that makes it a pretty good gun in my book. I have no doubt Remington will get it together with the Marlin line, if my example is any indication they already have.
I don't know what happened in the Marlin/Remington changeover but sometimes changes have to be made and this was one of those times.

[Thin Man]

Wish I could say they are trying, bu that is not what I saw at the NRA convention in Nashville. While at the Remington display I looked over a Remlin 336 copy of the Marlin. The metal finish was over-polished and very wavy and carried a black-on-black finish that reminded me of the black chrome that was seen on handguns many years ago. Overall, the metal finish reminded me of a rifle that had been damaged in a fire, was over-polished to remove the pits, then was plated with a thick shiny cover to fill in the pits that were not polished out. Downright nasty. Walked away with the consolation that there still are original J Marlin rifles to be had in the marketplace.

Thin Man

[.45colt]

Over on Marlin owners under the rant section the first two topics pretty well cover the whole thing. one of the long time Marlin employees sheds light on how the takeover took shape. Had they sabotaged the machines they could have been arrested and lost their severance pay. The real reason for lack of quality is a bunch of Remington arrogant stuffed shirts who didn't have a clue...

[EDG]

In current modern manufacturing QA has little impact on the product other than measure it and report the dimensions to the people setting and running up the processes.
The real control happens in manufacturing and is called process control. Statistical quality control is used to continually improve the processes. The critical dimensions are charted and the workers know long before a feature goes out of tolerance unless a tool breaks. Six sigma quality control typically yields less than 3.4 total defects per million.

Many of the factories in the NE are poorly managed by old style management that cannot change due to the ancient internal culture. They don't reinvest in new machines, tooling and retraining of the work force. The managers are mostly interested in hanging on to their jobs until they can retire so they take no risks that comes with investing and changing. Sometimes the unions are complicit in maintaining the rotten status quo.

Many of these sorry old out dated factories are not lacking in skill but they are lacking in the willingness to admit they are outdated and need to change. Often the best way to cure the problem is to slam the door on the factory and kill the old culture completely.

[shoot-n-lead]

I had some Marlins "back in the day" that weren't anything to write home about...matter of fact, I have a JM now that is not all that I think that it should be. Nostalgia...funny how blind and in denial it can be. If ya don't like the new Marlins...simple...just don't buy'em. It is not written in stone, anywhere, that any of us are entitled to ready access to lever action rifles that suit US. Freedom group paid their money for these gun companies and they can do with them, whatever they please...it can make them richer or poorer...it is their business, not ours. I prefer the Winchesters, anyway, wouldn't hear me complain if they never made another Marlin.

[HangFireW8]

Winchester had their QA moment, 4 years of it starting in 1964. And as much as I like the slick action old original '94's, the rebounding hammer, cross safety, etc etc will not cause me to shed any tears if it went away.

[Blackwater]

Well, guys, I've been wanting an 1894C in .357 for quite a while now. In another thread, someone said they'd talked with Rem. and they said they were to make a run of 1894C's this month. I went to order one and found that even with a discount, it'd run $665, which is kind'a high for what I want. It's hard for an old dawg to deal with inflation, but I guess they wont' get any cheaper. I held off on the order. Have some places to put my $$$ this month, and just didn't feel quite right about spending quite that much right now.

My question is, with the QC or whatever issues, has anyone seen the new ones, and did they function well and shoot well? I'd love one, but the QC issues are what mainly threw me off. At that price, I want to be SURE the darn thing at least WORKS, and is accurate. Anyone got any input on what kind of 1894's they're putting out now?

[Hickory]

I have given up hope for Marlin to produce a lever gun with even half of the features I'd like to see on it's guns.
Over the winter at a gun show I saw and handled a Chiappa 1892 they are not as cheap as a Rossi, but the quality and finish is very good.
Unlike most manufactures you can get about what you want on this gun.
I'm putting money away for the one below, yea, it cost a lot more, but I will be getting exactly what I want.

167944

http://www.chiappafirearms.com/product/2604

[dragon813gt]

Well, guys, I've been wanting an 1894C in .357 for quite a while now. In another thread, someone said they'd talked with Rem. and they said they were to make a run of 1894C's this month. I went to order one and found that even with a discount, it'd run $665, which is kind'a high for what I want. It's hard for an old dawg to deal with inflation, but I guess they wont' get any cheaper. I held off on the order. Have some places to put my $$$ this month, and just didn't feel quite right about spending quite that much right now.

My question is, with the QC or whatever issues, has anyone seen the new ones, and did they function well and shoot well? I'd love one, but the QC issues are what mainly threw me off. At that price, I want to be SURE the darn thing at least WORKS, and is accurate. Anyone got any input on what kind of 1894's they're putting out now?

That's $95 more than I paid for my Remington made 1894C. And I bought it at Cabela's :eek:

That's at the limit for what they are worth. Mine has no mechanical or cosmetic issues. Feeds everything just fine. But it's not from current production. It's from the small run they did before shutting production down for years.

That cost really turns me off. Don't get me wrong. I really like mine. And I know levers are more expensive to produce. But their are better rifles at a lower price point available. Yeah, they are bolt actions but at the end of they day they are a tool.