JM Marlins

[jsn]

What is a JM Marlin?

Is JM stamped somewhere, is it a production year thing, etc.?

[RickinTN]

Stamped on the barrel just ahead of the receiver. I have seen them stamped on the left and the right side. My rememberer isn't working very well at the time but 2009 and earlier I think, but certainly could be wrong. If the serial number is on the top tang it should be a JM Marlin. If the serial number is on the front left bottom of the receiver it is most likely a Remlin, or a Marlin produced by Remington. Ruger now owns Marlin.
Rick

[Bazoo]

Yeah it actually is stamped JM and is in a circle. Just ahead of the receiver, on the barrel.

[Pereira]

Stamped on the barrel just ahead of the receiver. I have seen them stamped on the left and the right side. My rememberer isn't working very well at the time but 2009 and earlier I think, but certainly could be wrong. If the serial number is on the top tang it should be a JM Marlin. If the serial number is on the front left bottom of the receiver it is most likely a Remlin, or a Marlin produced by Remington. Ruger now owns Marlin.
Rick

The later Cowboys had the SN on the receiver also. So as to anyone wanting a tang mounted peep site.

RP

[sigep1764]

JM Marlins were made in the original plant when owned by Marlin. They are assumed to be of higher quality with better fit and finish. They also hold a premium in resale value. The JM stamp should be inside a circle just ahead of the receiver on the barrel. Depending upon year, it will vary from the left side to right side. I have not seen a Remlin 336(Remington made Marlin), but my JM stamped 336 has the serial number on the top tang of the frame in the center of the grip.

[M-Tecs]

pics here

http://www.marlin-collectors.com/for...ic.php?t=26750

[jsn]

Thanks everybody, don't know how I didn't see it but it's there.

[pietro]

.

A "JM" (John Marlin) stamp was applied prior to Remington Outdoors buying out Marlin in 2007, and producing "Remlin's".

Quality fell after the purchase because most of the skilled Connecticut workers left the company, not amenable to relocating from CT to the Carolina's - forcing Remington to use workers that were much less skilled in making Marlins.

Subsequently, Ruger bought out the Marlin rifle line when Remington Outdoors sent bankrupt in 2020

[slim1836]

Does anyone know what years the "JM" markings were used?

Slim

[FergusonTO35]

There were some transitional Remlins with the JM stamp and Ilion address, or even JM stamp and North Haven address but in fact made by Remington. My favorite shop had a few of each style go through their doors, all 1895's as I remember.

[pietro]

Does anyone know what years the "JM" markings were used?

Slim

From when John Marlin started marking his guns in the 1880's until about the Remington buyout in 2007.

Any guns assembled after 2007 were likely older JM marked barrels still in the parts bins after the changeover - after all, even with new owners, who's going to throw away perfectly good parts ?

.

[Rrusse11]

It's a PROOF MARK! This indicates that the assembled rifle has been factory tested with a high pressure load, and passed the test.
Ie, it didn't blow up!
For example I have factory barrels that have never been on a rifle, and they haven't been "proofed". My Marlin 24" octagon
44-40 barrel has ALL the correct barrel addresses. And has 100's of rounds through it with zero issues. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Euro shotguns have a whole history of proofing, and lots of marks on the underside of the barrels. Dates, type of proof, country, inspector, etc etc,,,,,

[Pereira]

And Sometimes...





RP

[W.R.Buchanan]

JM Marlins were made in the original plant when owned by Marlin. They are assumed to be of higher quality with better fit and finish. They also hold a premium in resale value. The JM stamp should be inside a circle just ahead of the receiver on the barrel. Depending upon year, it will vary from the left side to right side. I have not seen a Remlin 336(Remington made Marlin), but my JM stamped 336 has the serial number on the top tang of the frame in the center of the grip.

This is pure Balderdash! And the standard rule for "assume" Fits to a tee. I have seen and owned many of them and the machine work was terrible in all but the highest grade guns. The later guns from Remington were better made. The new guns from Ruger are much better than anything ever produced by JM Marlin or Remington with the exception of the Custom Shop guns which are very scarce and start at $3500!. I have a late JM 1894CB and 1895CB and both required extensive internal work to run right and function smoothly. I also have a 1958 336 which took much of the same hand work to get sorted out. JM Marlin sat on known problems with these guns for decades, which in turn carried forward to Remington. Not until Ruger taking over were they fixed. And all of them were simple fixes that would have cost nothing to implement but complacency in the case of JM and Bureaucratic Engineering resistant to any change at Remington prevented them all.

Ruger is making the best Marlin Rifles ever produced and when they get the Product Line completely filled out we will see nearly perfect guns right from the factory in every configuration..

Randy.

[r80rt]

Yep.

[john.k]

My 1978 Marlin 1895 has little hammer dents beside the front sight ............the polish on the reciever is also low standard belt linishing,the grinding around the tenon amateurish .........Strange thing is people always hate the 1970s Winchester 94s,but the finish was really nice ,very professionally done .......unfortunately sweaty hands would strip off the blue,and leave rusty stains.............and as shown the JM is double stamped,one over the other.

[TNsailorman]

I bought a Marlin back in the 60's that had stock finished sprayed all over the right side of the receiver, on the lever, and top strap and hammer. It wasn't hard to get off but I can't imagine a rifle leaving the shop in that kind of condition. It looked all the world that they had assembled the rifle and then sprayed the butt stock afterwards. But the gunstore that had the rifle sold it to me at a really good price and I took it and refinished the butt stock and removed the finish from the metal parts. Also did a trigger job on it. Still have it and it is very accurate. my experience anyway, james

[Rrusse11]

"Ruger is making the best Marlin Rifles ever produced and when they get the Product Line completely filled out we will see nearly perfect guns right from the factory in every configuration.." W.R. Buchanan

Good to hear! Haven't had my hands on one of the "Ruglins" yet, sounds promising! But your other comments on quality and standards of Marlins is
why I like my older, pre WWII guns better. Simply better built with more attention to detail. The design hasn't changed, just the execution by
workers who took some pride, and had the artisanal skills, in doing their work.

[MFGordon]

I'll have to agree with you on this. Many of the JM Marlins are pretty rough, I have a 1946 made Model 36 carbine that shows signs of its hasty manufacture and much poorer fit and finish when compared to a Winchester 94 from the same era. But remember Marlins were inexpensive guns that a working man could easily afford.

[Tripplebeards]

In the 70’s and 80’s they were “price leaders” or close to it. IMO priced like a Ford Escort. Everyone I knew had one or two. Good guns for what they were. I bought and sold many. Never was impressed. The 1970 centennial 336 chambered in 35 Rem I currently have is a keeper. I had a 45-70 guide gun the first year it came out. Best it would shoot was 3 to 4 MOA with just out every factory load on the planet. It went down the road needless to say.