Marlin 39 to be resurrected

thundermtn said:

So far Ruger has delivered on bringing the Marlin lever guns back. The 39A is THE .22lr for a lot of folks. Shot Show this year actually showed a little potential for more steel and walnut gun to be produced. How much black Tupperware will/can folks buy? Even Winchester's hideous Wildcat semi-auto .22lr got a wood stock this year.

I'm betting they bring it back, between it and the 10/22 they will have dominating market share of new sales of .22lr in America. I'm starting to save right now

Click to expand...

I liked the Marlin 39A, have one of 1971 vintage.
I honestly think price point would be a big deal for many on a 39a comeback as far as sales numbers and popularity.

Henry is scratching a lot of folks .22lr lever gun itch and doing so starting in the mid $350 range so fun and affordable and most reports saying pretty good accuracy and reliability.
Henry also offers a lifetime warranty on their forearms and most reports their customer service is top notch.

The biggest gripes I hear about the Henry's is people complaining about the painted pot metal receiver covers rather than being a blued steel part which most people buying the gun would gladly pay extra for even if it were offered a slightly higher model and the base model stayed as is.

The 39a would need to be somewhat competitive price wise to garner a large market share in that arena I believe.

I have a few Marlin 39A rifles from early 1950s to later versions with the safety. I prefer the older ones, but I can live with the later versions also.
My next lever action rifle will probably be a 1895 stainless with the large loop, full mag tube, ghost ring sight and rail with the laminated stock. When Marlin first came out with them, shortly before being taken over by Remington, I had the chance to get one, and I didn’t. The quality went down with Remington, so I declined to purchase one at that time.
After reading the reviews of the new ones made after Ruger took over Marlin, the outlook for their future is promising. I expected an investment cast receiver, however they are forged. I have read that the quality actually surpasses the early ones made by the old Marlin company.
If they ever produce the 39A with the same quality as the new center fire rifles, they will be worth the wait. For those who don’t like stainless steel in a rifle, they probably don’t like stainless steel in a revolver.

For me, I have two categories of firearms. “shooters” and “collectors “. For the “collector” category I prefer blued steel and walnut (not sheet metal covered Zamac) and for the “shooter” category I prefer whatever is the most durable. To me, stainless steel seems to hold up better than blued steel, with extensive usage. I have one firearm that I shoot more than all my others combined, a Belgium Browning Challenger. It was well used when I bought it and after I put about 80,000 rounds through it, the finish was mostly gone where it was handled. I had it Hard Chromed and now, many years later, I have well over 250,000 rounds through it. It still looks like new.

Ruger has their work cut out for them. Reading this thread reveals almost everyone has different opinions and wants. One guy wants SS, I prefere blued... one guy likes the machining lines left in the metal, give me the high polish bluing... many dislike the rebounding hammer and crossbolt safety, they don't bother me... some want a carbine length barrel, I'd like to see em in 24" for the longer sight radius (octagon 24" would be super sweet!). So the moral here is, you can't please everyone and many are going to gripe no matter what rolls off the line. Me, I'm just glad they are at least considering bringing it back. I've got two A's, but would support them and buy a new model if they bring it back in some form close to the 90's variant... but NO plastic, that is a deal breaker for and old guy.

Not going to happen..Unless they do like some other Manufacturers have done in the past..Have someone make a cheapened up copy overseas and put their name on it..

Even if they did do it themselves they would have to cheapen them up, there is no way they could sell them at a price competitive and retain the Quality of a real Marlin.. It would make more sense to most just to buy an quality made original..There are plenty of those out there for sale..And I assure you very nice original can be had for a lot less than Marlin will be able to sell them for...To make a Quality Marlin 39a copy will not be cheap..

I myself would never buy a Ruger copy over a real used Marlin made one anyway..And I doubt the masses at large will either..Yes there would be some initial excitement sales by Ruger fans just to get in on a early one..But I think the long term sales would flounder fast, as soon as the profitable resale of the initials ones on GB fell off..LOL

I wouldn't worry about calling Ruger "...before they screw it up." The CS rep might be nice and listen for awhile, but Ruger is not going to do anything based on the noisy little opinions of a few of us here. No one here is united in their opinions, anyway, and I certainly see nothing resembling consensus on what would constitute "screwing it up."
Given the design, I'm also not sure how much cheaper a non-take-down 39 would be...and the fact it wasn't a take-down would itself fuel the fire for the "They-don't-make 'em like-they-used-to" faction.
So, as long as we're all offering opinions that will lead no where, I would buy a TDS-size 39A in stainless with very slimmed down, straight-hand, walnut butt and fore stocks and with an abbreviated magazine tube with a release like the Browning BL-22.