[lklawson]

Just heard an interview on Tom Gresham's GunTalk with the new head of Ruger marketing. Ruger will NOT honor Marlin warranties.

As you already know, Remington had bought Marlin but Remington's management wasn't gun-guys and they ruined the company with policies their college professors told them would work but don't actually. So when Remington finally went bankrupt, all their assets, including Marlin, was sold off at auction.

When Ruger bought the Marlin assets, including machines, materials, and I.P. This is an important distinction. They bought the Marlin assets, not Marlin. However, it was hailed by many as salvation day for the Marlin name. "Ruger will do it right!" and all the rest.

Ruger says that "going forward" any Marlins built by Ruger will be warrantied but they will NOT be honoring the warranty for any pre-Ruger Marlins.

I understand the reasons for doing this. All the "tribal knowledge" and the legal fact that they didn't buy Marlin's responsibilities (including to the Remington/Marlin, aka "Remlin," customers), etc. But I think this is the completely wrong choice. I don't think that existing Marlin owners are going to be happy with Ruger about this.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[FlashBang]

Why would you expect them to warranty something they did not build and have no idea of the quality of work done? Doing so could end up with them expending lots of man hours on something they made no revenue off.

 

[Rachgier]

I'm not shocked. I mean they could have and made a ton of people happy, but with Remington's history of declining QC and commitment to run their own dick in the dirt?

I don't blame Ruger.

 

[moona11]

Absolutely no reason or need to take on Remingtons prior problems. None whatsoever.

 

[OldOutlaw]

Remington bought and ruined Marlin and its quality. Seems to be lots of problem guns since then. Ruger was not responsible, nor should they have to fix any thing not produced by themselves. Product Liability (Warrantees) are on the manufacturer who made that gun. And that was not Ruger.

 

[lklawson]

Why would you expect them to warranty something they did not build and have no idea of the quality of work done? Doing so could end up with them expending lots of man hours on something they made no revenue off.

Remington bought and ruined Marlin and its quality. Seems to be lots of problem guns since then. Ruger was not responsible, nor should they have to fix any thing not produced by themselves. Product Liability (Warrantees) are on the manufacturer who made that gun. And that was not Ruger.

Actually, most reports say that Remington figured it out and the later Remlins were actually pretty good.

And Marlin owners kinda expected whoever bought Marlin to actually buy Marlin. Not just the assets. A lot of Marlin owners are going to feel either hung out to dry or very let down.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[moona11]

Actually, most reports say that Remington figured it out and the later Remlins were actually pretty good.

And Marlin owners kinda expected whoever bought Marlin to actually buy Marlin. Not just the assets. A lot of Marlin owners are going to feel either hung out to dry or very let down.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

As a Marlin owner I don't feel let down by Ruger in the slightest. I feel severely let down By the previous owners of Remington. Ruger has nothing to do with it

 

[Rachgier]

Actually, most reports say that Remington figured it out and the later Remlins were actually pretty good.

And Marlin owners kinda expected whoever bought Marlin to actually buy Marlin. Not just the assets. A lot of Marlin owners are going to feel either hung out to dry or very let down.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Buying Marlin means they would have assumed Marlin's liabilities and debts, to include warranties. Only purchasing the tangible assets was a smart move.

 

[OldOutlaw]

Actually, most reports say that Remington figured it out and the later Remlins were actually pretty good.

And Marlin owners kinda expected whoever bought Marlin to actually buy Marlin. Not just the assets. A lot of Marlin owners are going to feel either hung out to dry or very let down.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I own more than one Marlin and in no way feel as you describe. The former owners of Remington are the culprits that ruined things. Ruger has not a thing to do with the ruination of Marlin.

 

[lklawson]

Buying Marlin means they would have assumed Marlin's liabilities and debts, to include warranties. Only purchasing the tangible assets was a smart move.

I agree. But the also purchased intangible assets: Intellectual Property, including Trade Mark, etc.

I'm not saying that it was a bad accounting decision. I'm saying it was a bad PR decision, or, at the very least, a significant missed PR opportunity.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I own more than one Marlin and in no way feel as you describe.

Look around. There are a lot of Marlin owners who were, at the very least, wanting Ruger to warranty the guns they bought.

The former owners of Remington are the culprits that ruined things. Ruger has not a thing to do with the ruination of Marlin.

Who's arguing that?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Rachgier]

I agree. But the also purchased intangible assets: Intellectual Property, including Trade Mark, etc.

I'm not saying that it was a bad accounting decision. I'm saying it was a bad PR decision, or, at the very least, a significant missed PR opportunity.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I don't agree. It's like Lowes taking over Craftsman. Sure, they warranty the new tools, but if the old tool isn't carried by them, you have to contact Craftsman corporate offices. They sent me a voucher for a new 1/2" ratchet. Lowes isn't responsible for warranting the old tools.

I could see a similar situation here. Your Remarlin takes a dirt nap, you contact whatever Flaming hulk of Remington/Cerberus is left, and they voucher the repairs.

 

[lklawson]

I could see a similar situation here. Your Remarlin takes a dirt nap, you contact whatever Flaming hulk of Remington/Cerberus is left, and they voucher the repairs.

Probably a chimp with a hammer and a typewriter.

I think that there are something like "authorized repair centers" for Marlin, at least.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Stromm]

Why would you expect them to warranty something they did not build and have no idea of the quality of work done? Doing so could end up with them expending lots of man hours on something they made no revenue off.

Typically when a manufacturing related company is purchased, the new owner takes on active warranty liability.

This sounds like something different though. Which is very unusual for buyouts.

 

[moona11]

Typically when a manufacturing related company is purchased, the new owner takes on active warranty liability.

This sounds like something different though. Which is very unusual for buyouts.

It wasn't a buy out. They bought the equipment

 

[OldOutlaw]

It was a Bankruptcy Court. The Judge sold off what ever Remington still had. He sold it piece by piece to highest bidders to pay down Remington's creditors. No Buy Out even involved here. @Stromm

 

[ajole]

I own more than a “few” Marlins, but I have only ever bought one new one.

No way should Ruger be responsible for the Remarlington warranty.

But they could have offered some sort of bone, like maybe a case by case basis, or pro rated repairs, which would sound good, but doesn’t leave them liable for anything.

The good news...Remington and their bosses already destroyed Marlin, Marlin owners were already hung out to dry, so Ruger can do ANYTHING and be good to go. That is, as long as they produce a decent lever gun in the usual Marlin calibers, to include some pistol carbines. Do that, and Marlin owners will be ecstatic about it, and buy whatever they make. Used Marlins from the early 2000’s will be available all over the place, if that happens.

 

[Dragonbreath]

The other problem with Ruger doing repairs on Rem-marlins is that Ruger didn’t get any spare parts in the deal.

 

[lklawson]

Typically when a manufacturing related company is purchased, the new owner takes on active warranty liability.

This sounds like something different though. Which is very unusual for buyouts.

That's true. This was different. Ruger bought the assets, not the company.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[bumthum]

The other problem with Ruger doing repairs on Rem-marlins is that Ruger didn't get any spare parts in the deal.

100%

I own several Marlins, love them all, but they are all pre-Remington Marlins. I bought my 1894 late in the independent-Marlin era and the fit and finish difference between that rifle and my buddy's Remlin 1894 in .357 is pretty stark. The owners of Remington treated firearms like a commodity and acquiring brands was a means to get those company's customers and their dollars. This is a pretty common failure of business school graduates to lump all industries and customer bases into a common model and then declare that it's all the same... then they proceed to destroy businesses that have existed for many decades by treating toilet paper like steel, cereal like toilet paper, firearms like cereal.

That isn't to say that Ruger didn't see green when they were deciding on Marlin's assets, they ARE in business to make profit after all, but Ruger is and has been a company of gun people... yes, even under Bill Ruger when he sold out gun owners by negotiating to save the Mini-14 from the "assault weapon" ban. Bill Ruger was a gun guy, he just happened to be a gun guy stuck with an obsolete concept of what guns people should own. His kids and the new management have brought Ruger into modern times and their brand is one that takes the pulse of the market and steps up to meet market demands at a reasonable price point and with good reliability, mostly using modern manufacturing techniques. Which brings us to Dragonbreath's quotation above...

Ruger uses completely different processes to manufacture parts than much of the rest of the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Marlin tooling gets surplused off to recoup money spent on the acquisition and Ruger proceeds to redesign Marlin's core product line to better utilize investment cast components and CNC machining. Even if Ruger wanted to honor Remlin's warranties, that would likely mean tooling up, using Marlin's old and possibly worn tooling, training employees to use outdated production techniques, and basically re-establishing a production like that may not meet Ruger's standards for profitability... all to simply make spare parts that are drop in for older production guns. Those guns which might be very hit and miss of parts fit, component compatibility, SKU retention (Ruger will likely drop some of the Marlin SKU's that Remington introduced and wont want to make the unique components for them just to have spare parts), etc.

Ruger is a solid company and will do right by Marlin in a way the Remington owners couldn't have, because their corporate philosophies appear to be so different. I'm fine with Ruger starting with a clean slate and not honoring warranties on earlier guns... I'll be even more fine with it if they re-introduce the 39. I gave my vintage, nearly new condition, pre-safety, 39 away to my best friend and have been looking for a replacement ever since.