And the other 1120 (one thousand one hundred and twenty!) posts on the "Remlin Rant" forum? Those just all sour grapes threads from a former employee?

https://www.marlinowners.com/forum/marlin-rant-forum/

Sour grapes on some level.....any forum titled ‘rant’ is just that. People given a free steak dinner will complain if you invite them to.

Got it. It's all perfect quality, and anyone who says otherwise is "sour grapes"

Well at least if someone clicks on this with a question similar to the OP's, they'll see links I've posted (evidence) as opposed to those who just keep repeating the Cerberus corporate mantra of "quality is as good as it ever was".

You guys must have worked in the GM marketing dept in the 80's.

I would like to know where specifically that the quality has fallen. What can I look at specifically on my newer gun that is evidence of lesser quality? Just asking

Read the thread.

Fit, finish, function, and in the case of some Remlins, outright incompetence on the part of the assembler that could result in serious injury or death.

A lack of basic quality control.

That’s a nice dodge job.

I own Remingtons from many different decades. But let’s stick to 1100’s and 870’s. The current production is as good, if not better than those of the 60’s-70’s. All companies have ups and downs, but your very broad, non specific examples are meaningless.

Any serious injury or death instances you refer to were pure and simple user error. As in not adhering to the fundamentals of safety. Now you’re starting to sound like some who wasn’t happy with the tiny check a class action sent you.

I did read the thread. I asked about specifics. Your answer was in generalities. I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just want to know what to compare with my old gun vs my newer gun that will actually show me that the quality has slipped; a legitimate question in my opinion.

Ok. Let's see the pictures of the inside of your actions on your early guns vs later guns. Take the trigger assembly out, check for burrs, rough spots, tool marks. Check the bolt for same. Wood to metal fit on buttstock. Everything straight and line up? Chamber smooth? Action work smoothly? Does it function?

I have seen newer guns that look fine. I have seen newer guns that look like people forgot to do some steps in the assembly process. I've said that several times in this thread. If you find a good one, great, but you better look it over because the name alone no longer guarantees that you're getting a quality product.

And serious injury or death pure and simple user error? For the umpteenth time I will post this thread. https://www.marlinowners.com/forum/marl ... 895cb.html

"Now with the barrel hand tight to the receiver the top flat is past the point of lining up with top flat of the receiver. It appears to me that whoever assembled it decided to use the front scope mount fill screw to hold the barrel snug instead of getting one that would time correctly with the receiver. When I installed the RPP peep I mounted it in the forward position and in doing so removed the one screw used to keep the barrel in place..... The fact that someone would allow a rifle to leave the factory like this is unsettling and potentially dangerous. Now I have to sit and wait for Marlin to assess the rifle and decide on a course of action and I'm not at all happy."

That goes hand in hand with what I posted a few posts up, from the "sour grapes" employee. At Marlin, Remington demanded the new Marlin Assembly Cells produce 1 rifle every 135 seconds, and when that time was met, they reduced the time to run even faster....................I can't even clean any of my own firearms in that time........Those in the Assembly Cell workers could not leave to go to the rest rooms until a replacement for their station could be found.

And you're starting to sound like someone who works for marketing for the freedom group aka Remington Outdoors.

The lever-action line has nothing to do with "Current production quality of 1100/1187 20 gauge?" For someone interested in a 20 gauge auto, why bother wasting everyone's time ruminating about rifles at all?

Nope, not even close.

And to your previous post, I’ve bought 2/1100’s and 1/870 in the last calendar year. Couldn’t be any more pleased with EVERYTHING about them, and in some cases more pleased than with some ‘vintage’ examples of same.

Remingtons in most cases, for the last 60+ years have been relatively the same. I don’t know if you’re trying to compare the insides of an 870 to a Purdey, but side by side with a new 870, there just isn’t much difference.

The only thing I personally don’t care for in modern guns is choke tubes.....but the ones I have work fine. You really are the guy shouting at someone in the middle of the ocean.

Remington puts out a fine product for the price they ask, and that’s across the board. You’re confusing mass produced product with handmade custom or semi custom.

Hmmmm, so before "Marlin has never been better", so I pointed out that is absolutely false, and posted several links backing my claims, so now it's "lever actions don't have anything to do with...."

I think that's all I need to say.....just quoting you.

Well we can agree to disagree. If you'll look back through my posts I bemoan that fact that the big firearms companies are all guilty of what I see as a fall off in quality/fit and finish over the years. There are always good and bad examples given the nature of mass produced firearms, but as a general rule, Smith and Wesson and Colt started trending downward in the mid 70's or so, Winchester went south in the early 60's (but prior to 64), and Marlin and Remington held on longer that the others.

You used to have a skilled craftsman who certainly wouldn't create a gun that would compare to a Purdey, but they also wouldn't send out a gun with a rough chamber, daylight shining between the stock and receiver, or a barrel on a high powered rifle that wasn't screwed in all the way, wasn't clocked, and was barely held in place.

And again, the "sour grapes" post by a former Marlin worker who points out the manufacturing techniques pushed by Cerberus to maximize profits at the expense of product quality in most certainly the cause of what I consider to be unacceptable manufacturing defects that should have never passed quality inspection before being shipped. My point is, and has always been, that THOSE KINDS OF FLAWS WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED INSPECTION before being sent out pre-Cerberus.

If you're content with your current production guns, that's great. I'm happy for you, but don't shout down those who are not. Maybe I'm pickier than most, and maybe I'm "shouting at someone in the middle of the ocean", but if someone googles Remington's current quality and this thread pops up, and they take the time to research Cerberus management and what they've done to every company they've bought, and then at least has their guard up before they buy something made since the takeover, without first closely inspecting it, then I'd say my "shouting" had its intended effect.

Cerberus is gone. Has been for a while now. Time to move on.

Any of you familiar with the Smith and Wesson 41?

The early guns (Pre A serial number) were fantastic. Fit, finish, and function was superb.
The A series guns were, for the most part, still very high quality guns. Not many with easily perceivable flaws.
Post A series they went downhill, and have gotten to the point now where issues are very common in brand new guns.

Is a new 41 still a fine firearm? Eh, more or less. They are most certainly serviceable. The issues can be fixed with a little work. Unlike Remington, if you return a 41 to Smith and Wesson now, more than likely they will not fix the issue. They'll take a stab at it, but it probably won't be "fixed". They don't have the craftsmen anymore who built those high quality pistols. Now they have parts assemblers.

But why would I want to buy that new, when I can get go an early gun that was hand crafted by someone who knew what they were doing, for about the same money?

We don't have craftsmen assembling firearms anymore. They are guys who throw together mass produced parts without really looking or caring how well the parts fit. With modern production methods the tolerances on those parts and much more precise than in the old days, but the hand polishing and fitting that was required in those days gave an end result that was a better product. More time consuming, and more expensive, but better.

That's been the case for all the big manufacturers for a long time. In general, it's just a sign o the times. That said, Cerberus has perfected the process of "faster and cheaper", and it's not a process that results in a better product.

Cerberus did a legal dance and split off part of the portfolio and renamed it to cover themselves in a time of crises for gun manufacturers after Sandy Hook. The business practices didn't change.

I'll post this up again, just in case anyone missed it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ville.html

Please don`t bother. This thing needs to die of old age, if nothing else.

Thank you, Tide.

“All,
The "I Love My..." section of the Shotgunworld Forums is intended to be a place for those with a fondness or avid interest, in a particular brand, to discuss them. These forums should be thought of as 'clubs' modeled after the many car clubs in the U.S.
Continuous bashing of these brands will not be welcome nor tolerated.”

Well, I took the advise and pulled the trigger group from my 1970s 1100 and my much much newer one. Using a flashlight I compared the inside of the receivers for burrs, tool marks, rough areas etc, and quite frankly I didn’t see any obvious significant differences. Fit and finish seem to be about the same, but I do prefer the blueing on the older model. This is just ONE comparison: certainly nothing statistical.