Marlin Firearms to Close Next Year

Source: ABC News

Marlin Firearms Co., a 140-year-old company which made a gun that was a favorite of Annie Oakley, is closing its Connecticut plant, company officials said Friday.

Workers at the plant in North Haven say they've been told all 265 employees will lose their jobs.

Jessica Kallam, a spokeswoman with Madison, N.C.'s Remington Arms Co. Inc., which owns Marlin, said the Connecticut plant will close by June 2011 and employees would be offered severance and help finding jobs. She said Marlin is relocating its manufacturing operations to an undetermined site.

Kallam could not confirm if all employees in Connecticut are losing their jobs.

She read a company statement that says Freedom Group, which owns Remington, must reduce its costs to remain competitive.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10208259



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10208259

---

This is the kind of guns Marlin makes.



Sad to see an old company like this get closed down and it's employees lose their jobs.

At least that's what we hear in Texas all fucking day. :eyes:

Probably to Mexico or some other sweat shop country.

old Marlin too. Killed a lot of varmints with it. They are owned by Remington which is owned by the Freedom Group. Anything wit freedom in it must be owned by RW cock suckers so I looked it up. Cerberus.

But I don't know anything about them being a politically active company, at least not any more so than you average massive holdings company.

Are they?

There's nothing wrong with their firearms, in fact they are very good, just old-fashioned.

I'd love to add an old Camp Carbine with a 15-inch barrel to my collection.

Great squirrel rifle.

Smoke a dime at 75 yards.

Oh....you mean assault rifles.

I'm referring to firearm designs that allow for configurability, and more use of lightweight metal alloys and synthetic materials for light weight and durability.

No one should have guns.

They make Fudd guns.

assuming the product is good enough...

the AK types or the AR 15 types, many of which are made here - and are about 3 or 4 times the cost of the imports. Few people are buying hunting guns or revolvers or any type of firearm other than psuedo-military looking semi autos. They were really angry and paniced that Obama was going to start confiscation and many bought these guns to hide along with a few thousand reouds of ammunition. Of course many Democrats bought some, too, because the right wingers were buying them....

There are alot of real bargains in used non-military appearing firearms right now, and I suspect it will remain that way for several years to come - more if the RWers actually start shooting at people.

mark

19th-century-styled guns aren't all that popular anymore, outside of Old-West-reenactment circles. Marlin doesn't make many modern-style firearms, and that's where the market is at.

The Charles Daly company went out of business this year as well; they mostly imported old-fashioned firearms, and belatedly tried to enter the AR-15 market in 2008 but it was too little, too late.

Oh...you mean assault rifles.

The Remington R-15 and R-25 are not "assault weapons" even by the goofy 1994 definition, as far as I know (they lack those Satanic Muzzle Threads), and since the 1994 Feinstein fraud no longer exists anyway, the term is moot. Of course, the original Marlin Model 60 is an assault weapon in New Jersey and the Camp Carbine is an "assault weapon" in D.C., so if you want to go jurisdiction-hunting to find some inane scary label, Marlin makes them too, albeit with straight wooden stocks and traditional bluing.

Here's the problem: most of what Marlin makes are copies of 19th and early 20th century designs. They're nice, but they appeal to the generation that grew up watching Westerns on TV and seeing John Wayne wielding lever-actions in the movies. Those things don't particularly appeal to shooters of my generation (Westerns and the early-post-Civil-War guns they showcase). That doesn't make them bad, but it does mean that they are catering to a very limited niche market these days, and there are only so many Cowboy Action/SASS shooters out there. So it is not really a surprise that Marlin is having to cut capacity some.

Remington has been moving to update its product line and is doing pretty well, but Marlin continued to cater to a static and aging clientele and got hurt when that clientele aged out of the market. Again, Cadillac vs. Oldsmobile would be a good analogy.

remaining true "old west" lever rifle - I have owned about 10 of them, there are many millions still out there reasonably priced - I think they will relocate maybe to China. Remington-another very old American gun maker - imports some of its lower priced models from Turkey.
Sad to see Marlin go - they made very durable, rugged, reliable hunting rifles, which is possibly why they had trouble selling new ones.

mark

First one I ever used.

just an absolute pleasure to fire that gun.

My first 22 bolt action.

.... I killed lots of tin cans w/ that gun.

Overseas?

I read in another news article about it that theyre moving to a site in North Carolina. I sure hope they continue their quality line though, the thought of Marlin turning into another "shave-off as much quality as we can without making another piece of crap" Remington (Marlin's parent company) just makes me sick. Everything Cerebrus Group touches turns into crap.....

They have been trying to get Springfield and Rock River to move to Idaho from anti gun IL.

As far as I know, Marlin does not make pistols or assault rifles: Just true sporting arms (not that certain pistols cannot be sporting arms) for hunting and target shooting.

I think this shows what type of firearm is most popular with the "2nd Amendment" set.

Was a long time NRA member, but dropped my membership when they were taken over in the 1980's by the gun-nuts, and took the position of defending the possession of assault weapons, machine pistols, and automatics with ridiculously large capacity magazines.

Hard to know, but I believe they lost between 1/3 and 1/2 of their membership then.

And you would be wrong:

http://www.henryrepeating.com/

Made in Bayonne, New Jersey




Now what are you going to do?

:puke:

The AR-15 platform dominates competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in the USA, and at least twice as many Americans own so-called "assault weapons" (as defined by H.R. 1022 et seq) as hunt. I think it's partly a generational thing; I'm a Gen-X'er, and the only straight-stocked bolt-actions I own are collectible antiques.

If I had to guess, I'd say most Marlin buyers grew up watching cowboy westerns in the 1950's-1970's, and that demographic is aging out of the market now. They made some of the same mistakes that Oldsmobile did, and it is hurting them the same way it hurt Olds.

"took the position of defending the possession of assault weapons"

Semi-automatics with "evil features"? Fine by me. Leave semi-automatic weapons, and those that wish to lawfully own and/or use them, alone.

"machine pistols"

I gotta call bullshit on that one. Those have been covered by the national firearms act since 1934.

"and automatics with ridiculously large capacity magazines."

Again, bullshit. Same thing. Covered by the NFA since 1934.

that I got in the late '60s, a very nice rifle.

What exactly makes them "bad", in your eyes? You know that guns are designed, and the capacities are for the most part a moving target that ends up being whatever the geometry of the pistol supports best right?


That is why all pistols are not made with eight inch long grips that are four inches wide and unusable by any human in the name of fitting the most rounds in as possible.

Is there something wrong with a pistol that holds more rounds than a revolver? If so, can you explain what it is?

And there is no difference between what vehemently anti-gun organizations have termed an "assault weapon" and the ordinary sporting and defensive firearms U.S. citizens have owned and used for over one hundred ten years.

Literally the only difference is in things like use of durable, weather-resistant, lightweight polymers and aluminum

This is a plant closing. They may use the Marlin name in the future. This likely means they're moving some manufacturing to other countries for cheap foreign labor.

At a time of unprecedented sales of guns in the USA, this is a particularly troubling act of cowardice and money grubbing.

I have a .22 Mag bolt action and .22 LR in semi auto. I really like the bolt gun. It shoots tight patterns and there is no recoil. I am not a big fan of semi autos so the other one is rarely used.

I have one identical to it, my first firearm, 14th birthday present from my dad.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's all the scared freepers want these days.

...on owning American-made, traditionally styled rifles check out:

http://www.henryrepeating.com/

Of course, we don't really know if she has a FR account, so feel free to score yourself a Big Boy like hers:

the Arkansans Republican Party)?

Seems the wingers like their 19th century military weapons as well.

Most of the guns Henry sells were military issue at some point.

The lever-action ones were used in the Civil War (not in .357 or .44 Magnum, of course), and the black .22 survival rifle was issued by the US Air Force.

Honestly, I'd had thought about buying a Henry lever-action in .22, but their choice of endorsers sort of puts me off.

I'm now more inclined to buy an AR when I have the $$ to do so. To get some parity in the arms race with the teabaggers,
y'know...

Go into the Gungeon at any given time, and see how much space is devoted to firearms other than semi-automatic pistols and assault-style longarms. Zero. Zip. Nada. You D.U. gun enthusiasts long ago attained "parity in the arms race with the teabaggers." And with the Michigan militia as well. And as you've matched up in weapons styles with such repulsive groups, your political views have followed suit. I think you guys have some big decisions to make, and damned soon......

...the idea that revolvers are morally superior to pistols, and straight wooden stocks are morally superior to ergonomic polymer stocks, because by golly that's the way guns looked when the Baby Boomers grew up, so it's the way they should always look, Amen.

Give that a rest; that's a generation gap, not a political one. The majority of serious shooters in this country gravitate toward modern designs because we came of age in the 1980's and 1990's, not the 1950's. Women of my generation don't dress like June Cleaver, either. Our cars don't have tail fins or 50 pounds of chrome on the nose. Our music is different, the books we read are different, our clothes are different, and our guns look different. That doesn't make the tastes of Gen-X and younger individuals bad, just different.

When the resident gun militants here at D.U. decided that the only worthwhile weapons were those used by the armed forces, fascist militia groups, and hyper-violent urban street gangs, you basically tipped your hand. Add to that the years and years of continuous bashing of Democratic office holders and candidates, and the sick violence fantasies showing up every day in the Guns forum, and it's like I posted elsewhere: It's decision time for you people. Whose side are you on? Generation gap, my ass---this is as political as it gets.

RIP Marlin, by the way. I never owned one, but I shot a lot of their guns in my day and they seemed sound enough. Their passing is tragic in ways that gun militants can't begin to appreciate......

Hardly. The armed forces don't use them. Urban street gangs are about ten times more likely to use your precious revolvers than they are any type of rifle. And fascist militia groups preferred your precious wooden-stocked guns back when they went around wearing white sheets and actually killing people, instead of being the mostly play-in-the-woods sideshow they are today.

You are totally disconnected from my generation of shooters (I'm 39), and being on the outside looking in, you are ascribing nefarious motives to us whippersnappers based on your own prejudices. Where I'm from, we call that "being set in one's ways."

But just for a minute, turn the clock back to your 1950's cowboy-western paradise, and imagine that someone had come out with a rifle in 1955 that could:

-- shoot 1" groups right out of the box without glass bedding;
-- mount an optic more firmly than screws and silver solder, without gunsmithing, that could be removed and reinstalled and still hold zero;
-- change barrel length or even caliber without gunsmithing;
-- change length of pull without gunsmithing;
-- be exposed to rain and perspiration without rusting, ruining the wood, or changing zero;
-- out-shoot a match tuned M1 Garand at 600 yards;

ya think any shooters might possibly have like it on its merits?

Here's a clue: The AR-15 platform dominates Camp Perry style shooting not because top-flight iron sights shooters want to look badass, but because the AR-15 kicks the patootie of the M1 Garand and M1A at long range paper punching; the 1930's designs have the ballistics, but they don't have the day-in, day-out precision of the "poodle shooter". The AR-15 platform is making inroads into F-class benchrest for the same reasons. And it's the most popular civilian centerfire target rifle in America not only because of its accuracy, but because it kicks like a .22 and doesn't require constant babying by a highly paid gunsmith.

You may not like the modern looking guns, any more than Dianne Feinstein probably likes Lady Gaga, but the AR-15, SU-16, Ruger SR-556, Remington R-25, etc. are no longer just "in" the mainstream, they ARE the mainstream.


I understand the dislike of modern looking guns (and that most certainly *is* a generational thing). What I do not understand the is the bitterness here. Why is it that you simply cannot grasp the fact that someone might like the AR-15 platform on its merits as a civilian rifle, rather than projecting freeper/terrah-ist/Mittyesque motives to us?

Aluminum alloy, polymer, electronic sights, and Picatinny rails are here to stay. That doesn't mean nothing else is worthy of ownership, but it does mean that you can stop shoveling the faux outrage and the polymer-is-sinful stuff. There's room in the market for lever-actions, bolts, wooden-stocked semiautos, AND polymer-stocked semiautos. But it also means that a company like Marlin that makes wood-and-blue traditionalists its sole market needs to assess that market realistically, instead of assuming that the aesthetic tastes of mainstream shooters today are the same as they were during the Eisenhower administration.

FWIW, I also think a 2011 Ford Focus RS500 looks a hell of a lot better than a Crown Victoria:






If you disagree, that's OK too.

It's the fucked up, right-wing political viewpoints that accompany them. People who covet AK-47's are likely to have a wildly different set of values than those who have a Marlin .30-30 in the closet. As always, abundant and distressing proof of this is available every single day in the D.U. Guns forum.

If you want to insult me by trying to reduce this all to a cranky generational thing, be my guest. I think you're smart enough to know better, and to have a sense of apprehension about what's happening in this country, right now. Be happy in your decisions......

You have this artificial mental construct going on between the enlightened progressives who own rifles with straight wooden stocks and prefer revolvers, and freepers who own guns with polymer ergonomic stocks and prefer Glocks. That is bunk. AR's and Glocks are popular across the board, nor is appreciation for revolvers and traditionally stocked long guns limited to progressives. What kind of gun did Dick Cheney shoot his lawyer with, pray tell? What kind of guns does arch-right-winger William J. Bennett own?

Older conservatives tend to own more traditionally styled guns, just like older progressives. Younger conservatives tend to own more modern styled guns, just like younger progressives. Even the American Hunters and Shooters Association has come around, and has helped nail the lid shut on the "assault weapon" fraud. Or are Ray Schoenke and the ASHA a bunch of freeper militia wannabe terrah-ists, too?

in this post you showed how very out of touch with reality and the actual reasons why people in a stable country with peaceful intentions buy AK-pattern rifles.

It's because they are fun to shoot for many of the same reasons why they work well as a service rifle. Such as lower power, lower range, less recoil, less expensive ammunition to shoot with, the list goes on, oh also they almost always have better ergonomics and are safer as well.

....at exactly that point when the gun militancy movement quits providing so much justification for them. I don't anticipate that happening anytime soon......

We didn't ask to have to justify our ownership of rifles with protruding handgrips and magazines and threaded muzzles; we were dragged into this debate after the wankers in Congress passed a fucking BAN. Guess what, we learned our lesson---either speak up, or lose our choices (or worse).

You don't want to hear rational explanations of why people own modern-style rifles? Fine with me! Get the zealots to stop calling for a ban, and stop demonizing us yourself, and we can talk about other issues.

If the zealots were calling for bans on pump-action shotguns and comparing skeet shooters to child molesters and the mentally ill, I dare say you'd probably speak up and offer a rational rebuttal.

.....but let me repeat myself once more: it's not the styling of the firearms themselves that's alarming, it's the radical right-wing political viewpoints that seem to accompany such firearms, so often. See the D.U. Guns forum for unending proof of this.

Ben, are you looking forward to the gun rallies in the D.C. area on 4/19, the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing? Don't even bother with all the semi-auto pistols that will be in plain view in such close proximity to the Capitol and the White House, just check out the longarms that those uber-conservative Democrat-hating jerks are carrying around that day---how many AK-47's, AR-15's and other weapons for every Winchester Model 70 deer rifle? What's the ratio of guns specifically designed to kill people, as opposed to guns designed for genuine outdoor, recreational, non-political, non-intimidating use? If you're known by the company you keep, you and the rest of the gun militants who burden D.U. are well and truly fucked. And you have nobody to blame but yourselves.....

Since it's "designed for genuine outdoor, recreational, non-political, non-intimidating use" it's fine, right?

I really love the "my guns are good, yours are evil" schtick. Especially considering that even your Model 70 was based on the Mauser 98 'battle rifle'

If you squint hard enough to ignore all centrists and lefties who own modern-looking firearms, and ignore all right wingers who don't own modern-looking firearms, yeah, you can create such an association in your head. Problem is, it's a product of your prejudices. What kind of gun did Dick Cheney shoot the lawyer with? What kind of guns does Bill Bennett own? What kind of guns do the gray-haired Wall Street country club set own?

That's no different than how the xenophobes construct the spurious "Muslim = terrah-ist" meme, by pretending most Muslims are terrorists and most terrorists are Muslims. Cognitive dissonance.


Ummm, nobody's carrying any guns in D.C., and no, I'm not going to the rally.

BTW, April 19th has always been a big date in 2ndA discussions, before Waco or Oklahoma City. April 19th is anniversary of Lexington and Concord, when British law enforcement decided to confiscate some military-style guns from some British farmers (you've heard of that, right?) and is known as http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/whentogo/events/patriots_day.html">Patriot's Day (now celebrated as a public holiday on the third Monday in April, for convenience). For some reason, Southerners don't seem to be aware of it, but my wife is from Massachusetts and it is a big deal there, with reenactments and everything.


http://www.newenglandtravelplanner.com/whentogo/events/patriots_day.html


Snort. The Winchester Model 70 is a derivative of the Mauser military rifle. If you are familiar with the history of the Model 70, then you know full well that it is a refinement of the Model 54, which used a Mauser action. The Mauser, of course, is a military rifle designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges, which served as the primary German infantry rifle in WW1 and WW2. The most popular chamberings of the model 70, .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO, were designed to kill human beings, not animals. You know this, unless you are far less informed about Winchester designs than you let on, so you are being a bit disingenuous here.

And not only is the model Model 70 a military-derived design, the Model 70 itself served as a front-line military weapon, as the U.S. Army and USMC sniper rifle in Vietnam.



Non-automatic AR-15's and civilian AK lookalikes, by contrast, have never been issued by any military on this planet, as far as I know of. Yes, they are derived from military designs, like the Model 70 was, but unlike the Model 70 and Remington Model 700 (M24/M40), the Title 1 AR and AK are purely civilian guns that are not used as military weapons.

Besides, more AR-15's have been sold over the years than Model 70's, and considering "assault weapons" at large (taking H.R.1022 as the definition), more Americans own "assault weapons" (never mind handguns!) than hunt. So it's no surprise that in a cross-section of gun owners, you're going to find more owners of nonhunting guns than hunting guns, yeah. That's true of Dem and indie gun owners as much as it is anyone else.


The other AR/AK owners I know personally are mostly civilian white-collar professionals, a couple of blue-collar guys (one is a boat builder), a few active-duty Marines that shoot USPSA with civilian AR's for fun, and a few current and former LEO's. The majority of us are under 45 and technically inclined.

Again, the "AR owner = right wing militia type" meme is found inside your head, and in the heads of some politicians and media moguls of your generation, but falls flat in the real world. AR's are to this generation what the Model 70 was to yours---the modern "rifleman's rifle" in the purest sense. You sling insults because you just can't accept that fact.

Do your best to convince yourself that the activities in the D.C. area on "Patriots Day" are making the gun rights movement look good. It brings me no satisfaction to say that it appears you'll be able to manage that without much effort....

I don't know if the activities there will be making gun owners look good, or not. That depends on who goes, who is organizing it and who they invite to speak, whether or not they pretend to speak for all of us, and how the gun-hating corporate media covers it.

Personally, I don't know anybody who's going (nor am I), and I don't expect a huge turnout (even a couple hundred thousand would be small potatoes). Yes, there are in excess of 80 million of us, but most of us have real jobs and don't see new gun restrictions as a real threat right now. I do know that nobody will be carrying rifles, neither the rifles of your generation nor those of mine.

I also know that the demise of the the "assault weapon" fraud and the mainstreaming of the aluminum-and-polymer aesthetic has made it a LOT harder for repubs to play the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme.

And yes, I will celebrate the anniversary of Lexington and Concord, thanks.


The Concord Hymn
Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare,
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

A wooden gripped, pre-lock, 4" S&W 686 revolver that had an almost unnaturally good trigger, a CZ 452 Lux bolt-action .22 Long Rifle (outstanding rifle, I got it for a song as well), an FNP-9M (pretty ugly black pistol, but it was a superb shooter with excellent sights and a very smooth trigger, excellent gun, definitely should have ousted SiG and H&K from the market if only FN marketed well), a CZ PCR with Kadet kit to allow me to turn it into a sweet .22 range gun (black, but good looking with some very nice CZ coco bolo grips), and finally a CMMG AR-15 that was great. It was my first centerfire rifle.



Can you tell me if you think I have some ulterior motives for preferring the firearms I did, or can you actually accept that people just pick out the firearms that fit them and their shooting requirements best?

If I were a big deer and bear hunter I would probably have bought something like a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington by now, but guess what they don't share in common with all of the firearms that made my list? Cheap, readily available range ammo. I like a little variety, and I like accuracy, and I like a challenge. So for me, the word of the day on my AR is iron sights, same for my .22, and with my pistols, it's all about stretching the range I can accurately place shots. I've never had as much fun as when I played a "pool" target game against someone else, she was using my PCR with Kadet, I was using my Taurus PT-22 which I picked up to screw around on the range with, awful trigger, pathetic "sights", and I was twice as far from the target as her. Can't give myself any advantages after all. I cleaned house, though if I'd been using the PCR/Kadet combo I could have swept the game from probably fifteen yards or more further out.

That is the subject of the Gungeon.

From the tacked post at the top of the forum:

"Personal-interest discussion about guns and weaponry should be posted in the Outdoor Life Group."

Because I know the history of their development

I preferred marlins over the winchester, US repeating arms.

Reliable and well made. I wonder whatever happened to it? I haven't thought of it in years. I probably pawned it when I wss in college.

Bought it new about 20 years ago. It's a little picky on ammunition, but with the right load it's a tack driver.

My wife has a 94 .44 mag deer rifle. It became more picky and more picky and now it won't cycle.

I read there is a flaw where a sharp edge on one other of the components over time wears the shell lifter out and it starts letting 2 in.

If you google Marlin 94 jamming there's a link to a site that shows hot to fix it.

I'm not into Cowboy action shooting and treat it with care, so it's better than new. It's barely broken in.
The bore is actually .358. Some bullets shoot well, others not so. For heavy handloads, I use slower burning powders than would be used in a pistol round. I can get around 2000 fps with a 158 gr. The problem with most pistol bullets at that velocity is that they vaporize on impact. With a good scope it's a pretty effective rifle out to 150 Meters or so. I have a Leupold 2-7 variable scope with see-thru mounts so I can still use the iron sights. It's mainly a camp gun. For serious hunting, I use a 30-06 or 8X57.

Edit: "off" to "on" I haven't had my coffee yet.

I'm noticing a trend...

The AR-15 platform is almost exclusively American made. Last time I checked, there were more than 30 manufacturers making them. There are a few imports that are still fairly popular (civilian AK's, the SKS), but the pendulum is actually swinging toward more domestic manufacture, not less.

That's partly a result of the fact that Federal law favors domestic manufacture over importation, such that even many foreign companies (Glock, Sig, Beretta) set up factories in the USA to produce guns for the U.S. market.

:eyes:

are all the rage with the drive-by set. :eyes:

The ignorance; it doth burn!

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2008 (latest year for which full data are available), Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Compare the Rifles column to the Total Murders column. Heck, compare rifles to the Hands/Fists/Feet column.

In Illinois, home of gang-violence-ridden Chicago, there were 530 murders reported to the FBI in 2008. All rifles combined, including "assault weapons", accounted for 3 (yes, three) of them. Nationwide, rifles accounted for 2.6% of murders in '08, down from 3.0% in 2007.

It's not ignorance to say that rifles of any type are among the least misused of firearms. They are simply too big and bulky to conceal in a ready-to-use state on one's person or to easily and quickly deploy in a typical civilian vehicle.

FWIW, here's a photo of a fairly compact civilian rifle (my civilian SAR-1 with a stock that folds for storage, and the shortest barrel you can get without Federal authorization) compared to a medium-sized handgun. There's just no comparison. And there are pistols easily half the size of the one in that photo.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Dammit, if a BG tried to bust a convenience store with one of those in the city, he'd get laughed out of there.

*shakes head*

As with most other commodities, the production of firearms follows demand. One less manufacturer means more opportunity for the remaining ones to ramp up production, or for new manufacturers to enter the market.

Save it. It will be like pre-64 Winchesters.

'cause we all know good white Xtian gun-totin' 'Murkins only buy guns made in the U.S.A. :sarcasm:

To fend off the hordes of undead.

happy when I see a story that talks about a company saying it has to "cut profits" to remain competitive, instead of "cutting costs" (which always equals outsourcing or cutting a product line altogether).

With the price of these guns, do they really think people aren't willing to shell out another $50 per gun to keep manufacturing here? I bet the majority of customers would be OK with raising prices to keep production here and not by a Marlin made in China. SWEET BIPPY, that shit pisses me off.

That was per this video from a the local news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFhYB1OBck&feature=player_embedded#

Remington took over this plant in 2007. So they could send it somewhere else.

Marlin makes really good guns. May not make high tech militia style guns but good smooth shooting rifles.

in the USA, but there aren't enough sales to support the current factory. At least that's the word on the gun boards.

I don't think guns or ammunition have been imported from China since the 1990's. The majority of U.S. guns are domestically manufactured.

manufactured by workers kept in near sweatshop conditions.

However you may feel about guns, these are jobs we are losing to a cheap labour pool overseas.

The demand for 19th-century-style lever-actions isn't big enough to keep a whole factory open, so the residual production (and jobs) will be moving to an existing Remington plant in another state (I *think* South Carolina). The jobs are not going overseas.

Even a lot of European gun companies (Glock, Beretta, Sig) have factories here. Guns are precision mechanisms made to withstand high temperatures and 35,000-60,000 psi with .999 to .9999 reliability and lasting decades or centuries. Those parameters are not particularly conducive to "Walmartization".

www.trebuchet.com

I like the ones with flaming haybales as projectiles, as seen in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven".

:D