I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about with a JM stamped vs Non JM stamped. I bought a new Marlin 336(non JM stamped) and it shoots lights out. I've also bought some newer Remington's the past couple years and all of them were sub MOA shooters straight out of the box.
I think honestly it's a lot of talk about nothing and once people hear it they just believe it without any knowledge or proof. I would like to see some comparisons prooving the JM stamped rifles perform better than the newer ones.
The 336 Remlin is a good gun. The pre-remington (2010)and even more so, the pre 1981 (cross bolt safety)marlins are more desirable to a select crowd. Common complaint with the Remlin is the fit and finish.
Some are acceptable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoE36_1fg8cSome are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi79kO51R4UI know I could go get a nice new winchester model 94 but my 1953 was made and tuned by gunsmiths, not assembly line workers. Cast verses forged, ect.
Who buys a 69 camero because its safe or gets good fuel mileage? I'd bet most of us wouldn't trade a mint '69 camero for a new one. Same thought goes into these older firearms.
I stand by what I previously said, they haven't given up any accuracy. I prefer my '73 model 60 over my ruger 10/22 so much that I sold the ruger.