I read just enough of this thread to see someone bashing the Marlin 60. None of the things he said apply to either of my current 60's or any of the other ones I've owned. I have one that I've put about 175,000 rounds through and it still works very well. It's still accurate and it still feeds and I've never had any problems with the mag separating from the barrel. The stock isn't dinged either unless you count the huge scratch my kids put in it (that happened at least 18 years ago and still neither kid will admit what happened
). I would trust that rifle for any job I need it for still to this day.
I also have a new stainless 60. The receiver is aluminum like all 60's. A magnet proves that quick. The stock is a little soft on it but to be honest the stock on my CZ is softer. It has several dings in it and it's only 2 years old. I was very disappointed in that fact to be honest. The Marlin is laminate and is soft but so far it's held up very well against dings. Laminate can fool a person about how soft they really are. I wouldn't want to use it as a ball bat but it holds it's own as a rifle stock.
BTW I also have a Raven (but it's a .25) that was exceptionally accurate until I figured out how to take it apart to clean it. Now it won't hit anything. It never did feed well though. It is certainly a SNS. I bought it when I was a young and broke college student that needed a pocket pistol at times. I was amazed how accurate it "was". I sank a leaf in my dad's pond from 65 yards with that thing. Dad was speechless. He had been razzing me about emptying the mag quick saying I'd never hit anything like that. He didn't say a word after that leaf went under.
I'm going to add a pistol to the list of rimfire guns to avoid. The Ruger Standard or as it's known the Mk-I is not that great IMO. The Mk-II is a fabulous pistol. It's one of the best I've ever shot. It's incredibly accurate. But I have never shot a Standard that was accurate in the least.