Remington Faces Default

[ScrapMetalSlug]

I've avoided remington for years, ever since I got burned as a new gun owner buying a brand new remington 710 back in 2005, before i knew better. That and the follow on 770 are examples of just riding a name and running it into the ground.

Is the remington arms the same company that makes the ammo, or are they different like winchester? I do like core-lokt and golden saber bullets, hopefully those will stick around. Their center fire ammo has been good, even though I consider their bulk 22 mostly junk.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I was looking at buying a new rifle about a year ago and looked at a Remington 700. Sales guy said they didn't carry them anymore because they had to send so many new ones back, but after he looked he found a left over. I could not believe the piece of junk I was holding in my hand. Rear guard screw was 1/16" above the receiver plate. That would have been an easy fix but I get turned off by poorly finished or unfinished firearms. We had a Remington back in the 70's and it was easily the best 22 rifle we had and we had several.

I'm not sure if Remington is going the way of Colt and Winchester, but if they keep putting their name on the junk that I saw it won't be long before they will be building them someplace other than the US.

What's so hard about building a quality firearm, lots of companies do it and make a profit.

 

[Tommygunn]

After the r51 fiasco it's no surprise noone will buy. I think most gun buyers have no interest in unreliable guns and that's the defining characteristicof their offerings unfortunately.

You know, it's a shame; the RM380 is actually a pretty decent gun. They CAN do it ------ when they want to.

 

[mjsdwash]

I saw a Rem 700 ADL in 06 with a nice walnut stock new, with iron sites. Was all set to buy it, when I noticed the cheap recycled milk jug bottom metal. Ended up with a Mauser instead. Do they really think people buying a gun for its looks want cheap plastic parts? My 870 came with an extractor that didn't work -too big to move freely in the channel. Barrel had an unfinished chamber too. Got a R1 that had the extractor claw mostly filed off, would not eject all of the time, would not eject unfired rounds at all. Both were easy enough to fix, and both were great once fixed, but both could have been problem free with a slight level of QC. I would have bought their 700$ rifle if they spend an extra 10$ on quality. I don't care if plastic is 'better'. It looks cheap. Thats fine on a parkerized/synthetic setup. Having the flat plastic with its casting flash contrast with a shiny stock and good bluing was just too much.. This is a company being run down by shortcuts. I really like their products, but could never recommend them to anyone who didn't know how to work on them. I imagine millions of other did the same.

 

[bikemutt]

After waiting 2+ years for Remington to make good on my R51, which they did, I was soured on the company. I can't think of a handgun they offer where competitors don't offer the same or better. I do like the 700 action mostly because there is so much aftermarket available for it but, every Rem 700 I've owned was no more accurate than the Savages I own now. Their shotguns aren't bad, especially for the price, but I don't need more then the four I already own and those are all older model classics that'll get me through this life cycle.

Add in the value Freedom Group brought to bear when they took over Marlin

I don't wish failure on any company but it sure seems like Remington is out to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot, maybe if they use an R51 they'll survive.

 

[Elkins45]

This makes me bring back up something I have pondering for a few years now: how much demand for newly manufactured guns in the civilian market will continue to exist? I understand police and military will need to refresh their inventory, but how many of us are wearing out our hunting rifles or range toys? Given that fewer people hunt every year, how much demand will there be for new guns?

I just wonder if eventually we won’t all be trading mostly the last generation’s used guns?

 

[jeepnik]

Yep following the life span of a company.

Started by visionary. It becomes too large for them so they hire business men to run it. They want to increase profits so they increase production and do so by decreasing quality. Profits drop.

The business men hire accountants to bring profits back up. The eliminate highly qualified workers and replace them with unskilled labor. They mandate lower quality raw materials and lesser quality finished products. Profits drop more (this is where Ruger is now).

Then the businessmen and accountants hire lawyers to handle the bankruptcy and dissolution of the company (this is where Remington is now).

Can both be saved. Yes, but not without a serious commitment to surviving (higher quality products and better customer service) in lieu of short term profits.

The thing is, there are no visionaries in either company. The folks running them really don't care about the survival of the company as long as they get their money. These types of businessmen, accountants and lawyers just move on to the next soon to be dead company. Natures scavengers have more class.

Think about it. Berretta is doing well and has for hundreds of years. Why? Family owned and family operated. And here tell they treat their employees like family. You know the way Winchester, Remington, S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc. used to do.

 

[Jim NE]

I don't wish failure on any company but it sure seems like Remington is out to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot, maybe if they use an R51 they'll survive.

I have an R 51. I bought it new as a safe queen...that way, I can't be mad at it for not working. Edsels are worth some money nowadays. I'm hoping the same thing will happen to the R 51.

I also wish the best for Remington. The R 51, Remlin, the 770 (I have one of those, too)...that's a few too many recent mistakes for a company with it's historical reputation. Not all examples of the guns I mentioned are bad, but it doesn't really matter. If the public perceives that they are, somebody at Remington didn't do their job right.

 

[hq]

Most likely they'll end up the same place as Gibson guitars. The name is too valuable to simply die. It will be bought and resurrected by some capital firm which will set out to make the name good again.

Sounds plausible. Think Volvo - the situation was grim in early 2000:s, company made substantial losses year after year and Ford eventually sold it to Geely Group in 2010. In a few short years they've rebuilt the reputation. It's much more expensive to build a brand from scratch than to restructure an existing company with a well-known brand.

 

[BigBore44]

This makes me bring back up something I have pondering for a few years now: how much demand for newly manufactured guns in the civilian market will continue to exist? I understand police and military will need to refresh their inventory, but how many of us are wearing out our hunting rifles or range toys? Given that fewer people hunt every year, how much demand will there be for new guns?

I just wonder if eventually we won’t all be trading mostly the last generation’s used guns?

It’s an interesting question. Between my father, brother, me, and and including 3 friends, we’ve probably bought 15 guns in the last 3 years. 3 of them were new. Everything else was used.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Just my opinion, but it seems that Remington corporate has made the same mistakes as Winchester corporate made in the 1960s probably because they are being managed by people out of touch with the gun world and gun people.

 

[herrwalther]

Which is why the R51 could have been such a success! It was different, it had historical pedigree combined with modern whiz-bang, it would have landed at just the right time.....

I was planning on buying a R51. It looked like a great idea and different. I was about a 2 weeks away from having the expendable income to put down on one when they issued the recall. Now I don't even want the "fixed" ones.

The Remington 700 and 870 are icons

The 870 I had was laughable and sold it. I was more impressed by a Stevens shotgun (made in China) I handled in a big box store.

“Profit above Product” will get you every time. They simply rode the name too long. For goodness sake, was it the 710 or 770 that had plastic bolt handles? To borrow a phrase from ESPN “C’mon man!!”

I believe the bolt knob on my 770 was plastic, the rest was metal. The feed ramps were terrible and I had to slam every round to chamber. Sold that Remington as well.

 

[hdwhit]

Mike OTDP wrote:
...people have bought all they want.

Perhaps another way to look at it is not that people have bought all they want (I, for instance, want a bolt-action 308, a 12 gauge pump shotgun, a 1911 pattern pistol in 9mm, and an AR for myself - the ones I previously bought went to my children), but people. myself included, are no longer gripped with the panic created by an expected future ban and while they still want these things, are placing other things like new tires for the car, a new dishwasher, and a new pair of boots higher up on the list of priorities.

All of the gun makers will need to get people to put their products higher up on the list of where part of the next paycheck gets spent if they want to return to robust growth (or in Remington's case, profitability) any time soon. The trick is how that gets done with Republicans controlling the White House, the Congress and the last Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed being seen as "conservative".

 

[hdwhit]

herr walther wrote:
JUST Remington? Doesn't being part of Freedom Group and higher up a part of Cerberus Capital offer a level of protection against default?

Not necessarily.

If Freedom/Cerberus thinks Remington's problems are short-term and can be resolved by a simple cash infusion and some tweaking on the executive floor, then they will provide the needed funds. But, the first role of success in the venture capital business is to not throw good money after bad and if they don't see a way for Remington to 1) return to profitability, and 2) recoup market share, then Freedom/Cerberus will let them go and sell off the assets (including the very valuable name) to someone who thinks they can make a go in the current firearms market.

Personally, my bet would be that Freedom/Cerberus will decide that Remington is worth saving - at least this time - and will bail them out if default becomes more immediate.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I am happy with the Remington products I own.
As far as the company going broke, I don't care as long as the taxpayers don't get stuck bailing them out. No offense to any GM owners on THR

 

[Charliefrank]

I have a Winchester model 70 featherweight xtr purchased in the mid 80's . A Ruger model 77 with manlicher stock purchased in the early 80's and a Remington 870 turkey model purchased in the early 90's. All were new when purchased. All have been reliable and fit and finish is good. Did I just get lucky.

 

[MidRoad]

I have a Winchester model 70 featherweight xtr purchased in the mid 80's . A Ruger model 77 with manlicher stock purchased in the early 80's and a Remington 870 turkey model purchased in the early 90's. All were new when purchased. All have been reliable and fit and finish is good. Did I just get lucky.

I think you did get lucky . Meaning you were around before their stuff started going down hill and had the opportunity to purchase their stuff when it was still good.

Ever since I've been old enough to purchase my own guns (8 years now lol) Remington has had a bad name for itself. So I've strayed away from them. Except for marlin bought a marlin 336ss two years ago when I heard they were coming back in quality. Pretty decent rifle,had to clean up the internals a bit. It was accurate,just rough. Even so I wouldn't buy another new marlin.The ones I've seen in the gun store we're not super impressive. My brother and father have a few JM stamped ones and they are much nicer.im not a JM snob,I just appreciate quality when I see it.

Even though I don't really buy any Remington products,I'd hate to see them go down. It's been such a long standing American company. They need to restructure,focus on quality and the customer,and live up to their name. Not off of their name.

 

[1948CJ2A]

Remington has made some great products and some not so great. I own 3 700 BDLs. One of those rifles had a trigger I thought might have been flawed; however, after taking it apart all it needed was a cleaning. It was all "gunked" up and would release the firing pin upon closing the bolt. Disassembly, cleaning, and re-assembly were all that was required.

Their "not-so-great" products were usually their cheapest. Cheap guns are just that... cheap. Usually you get what you pay for.

 

[bikemutt]

Remington has made some great products and some not so great. I own 3 700 BDLs. One of those rifles had a trigger I thought might have been flawed; however, after taking it apart all it needed was a cleaning. It was all "gunked" up and would release the firing pin upon closing the bolt. Disassembly, cleaning, and re-assembly were all that was required.

Their "not-so-great" products were usually their cheapest. Cheap guns are just that... cheap. Usually you get what you pay for.

Rem was lucky they sold you the rifle with that gunked up fire control group, had they sold it to a less gun-savvy customer, who knows.

 

[rust collector]

I have no love for overpaid execs and venture capitalists that buy companies to grab their cash, but part of the problem is that consumers look for low priced options, and there is a cost (in quality) to hit that low price point. A company that manufactures durable goods competes with itself. It's not an easy path to travel,and most old gunmakers have filed for bankruptcy protection or sold parts of the company to stay alive.

 

[<*(((><]

Like was said above by @rust collector a company that manifacturers durable goods is competing against themselves. When someone makes durable goods that last they have to wait a long time for repeat customer, a new customer or a new durable product. I hope more companies take the mentality of focusing on new customers and new products and serving existing customers with the same durable products when theirs gets worn out. But I’m afraid such is likely not to be the case in today’s market. Whenever these old companies be it Remington, Marlin, Winchester, Colt, etc.; start down the road of seeking out margins with lesser quality or durablility, it is concerning to myself.

I’m hoping that the firearms I buy today will be around and in the useable condition of many of the firearms that were manufactured 125 years ago. The consumer pressure for price above all, but mostly IMHO due to the internet making everyone’s small shop a storefront with ease of comparing prices. For persons to take up storefront space there needs to be price incentive from the manufacturer which places downward pressure on Cost of goods sold.

And how can a manufacturer stay competitive? Either convince the dustrubuting store their products are superior, and more importantly prove that to the consumer over time. However, many companies feel it is easier to use new manufacturing materials and techniques (alloys, MIM’d parts, CNC, cut out hand tooling and fitment, plastic bolt handles, polymer, etc.) in order to make the “same” firearm cheaper, although it is not the same. And that’s not to say that all those materials and techniques aren’t a good idea, but let’s not kid ourselves that the reason wasn’t cost.

 

[Sam1911]

Like was said above by @rust collector a company that manifacturers durable goods is competing against themselves. Whenever these old companies be it Remington, Marlin, Winchester, Colt, etc.; start down the road of seeking out margins with lesser quality or durablility, it is concerning to myself.

Sure!

Imagine what we'd really have to pay for practically anything else that we went to the store to buy and expected -- no demanded -- be still perfectly functional over a century from now? What SHOULD a rifle cost, if it's going to be so good that our grandkids' kids will be using it?

And how can a manufacturer stay competitive?

A great question, considering that many of us "gunny" sorts have stacks, piles, or even bunkers full of firearms. Trying to convice us that we need another of what was the new great thing for the modern hunter in 1962 seems like a losing proposition.

Either convince the dustrubuting store their products are superior, and more importantly prove that to the consumer over time. However, many companies feel it is easier to use new manufacturing materials and techniques (alloys, MIM’d parts, CNC, cut out hand tooling and fitment, etc.) in order to make the “same” firearm cheaper, although it is not the same.

The nice thing is that many of those techniques appear to make a better firearm. More reliable, more dimensionally exact. More likely to produce accuracy beyond the wildest hopes of shooters a few decades back who'd spend a month's pay or more to get a rifle that wouldn't shoot much better than 2-3" at 100 yards.

Now you can get a rifle for less than a week's pay -- in some cases for less than a DAY's pay -- that will shoot an inch or thereabouts. It just won't look as nice as that old walnut and blued steel classic in grandpa's gun case.

You can get some pretty amazing, beautiful and accurate, classic looking rifles these days as well, but you'll pay closer to the relative value the old timers did. Which was painful then, and is painful now.

 

[<*(((><]

I wasn’t saying that all the different new manufacturing techniques and materials weren’t superior to the old ways, but I’m sure that some are cost cuts that dont produce a better firearm.

Personally, plastic bolt handles, plastic magazine floor plates, zinc alloy receivers, polymer handgun sights, plastic shell lifters, etc, are a step down from years past. And as far as techniques the products coming out of some of the manufacture plants show that little or no hand fitting, tooling or personnel QCing items coming off the line. And yes one might get better accuracy after a Rifle or handgun gets shipped back to the factory 2-3 times to fix mis-aligned barrels to receivers, canted sight posts, rough chambers/rifling, failure to feed/eject/fire, and who pays the cost of shipping back to the factories a majority of the time...the owner.

I’m know that overall accuracy has gone up on firearms with new ways of manufacturing but it shouldn’t be a crutch for manufacturers to rest on heir laurels. And I’m not in the postion of looking at the bottom line of the books on these manufacturers I’m just looking at the recent quality that has shown some deterioration.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Being old, I'll tell you this, quality was not as great back then as you are making it out to be. I'll remind you that semi-auto handguns did not catch on until the 80s because no one trusted them to work, because they didn't, at least not reliably. We've never had it as good as we do right now.

 

[kuthros224]

with reports of 200,000 + background checks on one day it's clear that there still is gun sales Remington has clearly missed the mark for a while now.