Remington Faces Default

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like was said above by @rust collector a company that manifacturers [sic] durable goods is competing against themselves.

They better not be or else they're doomed.

A manufacturer of durable goods is NOT going to grow their business by sitting around waiting for repeat or replacement customers, it is going to grow the business by taking sales away from its competitors.
 
And how can a manufacturer stay competitive?

That's easy; offer the gun-buying public something compelling enough that they want to buy it.

The hard part is figuring our what exactly that is.
 
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.

Is that just personal perception? Or are you basing that on some objective criteria?

Just look at handguns in the last few decades as polymer receivers have become common. The presence of plastic (which does not rust) is not necessarily a "step down" unless you are simply tossing every use of polymers rather than metal into a "second class" status.
 
kuthros224 wrote:
...with reports of 200,000 + background checks on one day it's clear that there still is [sic] gun sales...

One or two record days during a year does not change the fact that sales are, on the whole, down from prior years and all the major manufacturers are feeling it.
 
bikemutt wrote:
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

This post should be immediately e-mailed to everyone on the Remington Board of Directors.
 
That's easy; offer the gun-buying public something compelling enough that they want to buy it.

The hard part is figuring our what exactly that is.
My 2¢ is that the classic Remingtons are the compelling ones. IMO they need to scale back to their classics, like the 700 rifle and the 870 and 1100 shotguns. Concentrate on making them right again, in a limited number of options (a high-end and a no-frills version of each, in the most popular chamberings) and they might be able to rescue their reputation.
 
I wrote Remington off about 10 years ago when I bought a 20 ga 870. It was visibly more poorly made than my 12 ga 870 that was only 10 years older, and the new one gave me constant problems until I traded it for a 20 ga Mossberg 500. I also got duped into a 710 when they first came out, which while very accurate I’ve had the bolt pull all the way out of the receiver more times than I can count.

I very briefly considered an RP9 that I could have picked up on Black Friday for $229 with a rebate, but decided I’d much rather spend twice as much on something I trusted. Like other’s have said, Remington would do better to focus on raising their quality and focusing on shotgun and rifle innovation. I have no desire to own a Remington handgun, but if they came out with some sort of hunting/camp pistol caliber carbine, I’d be pretty interested. Likewise, if I could trust a 700 to be accurate and well made I’d consider one of those when I’m ready to get another bolt action, but as it is right now I doubt I’d consider one at all unless it was 30 or more years old.
 
Is that just personal perception? Or are you basing that on some objective criteria?

Just look at handguns in the last few decades as polymer receivers have become common. The presence of plastic (which does not rust) is not necessarily a "step down" unless you are simply tossing every use of polymers rather than metal into a "second class" status.
Its a step down if the consumer doesn't want it. Or if your competitor offers the same parts in a more durable, attractive material.
For me, I'm walking if any moving parts or small parts critical to the guns operation are poly. Stock? Fine. Handgun frame? Meh. Bolt handle? No way.
 
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.

Sure seemed like the 1911 had an OK run at being a semi auto handgun before 1980 (served in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam), or the Browning HiPower (year 1935), CZ-75 (year 1975) or the countless (pre-80) Beretta's, Sig's, Walther's and H&K's that are still running to this day. Yeah they were all real unreliable. But I'm sure there are a lot of people who think all handguns were unreliable until Glock came on the scene in 1980 (and I have nothing against Glock).
 
Yeah they were all real unreliable.
Some were and some weren't. They were very commonly expected to be less reliable than a revolver, which is now not quite such a prevalent view. Now if an auto doesn't run well, it's considered defective. Not just, "well, it's an auto pistol, what did you expect?"

(Of course, M-16s were too.)

There's a function of something like confirmation bias that happens with old guns. We wax nostalgic about them because the old guns we still have and love were good enough to keep around. We don't much think about the ones that didn't work so well and got sold off or chucked into the river.
 
Well I’ve tried at least 3 times to buy a new 700.

First time the build quality wasn’t up to snuff for the price

Second time the example they had at academy was rusting just sitting on the shelf. Guy behind the counter said nobody had even looked at it to the best of his knowledge because 25-06 isn’t too popular here. Either way the savages and rugers were all rust free

Third time was an issue with dicks sporting goods. Not Remington’s fault but while there waiting for any employee to show up I noticed all rems were deeply discounted and rebated. (Side note: only st dicks bc the wife wanted to go look st something or another there)

I have on several occasions taken to the used racks in search of a 700 and they are rather difficult to find around here. When they are found, a Very used bdl ( read: abused and neglected) goes for considerably more than a new adl.
This should be a big hint to big green.

I bout a 44 mag marlin a year or two ago and the ejection port and loading gate were exactly as sharp as a razor. Not kidding one bit. Wood fit is meh and action not exactly smooth but it has functioned so far and seems accurate enough.

My point in all this rambling is Remington has a market but they can’t satisfy it which is the only thing worse than not having a market.
If they would go back to the way they made guns even 20 years ago they wouldn’t be in this pickle. Maybe even offer a 700 that has a real extractor and a bolt handle made for life sized hands.

Maybe even offer their corlokt bullets as components for more than 3 weeks out of the year.




And sadly, I still want a 700 but it’s hard to justify when the market is so saturated with great (functioning and accurate out of the box) choices.


I’m not even going to get into their handguns or how they couldn’t even make the R51 correctly with modern tooling and methods even though they made it decades ago. It took them 2 tries and they still didn’t quite get it and the first time was pathetic. I won’t even mention how sad it is they farmed out and half-arsed their rp9 for competition in our military’s contract.

I get the distinct impression that somewhere at Remington in there are (were) many higher ups who thought that us redneck hillbillies would by anything from Remington because of the tradition, prestige, and/or habit so they drastically cut corners and tried to squeeze a few more cents from every unit.
 
Last edited:
It would be really fascinating if somehow we could get real copies of the strategic planning reports done by the marketing departments of various gun makers. Really see who they believe they're able to sell the most product to, or the range of buyers they believe they should be targeting.

"Give the customer what they want!" is a great plan, but which customer(s) are actually likely to buy from us? How many of whatever it is they "really want" are they likely to actually buy? How many repeat customers do we really get? What products will bring us those repeat customers? How can we make the legacy products at a lower cost? What will the effects of those changes be? Are our legacy products starting to look dated and/or less brilliant in light of competitors' more accurate, durable or ... ha, more "tactical" ... products? What products could we make which would bring us new customers? What are the risks of trying new products and are those risks potentially more damaging than the business they'd bring in is worth? Etc. etc.

Unfortunately (probably) the really interesting product manufacturers I can think of (across many industries) seem to make most of their money off of what the enthusiast would consider boring, low end, uninspiring product lines. It may be in the final analysis that Remington, Winchester, Colt, etc. just couldn't survive making elegant hand-fitted rifles and shotguns that operate with smoothness and the "quality feel" we all remember from previous generations. Without "value" lines buoying up their bottom line, at whatever cost to their reputation for quality, they can't keep the doors open.
 
I find it telling that there are no Remington employees or customer service people coming to their defense on here. They either agree with everything stated and dont see it getting better anytime soon, or they really are that far out of touch with their customer base.

When i look for info about guns I see what THR has to say, and I suspect many others even non members do too.

Wheres Remington? Maybe they haven't heard of this website and forum...o_O
 
I will say that if the 1st Gen R51 had been what the 2nd Gen is it would be a best selling 9mm. I bought one about a year a half ago and it has not missed a beat. I have put many thousand of rounds through it, from handloads to the best selling defense brands and it has shot them all. I have 6 magazines and they all are flawless.
 
Bought a Remington 788 in .308 back in the 70s. 18 inch barrel is most accurate .30 caliber I own. Been my go-to deerslayer all that time. My son got two fat does with it over thanksgiving holidays. The 788 was designed as a cheap alternative to the 700. Bet it would out shoot just about any modern bolt gun. This with a 3-9 Tasco from the same period. Shame, really, but glad I've got it, if I get it back from junior.
 
Hmm. CCC- junk bond rating.

Sounds like a good investment opportunity for a group of investors. They can buy the company for pennies on the dollar and save the company with a more conservative financial strategy.
 
FYI, I took possession of my R51 the very same day that they announced their November rebates - so I bought it four days too early
Instead of trying to fake a post dated receipt, I took the High Road and politely explained the situation and asked if they could help me in any way
Their reply: you are SOL
Do you think there will be any new Remingtons on my shopping list, ever?
 
I can't think of a category that they lead in, maybe ammo perhaps?
Mossberg has a lot of the shotgun market, Ruger and Savage a bunch of the rifle market and every one else has the pistol market.
Doesn't look good if they have nothing to fall back on.
 
JUST Remington? Doesn't being part of Freedom Group and higher up a part of Cerberus Capital offer a level of protection against default?

I would hate to see any gun company go under. But after the lack luster record of big R the last few years, I am not surprised they are facing financial difficulty.

One must remember Ceberus capital is a strip and flip company. Buy it cheap, lean it out to the point of nothing, suck out the profits and then sell it in default. See also; Chrysler. Hope something happens so things get better.
 
I find it telling that there are no Remington employees or customer service people coming to their defense on here. They either agree with everything stated and dont see it getting better anytime soon, or they really are that far out of touch with their customer base.

I used to work with a former employee of the new Remington plant. His primary reason for leaving Remington was the drive was too far for long term employment. Other reasons were they treated their employees like dirt and didn't care so much about quality. Any oopses made in manufacteuring were sent to be fixed where they might sit for months. And the repair teams would get pressure to kick products out the door to be sold even if they weren't up to par. They did give employees a very steep (I believe 50% off) on anything Remington, with a cap of 12 firearms per year. The employee I worked with said many people used the program to sell Remingtons at a profit on Armslist. Ironically the company he left Remington for operates very much the same way.
 
All other thing aside, How much of Remington`s problem is do to market saturation ?
 
All other thing aside, How much of Remington`s problem is do to market saturation ?

I’m sure saturation isn’t helping but I haven’t heard of Savage, Ruger, howa, weatherby, Henry, Winchester, Tikka, CZ, or browning or even TC having this issue.

Remington should also be coming off an 8 year record breaking high. The fact Remington couldn’t handle 1 year of low sales is very telling .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top