Remington Arms bankruptcy .. again

Well their situation certainly wasn't helped when some worthless, political activist judge, decided to hold the PLCAA didn't apply to them.
 
Charlie_K said:
Well their situation certainly wasn't helped when some worthless, political activist judge, decided to hold the PLCAA didn't apply to them.
Click to expand...

Their stubbornness with the Walker Fire Control issue didn't help, they considered recalling all the 700's and 870's it in the 70's but decided against it. Once that legal faucet is turned on it's never turned off...
 
JB in SC said:
Their stubbornness with the Walker Fire Control issue didn't help, they considered recalling all the 700's and 870's it in the 70's but decided against it. Once that legal faucet is turned on it's never turned off...
Click to expand...

And let's not forget when they purchased companies like DPMS and Bushmaster, and then decided they're going to focus on "traditional firearms" and essentially give a great many of their customers the middle finger in the process.

Honestly, the only thing I've liked about Remington for a long time is the green/yellow color scheme on their ammo boxes, and the green hulls on their shotgun ammo.
 
Seems like every time an established company changes its direction, it usually winds up in the ditch.

In the 70’s through the 80’s Remington offered some good products, their custom shop was excellent.
 
JB in SC said:
Seems like every time an established company changes its direction, it usually winds up in the ditch.

In the 70’s through the 80’s Remington offered some good products, their custom shop was excellent.
Click to expand...

Yeah and now look at where they are. They own DPMS, Bushmaster, Marlin, and ruined all of them out of pure spite.
 
If Remington goes... I will miss them. My last Remington rifle was the 22 LR version of the 547 (which was a custom shop creation), and I really like the other high end 22's they made over the years. The 541-S is my favorite 22 rifle.
 
Typical example of corporate mergers and acquisitions not focused on the customer. Instead focused on corporate ego's and winning, which is impossible if you're not focused on the customer.
 
Honestly, I'm starting to think a lot of Remington's actions could be the result of pure, vindictive spite. Remington's higher ups couldn't accept the fact that the public would ever want rifles other than their own 70/700/etc. platforms, and decided to go about wrecking the market as much as possible, to take out as much of the competition as possible, both to punish the public for daring to stray from traditional platforms, and to punish competition for daring to make anything more desirable than what they produced.
 
Charlie_K said:
Honestly, I'm starting to think a lot of Remington's actions could be the result of pure, vindictive spite. Remington's higher ups couldn't accept the fact that the public would ever want rifles other than their own 70/700/etc. platforms, and decided to go about wrecking the market as much as possible, to take out as much of the competition as possible, both to punish the public for daring to stray from traditional platforms, and to punish competition for daring to make anything more desirable than what they produced.
Click to expand...
You'll need to explain that comment. Personally, I really like the Model 700 platform myself and my "deer rifle" is a M700 BDL in 270 win. Never cared much for Ruger rifles as a general statement. If you are talking about AR's, then Remington can choose to manufacture what they want or not at all. Doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
 
News like this makes me lose all confidence, any I had left, in any firearm associated with Remington. Mismanagement at the top flows down throughout every division of a company and a culture of complacency sets in and quality goes down.

RIP Remington.

I'm sticking with Mossberg for my shotguns. Dumped Remington years ago and have never looked back.
 
22-rimfire said:
You'll need to explain that comment.
Click to expand...

Well let's see. Remington purchased Bushmaster, DPMS, Marlin, and other firearm manufacturing companies that produced non bolt-action rifles that were widely popular, both for hunting and other uses. And as soon as Remington purchased these companies and brought them under their control, quality immediately goes down the toilet and once respected companies start producing crap products that they never would've put out even 10 years prior. What changed? Remington took over and ruined everything it touched. Why would this be done? Petty spite over the fact their bolt-action rifles were no longer the end all, be all platforms they once were some fifty or sixty years ago before the AR platform took off. They just couldn't accept that the public was outgrowing what they believed was adequate, and as a result they chose to wreck the competition and punish the public for daring to want something that wasn't a bolt-action deer rifle.

Personally, I really like the Model 700 platform myself and my "deer rifle" is a M700 BDL in 270 win. Never cared much for Ruger rifles as a general statement. If you are talking about AR's, then Remington can choose to manufacture what they want or not at all. Doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
Click to expand...

And they did. And they ruined the hard work of others. Why? Petty and vindictive spite. Why? Because it was something other than their bolt-action rifle, and was far more popular with a wider audience.

That's my explanation. That's my belief. And I'm going to believe that until there's proof to the contrary. There's been too much crap with Remington to be written off as simple incompetence.
 
Charlie_K said:
Well let's see. Remington purchased Bushmaster, DPMS, Marlin, and other firearm manufacturing companies that produced non bolt-action rifles that were widely popular, both for hunting and other uses. And as soon as Remington purchased these companies and brought them under their control, quality immediately goes down the toilet and once respected companies start producing crap products that they never would've put out even 10 years prior. What changed? Remington took over and ruined everything it touched. Why would this be done? Petty spite over the fact their bolt-action rifles were no longer the end all, be all platforms they once were some fifty or sixty years ago before the AR platform took off. They just couldn't accept that the public was outgrowing what they believed was adequate, and as a result they chose to wreck the competition and punish the public for daring to want something that wasn't a bolt-action deer rifle.



And they did. And they ruined the hard work of others. Why? Petty and vindictive spite. Why? Because it was something other than their bolt-action rifle, and was far more popular with a wider audience.

That's my explanation. That's my belief. And I'm going to believe that until there's proof to the contrary. There's been too much crap with Remington to be written off as simple incompetence.
Click to expand...


That's a bunch of baseless speculation without any evidence offered to support it. The stuff of typical Internet BS armchair experts who have zero idea what they are talking about.

The far simpler explanation is: wanting more $$$ and poor strategic planning and incompetent senior management.
 
Centuriator said:
That's a bunch of baseless speculation without any evidence offered to support it. The stuff of typical Internet BS armchair experts who have zero idea what they are talking about.

The far simpler explanation is: wanting more $$$ and poor strategic planning and incompetent senior management.
Click to expand...
When gun companies are run by accountants and MBA's they fail. Colt is still suffering from this and likely will never recover.

Your assertions are your own C Charlie_K . Marlin's quality I have read really did drop after Remington purchased them. The 39A was a classic, but Henry has pretty much taken over the lever action market. I had the misfortune of buying a 39A (S model as I recall >> post safety) that I never really liked. But it was still made prior to the Remington acquisition.

Lots of choices with AR's. Don't care if Remington makes them or not. If you're wondering, I am not an AR guy and never got caught up in the appeal.

Generally speaking, you don't need an AR for hunting big game. Pretty useful for hawgs though. Different strokes for different folks. Live and let live.....
 
Centuriator said:
That's a bunch of baseless speculation without any evidence offered to support it. The stuff of typical Internet BS armchair experts who have zero idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

It's based on the fact at least three separate firearm companies that actually knew what they were doing in producing a good product, suddenly went to crap after Remington purchased them. Those sort of results would at the very least suggest a pattern of deliberate behavior.

The far simpler explanation is: wanting more $$$ and poor strategic planning and incompetent senior management.
Click to expand...

This is Omni Consumer Products sort of incompetence we're seeing at play though; like continually giving live ammunition and functional weapons to three experimental prototypes for a live demonstration, despite witnessing how doing such tends to get people killed when they malfunction.
 
I've never bought crap firearms so have never bought any of their "budget" stuff. The only product I've ever bought made by Remington is shot gun ammo and some Remington 870 shotguns, until I saw the light and switched to the superior Mossberg 500 series.

You still have provided no facts/evidence for your speculations about people's motives, by the way.

But hey, it is the Internet so ... anything goes.

:)
 
Charlie_K said:
{snipped}

They just couldn't accept that the public was outgrowing what they believed was adequate, and as a result they chose to wreck the competition and punish the public for daring to want something that wasn't a bolt-action deer rifle.


And they did. And they ruined the hard work of others. Why? Petty and vindictive spite. Why? Because it was something other than their bolt-action rifle, and was far more popular with a wider audience.

That's my explanation. That's my belief. And I'm going to believe that until there's proof to the contrary. There's been too much crap with Remington to be written off as simple incompetence.
Click to expand...


Charlie_K said:
It's based on the fact at least three separate firearm companies that actually knew what they were doing in producing a good product, suddenly went to crap after Remington purchased them. Those sort of results would at the very least suggest a pattern of deliberate behavior.



This is Omni Consumer Products sort of incompetence we're seeing at play though; like continually giving live ammunition and functional weapons to three experimental prototypes for a live demonstration, despite witnessing how doing such tends to get people killed when they malfunction.
Click to expand...


All due respect, but that doesn't really make much sense.

You believe that they did not like that the market was moving away their bread and butter so they decided to "wreck the competition and punish the public".

How does buying up other companies and running them poorly wreck the competition? The companies that they bought are no longer the competition.

And punishing the public by putting out a lesser product does not punish public, it punishes the company.



You are attributing malice when stupidity is the more logical answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top