Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Show your support for Remington regarding Zumbo

By now many of you have seen what Jim Zumbo wrote on his OutDoor Life blog (which apparently has now been removed). For those that have not, here is the pertinent text:


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Assault Rifles For Hunters?
As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As a result of this article, Remington has withdrawn their sponsorship from Jim Zumbo. You can read about it here: http://www.remington.com/library/press/2007/2007-1.asp

If you suppport Remington's action to dump Zumbo, please contact Remington and let them know.

It is difficult to send Remington a letter via their web page as I couldn't find a "Contact us" link, but I did find a place to ask questions and sent a letter there. You can get there by following these clicks:

www.remington.com
Click 'Support'
Click 'Help Center'
Click the 'Ask a Question' tab


Below is a copy of the letter I submitted to Remington.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Dear Remington,

Thank you for your prompt action regarding Mr. Zumbo.

While I do not own any of the rifles of which he wrote, many of the members of my shooting club do, and I support not only their right to do so but their right to hunt with them if they so choose. One of my early elk hunting partners used a battle rifle from another era, an M1 Garand, and another used an even earlier battle rifle, an '03-A3 Springfield. The rifle does not determine how it is used. If that was the case, my Remington M700 BDL in .308 Win, with it's Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x scope would be considered a "sniper rifle".

Mr. Zumbo may not care for their looks, but that does not make them any more inappropriate for hunting than a Remington 7600 and a pocket full of magazines. Nor does their typically black color make them "terrorist weapons" any more than the matte black finish and black synthetic stock and an unblocked magazine filled with 00 buckshot makes my Model 870 Express Super Magnum a "terrorist weapon".

It was only a few years ago that Colorado outlawed modern inline muzzleloaders during 'primitive season'. A large part of the reason they did so was the advice from the traditionalistic CSMA (Colorado State Muzzleloaders Association) which did not care for the "look and feel" of the inlines. Colorado also justified their decision based on the argument made by the CSMA that the inlines provided the hunter with a significant advantage in power over side-hammer designs. That year I had to set my Remington M700ML aside and purchase a Thompson side-hammer rifle. Many people wrote the Colorado Division of Wildlife to protest this action. I did so as well, noting that I could dress up my Thompson side-hammer rifle with fiber optic sights; a match grade stainless barrel; a professionally tuned trigger; a custom titanium hammer for faster lock times; a red, white and blue paint job with yellow lightning bolts emblazoned on the stock and that I could load it with the exact same loads I would have used in my Remington M700ML. I also correctly pointed out that while such a rifle would happily fail to meet the 'look and feel' standards of the CSMA, it would be perfectly legal under the then-current regulations. Such a rifle, of course, would not provide any significant advantage over an unaltered rifle, in spite of its "look and feel". I was also happy to refute Colorado's argument about inlines providing more power than traditional side-hammer rifles by comparing the published maximum loads from Remington and other manufacturers of the time to load data published by an outdoor writer in the 1880s. Thankfully, in response to the many hundreds of people who wrote in to object to the new policy, inline rifles once again legalized. Today thousands of rank and file hunters and shooters, people just like those who wrote to protest Colorado's disingenuous ban on inlines, have lit up the Internet with their posts in angry protest to Mr. Zumbo's ill-informed and ill-conceived remarks.

While Zumbo may not like the black guns, he is sadly mistaken if he thinks the Second Amendment is about hunting or that responsible hunters should not use such weapons because others object to their look and feel. Limiting hunting firearms by their look and feel is an example of ignorance in action and is a very steep and slippery slope.

Thank you again for your prompt action.

Sincerely,

[name]
[email address]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The path you provide is fine up to "Ask a Question," which I could not find. I guess they don't want to hear from us.

I really do not see what everybody is so upset over. I don't see any practical hunting application for the AK 47 but they should not be banned either. The reason they are not more popular with hunters has more to do with accuracy and chamberings than anything else.

Hunting and recreational or competition shooting are as different as fishing and golf

at the National Championships every year at Camp Perry, OH, about 95% of the roughtly 1200 competition shooters use the AR-15, it is by far the best semi-auto target rifle ever developed.

Zumbo needs to spend a week this summer watching that.

Many competition shooters are hunters in their spare time & vice versa, we are all the same people in the shooting sports and need to support each other.

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

I think you should read the comments on the other threads... There is a lot to get upset about especially the fact that he just gave a ton of ammo to our enemies.

Once you are on the right page, its a tab in the right-hand pane.

I had high regard for Mr. Zumbo until I read this. He IS living in a vaccum!!! Has he not seen and heard about the battles we have been fighting regarding our firearms rights?!?!?! I, for one, will not be buying ANY of his books, ever again. If I see him again at SCI I will be tempted to tell him what I think of his moronic and short sighted sell out.

I think I'll support Remington by getting a Model 7 LSS or CDL in 7mm-08... Maybe a 700 with the detachable mag... Hmmm.. Dumbo Zumbo should be sent straight to Sara Bradys house to see if he can pick up some other half-azzed "facts".. what an AZZ!

I used to live in mr Zumbo's vaccum, until last summer. Up until then my only experience with AR's was in the 70's, and those Colts would shoot in about 3" at 50yds. My nephew brought an AR from his National Guard unit to the range last summer and both of my nephews shot pop can size full clip groups at 200yds with open sites. Suprise is not the word for me. Shocked and impressed are closer. I don't own or hunt with one, but at least it is my option. It was my option to buy a SS Mini 14 and Rem 597 .22mag. If and when they get rid of the AR's and AK's, mine will go next. Good luck.

George

Try this link info@remington.com . I noticed that the Outdoor Channel didn't run his t.v. show today as shceduled, course Big Green is the main sponsor so that was to be expected. Does anyone know if any of his other sponsors have dropped him?

Dave.

I'll be blunt:
Bitch Slap is the cure for someone this clueless, especially if that someone is a well known name in the firearms 'community'.
I'm having difficulty believing Mr. Zumbo has such a lack of knowledge and information, let alone the 'unmitigated gall' to say something THAT IGNORANT.

I'm with those that will be sloshing him off as a 'formerly well known gunwriter', until he gets the opportunity to see the light and come back with an apology to his fellow shooters, and one helluva better argument for his conversion to 'right thinking'.

Is that scathing enough?

I guess I need to correct something:

An ignoramous wouldn't be capable of making a statement worthy of 'unmitigated gall'.
I'll just go with: THAT WAS REALLY STUPID OF MR. ZUMBO.
Sorry. That's the way I see it.

See, in all my ranting, I forgot to show my support for REMINGTON!
That's what I choose to shoot, and I'll back them up 100% on this one.
Rant mode OFF.

I, for one, tend to agree with what Mr. Zumbo said. And for all you knee-jerk right wingers who are out there on the couch firing off mad emails of support to Remington -- I am currently, and every day, defending the Constitution to which you pledge your support, not only state-side, but in Iraq and Afganistan. And guess what, I support the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the second amendment. He has his opinion, and has a right to voice it. Remington should respect that right and support it. As so many gun owners have said, trampling on one part of the constitution, is trampling on the entire constitution.

And for what it's worth, here is what I wrote to Remington:

To Whom It May Concern:

Regarding Jim Zumbo. I know that I am by far in the minority here, but, How Dare You! A man voices his opinion, which by the way, is a very reasonable one, and you drop him as a sponsor within 24 hours. Mr. Zumbo has done more to promote the shooting sports then just about anyone in the last 15 years. He is an ethical, intelligent hunter, that is one of the best faces, we as hunters, can put forward. And when he speaks what he feels is within the best interest of hunters, Remington treats him like he was arrested.

For a company that professes to "protect the constitution," your actions are not exactly proving your point. Absolutely he has a right to voice his opinion, but your main concern is not for the second amendment, but for the bottom line. Your are afraid that the face of your company may alienate "the base." Well guess what, I am the base. And I will never own another product from your company. I am currently in the market for a .338, and was considering the Ti, but now, I wouldn't hunt with that firearm if I won it at a RMEF banquet. You may wind up ahead after this in the profit/loss column, but it is a sad day for those of us who value and defend the ENTIRE Constitution.

Sincerely,

Brent P. Leedle
MAJ, USAF

To bad free speech ain't free no more. What a bunch of knee jerk clowns.

The man is entitled to his opinion, I don't have a problem with that. I'm free to agree or disagree with him. Sounds like you all are looking for a tree...

Remington? Haven't bought anything from them in years...

that's NRA president Sandra Froman participating in a High Power Rifle match in Phoenix last weekend. She was the 5th place woman with a 417-3X of about 20 woman and 170 shooters over all, 90% of whom used BLACK AR-15 (none of the participants were terrorists)

excluding the cows sacrificed for the hamburger lunches, not a single animal was killed, but lots of paper was shot.

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

I have difficulty in making the connection between 'military' and 'not right wing'...
Major, with all due respect, I support your right to support other's rights to not support whatever...that's America.

But I still don't make the connection between what I perceive as 'democrat/liberal/military'. It doesn't make sense to me.

Your choice to not buy a Remington 'Ti' sounds like the 'knee-jerk' reaction you just piddled on. To me, that's a typical liberal move.
It's like reverse psychology, the classic M.O. of the LEFT.
"OK for ME, but not for YOU..."

You're telling people that Remington should respect Zumbo's opinion, while at the same time telling them their opinion is not valid...

What Zumbo said is damaging to the very rights you espouse to protect.
Where's the logic in supporting THAT?
The ENTIRE Constitution includes what amounts to the plaintiffs commenting on Mr. Zumbo's statements --- thus validating their point of view as well.

JBabcock, similarly, there are people out there with a tree already ( the anti-gun people ), and the fact is that the other people here are complaining that Mr. Zumbo just bought them some rope...and pointed them in OUR direction.
We really don't need that, do we?

Hence my comments about ignorance and stupidity on Mr. Zumbo's part. What was he thinking? or was he thinking at all when he made those statements?

I respect the Major's service to our Country, and you, JBabcock, as a fellow Citizen.
Please keep in mind that we are all participating on this Firearms related Forum because we all share a common interest:
GUNS.

Please understand that my commentary is directed at focusing on KEEPING THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, no matter WHAT those arms may be, or how we choose to use them.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but the fight has been brought to us and some folks are just exacerbating the problem with thoughtless comments such as what Mr. Zumbo has put forth.
Remington has every right to rescind their support of someone who is liable to cause damage not only to their business, but to the the very core of what that business represents --- The Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Rant mode off and I'm steppin' down off the soapbox!

Zumbo is free to post his thoughts in many places, even here... FOR free. His First Amendment rights are certainly intact. If the folks that pay him disagree with what he writes, they can fire him. That's America. It ALSO appears MANY more folks who contacted Remington, disagree with you and Zumbo. Again, THAT's America. Are there any statements YOU could make that would affect your job security? I would think so.

While most everyone here greatly appreciates your service, it doesn't necessarily make your opinion on this issue correct. We've tried to "get along" with folks who think "some" gun control is reasonable. NOTHING is EVER enough and now may be the time to get it all out in the open. You disagree, fine. We'll let ya know how it works out for us.

Zumbos a freaking idiot with money I dont hunt with assault rifles i dont even shoot them much but I have a AK-47,SKS,M1 one day when I get the extra funds I want to ad an AR to the collection. I do not think they are "terrorist" weapons they are fun to shoot and could be a pretty good weapon in extreme cases of self defense. that 458 nitro his rich azz shoots cape buffalo with is just as deadly I dont really get his agenda with that article.