Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What Should Remington do with Dakota Arms?

Remington now owns Dakota Arms. Big Green knows how to build very popular, mass-produced firearms. Dakota knows how to slowly turn out high-end, semi-custom rifles and shotguns. The Dakota rifles, at least, have quite a following.

Dakota has now been through years of financial, ownership and management turmoil, and it's product lines have seemed a bit in disarray. Questions abound. Is the Model 97 in or out? What about Miller Arms? Sharps Rifles? Shotguns? Proprietary Dakota cartridges? Tactical and predator rifles?

Dakota's website: http://dakotaarms.com/quikstore.html

It is assumed that Remington will quickly stabilize the finances and management. But what about the product line? What�s your opinion on the best reshaping of Dakota�s product lineup, particularly the Dakota M76 amd M10 rifles? In other words, what might make you decide to consider a Dakota firearm in 2010 or beyond.

Let�s approach this with three initial questions:

1. How might the Dakota M76 and M10 rifles be changed or improved to boost your interest in those high-end rifles (besides simply lowering their price tag)? Or should they be changed or added to at all?

2. Should the somewhat less expensive Dakota M97 rifles be continued or discontinued. Why?

3. Should Dakota continue to push its proprietary lineup of Dakota cartridges (7mm Dakota to .450 Dakota) . Why or why not?

I may be mistaken (it happens! really!) but I thought they were owned not by Remington, but Cerberus (sp?) which also owns Remington?

To answer the question, I think it'd be cool if they treated Dakota like the top shelf brand that it is, given them independence of management and let them do what they do best... make awesome rifles that fans of the pre-'64 M70 dream of.

Cerberus ultimately owns them I do think. i am no fan of the Dakota ctgs and asee little use for them, but then again, I am terribly practical.

the 76 & the 10 should be continued, and if it truly is owned by R, then the custom shop at R needs to be cobined/folded into Dakota, or the other way 'round.

I have no dog in the hunt on the Sharps, I reckon let the market decide. Would be nice to see the Dakota or the 10 come down to where a practical man like me could at least dream about owning one. The beretta Mato is the Dakota 76 and can be had kinda reasonably. Seems that they could do the same, but by the same token, I am not asking for not asking for beechwood or a Ramline stock and a Chinese 3x9, either. Just something that allows the common guys like me to dream and aspire to.

Better wood

Hire me as a field rep and send me all over the world hunting. They wouldn't even have to twist my arm to make me move to the other side of the State.

Since I already have a few..

1) Make a lightweight wood stocked rifle. Their stocks are a bit bulky and could go on a diet. They could easily knock off 10-14 oz off the stock. Leave the M 10 alone.

2)97s should definitely be continued. They are underrated. A kevlar lightweight stock with checkering would be nice, a la Hill Country Classic stock.

3) Not a big fan of unique or wildcat cartridges for a hunting rifle, but they do have a loyal following. Get a writer to pimp them...

What to do? Build high quality firearms and keep the quality high. Otherwise they'll be a drag on Cerberus and be closed.

Cerebus will use the name for Marketing purposes. They will continue to use market segmentation as a tool to add profitability to their operation.

I'd be interested in finding out who actually directs traffic at Dakota on a day to day basis? Remington, or someone at Cerebus?

Looks like Carlos Matinez will be the traffic cop:

October 26, 2009

Petzal: Dakota Arms is Back from the Brink

In 1987, Don Allen a retired airline pilot from Sturgis, South Dakota, and his wife Norma, founded Dakota Arms, a company that produced high-grade hunting rifles based on a design worked up by him and ace metal man Pete Grisel. The Dakota Model 76, the company�s basic model, was an immediate success, and was soon joined by other variations.

In 2003 Don Allen died, and not long thereafter Norma sold the company. The new owner brought other lines under the Dakota roof: Miller Arms (single-shot rifles), Dan Walter (aluminum cases) and Nesika Bay Precision (rifles and actions). But for whatever reasons it all went wrong, and this past summer Dakota was about a week away from closing its doors forever.

Enter Remington Arms, which bought the enterprise and is now engaged in bringing Dakota back. The man in charge of this is Carlos Martinez who, a year ago, was given control of the Remington Custom Shop and told to breathe new life into it. He did, in spades, but now he has a more difficult job.

Dakota has always built beautiful rifles (even the plain ones) but from my own experience, which is pretty extensive, they have been plagued with quality-control problems and have not been as accurate they should be.

We will see what Mr. Martinez can do. In the meanwhile, Dakota is on sound financial footing once again. If you have a rifle on order you will get it. If you want to order one, you will get it. I wish them well. Don Allen was one of the all-time nice guys in the business, and his creation is worth keeping alive.

I would bring in Stephen Dodd Hughes and let him tweak the M10 design, and then the bolt guns.

I have thought after examining them and shooting a friends' rifles that the lines were over-priced for what was delivered.

Anybody bought anything from the Remington Custom SHop lately?

jim

I like the way you think rdelius, and would vigorously second your motion for a lighter weight wood-stocked Dakota Model 76.

1. Over the years, I�ve owned three different Dakota 76s� two Classics (300 WM and 338 WM) and a Safari (375 H&H). All three were fine rifles, especially the Safari. But what I would really like NOW is a significantly lighter M76 Classic � call it a Mountain Classic if you like � in a non-magnum chambering like 270 or 280.

To accomplish that, I�d suggest that BOTH the wood stock and the metal action need to be trimmed.

The Dakota Classic stock certainly could go on a diet, as you suggest. The first Dakota 76 I ever owned was a very early Dakota 76 (serial number under 100) and its fine wood stock was considerably trimmer and lighter than today�s Dakota Classic stocks. Somewhere along the line, the Dakota Classic stock has indeed bulked up. That�s fine if the rifle is a magnum, but it also now seems needlessly heavy if the rifle is chambered in something like a 7x57, 270 or 280. Simply trimming the stock would help, as would drilling sizeable holes deep into the butt of the wood stock under the recoil pad. A lighter recoil pad could also be used. I wouldn�t even be adverse to an advanced two- or three-piece wood stock with a lightweight but strong carbon core�as long as the outside of the stock maintained the traditional wood-stock look and feel.

I already have lightweight synthetic-stocked hunting rifles that weigh 5.5 to 6 pounds (just the rifle). They�re great. But what I�d really like is a beautiful wood-stock Dakota M76 in a non-magnum long-action chambering that weighed in the neighborhood of 6.5 pounds (just the rifle before mounts and scope) instead of the current 7.5 to 8 pounds.

To get there, the proven Dakota 76 action will also likely need to be trimmed. There is no reason that such action trimming can�t take place. A number of custom firms have long been doing such metal trimming on Winchester M70 actions. Excess metal is removed, bolts are carefully fluted, bolt knobs are hollowed, heavy bottom metal is changed, blind magazines even sometimes considered. Prune that action.

At the same time I would strongly caution against simply going to a too-light barrel to reduce overall rifle weight. Such a shortcut move typically destroys the balance of the rifle. A light rifle, I think, should balance on the front screw, not behind it. Don�t cheat with a pencil-thin barrel. Reduce weight in the stock and action instead.

And if you want to offer short-action versions, so be it. But a long-action is mandatory. If it were me, a long-action is all I�d offer in a light Dakota rifle of this quality. I wouldn�t buy a short-action Dakota M76.

2. I�m not wild about the M97. It�s presence may pull down the image of Dakota rifles as elite high-end rifles. I would, however, consider offering and promoting the M76 in a quality synthetic stock (can you say McMillan) in at least the Safari model.

3. If the Dakota chamberings sell, fine. If not, they�re gone. Focus on the rifles. It does seem that used Dakota rifles in Dakota chamberings are more difficult to resell than the same rifles in conventional chamberings. Maybe there�s a message in that, particularly in today�s cartridge-bloated world.

Give me a gorgeous, wood-stocked, trimmed and lightened Dakota M76 �Mountain Classic� in a long-action, non-magnum chambering!

I work for the private equity industry. Here is what I thinnk.

Cerberus has packaged all its firearms companies (Remington, Bushmaster, etc.) into one company, called, I believe, the Freedom Group, and is having an IPO (going public) with it. Remington, not Cerberus, definitely calls the shots with Dakota.

If I were them, I would double the price of Dakota ammunition, and only chamber custom rifles for it, provided a customer reqested that. Few will and they'll make money selling ammo to existing owners.

I would also make sure I did not compete with myself. They will probably keep some Dakota offerings (I am not familiar with them) but make sure not to compete with Remington offerings.

Depending on sales volume, they MAY combine Dakota with the Remington custom shop and only build Dakota rifles on special order.

I imagine they paid next to nothing for Dakota. If they can't make money with it, they will have no qualms with eliminating it.

I own a Don Allen era M76 in 7 Rem Mag as well as 4 KS's, 1 C & 1 m7MS. I hope that Dakota doesn't follow the path of the Remington custom shop. $3,500 for a semi custom with a B&C stock will not sell. Last time I was in Chuck's, the best gun store in the south, I asked the owner how Dakotas were selling. He said he had had a Traveler and a Safari for 2+ years and could not get people to look at them. He can't get enough Coopers because of their pretty wood. "Pretty wood sells an expensive gun" Jack said and he sells a lot of them. The xx wood on my standard 76 looks better than the xxxx wood on the Traveler.

I don't have a problem with the fit or feel of my m76. It is lighter than my custom pre64 m70's.

I am retired from the privite equity business & think there is less than a 30% chance Dakota will make it but really hope I'm wrong.

Some more Petzal Perspective on Mr. Martinez and the Remington Custom Shop:

August 20, 2009

Rifles of Interest: Remington Model 700 Custom Shop AWR II

The Remington Custom Shop in Ilion, NY has, over the past 30 years or so, turned out pretty guns, very accurate target rifles, and tactical rifles, but serious, high-grade working rifles were not on the menu. This all changed a year ago when the company brought in a product development manager named Carlos M. Martinez, who is a rabid hunter. Quicker than you could say �major investment in new machinery for the shop in Ilion,� there sprang forth a line of very earnest high-grade working rifles.

They are: the Alaskan Wilderness Rifle II, the North American Custom, the African Big Game, the Safari KS (for Kevlar Stock), the African Plains Rifle, and the 7 MS (Model 7 action, Mannlicher Stock). The one that made my liver quiver was the first, the AWR II, shown above.

The basis of the AWR II is a stainless-steel Model 700 action that is blueprinted (worked on by hand until it is dimensionally perfect), and fitted with a 40-X trigger (Remington�s competition trigger) that is set at 3 pounds. Next comes a stainless-steel trigger guard and floorplate, and the whole thing is topped off with a stainless-steel barrel that is hand-lapped and chambered in Ilion. (Later on, when all of the new machinery is in place, the barrels will be button rifled.) The inside of this barrel is as beautiful as Ms. Natalie Portman (pic not included here), shown at left. All the metal is coated with black TriNyte, which is rustproof and everything-proof. The stock is by Bell & Carlson, and incorporates a full-length aluminum bedding block.

There are 56 calibers available, and the barrel lengths are 24 inches for standard calibers and 26 inches for magnums, which makes no sense at all. A .300 Weatherby or a 7mm STW needs 26 inches, but a .338 (which is what I asked for) can get along fine with 22 inches, and that long tube just gets in the way. I told the Remington people I wanted a 24-inch barrel and then I held my breath until my face turned purple, and the rifle arrived with a 24-inch barrel.

At 7 � pounds it is a light gun for a .338, but it kicks very little. This can only be due to the big, fat Super Cell recoil pad with which it�s equipped. Remington makes all kinds of extravagant claims for the Super Cell and they are apparently true.

(edited here from full post @ http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut?page=5

The MSRP for the AWR II is $3,530. So, the questions arise, is this just a Model 700 in fancy clothes, and it is worth all that dough? The answer to the first question is no. The AWR II retains the familiar Model 700 lines, but there is nothing in it of an off-the-assembly-line 700. It is a different gun altogether. The answer to the second question is yes. Whoever designed this rifle really knew what they were doing. Everything about it makes sense, and its performance is equal to that of any custom rifle I�ve used. If you�re looking for a bolt-action to tote through the bogs and the devil�s club, this is about as good a gun as you can get.

Mato is a copy of a 97.A few prototypes were made by Dakota.

My hope is they turn it around to the great company it was when both Don Allen & Pete Grisel were involved. A company run by people who were passionate about turning out the best product possible.

The Dakota cartridges are very good, these I wish Remington would go mainstream with so they don't have the boutique status and prices. At least offer them as a custom shop option in Remington rifles.

The 7 and 330 Dakota are superb rounds, it would be nice to see them come out in standard rifles and less expensive brass would be nice too.

Keep the M-10 it's too sweet a little rifle to go away.

Keep the M-97. It's somewhat different from the Mato btw, and much better manufactured. It could bridge the gap between the 700 and the Dakota M-76.

Quit charging stupid prices for wood upgrades on the Dakota's and be honest about the true grade of wood on the rifles.

Quit making 700's in African calibers and use the M-97 and M-76 for them instead. Don't overlap when one action is far superior in a category.

I don't know how much financial sense my suggestions make but as a Dakota owner it's what I'd like to see....................DJ

That's exactly what I was looking for, seeing if Remington was really interested in getting Dakota profitable again.
I hope Martinez gets the airplane off the ground. He's got a tiger by the tail.

Thank you,

Don

Good posting.
I'm seeing who Carlos Martinez really is.
Looks good from afar.

Thank you,

Don