see story

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ile-for-bankruptcy-sources-idUSKBN1FT04C

Exclusive: U.S. gunmaker Remington seeks financing to file for bankruptcy: sources
Andrew Berlin, Jessica DiNapoli

3 Min Read

(Reuters) - Remington Outdoor Company Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, has reached out to banks and credit investment funds in search of financing that will allow it to file for bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
FILE PHOTO: People look over Remington rifles and shotguns during the annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade) Show in Las Vegas January 15, 2013. REUTERS/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus

The move comes as Remington reached a forbearance agreement with its creditors this week following a missed coupon payment on its debt, the sources said. The company has been working with investment bank Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N) on options to restructure its $950 million debt pile, Reuters reported last month.

Remington is seeking debtor-in-possession financing that will allow it to fund is operations once it files for bankruptcy, the sources said. The size of the financing and timing of Remington’s bankruptcy plans could not be learned.

Some potential financing sources, including credit funds and banks, have balked at coming to Remington’s aid because of the reputation risk associated with such a move, according to the sources.

Remington, which is controlled by buyout firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, was abandoned by some of Cerberus’ private equity fund investors after one of its Bushmaster rifles was used in the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut in 2012 that killed 20 children and six adults.

The sources asked not to be identified because the deliberations are confidential. Remington did not respond to several requests for comment. Cerberus declined to comment.

Credit rating agencies have warned that Remington’s capital structure is unsustainable given its weak operating performance and significant volatility in the demand for firearms and ammunition.
Lazard Ltd54.23
LAZ.NNew York Stock Exchange
-2.91(-5.09%)
LAZ.N

LAZ.N

Remington’s sales have declined in part because of receding fears that guns will become more heavily regulated by the U.S. government, according to credit ratings agencies. President Donald Trump has said he will “never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The Madison, North Carolina-based gun manufacturer faces a maturity of an approximately $550 million term loan in 2019. Remington also has $250 million of bonds that come due in 2020 and are trading at a significant discount to their face value at around 16 cents on the dollar, according to Thomson Reuters data, indicating investor concerns about repayment.

The term loan maturing next year is also trading at a significant discount to full value, at around 50 cents on the dollar, the sources said.

Remington’s sales plunged 27 percent in the first nine months of 2017, resulting in a $28 million operating loss.

Reporting by Andrew Berlin in New York and Jessica DiNapoli in Las Vegas; Editing by Cynthia Osterman
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Maybe someone that actually enjoys firearms and hunting will acquire them. Cerberus or whatever has been a blight on the company from the start.

There are a lot of ways to fail in business.
Making junk is a great way to start. What a shame to see a proud old American Co. go down this path.

Too many MBA’s, not enough gun looneys

Calling what they make "junk" is really being hard on junk it self. Their quality could not be worse, I wouldn't be proud enough to leave one of their rifles in my barn.

Apparently borrowing a BILLION dollars might be another way!

Or build Model 70s...

It was inevitable. Cerebus allowed their investors to pull out when they couldn't get a quick flip, then saddled the company with debt in anticipation of big sales after Hillary got elected. That didn't happen and their cash flow can't meet their debt service. Hopefully somebody buys them and moves them to Wyoming.

I am not too sure I would miss anything built by remington, but I hope Marlin emerges out of this.

Who else did they gobble up?

Dang. I like Remington stuff.

They managed to obama the 870 up for God's sake, moving production to schitt hole countries and then expecting quality production is only a good idea in a bean counters eye.

Cerberus has been a blight on any company they have acquired. Corporate raiders with no intrest in the underlying product or service. Those actively managing Remington have been asleep at the wheel.

What manufacturing did Remington move to a chit-hole country?

Didn't they just purchase Barnes Bullets?

Dakota, Barnes, Bushmaster, DPMS and a few more.

The U.S.

That could suck

$350 ADL's with $1000 worth if barrel, stock and trigger still a good way to go. Sometimes you get lucky and font even have to have the barrel.

I'm still waiting for my $100 rebate on their neat RM 380 pistol.

It happened 8 years ago. Has the suck sank in yet?

I was meaning that if Remington doesn't get funding to continue production through bankruptcy the supply of Barnes might get a little thin.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

I have worked for two companies owned by Private Equity firms (like Cerberus) in the past five years. A PE firm's typical M.O. is to bleed as much cash out of the company as possible, "polish the financial books" for a couple quarters and then flip it to another PE firm. Rinse and repeat... Mediocrity is a way of life in a company owned by a PE firm because all available cash is flowing directly to the PE "partner"... Stupid decisions that give a short term boost to cash flow that are not long term sustainable are common.

Think of a giant lamprey eel that is attached directly to your bank account...

HUGE +1.

Ever watch the Sopranos? Remember when the guy who owned the sporting goods store got into heavy debt with Tony and his crew in a card game? They took over his store and made him take out huge loans which they gave to themselves. Then they sold a lot of his merchandise out the back door at a loss for quick cash. Then when the banks wouldn’t loan any more money and the creditors were coming to lock the doors, they burned it down and collected the insurance money.

That is pretty much what a PE firm does to a company. But instead of gaudily dressed overweight Italian guys, it is Wall Street MBAs in $3k suits. And of course, it is all legal.

When you can buy lobbyists and influence in swamp D.C. you can make anything you want legal. Why do you think medicine in America is so expensive. The stock holders want a return. A BIG return.

kwg

That 4 line paragraph sums up perfectly what PE firms do to companies. Run up debt, HUGE bonuses for directors, sell off the scraps, move on.

I'm both an MBA and a rifle looney, being either isn't that big a deal.

Remington isn't doing a good job of building firearms that can successfully compete with Ruger and Savage on price and quality.

You and me both. Love the gun, though.

My, how times have changed. I remember when if you had a Remington anything you were in good shape. But that was fifty years ago. Sad!

What I've seen is a slight variation. First, buy it with debt, then bleed as much cash as possible, take on more debt, give large bonuses and pay days to key people, then file for bankruptcy.

Yeah, about eight years ago.

I pray to God they didnt.

One would think that the ammo flow alone could more than keep them afloat. Never researched the company. Could be they're separate entities.

Did you ever hear of the guy selling gasoline for $.10 less per gallon than it cost him? He figured he would make up the loss in volume.....

Big Green shutting down wouldn't effect me since my rifle buying days are about over and even if they weren't I wouldn't buy any of their new stuff and the only component of theirs I use are primers which I have a lifetime supply of but I hate the idea of loosing them.
Shame but much like our country I fear the damage is done at this point.

Done eight years ago.

Cerebus/Remington, formerly Freedom Group, owns Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, DPMS, H & R, Dakota Arms, Para USA, Barnes Bullets, Tapco, Parker Gun, Mountain Khakis, Timber Smith.

Cerebus has been trying to sell Off Freedom Group/Remington since 2012 with no takers. Robert Nardelli, formerly of Chrysler, Home Depot, and GE and Freedom Group, was named by Conde Nast in 2009 as one of the worst CEOs of all time.

their stuff has been junk for a long time anyways. same thing with another company, vista outdoors.

marissa mayer of yahoo take the cake for worst CEO

I have never had an issue with Barnes bullets then and now. You?

I own a Mdl 700 BDL in 7mm Rem. Magnum, a Mdl 1100 in 12 Ga. Magnum, and a Mdl 788 in 222 Remington. All are fine quality guns. The newest of those was purchased over 40 years ago. The only problem I had with any one of them was a factory recall to upgrade the trigger on the model 700.

Two years ago I purchased a model 700 in .270 Winchester for a graduation present for my Grandsons High School graduation. The stock was molded fiberglass(?) and the fit and finish weren't up to the quality of the older firearms. It does shoot well with three shots going into 1" or thereabout groups at 100 yds. So far no problems. But I am off of purchasing anything Remington.

I do have several Marlin manufactured fireamrs which were purchased long before being gobbled up by Remington.

They use to be called Corp. Raiders. Cheers NC

A lot of folks are not willing to pay for real quality whilst allowing the builder to be profitable. Said profitability defined by the stock owner/stock holder.

I have a lot of their guns. I like them. This is sad!

[b][/b]

I'm both an MBA and a rifle looney, being either isn't that big a deal.

Remington isn't doing a good job of building firearms that can successfully compete with Ruger and Savage on price and quality.


This explains all. These people have historically underpriced Rem. but to be judged of lower quality.......

I'm willing to bet that a lot of these people calling Remington guns junk don't own any. My "junky" Remington's work just fine.

It goes way beyond just "Remington".

Remington Outdoor Group owns 13 firearm or shooting industry companies, including Marlin, H&R, DPMS, Bushmaster...


For one, I don't really care to see that large of a percentage of the firearms industry here in the US, crash and burn.

That wouldn't be good news for anyone.

I have plenty of Remingtons products, from an old style 760 that my grandfather bought new, a half dozen or so 870's from 410 - 12 gauge, and several model 700's and model 7's, but all of the are 20 or so years old and fine quality, their products of today, are not up to the quality standards that today's machining capabilities are capable of. Poor designs, cost cutting on materials and processes is showing in declining sales and profitability at a time when both gun and ammo sales are going thru the roof. They are in desperate need of new management and new priorities.

Spot on

+1. I’m no Remington guy, but I want to see them strong and thriving.

I have two new Remington Rifles.......Both seem like Good Quality to me.....The 5R is a tack Driver....Fit and Finnish look perfect to me........I also have a new RM380......Fit and Finnish and function are 1st Notch to me...I just put 200 rounds thru the 380 No failures of any kind.....I also have several other make of rifles in my safe...Savage, Ruger, Kimber, They appear to be of no better quality than the Remington.......Ruger and Savage are definitely no Better quality than Remington......Not that long ago I was anti Remington...They are Now my favorite rifle by far...And I have owned at least 50 in the last 10 years never got a bad one.....Pass me a Remington.


If you believe everything you read on the internet you would Own nothing.....Because it is all junk

Doesn't surprise me - considering the crap they've been making over the last decade or so..

This is about Cerebus, not Remington as a gun manufacturer.

If there is low quality control, that is because of the managing financial partner, not because the guns are junk. If the design of the 700 is the same as it was 20-40 years ago when they were awesome, then it's all about the financials not the production.

Alas, all the new Remington shotguns and rifles I've seen shot in the last 5 years have been more functional/accurate than anything from the past.

So if I want a Remmy action for a future build, I ought to be buying one now?



I tried my first and last Barnes product this year during rifle season. Shot an ''X" through a large bodied spike just over one-hundred yards distant with my Roberts. Failed to expand. Shame, because they shoot like a house a'fire in my rifle.

The best thing that could happen to the shooting industry and for consumers is for them to go bust and for there to be a fire sale of the various brand names in there. Someone will by Remington, Barnes, Bushmaster, etc. without all that debt load and make a go of it. There is a lot of value in those names, though admittedly, the last decade has been hard on the Remington reputation.

Remington needs to make 700s, 870s, and 1100s. They can sell enough of those to be profitable if they don’t have the huge debt. If they want to innovate, do something easy and pretty cheap like building a 700 that takes AICS magazines.

They should hire Bristoe so he could show them how to machine things. Get some 'fire influence in there.

If I thought Remington's were junk, why would I own any?

BTW, I don't own any, if that tells you anything.

Anyway, shouldn't this be on the Remington Collectors sub-forum? Oh wait, never mind.

The Remington 700 has always been a great action. Remington has done a good job of building and barreling those actions through the years. They should have found a better way of attaching the bolt handle and they should have been more proactive in dealing with the trigger issue. But the 700 is today a great American rifle as it always has been. QC hasn't always been spot on unfortunately. Remington 870 shotguns are the gold standard in pump shotguns. Remington should have done something about the rust attracting matte finish though. I have literally watched rust develop in heavy salt marsh air. Remington totally missed an opportunity to make a "guide" gun out of their pump rifle platform. A 338 federal (or the chambering of your choice) in a stainless synthetic platform would make a sweet "guide" gun. Mine would be stainless, carbon fiber synthetic with a straight grip stock and an 18" barrel in 338 Federal.

Remington managed to malign the Marlin name. Sorta. Marlin was always a budget gun. They had their share of issues but the lever guns were generally functional, reliable and well put together. Remington undeniably botched the initial manufacture of Marlin lever guns. There were serious fit and function issues and customer service and repair was simply bad in dealing with those issues. While Remington has finally gotten mostly back on track with the lever guns, they will never recover from the damage they did in mishandling that label. What's weird is that Marlin rimfires never appeared to suffer the same problems. They remain well respected budget rimfires.

What was that horrible damned cheap Remington bolt rifle that was being made in the mid 90's? A 710? That thing was a pre Cerebrus abortion of a rifle. So we can't pin all the blame on that takeover.

Remington customer service across the board has been pretty darned lackluster through all their missteps beginning with the 710. That has undoubtedly hurt them. We consumers can be pretty forgiving of manufacturing and quality control issues as long as customer service and repair is good. See Ruger. You can even get away with bad customer service if your product is exceptional. See Tikka.

In some ways it saddens me to see this happening with Remington. My Papaw was a Remington man. I am sure there are some good, dedicated craftsmen working with the company. I never want to see a quality worker suffer. But I'll be damned if they didn't bring this failure on themselves. Through all of this I never got so much as a hint that the company gave a schidt.

You're right, this is not the fault of the name brand, but of the people who are running it. Most of my rifles are Remington 700's and 7's. I had one that had to go back and be repaired due to the bolt handle coming unglued.......so yes, even I admit that there quality has been suspect. But, the rifles still shoot good, and if you replace that new trigger, they shoot even better. I just like their style, it's what I'm used to. I've tried Tikka's, and Howa's, and Ruger's, and while they were good shooting rifles, I keep going back to the 700's and 7's. I don't care what someone shoots, it' their dime and they can spend it as they want to. The thing I don't like is when they try and tell me that what they're spending their money on is a much better product than mine, when it's simply a matter of personal preference. I find Savage rifles to be as ugly as homemade sin, but if that's what someone likes, I'm happy for them.

^^This^^
Case closed.

They have priced themselves out of my market for reloading components. Winchester is cheaper as is their ammo.

Jim

Cheap plastic guns, and assembly line firearm production is what has changed the firearms industry.

If someone is looking for a deer rifle or a dove shotgun, they are more likely to run down to Walmart or Academy and buy the least expensive version of those that they can...


THAT dynamic has changed the firearms industry for good.

older Remington bdl's will soon bring 2k

Well, AOBC (Smith & Wesson) just hired this lady.

You think she knows squat about guns, based on her previous experience??? Maybe AOBC wants to become a lucrative apparel company....🙄

Addition to board of directors

If you think outdoor clothing is a cheap, no profit item, think again. If she can run a successful clothing line as part of a gun manufacturer business, it just might be thier saving grace on the bottom line. Almost every problem has more than one solution.

Hate to see the oldest American gun company go down. But they were striving for it and got it. As for managers; there are 2 kinds, those that know everything (but don't), and those that know how to find someone (like the guys on the floor) who does know about specific things.

The corporate raider thing is wide spread.

You could be right, but so far, all I've seen most gun companies do is license their name to be put on cheap shirts and pocket knives (Colt, S&W, and Remington).

That would surprise me - Why not just buy a custom that improved the 700? Patriot Valley has a package with the new ARC nucleus, premium barrel, and a KRG BRavo for $2k.

I don't see the Rem 700 offering anything unique like a Pre-64 M70 or things of that nature.

There is an age old trigger liability problem which may influence Remingtons survival. Can you imagine internal communications coming to light about covering up a faulty design that allows their rifles to fire when safety is moved to "fire" and the lawsuits to follow?

I worked for USPS for 31 years. When I started working there in 1984, most of the managers were people who knew their chit. They were 99% older White males, who had been there, done that. Guys that had came up thru the ranks. Then the government began to push Affirmative Action and wanted more women and more minorities in those jobs. There were some pretty good women managers, but I can only recall one Black postmaster who actually knew what he was doing.

Look at the shape USPS is in today, and a lot of it can be traced back to inept hiring practices, and the "need" to have a workforce that is "fair and balanced". Same way with any other business that gets people who don't know what they're doing when it comes to making management decisions. The brand name of Remington is not to blame for their problems, but the people who made the stupid decisions. But, the good name Remington has had is going to suffer the consequences, and may never be the same again.

Once Cerberus bought them the end result was easy to predict. What a shame .

Old enough to remember the quality associated with a REmington 700 and especially the Custom shop 700's.

Remington could easily solve all of their problems by releasing a cheap plastic Creedmoore.

Sell like hot cakes!

For some reason I don't understand.

A dissenting vote on Cerberus.....

Private equity companies usually make their money by taking an underperforming company, and fixing the problems so that it is more profitable. Then they sell it for a profit. That's good for them, good for the company, and good for the customers.

Apparently they haven't been able to carry it off this time.

But, fret not. If they can't fix their problems, the solution is to sell off the operating groups and to sell the physical assets of the parts that can't be fixed. So what you're likely to see is the Remington factory bought at a steep discount by someone who believes they can run it profitably. Since they will be paying a lot less for the factory than Remington did, they have a much better chance of servicing the debt and making a profit. They might well sell off Barnes, DPMS, etc. to people who believe that they can do a better job of running them than the present management.

That is one plus. Cerberus did a miserable job for sure

Why not? They had M70s in their catalog one year. In a horse scabbard in a snowstorm, but you could tell it was a stainless M70, sure as shootin'.

Welcome to the twenty first century.

Gotta have a $50,000 jacked up pick up to drive to the mall and the cheapest plastic POS rifle you can find.

But it's gotta say Creedmoor on the barrel.

They do have a plastic creedmoor. The adl is now available that way

Guess I better stock up on 20ga hulls. Maybe Hornady will buy the STS-making machinery.

I'm seeing 9 700s and 2 783s being cataloged in 6.5 Creedmoor.

Yes,Big Green has turned out a lot of junk!

In the 1940's when the 700 series was introduced it was considered junk. No rifle ever designed has taken more manufacturing shortcuts. But since it sold for less money than the competition and proved to be accurate for the money people started to accept actions made of steel tubes with washers for recoil lugs, stamped sheet metal extractors, soldered on bolt handles, and defective triggers. Somewhere along the line they started putting a decent stick of wood on them and polishing the metal and they were eventually accepted as a good rifle. But from a mechanical and design standpoint a $300 Ruger American beats the 700 action in every way. As do most other designs.

Remington's problems go way back. The 870 and 1100 shotguns are the only 2 guns they ever made that I feel are good designs. The 870 is still a solid design, the problem today is in quality manufacturing and assembly. The 1100 WAS a good design, and while still solid, there are better, more modern options.

I can't fault Remington for the plastic stocks and lower quality of metal finish. All manufacturers are doing that because it is what is selling. Buyers today don't want to pay double the price to get a shiny metal gun with a walnut stock. But proper function and accuracy should be there. Other manufacturers have found a way to do that. Remington has not.

This is saddish news, but Remington "died" when Cerberus bought them and the other marques. This is going to be a lot like when Winchester went away. The designs are still there, the "rights" to make Marlins, DPMS, Barnes, will hopefully be bought by traditionalist investors with realistic understandings of what the market wants.
950 million in debt is off the charts.
The other good news is, it might end the endless stupidity over the Walker trigger. Just like you can't sue Hitler if your K98 malfunctions.

As I said over on the Remington ammo thread last month, I feel sorry for the rank and file workers and for the line managers who have come up through the ranks. No good outcome for them.

Having said that, my opinion, the best outcome for the Remington "brand" would be for the PE house of cards to implode. THEN, sell off all of the pieces, free of debt, free of prior trigger liability, to business savvy, gun / shooting / hunting enthusiasts (Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr ?), and let the cream rise to the surface.

I can only speak for myself, but when it comes to considering rifles I can say I’ve never even considered Rem. Not sure why, just no appeal.

Unfortunately this is not the case. The new owner will assume the liability unless by contract Cerberus agrees to pay for any future liability costs.

Not necessarily.

If the transaction is structured as a purchase of the company, then this would be true. The stock of the old company would transfer to new stockholders.

If someone purchases the assets, including the trademark, then the new owner has no liability. So the same factory could continue to produce the same designs on the same machines in the same buildings with the same brand, and no liability.

The old corporation would still have the liabilities, but no assets with which to satisfy them.

This

I have made it a habit to not ridicule or get into an argument with other posters, as this is the internet and anyone who has a computer, and knows how to type, is going to have an opinion.................but that's just about the dumbest thing I've read on here.

I shoot Remington 1100's because I am a lefty but the Remington 1100 is an outdated design. When Sporting Clays took off in the early 90's Beretta took the semi-auto market away from Remington is less than 5 years with the Beretta 303 and 390 model. How did Remington react to the new foreign competition....Nothing! Remington introduced the new Remington V3 last year with a new gas system 20 years too late to have a difference.in the market place. Beretta is too entrenched with a better gas semi-auto. Remington is dying due to complacency and do you remember Kodak.

I agree.....The action on a Ruger American is about as Smooth as the Zipper on a pair of Levi's

Exactly what happens when the Founders of a company along with descendants thereof have either died off or lost interest in the well being of their company!

Once the 'bean counters' take over.......goodby company!!

This^^^^^^ have been & still am, working for an investment owned company. Same general SOP.

MM

During the 20th Century, Remington dominated the market in CF semi-auto hunting rifles and CF pump action hunting rifles.

I figured this would save them:

Remington pretty much had the market cornered on semi-auto hunting rifles. When I was a kid the standard deer rifle was a 742/7400. Tastes changed and more and more people started carrying bolt actions.

I know of at least 3 versions of this by 3 diffent makers all offered new at the same time.

The speed at which people's knees jerk to blame the bean counters when this topic comes up makes me suspect they haven't sat down and tried to make a list of every successful design (technical and commercial) Remington has come up with AFTER the Model 1100 came out in (1963?) and compared that to the list of "other". A pump gun invented in the afterglow of WWII is only going to take them so far. I'm sure they wish it was still the 20th century.

I have 4 Mossbergs, 3 Rugers, 2 Savages, and 2 Marlins (pre2009) in my safe, not a Remington to be found. I feel that I'm not alone, and that is Remington's downfall. I don't believe I've ever had the desire to own a Remington, they've never made anything that appealed to me.

As a "bean counter" I have to say that these decisions fall under the purview of management, marketing, and R&D. "Bean counters" tell you numbers, they don't make the decisions. Most "bean counters" I have met can tell you that cutting costs usually results in lower quality and sales.

Sir, I agree wholeheartedly. However, matters not one iota when the PE partner tells the head corporate bean counter that they expect a payment of $XX million dollars on such and such date later in the month. Vendor payments get delayed. Projects get cancelled. Salary raises go out the window. Productive working relationships with long standing vendors get scrapped because new guy vendor will offer Net 60 terms in lieu of Net 45. Profitable long term lease contracts are sold to a finance company at a loss to pull ahead the cash flow.

I have an M700 in 7x57 made in 1981, wonderful rifle. I have an M700 VSSF in 308, a tack driver from the mid 90's. Then I have a new M700 223 ADL, PIECE OF CRAP!!

I know a gunsmith who builds custom rifles. He says if the action was made in 2010 or later he will not blueprint it. That far off. He says he's seem bolts where one side of the lugs was not in contact at all. He said he's seen threads in the reciver that looked like the were cobbled in with a file. And he says those threads will be off from being in line with the bolt.

I am sorry to here this. I confess not to be a fan of anything that Remington currently offers. I do have a M-11-48, 2 M-870s, a Nylon 66, a M-742, and a M-700 SPS. The shotguns fit my needs quite well and the SPS is my bad weather rifle, but my hands down favorite hunting rifle is a Winchester M-70 classic and favorite .22 is a Ruger 10/22. Remington just ain't what they used to be, and it is a shame.

I remember those days well. We had two .30-30s, one shotgun, one bolt action, and about seven 742s in our deer camp. The 742 guys thought the bolt action was a joke. He was the clear outlier in the group, despite being the only rifle loony.

Sad day when DuPont sold Remington, downhill ever since.

Whether bean counters say that or not, it's not true.

The Cost of Poor Quality includes warranty, customer service, ineffective meetings, excess inventory, scrap, rework, and many other costs. In most companies, it's staggering. I have inside information from one very large company that they estimated COPQ at 37% of revenue.

COPQ is an enormous target of opportunity.

As you reduce scrap, rework and such, quality goes up and costs go down. The amazing result is, if you do it right, low cost, high quality, and high customer satisfaction all happen together by driving down COPQ.

If management isn't constantly paying attention to quality, COPQ, and customer satisfaction, costs get out of hand and customers become unhappy. It's a pity, because so many companies ignore this.

The hope is that whoever takes over the company next will do a better job.

Rumor djt jr watches the forum?

Wink wink... elbow elbow.

#maga
#mRga

I've had about 40 Remingtons.
Thought them "K mart"guns growing up, as they sold them and the glossy RKW finish was usually dimpled.

Tried a few when older, ended up buying them more than others.

Not a fan boy, just use what works well for me.
Only 1 turd in the bunch.

I don't experiment anymore, and am not a collector.
Don't need more stuff, just need to use what I have more.
So doubt I buy very many guns before I keel over.

Most everything I'd be interested is no longer made.
That aint gonna help a manufacturer.

Here's my latest Remington purchase:

308 Win/Remington M700 factory barrel/action by Sharps Man, on Flickr

Ten rounds from 900 yards that I covered with the back of my closed fist!

.308 Rem M700 VS by Sharps Man, on Flickr

I shot a left handed action Remington M700 for THOUSANDS of rounds in NRA HP competition....never had one failure to extract, no broken firing pins, or the bolt handle coming off when shooting rapid fire and there was lots of that! In 1994 that same rifle 'kicked azz' over in Texas by helping me win the Texas State Long Range Championship! It also did quite well for me when I was shooting the Palma game!

I wouldn't worry about a safe full of Remington products. They have a lifetime warranty!

Can’t say I’ve ever been too fond of Remington’s in general. Sad to see an old American gun manufacturer flounder though.

Therein lies the problem.

It's when those people are put into the supreme management positions that things generally go south. Not always, but with some things, that seems to be the pattern.

I hate to see anything American made fail. But the fact is, this country was founded on the principles of merit, fair market, and the freedom of choice this allows. If Remington can no longer make the grade, that is Unfortunate, But a fact of reality.

Any R&D person or engineer will chew your ear for hours about bean counters,
They are the very reason that most things you buy are junk.
They run their numbers based on annual production, and look at the final bottom number.

We don't buy annual pruduction, we buy units.

I don't GAF that they save 50 cents on a too short zipper,
75 cents buying cheaper fabric,
And 50 cents not properly sewing the seams.

I would gladly give them $3 more a pair for jeans with a decent zipper, that would last a little while.


Rant over.

Between this and adding a magazine to a pump shotgun, I knew they were grabbing at straws to try to sell more products.

Some pretty fair country custom gun smiths will tell you that the newer CNC machined Remington 700 actions are far truer than the "good ones" from days gone-by. One told me that the need to completely "blue-print" a 700 action has largely passed.

If the old Remington goes away due to poor management, it will re-birth somewhere. The action design is too good and it has been too successful to scrap it completely.

I fail to see how a 1994 or prior Rem has anything to do with what Cerberus pushed out. As for warranty, how long did they ignore and fail to correct the triggers?

Don't believe plaintiff attorneys could haul that load of bullshit past a jury..

It has been my experience that finance and accounting types are almost always more conservative than the marketing and sales types when it comes to making business decisions.

If you would gladly pay $3 more for a pair of jean, there is probably a brand and line of jeans that would fall within your parameters.

When was that rifle made?

Many a good company has been run down by being "managed " by private equity/venture capital firms. Grow at all costs; mostly acqisitions and flip it is their only goal. Living it now.