Remington Arms bankruptcy .. again

"You are attributing malice when stupidity is the more logical answer."

PRECISELY....chalk it up to a string of bad decisions and nobody in the room had the guts to say, loud and clear, this is stupid guys, we can't do it.
 
Guys, trust me on this...I'm in top senior management of a very large company.

The blame for this rests squarely on incompetent management.

It's all about money, nothing more, nothing less

And somebody royally Fukedked up.

End of story.
 
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.

:)
I had one of the fixed choke 20 ga 870's. Funny.... I bought it at TG &Y. I only used it a couple times small game hunting as I had moved away from the area I always hunted and had such fond memories. I eventually sold it at a gun show. I bought a 12ga 870 Police as a house gun. It is not something I shoot, but it's there and I would only use it in a pinch hunting.

People here buy and sell knives; I bought and sold guns until I settled down to my collector stuff and some accurate 22 rifles.

The business with Remington is typical when an investment group buys a company. They have no allegiance to the brand. It is just about money.

Mossberg makes a good shotgun. Always liked their tang safety on the receiver. My Dad bought one and loved it.
 
Last edited:
I will NEVER forgive them for what they did to Marlin!!!!

Yeah, this one hurt. Marlin made such great rifles, and I grew up using many of them. High quality tack drivers.

I bought a Marlin XT-22 in .22 win mag a few years ago brand new. The front sight post was literally canted off two millimeters to the right and the rounds would not feed from the magazine. The rear sling mount pulled out of the stock five minutes after slinging it over my shoulder.
 
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.

Well as I said early on, it's what I think, not what I have proof as. Corrupt corporations make for a better narrative than incompetent corporations. Corruption suggests malice but actual intelligence, whereas incompetence suggests the inability to engage in rational thought and a predisposition to partaking in the tide pod challenge because it's trending.
 
Well as I said early on, it's what I think, not what I have proof as. Corrupt corporations make for a better narrative than incompetent corporations. Corruption suggests malice but actual intelligence, whereas incompetence suggests the inability to engage in rational thought and a predisposition to partaking in the tide pod challenge because it's trending.


While that might make for a better narrative, it is still not as likely. Why would one engage in corruption just to destroy their own company? Isn't the idea behind corruption to gain rather than lose?

And no, corruption does not necessarily equal intelligence just as incompetence does not suggest "the inability to engage in rational thought and a predisposition to partaking in the tide pod challenge because it's trending".

I'm sure that there are plenty of corrupt people that are quite stupid just as there are plenty of people incompetent in certain fields that excel in other areas and they don't eat tide pods.


You think without proof, yet require proof to refute just because you want to believe. That doesn't really seem very rational.
 
Last edited:
historically firearms companies get bought out, sold, and bankrupt on a fairly frequent basis. Remington has not made anything exceptional aside from the 870 and 700 or derivatives thereof. Frankly its about time, same with Colt.
 
historically firearms companies get bought out, sold, and bankrupt on a fairly frequent basis. Remington has not made anything exceptional aside from the 870 and 700 or derivatives thereof. Frankly its about time, same with Colt.
I don't disagree with you but I would like to know what long guns you consider "exceptional". Some would say that the Nylon 66 was exceptional when Dupont owned Remington. Many would say that the 500 series 22 rifles were exceptional; I'm one of them. The 1100 shotguns are pretty good.

Back in the day(pre-1986), Colt handguns were exceptional.

You didn't characterize your statement with any kind of time reference. Colt clearly does not make anything exceptional now.
 
I don't disagree with you but I would like to know what long guns you consider "exceptional". Some would say that the Nylon 66 was exceptional when Dupont owned Remington. Many would say that the 500 series 22 rifles were exceptional; I'm one of them. The 1100 shotguns are pretty good.

Back in the day(pre-1986), Colt handguns were exceptional.

You didn't characterize your statement with any kind of time reference. Colt clearly does not make anything exceptional now.
The nylon 66 was an interesting design for its time. However its more of a relic these days than anything. The Ruger 10/22 would be an example of something exceptional. Same with the AR that colt and armalite designed in the 50s. Unfortunately Colt has not done much to stay afloat and their marketing/distribution practices are archaic and hurt them in the long run. These large and old style companies are not keeping up with new trends, are falling behind , and not catering to the changes to the market.
 
The nylon 66 was an interesting design for its time. However its more of a relic these days than anything. The Ruger 10/22 would be an example of something exceptional. Same with the AR that colt and armalite designed in the 50s. Unfortunately Colt has not done much to stay afloat and their marketing/distribution practices are archaic and hurt them in the long run. These large and old style companies are not keeping up with new trends, are falling behind , and not catering to the changes to the market.
The rotary magazine and the Ruger 10/22 was exceptional (but generally not accurate). Great plinker. The Nylon 66 was well known for its reliability and was exceptional. I agree that Remington has not catered to some of the current market trends like many companies. Colt was never the same company after their 1990 bankruptcy. They also had some pretty poor management (or that is what people say). Ruger gave Colt a serious run for their money with their 22 pistol and then the Single Six. Colt couldn't compete and eventually discontinued their single action 22 revolvers and the semi-auto pistols. I don't think Colt was capable of making a competitively priced 22 pistol or single action revolver due to their cumbersome union. I was never a big fan of the early Ruger 22 pistol but eventually I got a target model that was very good.
 
Last edited:
It's real brother.

Well in that case then f-HONK-k Remington! Honestly, the only thing still attached to them that I'd actually miss going by the wayside is their green/yellow color scheme on their ammo boxes, and their green shotgun hulls.
 
Well in that case then f-HONK-k Remington! Honestly, the only thing still attached to them that I'd actually miss going by the wayside is their green/yellow color scheme on their ammo boxes, and their green shotgun hulls.



Agreed. I've always been more partial the the Federal blue and Federal Premium red anyway!
 
Remington has been split up and sold now. We have to wait and see how Ruger does with the Marlin line. I suspect it will be at least a year before we see much of anything in the market place. It was all about money..... the company that owned Remington borrowed as much money as they could to pay for their investment with all the debt going to Remington.
 
Hi guys,
I was wondering, is there any information on what is going to happen with Remington Custom Shop and Remington Defense?
 
Back
Top