Live data from Hacker News

Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

wsj.com

41–50 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#41
post #3

Never owned a Remington myself, but they've not been held in high regard for a while. Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital. Ultimately, though, it seem alike the company was asking customers to pay premium prices for average guns. What justifies spending 800 - 1200 dollars on a Remington 700 as compared to $500 on a Ruger American?

Remington levered up and took on a ton of debt at the wrong time. The owners gambled and lost. It's a shame that people will lose their jobs over this.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#42

What is the larger significance here? Does this mean the gun industry is struggling? Sounds unlikely given the spike in purchases. Maybe it's just another old company that once had a good reputation but has lost its way. PE probably involved. Or maybe there is some market shift. Like, fewer hunters purchasing lever actions and more urbanites buying semi-auto pistols.

People are buying bolt actions like there's no tomorrow. Just not from Remington. Tikka, for instance, has been a sleepy brand here in the US for a while, but their popularity has exploded in recent years.

Remington's owners have stripped away many of the skilled gunsmiths they used to have. A new Remington is not a very well machined firearm, and enthusiasts have found this out and no longer buy their products.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing for Gibson Guitars, bought by KKR in 2013 and BK in 2018. Gibson Guitars was founded in 1894, but a lot of the guitars they make today don't work, and are way overpriced also. KKR renamed them to "Gibson Brands", so I guess some MBA with a PowerPoint thought related merchandise was more important than, you know, making guitars.

They... don't work? How exactly does such a straightforward physical item not work ?

Cheap materials consistently making shit music = not working

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#44
post #3

Never owned a Remington myself, but they've not been held in high regard for a while. Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital. Ultimately, though, it seem alike the company was asking customers to pay premium prices for average guns. What justifies spending 800 - 1200 dollars on a Remington 700 as compared to $500 on a Ruger American?

>> Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital. History repeats itself. As if these companies care about the brand reputation over decades, they just want to milk it and then sell it to idiots (public) that recognize the name. People are buying more guns than ever, so it was probably a planned bankruptcy

planned bankruptcy

Planned? You realize Cerberus would have made a lot more money if it had been a successful turnaround.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#46
post #32
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?

Plenty of factors are helping humans to move on from brand worship: 1. More information. The iconning brands like Harley or Marlboro are from pre-internet era and heavily relied on freedom image. It was just accepted as an expression of culture. This doesn't really work when wages are not rising with GDP. In other words, people care less about brand and more about utility and price. 2. Better and more accessible comp…

> Plenty of factors are helping humans to move on from brand worship

I only buy major brand-named items on Amazon, and only with Amazon as the seller. The one indispensable characteristic of branding, reputation, is more important than ever even though most brands' reputations are in the dumpster. Knock-offs of unknown or unreliable provenance just happen to be even worse. And even when you find a good non-branded item, reputation is still worse as non-branded items seem to change suppliers more regularly than the branded versions, and supply chain integrity is less trustworthy.

In brick & mortar stores I always reach for the generic, in-house brand (assuming the price is lower) knowing that invariably they're made by the same manufacturer as one of the major brands. But contrast that with Amazon's in-house brands, where it's unlikely they source from the same manufacturer as the major brands, and also seem to change suppliers more regularly.

American gun manufacturers have been outsourcing production for years. But that doesn't mean people no longer care about brands. Rather, many of those suppliers have made a name for themselves outright, or improved upon their previously lackluster reputation; those are the brands you often hear about today when people give recommendations.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#48

Surprising, since lockdowns and "protests" have greatly increased the rate of gun purchasing. In my state, all firearms were out of stock at the local shops for months.

> "protests" Pretty sure there are in fact protests. Regardless of your view on them, which I won't get into because this is HN and not Reddit.

I assume it's in quotes because if there were only non-violent protests, it wouldn't drive people to buy guns. Hence "protests".

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#49
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "protests" Pretty sure there are in fact protests. Regardless of your view on them, which I won't get into because this is HN and not Reddit.

I assume it's in quotes because if there were only non-violent protests, it wouldn't drive people to buy guns. Hence "protests".

Maybe. On the other hand, I would argue that a violent protest is still a protest, thus the need to specify non-violent.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#50
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?

Speaking as someone who owns a 64 panhead and owned a 72 ironhead (rebuilt both from parts): Harleys have almost always been inferior bikes that have a strange sort of charm. Realistically, they occupy the same place as Ural, outdated bikes that have appeal mostly for style. The last time that Harley had anything cutting-edge (ignoring Buell) was likely the knucklehead, which was developed in the 30s. $8k will buy yo…

REI, really? What are the superior competitors? And do you mean specifically the house-branded gear or the store as a whole?

Genuinely curious, since I still shop there. Prices aren't the best but I like the selection and the return policy. Plus the salesdroids actually seem familiar with the gear.

Post reply on HN