Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–346 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#341

Post by pluto9 »

mulmen wrote: post #289
frank2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"small arms" are now basically ineffective arms Are you sure? Half of the grunts in an US infantry platoon carry only weapons (specifically the M-4) available to civilians. Civilians' having small arms greatly increases the number of soldiers needed to repress them, and the more soldiers needed, the more likely soldiers will revolt against the repression.

The M4 is not available to civilians. And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4. What does the other half of the platoon carry? The argument here seems to be that civilians do not have an effective counter for an F-35. Or a B-52. Or an M1 Abrams.

> And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4.

For all intents and purposes, they are the same. An M4 has a barrel that is 1.5" shorter than most civilian AR15s and it has a 3-round burst setting that is almost never used because it's worthless.

I've spent a considerable amount of time behind both of them and I assure you they are functionally identical in basically every real-world use case.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#342

Post by komali2 »

zrobotics wrote: post #65
stickfigure wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They sell almost entirely 'outdoor apparel' that is geared at people wanting to wear the brand. REI used to loon almost like an army-surplus store rather than a clothing store, and the clothing was fully functional but unfashionable. Think 100% wool garments, the scratchy stuff that never wore out and was warmer wet than dry and more equipment than clothing. My last REI hiking frame was a huge disappointment, it star…

As another poster said, ultralight is the wave of the future. But Patagonia makes the kind of gear you're looking for. It's not cheap but it's damn near bullet proof.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#343

Post by kakwa_ »

pluto9 wrote: post #338
kakwa_ wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hunting riffles, even if there are extremely common in most countries, specially in rural areas, are hardly in the same class of weapon as a bolt action/(semi-)automatic riffle or an handgun. The latter also has a different goal in mind, being generally used for self protection/deterrence. Also, carrying a gun all the time is extremely uncommon if not forbidden in most European countries if you don't have the p…

> hunting riffles, even if there are extremely common in most countries, specially in rural areas, are hardly in the same class of weapon as a bolt action Hunting rifles are almost always bolt actions.

I'm far from an expert there, but most hunting riffles I've seen, at least here in France, shot shotgun ammunition (birdshots and the like).

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#344

Post by kls »

michaelt wrote: post #145
kls wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was actually strategic by the private equity that bought them. They leveraged Remington to the hilt, extracted all of the value and then bankrupted the shell. Not that I am an advocate of what they do but it was actually brilliant. Gun companies on average don't go bankrupt, so they where able to significantly leverage Remington while hollowing it out and moving the assets to other companies. Leaving the shell for…

> Gun companies on average don't go bankrupt Maybe I'm biased because everything I know about guns comes from Forgotten Weapons [1], but my impression is the opposite: Very few guns are ever a commercial success, and absolutely loads of gun makers go out of business. [1] https://www.forgottenweapons.com/

Prototype guns are like startups you get a bunch of ideas and few stick. I probably should have clarified established gun companies and gun companies manufacturing established popular weapons. If I start a company building 1911's, AR's and AK's. Chances are the venture will be commercially successful. If I try to reintroduce the Bren-10 or a new concept gun, then I am playing a game of long odds unless I am an established gun designer with a track record of reliable designs e.g John Browning. Gun owners, other than collectors can be pretty fickle about reliability, it is why SIG, Glock and SAIGA do so well, due to the fact that they have multi-decade history of producing reliable guns.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#345

Post by mulmen »

pluto9 wrote: post #341
mulmen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The M4 is not available to civilians. And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4. What does the other half of the platoon carry? The argument here seems to be that civilians do not have an effective counter for an F-35. Or a B-52. Or an M1 Abrams.

> And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4. For all intents and purposes, they are the same. An M4 has a barrel that is 1.5" shorter than most civilian AR15s and it has a 3-round burst setting that is almost never used because it's worthless. I've spent a considerable amount of time behind both of them and I assure you they are functionally identical in basically every real-world use case.

And yet, the US Army does not issue AR-15s in warzones and civilians cannot buy M4s.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#346

Post by pluto9 »

mulmen wrote: post #345
pluto9 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4. For all intents and purposes, they are the same. An M4 has a barrel that is 1.5" shorter than most civilian AR15s and it has a 3-round burst setting that is almost never used because it's worthless. I've spent a considerable amount of time behind both of them and I assure you they are functionally identical in basically every real-world use case.

And yet, the US Army does not issue AR-15s in warzones and civilians cannot buy M4s.

Kind of like how I can't buy an M9, because when it's sold to civilians it's called a Beretta 92F. Must be a totally different weapon.
Post reply on HN