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

111–120 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#111

Post by paulie_a »

motorcycleman9 wrote: post #99
paulie_a wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was I incorrect in my statementt that a minority of Americans own a gun. And yes it is irrelevant. I do not control, perhaps do not even know what a roommate owns and vice versa. And that only pushed the needle up a but, to still being in the minority. You mention minorities? Gun owners are a minority

You were not incorrect to say they are a minority. Nobody factually disputed you on this detail. However, other folks added relevant details to show the prevalence of fun ownership and to give context to the political influence of gun owners.

So a minority of a minority when it comes to actual voting power.

Not incorrect? Yes that was directly disputed btw.

Gun ownership and gun influence in the US is vastly overstated.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#112

Post by treis »

refurb wrote: post #44
onetimemanytime wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Often these companies end up back in the hands of the PE firms after being stripped of pension and other obligations in bankruptcy. Maybe they would have done better with a successful turnaround. But they usually manage to set it up so it's a heads I win tails you lose kind of game.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#113

Post by rib3ye »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #84
refurb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cerberus sort of hinges on "a guaranteed amount of much less profit" vs "we might profit, or we might completely lose our investment". They're not "investors", they're predatory vultures. However, given that, their model does work, even if it is immoral and short-sighted.

That's well-said. I think it's worth adding that it's a highly resonate argument against modern capitalism.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#114

Post by wonderwonder »

lebaux wrote: post #32
komali2 wrote: 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…

I love amazon for the ability to buy unbranded cheap clothes. Tshirt costs me 10 bucks, and they are better quality than anything I find in a brick and mortar store for double that price. All I wear is plain tshirts so they are great. Same with the basketball style shorts I wear sitting around the house all day (I work remotely) I still buy branded jeans though, but 1 pair of jeans for $100 lasts me 5 years. I will probably try an amazon pair of jeans one of these days.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#115

Post by sswaner »

mrexroad wrote: post #74
topkai22 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m with you- REI does premium retail really well and that involves more then being just a brand. You can save money elsewhere for equivalent gear, but you won’t get the same service.

If you're patient, and buy exclusively at sales, REI gear is usually an decent deal for the quality when 25%-50% off. I’ve abused a number of REI bags and tents over past few years when camping with scouts, with no failures yet.

Same here. My REI Hobitat and Kingdom tents are 10 years into being the last tents I buy. High enough quality to break the 3-4 year replacement cycle of everything else I tried.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#116

Post by owlninja »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #18

Their ammo is good, especially .22 and .22 LR. But I've never known anyone who owned one of their firearms.... which really just says it all.

Their newer firearms are nothing to write home about. But my Remington 1100 20 gauge from the 70s is my favorite firearm I own.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#117

Post by sswaner »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #18

Their ammo is good, especially .22 and .22 LR. But I've never known anyone who owned one of their firearms.... which really just says it all.

Shotguns being the exception, the 870 and other models are popular and reliable shotguns that many of my gun-owning friends have in their collection, as do I (two of them).

And, I agree with your comment on the ammo. Have gone through many green and yellow boxes of Remington ammo. Good stuff.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#118

Post by cowboysauce »

joe-collins wrote: post #16
redis_mlc wrote: post #6

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 ?

I've seen extremely cheap guitars that will noticeably fall out of tune after playing them for only a few minutes.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#119

Post by AmVess »

jacobush wrote: post #78
AmVess wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even the concept of gunsmiths making serial production guns is weird to me. Gunsmiths should do repair, factories with robots and CNC machines should make high precision gear.

CNC machines do the bulk manufacturing. In high end shops, gunsmiths do the final finish work. It used to be that high production firearms still had gunsmiths overseeing production. Now, in places like Remington, firearms come off the machines and get put right into the box.

A range friend of mine is on his 3rd new Remington 700. He sent the original new unit back and they shipped him a new one. It was defective, he sent it back. They sent him another one. This was in the last 6 months. These were all issues with the machining of the chamber that should never have been shipped in the first place. A simple check with a flashlight would have revealed the problems that were plainly visible to the naked eye.

Conversely, I have 7 Remington products that I purchased new as late as 2005 and they have all been perfect.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#120

Post by rsync »

walrus01 wrote: post #68
manfredo wrote: 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?

Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington. They are to modern guns what a Harley Davidson is to a modern motorcycle. People who care about good tech and value are buying things like CZs, aero precision and Anderson AR10/15 lowers and uppers, etc. Even the canik pistol from turkey is remarkably good quality. Savage offers good val…

"Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington."

Anecdotal, but we needed several workhorse .308 rifles and even considering the previous issues with the Rem 700 triggers, etc., I still chose that model.

In addition to being a simple mechanism and easy to clean and maintain, it has a very high adoption rate which means parts and chassis replacements are readily available.

Those attributes, combined with a very reasonable price, made it easy to select.

If it were a single rifle, just for myself, I may have chosen a Savage model instead. On the other hand, my personal rifle now matches, and parts shares, and has identical maintenance, with all of the rest of them. I find that valuable.

Post reply on HN