remington losses, ouch!


March 23, 2009, 08:10 PM
I don't know alot about the company of remington, but I just read that they posted a 40million dollar loss for 2008, and there is a open board call to discuss what to do next. Anybody got any ideas what's going on here? bad mgmt, bad weapons, hi cost, etc.?

Can we stand to lose another great american firearms company?

If you enjoyed reading about "remington losses, ouch!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 23, 2009, 08:39 PM
Can we stand to lose another great american firearms company?

Of course we can. ;) Just like we will survive without GM, AIG etc.

March 23, 2009, 08:39 PM
How about concentrate on improving quality control of their brass and ammo, and keeping up with ammunition and primer demand? Maybe if they focused their efforts in the right place, they could have had a profit.

Hungry Seagull
March 23, 2009, 08:43 PM
How can a company running 24/7 as hard as I hear they are in my area lose money? How can a company that made my 870 in such a fine condition up in Ilion NY lose money?

We need answers.

March 23, 2009, 08:50 PM
maybe because the assault rifle panic put a damper on regular sporting guns. people would rather spend 1500 on an ar15 than a bolt action, & they know theres no threat on bolt guns,only semi autos.maybe they should lower the price of their r-15's,but i dont think it would make up for their losses....

March 23, 2009, 08:57 PM
They're probably selling as many R-15's and R-25's as they can make, and their ammo side is probably doing quite well. I suspect tactical 870's and 7615's are selling well also. Deer rifles and shotguns, probably not as well.

Do keep in mind that a paper loss of $40 million does not mean that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. It depends on what caused the loss (e.g., if they spent $50 million completing factory upgrades this year, they're probably not in trouble).

March 23, 2009, 09:09 PM
I think Remington has been losing money since 2005. Here is reports on 2008.

March 23, 2009, 09:13 PM
Didn't they acquire Marlin last year?

March 23, 2009, 09:20 PM
I believe you need to look at management. I have heard from many sources that Remington has cut quality in order to boost profits. If this is true it was the beginning of the end.

I am currently working for my 3rd company. The first two both went out of business after being very good companies providing great products and service. But when each company decided to put profits above quality product and service it became evident we were not going to be around long. The American consumer is not stupid and I believe when we see that price has increased and quality has dropped we turn the other cheek...uh...direction and look to a better product and company.

I also know that some Execs have tried to take short cuts when they inherit a mess from someone else and so they also will try the above to get profitable quick. The problem is when consumers feel they have been taken advantage of not only do they not buy from that company but they also tell tons of people who stop buying from them. OUCH!

Based on what I have read and heard this is part of what has happened to Remington. If this is incorrect please let me know.

March 23, 2009, 09:41 PM
Sporting rifles and shotguns are not selling. Everyone is spending their money on black rifles, high capacity semi-auto pistols and cases upon cases of military caliber ammo.

March 23, 2009, 09:44 PM
To be honest I do not like Remington. Although I find myself looking at new Remingtons fairly often I most of the time find myself unhappy with them and luckily have not bought most of them.

I really want to like Remington and that's why I keep thinking of giving them another try but it seems the more tries I give them the more times I get let down.

I had a 870 and it had problems since day one. From some online research It was not that out of the ordinary as plenty of others had issues too. With cheap 2 3/4" shells it would lock the pump up every few shots to where it took serious force to get the pump to come back to eject the shell. I found out this was due to the chamber having a rough spot and that this was a super common issue and the solution was to polish the chamber. I had a gunsmith do it for $5. Another one quoted me $10. I could have done it myself but for that price it wasn't worth me buying $5 worth of tools then having to do it myself.

For a $350 gun it should not need this brand new out of the box. I know this is a budget gun but there is no reason a $350 gun budget or not and that was a few years ago should have any sort of issue when it's brand new. If it was a $40 gun maybe but not for $350 as that's not that cheap. If they had of had decent quality control mine would have never left the factory a long with many others.

Mine also had issues jamming randomly with 3" and 3 1/2" buckshot sells but never locking the pump up with that. It just didn't catch the old shell to eject or stovepipe or was always doing something. It jammed quite often. I'm not sure if polishing the chamber helped that or not as I never shot all that many shells through it after that but I can't ever remember it jamming after polishing the chamber. I only shot maybe 5 rounds of buckshot through it though but a fair amount of 2 3/4 shells.

The finish on this gun seems worse than many others. Just had the finish wearing off on the stock and stuff like that as well as a few spots where bluing had easily worn off.

Then I had a buddies .22 rifle from them that was older we were taking apart to clean and the bolt had been cut too deep and was cut through. It still worked fine but it was lousy quality control to let something cut too deep like that leave the factory. That should have been replaced before it ever left the factory. Apparently it's a common issue with those guns too.

Then I have a Remington muzzle loader although to be fair it's made by Traditions for Remington. Anyway, the finish on that is crap. It's a camo stock and after 2 months or so of owning it and riding in the truck a time or two but mostly sitting at the house it had a few small tiny chips in the camo. You have to really look for them so doesn't bother me now but what will it look like in 3 years if it looks like this in 2 months of super duper easy use. Then the barrel has a matte blue. I like the look of it but it's got several scratches in it where it's scratched the bluing off. Once again if it looks like that now what's it going to look like in 3 years? I've seen some posts online where people have had the barrel hit something or scuffed it slightly and had a big patch of bluing wear off.

To me even though this may not be made by Remington it seems crappy to put your name on something like this. It's a good shooting gun and a nice design it just needs a better finish.

I will say it was on sale so a smoking deal.

I've also had bad luck with their ammo. Their .22 ammo is basically known to be crap. Their centerfire ammo seems decent but my rifle does not like it as it shoots all over the place. My rifle is picky on ammo to be fair. My buddies Remington 7400 in .243 jams on Remington shells so he shoots Winchester shells which cycle just fine. Sad that a Remington gun can't shoot Remington shells? In my book it is.

Then there is their shotgun shells. Their target and sport loads I've had okay luck with. However, with their buckshot they seemed to jam even more than other ammo in my 870. I then had one shell explode in the chamber of the gun when I went to shoot. I'm not sure if it was a bad shell or something with the gun like the action not being fully closed. It's not supposed to go off if it's not so if it did something was wrong anyway. I've gotten mixed opinions on if people think it was the gun or the shell. That's basically when I stopped using their ammo. It just doesn't seem to be as good as the other brands I've tried in most instances.

I want to like Remington I really do but between those 2 guns I've had and a few buddies having issues with some of their stuff and then my ammo experiences I just can't say I like them. I do have friends with several Remingtons that have had good luck too though so all of their stuff must not be crap. It just seems like someone will get a gun that's great and someone else will buy one just like it that will have one problem after another.

Redneck with a 40
March 23, 2009, 09:46 PM
Wow, I don't know what I'd do without the Remington 700, they are awesome rifle.:(

March 23, 2009, 10:05 PM
I would bet that some of the so called losses are write downs, as Remington and their owners have been buying a lot of competitor's companies.


March 23, 2009, 10:09 PM
Two words:

"Executive Compensation"

March 23, 2009, 10:09 PM
Many people got fed up with Remington many years ago, as they tended to be rather poor on shooter comfort. They finally started putting real recoil pads on their guns a few years ago, but the image of their guns as hard-kicking, unpleasant shooters, among other deficiencies, has caused many people to go with other companies. While it's a problem that's fixable, most people don't want to have to buy an aftermarket pad right out of the box.

March 23, 2009, 10:19 PM
I hope they don't take Marlin down with them. That's all I really care about.

Okay, and it would be nice to see the 870 continue to be made.

March 23, 2009, 10:23 PM
among other deficiencies

Like the finish on the 870's. :cuss:

March 23, 2009, 10:35 PM
Great ... more Remington bashing. :rolleyes: Let's see the FY08 reports from other companies such as Savage, Smith & Wesson, Ruger etc. Savage was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1988 but managed to turn it around. I doubt that Remington is going anywhere anytime soon.

Gross profits for Remington in '08 were $144 million, but selling, general and administrative expenses were $104 million :what: with R&D only costing $7.1 million!! Now THAT'S something that needs fixing.

As for Remington products, my only complaint is the long throats they insist on using in the 700s. Other than that, I've had no problems of any kind with my three 700s and 870 shotgun. All three rifles were very accurate out of the box, have been 100% reliable and I sincerely hope that I'm lucky enough to own more of them. The 870 is an outstanding shotgun and I have no complaints there either. I also own three Marlin lever action rifles which I love so I hope Remington/Marlin sticks around for many, many years to come. I will DEFINITELY be buying more Remington/Marlin products!


March 23, 2009, 11:35 PM
A good set of accountants can make a good year look bad on paper. I think there is a little bit of jumping the gun here.

March 23, 2009, 11:35 PM
I live not too terribly far from their ammunition plant in Arkansas. I have a marketing/business management background and a couple of years ago I seriously considered trying to get a job there, because I too recognized some of their problems and thought that I could help them fix them, but I like the job that I have.

I hate to hear the generic statement that "Remington ammo is crap" because it is not as simple as that, and quite frankly, some of it is cutting edge (I really like the Wingmaster HD stuff on ducks). I cannot speak for the firearms side, but the ammo side would be fairly easy to resurrect, even in these tougher economic times.

It is not the easiest thing in the world to make a business viable and profitable year after year. However, a good brand helps, and Remington has one. With a little intelligent work, this will be temporary.

March 23, 2009, 11:40 PM
Their rimfire ammo is crap. Its dirty, both on your hands and in the gun, its inaccurate in everything I have ever used it in, it has a lot of fail to everything. It just isn't good. Their centerfire/shotgun ammo is a different animal but I don't see buying any of their rimfire stuff again.

Hostile Amish
March 23, 2009, 11:40 PM
Remington needs to lower the prices on their shotguns and hunting rifles to stay competitive where everyone is crazed over AR-15's and the like.

March 24, 2009, 12:26 AM
I hate to hear the generic statement that "Remington ammo is crap" because it is not as simple as that, and quite frankly, some of it is cutting edge....

While their centerfire cartridges may be fine, my experience with their rimfire ammo mirrors the sentiments already posted by others: i.e., it's garbage. I also have several types of Remington bulk bullets that I have used for handloading. Compared to identical weight bullets from other makers, I experience far too many fliers with the Remington bullets.

It's my opinion that Remington needs to tighten quality control while making each employee understand that only quality products survive and once a bad reputation is acquired, it's nearly impossible to overcome. I'd really like to see Remington stay around but whether they do or not is in their hands.

March 24, 2009, 12:45 AM
If Remington has a problem, it's that their previous designs were almost too good and too popular. I'm talking about the 870, the 1100, and the 700.

There are TONS of 870's out there. It's pretty hard to justify paying $700 for a new Wingmaster when you can buy them all day long at gunshows for less than $400 (I still come across plenty in the $200-$300 range.

The 1100 was a great gun, too. It's hard to get past the $700-$800 price tag on a new one when there are plenty of used ones for $450, though.

How about the 700??? Well, $450 for an SPS may not sound so bad until you figure out that there are old BDL's all over for less than that, and they have walnut stocks and nice bluing.

We could talk about other guns. The 770 is a piece of junk. Why would you buy one when you can now get the Marlin XL7's for less than $300?? They need to just stop production on the 770's and consider the XL7 their low-priced bolt-gun.

The Remington 597??? What are they on, the 3rd or 4th generation of magazines??? They said that the tooling had worn out on the Nylon 66 and they couldn't make anymore. Would it have cost any more to re-do the tooling for the Nylon 66 than to tool up for the 597??? I don't know, but the 66 certainly would have sold better.

March 24, 2009, 10:46 AM
IMO, one of the very best values in a Remington rifle was the 788. They were inexpensive and my .222 was a tack driver...... better than the 700 Classic I now own in .222. Lots of 788 rifles were bought strictly for the actions by benchrest shooters; the lock time is very fast.

IMO Remington could sell a new 788 if they didn't overprice them. I'd sure like to have another one.

March 24, 2009, 10:58 AM
I would bet that some of the so called losses are write downs, as Remington and their owners have been buying a lot of competitor's companies.
That is my impression of all this.

March 24, 2009, 11:45 AM
Nevertheless, a company that hasn't shown the ability to bring a good new product to market in a good few decades is not a great long-term prospect.

March 24, 2009, 11:59 AM
Having been in the upper echelons of business I can tell you for a fact that losses on paper you not necessarily mean real losses.

If marketing predicts sales of $180 million, and we only sell $140 million that is a loss of $40 million, now we only need to make sure the books reflect what we have established as a loss.

Bad debt, materials that are now obsolete, and many other material items can be found to support the loss you wish to support.

A loss means no or less taxes to be paid, so why would a company want to show a profit, except for the shareholders, and AIG sure didn't care what it's shareholders thought. This is epidemic in business.

Master Blaster
March 24, 2009, 12:37 PM
Remington was aquired by Cerberus capital, who also bought Bushmaster and a couple other companies. like Chrysler motors.
They have huge deep pockets and bought remington so they could turn it around, not so they could close it down.

March 24, 2009, 02:42 PM
the reminton 597 is a great gun only problem is winchesters wont feed or be accurate in it:cuss:

Art Eatman
March 24, 2009, 03:19 PM
The URL of Post #18 has the answer. This silly bashing does not.


If you enjoyed reading about "remington losses, ouch!" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!