Is the Remington 105 CTi dead?


September 22, 2009, 05:17 PM
There was a lot of chatter a couple of years ago about this thing, but it has become very quiet.

I like the concept. I like the bottom ejection, but from what I heard the first batch of guns to be sold weren't ready for prime time.

I notice on the Remington website they are now showing a 105 CTi II. Improved? Anybody had their hands on one?

Just curious. Bass Pro and Cableas both always seem to have several on the used racks. Must be a reason.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Remington 105 CTi dead?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 22, 2009, 05:21 PM
Anybody had their hands on one?

Yeah. Gun Tests (105CTi II vs. Beretta 391 Urika 2 and Benelli Vinci).

It wasn't pretty. Like me, they liked shooting the gun. But they gave it an F because it didn't feed or eject worth a hill of compost.

Remington doesn't even seem to think it's worth their time to fix the gun, or even really respond, when Gun Tests contacts them about problems with a gun that they're REVIEWING for imminent publication?!?

Remington takes all its cues from General Motors' management, I think.

So no, it's not dead. It's "new and improved" with the II revision. But damn, it seems like Remington is doing their best to kill it.:mad:

September 22, 2009, 05:41 PM
One of the guys at our club had one of the early ones. To be charitable it was a complete mess. The rib was on crooked, the gun regularly failed to function and back it went for a replacement. The guy had problems with the second one. He returned it to the store and went back to using his Beretta 391.

September 23, 2009, 04:00 AM
Some people have bought the CTi II and love it and have had no problems. "Gun Tests" have not endeared themselves to a lot of gun companies. If you show up to work one morning and "60 Minutes" is in the lobby, your best course is probably not talking to them, unless you want your words edited to support whatever their contention is. If you like Randy, well and good, but he is not on everyone's Christmas list. They tend to be a lot like some people on here; their opinions are facts, and everyone else's don't matter because they don't agree.
I personally don't like the gun. It shot and pointed all right, but I don't need a lighter gun, and I don't like bottom loading worth a hoot. I really could care less where it ejects. It's got a 3" chamber for hunting, but bottom loading in a hunting gun is not the greatest when the gun has been shot empty and the ducks are leaving now. One the other hand, it is also a far from ideal arrangement for "showing open" on a range, which is an almost universal requirement, although they tout it for shooting clays. I think they were trying to kill too many birds with too few stones. Wayne Leek, those of us who remember, miss you.

September 23, 2009, 08:14 AM
"Gun Tests" have not endeared themselves to a lot of gun companies.

No, they haven't. That's why I read them. Most of us know how to think or ourselves, too, and that includes evaluating their opinions and deciding what we think of them (which, BTW, they encourage).

Gun companies want every review to be like American Rifleman, but of course we all know those are an absolute joke. It's funny to look at how they tout the latest POS as if it's the best gun ever. Maybe the most negative thing I've read lately in an AR review is that the 887 "doesn't handle quite like an 870", which I translated in my mind to, "handles like a waterlogged fencepost." I went to the store, picked one up and indeed, it handles like a waterlogged fencepost.

Without Gun Tests' perspective, I'd have little to go on when figuring out what guns to look at, except for the opinions of other people with their own prejudices and far less knowledge of the big picture.

OTOH I've found that people who FIX guns also have a unique and important perspective, which GT doesn't really have. What's inside does count.

WRT the bottom-eject, I think that Remington would have done better to just build a really nice gun with a more conventional design, for the reasons you list, and also because they haven't been blown away in the marketplace by whiz-bang guns. They've been blown away in the marketplace by guns designed and built with far greater attention to detail than Remington seems capable of.

Applying the efforts they put into the 105 CTi to a gun with 1100-style handling, but with the refinement they never in 4 decades bothered to put into the 1100, would have likely produced better results. That would have required Remington to take a hard look at WHY they lost their market dominance, and what they could do better. I sincerely doubt their management is capable of that, and it seems all they do is try to bring new designs to the market before they're ready, and rely on marketing to talk them up. Most of them fall flat.

September 23, 2009, 09:33 AM
The CTi is a might pricey for my blood, anyway. If I'm going to give 1500 bills for a shotgun, it'll be a stack barrel. I can get a quality autoloader for a lot less.

September 23, 2009, 11:19 AM
I can get a quality autoloader for a lot less.

Excellent point. I am always fascinated by new innovative designs, provided of course that they actually perform.

I think Remington has missed the mark totally. Price isn't the only way to compete. Take a look at Benelli. Folks gladly anti up premium prices for those products. I'm not one of those folks, but one only has to read a bit on these boards to see that they are extremely popular. There is usually a reason for that and it ain't poor function.

September 23, 2009, 11:38 AM
If you want bottom ejection in a semi, there IS always the Beretta UGS25

a nice break-open, two shot semi - SOOOOOFT shooting, fairly expensive, seems to work well from the one I handled

September 23, 2009, 11:15 PM
Mine seems to run good. Nice grip, sharp checkering, adjustable LOP, I added 1/2 inch. I have ~125 rounds of the 200 "break in period". Killed a dove first day, then broke a bunch of clay. Seems to recoil much less than my ported Red Label O/U, a little less than my 1100. Quieter cycling that my 1100, less report that the ported 30" O/U. One local place wanted $1550 (MSRP?), but I paid $1300. Your results may vary.

105 II is a slightly different and improved for better cycling. Mine has cycled with 1oz, 1200 fps, ~7000 psi shells. Actually should not, my 1100 needed ~7500 psi in a 2 3/4 frame... go figure.
My goal was less recoil and lighter than the O/U. I think it's working fine.

I did select it over the 391 Urica? and the Bennellis. I shoot a lot of different gear at the sporting clay shoots, but did not touch one before ordering it. Something to remember boys and girls.... That $1300 will stay in the US economy!!

September 24, 2009, 02:34 PM
**Something to remember boys and girls.... That $1300 will stay in the US economy!! **

I think (but am not sure:rolleyes:) Remington's parent company has some FRENCH ties -cough-cough **DUPONT**

I think the 105 CTi is pretty much gone into the pages of history - because of some lackadaisical effort at engineering.
Get it right BEFORE !!! you pat yourself on the back - IDIOTS......

Anyways - I wish Remington would get back on track, I love my Sporting 28. Never had any problems with it and have finished off my 11th case with no issues of any kind - except the wear plate in the top of the receiver coming loose ( re-staked it in:cool:) BTW - I bought it USED...
The price on the USED Sporting 28 1100 in '04 was $200 more than I paid for a Urika Optima 12ga (LIKE NEW!!!) a few months ago. $650> $450 . I was very happy to get the 1100 for that price. This shotgun has beautiful wood.

Remington must get prices down to compete in this stagnant SHOTGUN market.
That does not imply import some pieces of doodo from Russia-Turkey-China.....and try to prop up the Stock prices.

(Almost) Anybody would buy the best shotgun VALUE for the $$$ if they could; once a firearm reaches the reliability level required that the Italians seem to pop out of their a$$e$ - all things are about even and equal.
Most Americans would purchase a domestic product - if REMINGTON could get a actual feel for the pulse of the consumers.
I'll bet Remington employs some marketing and research folks that have never went a whole month of December quail hunting EVERY weekend.;)

September 24, 2009, 03:15 PM
The CTI received a HORRIBLE review in Gun Test magazine. We took them off our website once we read it.


September 24, 2009, 04:04 PM
DuPont is an American company, based in Delaware. Remington formed a new corporation in 2007

September 24, 2009, 04:11 PM
DuPont has been out of the picture for a while. Remington was bought by some venture capital company in 1993. I'm not sure what other restructurings, changes of ownership, etc., that they have gone through since.

The new (2007) corporation, in North Carolina, is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, isn't it?

September 25, 2009, 01:30 AM
From wikipedia (consider the source, but this is pretty basic)

During the Great Depression, Remington was purchased by the DuPont Corporation, which had made its fortune with improvements to gunpowder. A year later, Remington purchased the Peters Cartridge Company; today, many of the Remington headstamps still have R-P on them for Remington-Peters.

In 1940 the U.S. Army became worried about its ammunition capacity, and asked Remington to collaborate in a plan for national expansion. With the aid of DuPont, Remington built the Lake City Arsenal and Denver Ordnance ammunition plants, and three more plants later on. Though the plants belonged to the U.S. government, Remington was asked to oversee their operation. Among the weapons Remington manufactured for the government during World War II was the famous M1903A3 Springfield bolt-action rifle.

In 1986, Remington closed its ammunition plant in Bridgeport, Connecticut, creating a brand-new facility in Lonoke, Arkansas. This site was chosen as the geographic center of the sporting ammunition market. A year later, Remington built a new clay targets plant in Athens, Georgia.

In 1993, Remington was sold by DuPont to the investment firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R').

In June 2007, a private equity firm, Cerberus Capital Management, acquired Remington Arms for $370 million, including $252 million in assumed debt. This happened because Remington was millions of dollars in debt and did not report a profit during the years 2003-2005.[3]

In December 2007, Remington Arms acquired rifle-maker Marlin Firearms.[4]

September 25, 2009, 10:52 AM
In December 2007, Remington Arms acquired rifle-maker Marlin Firearms.

A sad, sad day for the American rifle.

September 26, 2009, 01:06 PM
I worry about Remington. I was in Tractor Supply the other day, and noticed Remington now has their own line of dog supplies. There were Remington chew toys, Remington dog beds, Remington collars, and even a Remington badged dog crate. Now I'm sure this is just Chinese junk with the Rem. name on it, but still, given their recent struggles to produce quality, reliable products, perhaps they should focus on designing/building quality firearms and leave the dog supplies to Petco. Besides, slapping your name on Chinese plastic is no way to improve your image, particularly if you've got quality control problems (perceived or real).

September 26, 2009, 08:23 PM
In December 2007, Remington Arms acquired rifle-maker Marlin Firearms.
A sad, sad day for the American rifle.

Remember - before that, Marlin acquired H&R and NEF

September 26, 2009, 09:19 PM
If Remington hadn't bought them I wonder how long the "American rifle" would have been around, period.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Remington 105 CTi dead?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!