They won't let you do that, they insist on having the entire gun sent in.
What's wrong with remington?
- Thread starter txcookie
- Start date
- Status
They won't let you do that, they insist on having the entire gun sent in.
Kynoch
member
What makes you think that Remington has not invested in CNC equipment? They have, beginning years ago -- one look at their OSHA report mentions Milacron, Fadal, etc. To believe they have banks of manual lathes and mills with individual machinists behind each one is just ridiculous.
Remington was owned by DuPont for a very long time and DuPont did a good job of investing in Remington.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"To believe they have banks of manual lathes and mills with individual machinists behind each one is just ridiculous"
While ridiculous, it's a valid question. After all, Marlin was supposedly in that exact state before the buy (no blueprints, even), and Colt was under somewhat recently as well, as I understand it. No one ever used true manual machines, they had screw machines and tooling jigs that move the tools accurately (like a mechanical CNC) but were extremely costly to develop and modify compared to CAM programs.
While ridiculous, it's a valid question. After all, Marlin was supposedly in that exact state before the buy (no blueprints, even), and Colt was under somewhat recently as well, as I understand it. No one ever used true manual machines, they had screw machines and tooling jigs that move the tools accurately (like a mechanical CNC) but were extremely costly to develop and modify compared to CAM programs.
Marlin had antiquated & worn-out equipment because the previous owners had not put any serious money into upgrades or modernization.
Remington's been pretty modernized for years.
Colt invested 5 million in CNC & upgrades for the rifle side years ago & about the same in CNC for the "civilian" side more recently.
Denis
Remington's been pretty modernized for years.
Colt invested 5 million in CNC & upgrades for the rifle side years ago & about the same in CNC for the "civilian" side more recently.
Denis
You're absolutely right about this. Remington still makes a beautiful blued steel and walnut 870 in the Wingmaster. It just doesn't cost $300 any more.
On the other hand there are true dogs like the 710 / 770. Worst made centerfire rifle ever.
Kynoch
member
FWIW, when Ruger moved its existing rimfire pistol (MKI-MKIII) to Arizona, the equipment dated from 1949. There was quite a distinction between that old equipment and tooling versus what they were using to produce their first centerfire semi auto pistols.
headoftheholler
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 345
The 700 was a "shortcut" cheap rifle from the beginning to provide a lower cost option to the model 70's. Yes they are the best selling hunting rifle, yes they can be accurate but from the get go they designed the gun to cut corners and make it cheaper to manufacture. Personally 90% of new rifles from all manufacturers are cheaper made now with rough metal finish and poor wood finishing and fitting. The highly polished bluing and well finished stocks of prior years are now either something you have to pay big $$$ from the "custom" shop to acquire new or buy an older rifle.
Exactly. Unfortunately their quality control has tanked. That's not even including the whole trigger recall issue.
Kynoch
member
What do you even mean by "QC" (quality control)? I see it being offered by you and others as a means to attack Remington but what exactly do you mean?
Are you suggesting that Remington designs are deficient? Some very clearly were (and as with other manufacturers) discontinued or changed. I have a Model 700 BDL and it's a good design and very old design. Are you suggesting that the materials that Remington uses are deficient? Or are you talking about the manufacturing processes and/or workmanship employed by Remington? I certainly hope that you're not talking about inspection -- as if Remington (or anyone) can inspect quality into a manufactured product.
Even the use of "QC" (or "quality control") versus "quality assurance" or "product assurance" is a huge red flag in the manufacturing world as they mean different things.
So what do you mean by QC/quality control?
Last edited:
Kynoch
member
Naw. You're simply wrong when you suggest it was designed to "cut corners", to be a cheap rifle vs. a Winchester Model 70. The Remington design is simply a more evolved, more intelligent design that relies more on good product engineering and quality manufacturing processes then "hand fitting." Much like the Winchester Model 12 vs. Remington Model 870. The Remington models were designed with manufacturability and new processes in mind -- that doesn't mean they are of lower product quality.
Many would say a rifle like the Ruger American is another step forward in making a very capable (from a target/hunting standpoint vs. a cute safe queen standpoint), very reasonably priced rifle that's likely more affordable to customers than a Model 700 was in 1975 or a Model 70 was in 1955.
My Model 700 has a very fine blued finish. Its wood is "fitted" at least as good as my pre '63 Model 70. The 700 easily shoots as well as the 70. I'm sure a Ruger American will shoot right along with either.
>>... as if Remington (or anyone) can inspect quality into a manufactured product.<<
Yeah, but quality control can have the sub-par parts tossed, instead of just shoving them out the door.
I have personal experience with how the bean counters operate in this area.
When the engineering folks used to run the company I worked for, if there was a problem, back up the line it went to find out why & correct it, and the defective parts got tossed.
When the bean counters took over, whenever there was a bad run of product, you simply quit inspecting them and shove 'em out the door.
Then you brag about how the percentage of defective parts really nosedived on your watch!
After all, doesn't every customer want to be "assured" they're getting quality (if in name only) rather than it sounding like a company has a problem and has to "control" their quality?
I don't know the particulars of what went on inside Remington, but it's pretty much par for the course for folks like The Freedom Group to:
1. Cut as much staff as possible (I've read some reports of entire QC & R&D departments being eliminated).
2. Brag about how profits are up (they tend to do that when you take a short term view with the company).
3. SELL and run like hell when you find an unwitting investor that's impressed with your bottom line, only to find after taking over that the previous owner pretty much gutted the company for the sake of short term profits at the expense of the company's long term health / reputation.
Any time an investment group takes over a block of companies such as Freedom Group has, I tend to shy away from their products.
Yeah, but quality control can have the sub-par parts tossed, instead of just shoving them out the door.
I have personal experience with how the bean counters operate in this area.
When the engineering folks used to run the company I worked for, if there was a problem, back up the line it went to find out why & correct it, and the defective parts got tossed.
When the bean counters took over, whenever there was a bad run of product, you simply quit inspecting them and shove 'em out the door.
Then you brag about how the percentage of defective parts really nosedived on your watch!
Really? Only difference is the word police - we used to have QC, then it changed to QA as it sounded so much gentler / nicer.
After all, doesn't every customer want to be "assured" they're getting quality (if in name only) rather than it sounding like a company has a problem and has to "control" their quality?
I don't know the particulars of what went on inside Remington, but it's pretty much par for the course for folks like The Freedom Group to:
1. Cut as much staff as possible (I've read some reports of entire QC & R&D departments being eliminated).
2. Brag about how profits are up (they tend to do that when you take a short term view with the company).
3. SELL and run like hell when you find an unwitting investor that's impressed with your bottom line, only to find after taking over that the previous owner pretty much gutted the company for the sake of short term profits at the expense of the company's long term health / reputation.
Any time an investment group takes over a block of companies such as Freedom Group has, I tend to shy away from their products.
Kynoch
member
If the value and focus of your "QC" system is scrapping defective parts then you're in big trouble anyway.
There is a world of difference between product assurance/quality assurance vs. "QC." "QC" is pretty much what you described -- inspect stuff (be it incoming, in-process or final inspection) and rework or scrap/replace that which happened to be caught. Highly ineffective, very costly.
A good product assurance/quality assurance program should be company wide. It should begin with the initial design of the product and go from there.
I haven't bought many Remington products lately other than a new Marlin Model 60. It's fit and finish is far superior to what they were building before the "redesign." It's even better than what Marlin was building 20 years ago. With about 1,000 rounds down the pipe, it seems like it will last too.
That was only a small part of QC, but I see you conveniently ignored my comment if there was a problem, back up the line it went to find out why & correct it, and the defective parts got tossed.
'Course, it just so happens that after QA was implemented is when stopping inspections / tests of certain parts occurred.
QC, QA...call it what you will as it doesn't matter.
When the bean counters step in, it becomes garbage in, garbage out.
Of course there is...
Fella's;
"A good product assurance/quality assurance program should be company wide. It should begin with the initial design of the product and go from there." A concept of quality control that obviously hasn't made it through Remington's front door.
Yes, there are many end user's of Remington's products who have a good rifle or shotgun, the issue isn't with an individual weapon, it's with the company itself. Remington has severe problems and buying a pair of rose colored glasses at the company store isn't going to make those problems go away. Remington's business philosophy has been flawed for a very long time, and in the hyper-competitive business environment of today, those flaws may be fatal.
Do I want to see Remington fail? No I don't, it would be extremely bad for the shooting sports as a whole. But if the Ogres Of Ilion are unable to pull their collective heads out their $%^&'s, it's a distinct possibility that the company won't survive as the entity we have known. There's no doubt that change is desperately needed at Remington. What the changes are going to be is now as much in the financier's ballpark as it is in Remington's.
900F
"A good product assurance/quality assurance program should be company wide. It should begin with the initial design of the product and go from there." A concept of quality control that obviously hasn't made it through Remington's front door.
Yes, there are many end user's of Remington's products who have a good rifle or shotgun, the issue isn't with an individual weapon, it's with the company itself. Remington has severe problems and buying a pair of rose colored glasses at the company store isn't going to make those problems go away. Remington's business philosophy has been flawed for a very long time, and in the hyper-competitive business environment of today, those flaws may be fatal.
Do I want to see Remington fail? No I don't, it would be extremely bad for the shooting sports as a whole. But if the Ogres Of Ilion are unable to pull their collective heads out their $%^&'s, it's a distinct possibility that the company won't survive as the entity we have known. There's no doubt that change is desperately needed at Remington. What the changes are going to be is now as much in the financier's ballpark as it is in Remington's.
900F
OP
OP
txcookie
Member
Well I should be thankful I have what I have already. My luck has been great my father has had even better luck over the years. Until I joined THR I had no idea remington had issues....
Kynoch
member
I tend to agree. Remington has offered many superb firearms including the Model 700 rifle and the Model 870 as just two examples.
Have there been cost reductions in what they produce? Absolutely -- all manufacturers do this, particularly Ruger it seems. Recently some friends and I were at the range. One had a Model 870 shotgun from about 1960, I had mine from 1975 and someone else had an essentially brand new one. The differences is each were astounding. The unit from 1960 was a freaking tank! Would it last any longer or shoot any better than a brand new one? I rather doubt it -- maybe not even as well, but it was certainly prettier to to look at and more satisfying when one worked the action. It doesn't mean however that the new one is of lower product quality due to its design. What it does mean is that most wouldn't be willing to pay $1.5-2K for an 870 as produced in 1960.
Remington is no longer under the deep-pocketed DuPont umbrella. Based on their OSHA report, their factory/manufacturing process is in disarray and deteriorating. Could that lead to lower product quality? Absolutely. Does it mean that the Model 700 is an inherently poor or cheap design? Nope.
I think change is needed at Remington as well -- particularly now that the market is getting tighter and tighter. The prospect of pulling out of Ilion is very intriguing -- certainly with a lot more facets than most people here seem to realize based on their comments. If they move the contents of Ilion with the same skill they moved Marlin/H&R, they'll be in for huge problems -- potentially company threatening problems.
It's interesting to note that the firearms taking over more and more market share have plastic furniture and coated finishes. Remington's real competition for what they build at Ilion are companies like Mossberg/Maverick with their low priced shotguns and Savage/Ruger with their low priced bolt-action rifles. It's not Weatherby and Cooper rifles with finely finished wood furniture and beautiful bluing of yesteryear that some equate to "high quality" designs.
Last edited:
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,435
I agree with basic blur. The idea is to just slap them together and send them out the door. This lack of quality control, no matter what you call it is now the rule in many companies run by investment bankers and lawyers. Unlike Remington of the past and many other gun companies, the new goal is not a quality product but a profit unit and how to maximize that profit. Sure they upgrade designs and manufacturing steps. But if they can cut a cost they do. Often that is spending time finding and correcting problems and customer service and spare parts. If a flaw is found first it is denied out of hand. Some companies make an honest effort but it is a fight profit managers. This is not a Remington problem, it is an America problem.
Kynoch
member
Always be aware of the "Internet Warrior" and "Chicken Little" syndromes...
Flatbush Harry
Member
Of course, consumers want guns that are excellently finished for ridiculously low prices. Faced with demand for $300 rifles, the major manufacturers have responded accordingly.
I have had good success with Rem 700 SPSs because I use the barreled action, swapping trigger and stock for alternatives that meet my needs. I can get a plain Rem 700 action from Brownell’s, get it barreled and built after truing and have an excellent rifle. I’m going to look at Cabela’s Rem Custom Shop offerings, but for $3,000, I can get most of the way to an excellent custom rifle from a bullet-proof reliable custom builder.
I can build an excellent rifle with a Rem SPS, add an excellent scope and load some excellent developed handloads that meet most of my needs. So can most of you with a good ‘smith. Always remember the wisdom of the Lone Ranger on this issue:
“It ain’t the arrows, Tonto!”
FH
I have had good success with Rem 700 SPSs because I use the barreled action, swapping trigger and stock for alternatives that meet my needs. I can get a plain Rem 700 action from Brownell’s, get it barreled and built after truing and have an excellent rifle. I’m going to look at Cabela’s Rem Custom Shop offerings, but for $3,000, I can get most of the way to an excellent custom rifle from a bullet-proof reliable custom builder.
I can build an excellent rifle with a Rem SPS, add an excellent scope and load some excellent developed handloads that meet most of my needs. So can most of you with a good ‘smith. Always remember the wisdom of the Lone Ranger on this issue:
“It ain’t the arrows, Tonto!”
FH
Kynoch
member
I don't think that's the case at all. I don't think the things a lot of people are bemoaning are manufacturing related at all. I think they have to do with industry-wide introduction of cost reduced models.
Some will suggest there are red marbles in the mix and there's nothing that manufacturing can do about red marbles by itself...
After hearing so much about the Ruger American and its low price, I went to take a look at one with my son. A fairly remarkable design -- definitely designed to be economically manufactured -- plastic stock, coated metal parts, no iron sights, etc. Seems like it would be a great deer gun that could take quite a thrashing and keep on chugging.
My son rejected it out of hand because it didn't have wood furniture and fine bluing. That's his choice to make but it in no way means the Ruger is of low quality manufacture. It might well be of higher quality with respect to its actual design than older Model 700s and Model 70s. It may well perform longer and better than older designs as well.
I suspect if the Ruger American had been introduced for sale as it is today (impossible as some of the materials/processes did not yet exist) in 1960, Ruger would have taken a huge chunk of the rifle market from Remington and Winchester, just as they are trying to do today.
Kynoch
member
Yup. Even back in the old days, if a manufacturer had offered a rifle with the sort of plastic furniture and metal coatings that are so common today, they would have sold a ton of them if they would have been 1/3-1/2 the price of finely finished competitors.
BIGGBAY90
Member
700's recall
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Always be aware of the "Internet Warrior" and "Chicken Little" syndromes..."
I've had three experiences with Remington products;
.308 700 SPS;
Hell of a gun, but a terrible stock. Didn't seem to hurt groups much, which were still under 1MOA; gotta give Remington credit on the barrel blanks, which seem consistently excellent. Chamber was a wee bit rough, but was only occasionally an issue. It's not like it's an autoloader, nor was I shooting steel case, so chamber quality isn't so critical. The parker-whatever finish on it ("Express" finish) was the worst of any gun I've owned about rusting. This includes many in-the-white milsurps, btw. I have to imagine there was something caustic from manufacture still stuck in the pores, since bare metal didn't accumulate surface rust nearly as fast. This was even after saturating the stuff with oil (which took a surprising amount of oil as I recall; like the gun is wrapped in a sponge)
12ga 870 Express;
Good shotgun, not smooth, but it works. Well, unless you feed it anything but more-expensive brass case shells. The chamber was apparently cut with a corn cob as best I can tell. But still, it does work, is reliable if treated a certain way, and only cost my brother two bills. Hard to beat that (but it's still somewhat disturbing that America has been reduced to the Soviet surplus model of marketing). Same terrible, rust prone finish as my bolt gun, but accurate shooting in his hands (I need to take a look at it this Turkey day, since I know he hasn't cleaned/oiled it since he got it a few years ago; probably pretty crusty by now)
Remington R51;
Excellent work by the R&D team, but gawdawful execution by the NC facility. The MIM internal parts were the high point of the gun (I don't use "MIM" derisively, by the way, they were in fact the best made parts in the gun), but were still fairly grainy in texture, and had lots of mold-line and sprue artifacts. All the machined parts showed varying levels of tool marks and rough edges reminiscent of Soviet production. Every conceivable tolerance was incredibly loose, except the over-stippled pivot pins, which were veritably mashed into the aluminum frame. Chamber was beyond terrible, and would have been usuable/unsafe if it were cut any shorter. Despite being short in depth and lacking any leade, it managed to be very oblong due to tool wobble, and was just barely curable with follow-up reaming (technically violating the warranty, no doubt). Primers consistently bulge due to an overly large pin channel (again, see loose tolerances). Gun was very accurate, though.
So no, I don't think most users of modern-era Remington products are being Chicken Littles, at all. Besides, having been bought up by the corporate equivalent of a fungus, the sky at Remington has long since fallen. No one does business with Cerberus willingly.
TCB
I've had three experiences with Remington products;
.308 700 SPS;
Hell of a gun, but a terrible stock. Didn't seem to hurt groups much, which were still under 1MOA; gotta give Remington credit on the barrel blanks, which seem consistently excellent. Chamber was a wee bit rough, but was only occasionally an issue. It's not like it's an autoloader, nor was I shooting steel case, so chamber quality isn't so critical. The parker-whatever finish on it ("Express" finish) was the worst of any gun I've owned about rusting. This includes many in-the-white milsurps, btw. I have to imagine there was something caustic from manufacture still stuck in the pores, since bare metal didn't accumulate surface rust nearly as fast. This was even after saturating the stuff with oil (which took a surprising amount of oil as I recall; like the gun is wrapped in a sponge
)12ga 870 Express;
Good shotgun, not smooth, but it works. Well, unless you feed it anything but more-expensive brass case shells. The chamber was apparently cut with a corn cob as best I can tell. But still, it does work, is reliable if treated a certain way, and only cost my brother two bills. Hard to beat that (but it's still somewhat disturbing that America has been reduced to the Soviet surplus model of marketing). Same terrible, rust prone finish as my bolt gun, but accurate shooting in his hands (I need to take a look at it this Turkey day, since I know he hasn't cleaned/oiled it since he got it a few years ago; probably pretty crusty by now)
Remington R51;
Excellent work by the R&D team, but gawdawful execution by the NC facility. The MIM internal parts were the high point of the gun (I don't use "MIM" derisively, by the way, they were in fact the best made parts in the gun), but were still fairly grainy in texture, and had lots of mold-line and sprue artifacts. All the machined parts showed varying levels of tool marks and rough edges reminiscent of Soviet production. Every conceivable tolerance was incredibly loose, except the over-stippled pivot pins, which were veritably mashed into the aluminum frame. Chamber was beyond terrible, and would have been usuable/unsafe if it were cut any shorter. Despite being short in depth and lacking any leade, it managed to be very oblong due to tool wobble, and was just barely curable with follow-up reaming (technically violating the warranty, no doubt). Primers consistently bulge due to an overly large pin channel (again, see loose tolerances). Gun was very accurate, though.
So no, I don't think most users of modern-era Remington products are being Chicken Littles, at all. Besides, having been bought up by the corporate equivalent of a fungus, the sky at Remington has long since fallen. No one does business with Cerberus willingly.
TCB
- Status
