Posted on 02/08/2018 6:40:22 PM PST by jazusamo
One of the biggest U.S. gun manufacturers is taking steps toward filing for bankruptcy, according to Reuters news service.
Remington Outdoor Company Inc. has “reached out to banks and credit investment funds in search of financing that will allow it to file for bankruptcy,” Reuters reported Thursday evening, citing “people familiar with the matter.”
According to those sources, the debt-ridden company missed a payment on its debt this week and is seeking “debtor-in-possession financing” that would let the company continue operations once it went bankrupt.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Remington was and to some degree still is very much a Fudd-catering company. Worse, it was *old* Fudds they were catering to. They were so caught up on this that the market passed them by and their much belated attempts to catch up, much like Colt’s (though for different reasons), fell far, far short - and were too little too late - so they find themselves in the same position of all such companies.
If I had Trump money, I would buy both Remington and Colt.
If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his ass every time he jumps.
My son gave me a new Mossberg 12 gauge semiautomatic.
It has never once emptied an eight-round magazine without jamming. Not even after implementing Mossberg’s “fix.”
Those guys are still running Harley - and their plan that initially saved Harley by playing on Boomer nostalgia and “heritage” without making anything substantially new has run the company into the ground. They make nothing the current majority of the buyers in the market want. They just closed their Pennsylvania plant.
Meanwhile, my Russian made Saiga 12 (12 gauge semi auto shotgun, mag fed) does 10, 12 and 20 round drum dumps flawlessly - and at the time I got it, it cost less than the Mossberg semis.
While you’re at it, why don’t you give me a nice paper cut and rub some lemon juice in it?
Interesting - I didn’t know that.
So if they took over Remington they could expect a 35 year run before it falls apart again?
BTW, I heard that 80% of the Harleys ever made are still on the road.
The rest made it home.
;)
Yeah its not a Remington exclusive problem... It is newer guns period, at least the lower end ones, I bought both my boys Ruger 10/22’s about 10 years ago. It took us awhile to figure out it was crappy clips not functioning correctly and not the guns... We tossed the clips that kept jamming up and now those seem alright. I just prefer to go find used older guns, they seem much better quality... That said, I LOVE my new Henry! My now young adult sons just got old but very well maintained .243 and 300 win mag after their grandfather passed away... Older than they are and you cant even tell, except for the OLD scopes on them... now they know what quality feels like at least.
Some great names there they have destroyed.
[Cerberus Capital Management LP]
Isn’t this the Bushies?
I bought my daughter a 10/22 a year or so ago, and it seems to be working fine. Maybe they fixed the problem.
Really like to have a Henry, but until the tragic boat accident I had a Tika 308 with a killer scope, a semi-auto AK with 30 and 40 round mags, a somewhat functional 12 gauge, and a sidearm.
Unless they legalize the sale of machine guns, grenades, and claymores, that covers all my real-world needs. Anything else I buy would just be a toy.
Less than that because Remington does *not* have a favorable history/cultural value within the past 20 years. I don’t know that a Harley style revival is even possible for them at this point.
I’m just pointing out the problem with “We should always give military contracts to American companies” as implied in your prior post. Sometimes American companies make crap and all that giving them money does is encourage them to make more of the same.
We should give our soldiers the best we can afford, not the “most American gun we can get.” Being strictly nativist in equipping usually leads to losing.
Yeah, I returned a 700 for the trigger recall and was underwhelmed with their performance. I was also disappointed that they shipped a defective product in the first place.
So I have first hand experience with operational problems. I suspect they took on too much debt as well.
Still, I want to like a US manufacturer that’s been around so long, and wish they weren’t failing. IMHO, that sentiment could fuel a revival if they managed it properly.
“I’m just pointing out the problem with “We should always give military contracts to American companies” as implied in your prior post.”
I’m sorry. I meant to say that more plainly.
“Sometimes American companies make crap and all that giving them money does is encourage them to make more of the same.”
That’s a valid concern, and it’s why I mentioned having some one to make them mend their wicked ways.
“We should give our soldiers the best we can afford, not the “most American gun we can get.”
Those two things should be the same. It’s a disgrace that countries which were ashes in 1945 are making better guns than we are.
They can’t get better without the money from military sales, and they can’t get military sales until they get better. I’ll bet there are a few businessmen in America who could get them out of that pickle, if there were any interest in it.
“Being strictly nativist in equipping usually leads to losing.”
It should go without saying that I don’t advocate tromping on our hooters for the sake of buying American, but it should be the guiding star.
I would counter that with Glock, IM Metal (who makes the Springfield XD) and Colt.
Colt had *all* the military and police contracts for decades. What did they do? Sit on their ass, piss on the civilian market and when their stranglehold on US military rifle and carbine production was broken by their increasingly crap quality and increasingly rising prices, they were left in the state they are in now: Broke, 20 years of no significant new products and a civilian marketplace that mostly hates them.
Glock? Revolutionized handguns, but did not get a military firearm contract before designing it.
IM Metal? Designers worked up the Springfield XD nee HS2000 on spec, no military contract.
I would also point out that Remington was basically gifted the very innovative Magpul Masada carbine/rifle concept at the height of the Obama buying panic... and they basically did nothing with it, much to everyone’s disgust.
Those things reflect bad decisions and outright incompetence.
Given the importance of arms to national defense, is the answer to go overseas and let our own companies go down, or to straighten out the sad sacks at American Companies?
Remember, though, that with very few exceptions, the foreign companies winning contracts *have* to make the products here in the US. Sig won the pistol contract, but they will be making them here with US workers and all tech info is in US government possession. In case of war, those plants can be nationalized. Pretty much takes most of the downsides out of choosing a foreign design.
We’ve tried corporate welfare to straighten these companies out. Doesn’t work - in fact, the Colt M4 debacle just proves they will get worse. Better to force them to shape up by depriving them of military contracts they don’t deserve rather than give them more money and get American troops killed by foisting the next Chauchat on them, only this one made by an American company.
FYI, these companies can improve without military contracts. See the post-Bill Ruger (after he died) Ruger. They have had no military contracts for decades yet today have an innovative, changing, mostly well regarded and desired product lineup that bears little resemblance to their offerings just 10 years ago.
“Remember, though, that with very few exceptions, the foreign companies winning contracts *have* to make the products here in the US.”
This is an issue I’ve given a lot of thought to. There are upsides, as compared with overseas manufacturing. That cannot be denied. However, there is a weevil down in the hardtack. Profit is repatriated. That money should be deposited in our banks to fund our business credit needs, not in Austria or Tokyo to finance their economies. All those conditions are good, yes, but it’s better to have American companies doing the manufacturing.
“We’ve tried corporate welfare to straighten these companies out.”
I’m not calling for corporate welfare; I’m calling for corporate boot camp.
“Better to force them to shape up by depriving them of military contracts they don’t deserve”
Are we forcing them to shape up, or driving them out of business permanently? I think it might be better to have good businessmen step in and turn these companies around. Again, it should go without saying that I would never countenance giving our forces inferior gear.
“FYI, these companies can improve without military contracts.”
I see that I wrote unclearly. I said that they can’t survive without government contracts and couldn’t improve without them, but I went on to say that there are businessmen who could find a way out of that standoff.
It didn’t occur to me when I was writing, but yes, Ruger is a good example of this.
When a company goes bankrupt, it is common for a court to appoint receivers. If good businessmen were appointed to put American companies back on the straight and narrow, then in the near future American companies would be able to meet the military’s needs for small arms.
IMO, that would be a good thing. A MAGA sort of thing, no?
Profit is actually the smallest percentage of the price of a contract weapon. Sure, the amount put back into the US economy is smaller than if a US maker (though this isn’t always the case, depends on the dividend policies of the company and the nationality of the stockholders - and some of the ‘foreign companies’ are actually US owned) but the supermajority of the money will be staying in the US, buying US materials, employing US workers, etc.
Corporate boot camp is sadly not an option. The only option for anything even close to that is for the company to go bankrupt and someone else picking them up from receivership. The name and IP won’t go away, someone will pick it up.
The fact that they can’t survive without government contracts is their own damn fault and they deserve to reap the rewards thereof.
Safe-T-Hammer picking up Smith And Wesson from the wreckage caused when Thomson of Britain owned and cratered them is another example of how a company can be fixed - but Safe-T-Hammer has pointed out that they had to fire pretty much the entire management staff. There was nothing salvageable other than the name and IP.
As for US industry being able to make US military small arms - it’s possible, but right now it’s unlikely to happen in the near future. Maybe in a decade or so - the potential successors to the M4/M16 keep getting shut down by political BS (often instigated by Colt, but now self-sustaining) and the only thing that’s actually getting any sort of traction is the Marines’ impending expansion of the H&K made M27 IAR to all Marines in place of the M16 and some M4s. Oh, and FN of Belgium is currently making our M16s in a plant in South Carolina. Nobody else has the free volume capability; Colt is bankrupt and ineligible. Ruger is booked up for years. Everyone else never had it or sold it off. Going to be a while to spin up those capabilities.
Then there’s this: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/05/breaking-remington-wins-m4-contract-review/
https://taskandpurpose.com/soldiers-able-choose-barrel-length/
Even with part of the M4 contract and the $80 million Obama bribe contract, Remington couldn’t survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.