Shit gets done when it gets done.Originally Posted by Alpha Sierra
Shit gets done when it gets done.
Whatever. No one even remembers what it was until this thread came up.
Good luck in the marketplace.
Yeah, maybe you should get outside and get some sun. I have no idea what you even mean "good luck in the marketplace." Sorry shit doesn't fly out of a company as fast as you'd like, go fucking build your own company then.
For the record, I have no affiliation with KRG.
Didn't DPMS have some sort of ultra-light 308 AR that people were getting excited about?
Actually, it's not about making more varieties, it's about making better quality guns and eliminating the 7,000 variants of the 700 that they make. Paring production down and focusing on quality.
It's also about eliminating the garbage from the production lines.
I dunno exactly what Remington's biggest sellers are, but I'd guess they are the 700, the 597, and the 870. Slimming those lines to a few variants and focusing on production quality improvements would go a long way to insuring against future market disruptions.
But, eh, no one ever really listens to the actual economic advice and instead they tend to keep expanding their lines and bloating them up until they become unwieldy and untenable.
What would the end result look like? 700 ADLs in 30-06, 6.5 Creedmoor and 223 Remington stuck in a cheaply stained birch stock? A couple magnum offering in the BDL line?
The only bolt guns selling nowadays are either cheap stuff like the Ruger American and Savage 110 or the fancier chassis target rifles.
Nobody wants a new version of Grandpa's old deer rifle or fowling piece.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
I think it would look like:
700 SPS offered in short, long, and magnum actions - in either a light or medium contour barrel - in all the usual calibers
Precision Rifle Series capable 700 in .308 and 6.5 CM
Limited runs of walnut stocked guns in various calibers, much like the way Winchester is doing lever actions and Ruger does No. 1s.
Every gun should be at least 1-MOA accurate at 100, the PRS gun should be 1/4-MOA at 100.
____
Shotguns:
870 Express in 3" in 12 and 20-gauge basically like they are now, but ideally with improved extractors. Offered in 14" Tac-14 variant, 18.5" defensive variant, 26-28" hunting barrel, 24" slug barrel. Offer a 3.5" Magnum turkey gun. All with laminate or synthetic stocks and a parkerized or better yet cerakote finish. While I'd love to see a DLC-type finish - I'd settle for just a finish that is more durable than the Remington parkerization which is pretty thin.
870 Police/Wingmaster - all steel, barstock components, walnut stocks, 18.5" Police variant that is DLC coated, high polished blue 28" gun, and hell, have some fun and offer a 32" high-rib trap version.
__
If they want to do semi-autos in there too, that'd be cool, but I'd say do it after they have rectified the issues with the 700 and 870 lines to get them to be the finest guns out there for the money. Remington has always built working class guns, but I shouldn't buy an 870 and need to send it to Vang Comp for an $850 tuneup before it really works worth a damn. Neither should I have to re-bed, re-stock, or re-barrel my 700 to get it to shoot MOA or sub-MOA. I can buy a Benelli Nova that runs and a Tikka T3 that shoots sub-MOA for nigh the same money. I'd rather buy the Remington if possible, but it currently isn't.
I don't think it is about making quality products although that should be a given. It is more about staying relevant. If Remington wants to stay a household brand there needs to be some innovation there and not focus all their efforts on 19th Century products. They also should have dumped the DMPS and Bushmaster names ten years ago and rolled everything under one brand. As it was they kept all the "good stuff" as Remington products and churned out "junk" under the D and BM lines. The ACR is a prime example. Nobody wanted that gun as a BM product and not at the price. Take the same gun made on the same tooling and brand it with Remington and it probably would have sold. Would it have set the market on fire? Probably not but it likely would have done better as a Remington product rather than a BM.
With that said, I suppose the case can be made that all these companies should quit trying to be the sole provider of firearms to the American public and focus on what they're known for. Remington should make nothing other than 700s, 870s and 11-87s or 1100s and not worry about anything else. Ruger should make 10-22s and LCPs and the MK line of rimfire pistols and leave the 1911s to Colt. S&W should focus on wheel guns and wheel guns only.
The very first AR15 I owned was DPMS' version of the Dissapator. I got it in the immediate wake of the 2008 election when the firearms market was in a panic. An inside connection got me a hookup. I sold it during the next market panic for double what I paid for it and used the money to buy a Colt 6920 when the market settled.
My first patrol rifle was an agency Bushmaster bought off of state contract.
I can't recall the last time I have actually seen either brand in a store or in the wild.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
LOL………...that's how business die.
In one breath you say it's about staying relevant, right after that you say these companies should stick to certain products no matter what changes happen in the marketplace.
So in your opinion, Ruger should have completely ignored the hot market trend towards precision rifles and not innovated with the RPR. Or S&W should have abandoned polymer service handgun development with the Sigma, instead of doubling down and producing the wildly successful M&P series.
So glad they didn't "stay in their lanes"
Reply With Quote