Remington Is Planning to File for Bankruptcy

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/cerberus-s-remington-will-cede-control-to-lenders-in-bankruptcy

by williamstein • 8 years ago

20 50 8 years ago

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

Part of the problem gun companies face is that guns are reliable -- very reliable. Like "last 100 years" reliable. And guns are likely to be maintained, stored properly, and not simply lost.

I think that's part of the reason for all the gear and "tactical" stuff and expensive assault rifles... they tend to keep the revenue flowing.

And I also think that's why people who are against guns in general want assault rifles banned -- they drive the success of the gun industry. If you just go by the numbers, I don't see any justification for banning really any kind of rifle (unless it's full auto or something)[1].

[1] Around 5% of murders and probably lower for accidents and suicides https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Spooky232• 8 years ago

The orgy of gun hoarding over the last decade or so is staggering. It’s truly bizarre and unsustainable.

Add a lag in that insanity to the pump and dump mismanagement of private equity guys sucking the place dry and poof.

LyndsySimon5• 8 years ago

The orgy of gun hoarding over the last decade or so is staggering. It’s truly bizarre and unsustainable.

It's due to two things, in my opinion: the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004, and the rise of first-person shooter video games.

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

It's a little strange that these big gun companies are not private, independent, and debt-free. They've been around for long enough -- why do they subject themselves to the whims of investors? Why not just keep chugging along and protect their products?

I guess the obvious answer is "money". Seems sad that the spirit of independence is so shallow.

lykr0n2• 8 years ago

I just picked up a '64 SKS. Fires like it just left the factory. Unless I get a squib, my AR-15 will last for years. And if something breaks I can replace the part. I have no reason to get another AR unless I want a different caliber or a a SBR or something. Remington sold me what I wanted, so I never need anything else from them.

The gun industry loves when people rally for guns to be banned, it's why the NRA takes such a hardliner stand. Conflict will drive sales. I think the general populous has come to the notion that guns will never be banned (if it was going to happen, it'd have happened after Vegas. What a fucked up world we live in...), so there is no reason to stockpile. Also, the 2nd hand market is booming, which I think is a major factor.

hprotagonist• 8 years ago

Doing my best to walk on eggshells here.

I think that's part of the reason for all the gear and "tactical" stuff and expensive assault rifles... they tend to keep the revenue flowing.

Fear sells. In the case of ARs and the vast accessory market, it's been quite lucrative since 2008 or so.

And I also think that's why people who are against guns in general want assault rifles banned

As people on both sides of this debate are bound to point out, "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics. It means a lot in terms of marketability, though!

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

"[Assault rifle] means a lot in terms of marketability, though!"

Money, more importantly. That's why people who want to starve the gun industry make them illegal; not because they are dangerous, but because they are a good revenue source for the industry.

Also, assault rifles are favored by younger enthusiasts, so banning them is a way to nip the market in the bud.

LyndsySimon5• 8 years ago

As people on both sides of this debate are bound to point out, "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics. It means a lot in terms of marketability, though!

I honestly don't recall the last time I saw a gun company market something as an "assault _____".

Many pro-gun folks have been trying to get the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to stick. I find it kind of silly, myself. They're just "ARs" (for AR-15-pattern rifles) or "AKs" (for AKM-pattern rifles).

jakewins• 8 years ago

"assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics

In my experience, what reasonable gun control advocates mean when they talk about ARs are rifles equipped with gas powered repeating actions.

There is a fundamental difference between a bolt-action rifle, which has no practical way to be converted to an automatic weapon, and gas powered semi automatic that anyone who knows how to type "youtube" into the browser bar can turn into a bullet hose.

There was a good writeup on this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stoc...

travisjungroth• 8 years ago

"assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics.

I think you're both mixing up assault rifles and assault weapons. Assault rifles are full-auto or burst fire, medium length rifles. Assault weapons are guns that happen to fall under very specific and changing laws.

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

"Doing my best to walk on eggshells here."

Why? Sincere question. I think it would shed some light on why our political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.

Just say what you want to say. Others should give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't evil, and ask for clarification as required.

(Note: by "clarification" I don't mean "clarify which side you are on so I know whether to be outraged or not", I mean to clarify whatever unique perspectives you have to offer.)

cameldrv• 8 years ago

It is difficult to legally define an assault weapon when you still want to allow hunting rifles, and manufacturers are looking for any loophole. Congress did a fairly reasonable job in 1994 under the circumstances. There is a reason armies go to war with assault rifles and not hunting rifles. Intermediate cartridge, pistol grip, large box magazine, and in some cases collapsable stock make a weapon adequately accurate at medium range, handy enough in close quarters, and able to deliver a large volume of fire. These weapons are useful for two things: looking cool and killing people.

tptacek2• 8 years ago

I don't think the economics of gun sales have really anything to do with public opposition to assault rifles; I doubt 1 gun control advocate in 200 even knows that assault rifles are relatively lucrative. I sure didn't; I'd have assumed the money was in hand guns.

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

Honestly I really don't know, but they are:

* more expensive

* amenable to more gear of various kinds ("tactical")

* the ammo is much more expensive, and much easier to fire quickly

* used more among enthusiasts, a.k.a. "influencers"

So basically, you sell a pistol to someone, get a $500 sale in a competitive market (probably low margins), and sell some ammo and range time a few times a year.

But if you sell the tactical stuff (e.g. assault rifles and other gear-accomodating stuff), you are likely to get a few high-margin follow up sales and a more enthusiastic customer who might involve their friends, use more ammo, etc.

megaman22• 8 years ago

Sad. I've had a great experience with my 1100 and 870 shotguns and 742 deer rifle. But, on the other hand, those are all second-hand, older models that were manufactured in the 1970s or 80s, and are likely to last the rest of my lifetime - and are in fact superior quality to the replacement models that were subsequently introduced.

For typical civilian usages, firearms were essentially perfected over a half-century ago.

AmVess2• 8 years ago

This is true. I have rifles that are 100 years old, and they are in as new condition. Clean and oil after firing and they will last forever.

The majority of my rifles are old...30+ years and are as new. I haven't purchased a new rifle in many many years.

kbenson2• 8 years ago

If you just go by the numbers, I don't see any justification for banning really any kind of rifle (unless it's full auto or something)

I've long thought that if possible, banning handguns and allowing rifles would get us a long way towards some sane medium. Most the sport/safety features of having a gun are still present in rifle form, and many of the problems are mitigated, since it's much harder to hide.

The problem is that when I've brought it up, many 2nd amendment proponents come up with odd and not very convincing reasons why they are still important, and if you press them come around to just admitting they believe it's all just a slippery slope and a play by politicians to complete gun bans (just like any other reforms).

I'm not convinced any forward progress can be made on this issue when such distrust exists between at least one side of the issue, and the other often willfully ignores any valid points against their position.

jeffdavis7• 8 years ago

"I've long thought that if possible, banning handguns and allowing rifles would get us a long way towards some sane medium."

That would be an interesting compromise, but there are a bunch of things to consider:

* You'd need really strong protections for all kinds of semi-auto rifles to convince people that it's not just a gun-grabbing conspiracy.

* Home defense might be more complicated. It would seem that long guns could work -- though perhaps we'd need to redefine them down to a little smaller size. But keeping a rifle ready, yet away from children is a little more complicated than for a pistol I think.

* A lot of people aren't really protected by police, and it would trouble me to take away their handguns. But maybe that ship has already sailed because carrying a gun is not recognized as a right in some states.

* Recent estimates suggest there are about a zillion handguns in the country. Even with 100% compliance, that suggests a logistical challenge. And with less than 100% compliance, that creates a lot of interesting challenges.

Really, I'd be OK with your proposal. It crossed my mind before. I think it could be OK constitutionally speaking (and I'm fairly strict as far as the Constitution goes), largely because rifles are just a lot better for pretty much anything other than carrying. So, given that carrying isn't really protected, pistols don't really seem so important in areas you can't carry anyway.

Then again, some people like pistols, and that's reason enough to respect their rights (if you believe such a right exists). Freedom means you don't always get an answer to the question "why?". As long as we want Oklahoma to be a state, rather than some kind of landlocked territory, we have to have some deference to their way of life.

viggity• 8 years ago

Assault Rifles are effectively already banned.

An "Assault Rifle" is an automatic weapon with a detachable magazine. One trigger pull = more than one bullet. Contrary to popular belief, an AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle (AR = Armalite Rifle, Armalite being a company). It is possible for individuals to own an automatic weapon, but the legal supply there of was frozen in 1986. If you want one, you need to reside in a state that allows individuals to own one (not all do), you also need to get a Class III firearms license from BATFE (prepare your butthole for a thorough examination for 6+ months). Since the supply is frozen at 1986 levels, you can expect to spend $10-40k for a single automatic rifle. All of this is outlined in the National Firearms Act (NFA). I am not aware of any legally owned NFA rifle being used in any crime because they are so expensive/rare.

An "Assault Weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 of 5 cosmetic features that do not in any appreciable way effect the dangerousness of the rifle (pistol grip, telescoping stock, etc . Semi-automatic means one trigger pull = one bullet. Assault Weapons like the AR-15 are frequently demonized because they look scary and are functionally identical to most non-bolt-action hunting rifles. They are used in very few crimes. For more information, google "Federal Assault Weapons Ban".

dogma11382• 8 years ago

Class III will allow you to own automatic rifles registered after 1986.

Pre AWB items don’t need any special licensing but they cost an arm, leg and like 5 kidneys.

dionian• 8 years ago

for the record, "assault rifle" is a defined term, it generally means a select-fire (can switch between single shot or burst/auto) rifle with an intermediate sized cartridge. these are almost entirely illegal and almost impossible to get legally in the US due to federal law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

"assault weapon" is a vague political term made up by the anti-gun lobby to ban weapons that are "like" assault rifles but are limited to semi-auto fire (one trigger pull = one boom) - http://assaultweapon.info is a quick slideshow presentation explaining the history

mirkules• 8 years ago

The irony of it all - by electing a republican* president, the democrats have a victory which would not have been possible if a democrat president took office.

I wonder if this effect has a name and whether it can be applied to computer security too? For instance, having a pro-encryption-backdoor president inadvertently increasing security.

*republican in name only

lykr0n2• 8 years ago

Guns are easy to make if you have the right tools. There will always be someone making and selling; even if it is the local store down the road. This will change nothing.

Arms sales are a big market. I think what happened here is that Remington took a bet on the Civilian Market in the US and lost.

jdhn• 8 years ago

It's more like they got loaded down by debt, had terrible QC issues (brand new shotgun barrels rusting before they were even fired by the customer), and then were finally done in by the declining sales.

icelancer• 8 years ago

> Guns are easy to make if you have the right tools.

That's a bit much. Rifling barrels is not a trivial task.

philipwhiuk• 8 years ago

I don't think anyone anti-gun really sees this as a victory. I doubt the closure of Remington will reduce gun sales.

FireForce• 8 years ago

Remington Outdoors isn't filing for bankruptcy because of politics or because guns last a long time, as others have suggested. They've been acquiring big-name arms manufactures like Remington Arms, Bushmaster, and Marlin, then throwing quality control out the window while they ride the reputations of their subsidiaries into the ground.

LyndsySimon5• 8 years ago

Exactly. See the fiasco with the R51.

AmVess2• 8 years ago

I just read bout that...what an appalling effort, and they should have known better. They have serious issues of a newly designed pistol cannot match a $150 Makarov in terms of manufacturing quality.

LyndsySimon5• 8 years ago

Remington has been badly mismanaged for years - this isn't news to anyone in the gun world.

nicolashahn4• 8 years ago

This needs to be closer to the top, no need to extrapolate further. Remington has been outputting crap for years, this doesn't represent the gun industry as a whole like some other commenters seem to be inferring.

Animats• 8 years ago

"Half the guns in America are owned by only 3 percent of the adult population, with an average of 17 firearms each."

Interesting. So there are really two target markets - people who want one gun for use, and people who are into guns as a hobby.

nicolashahn4• 8 years ago

This isn't really something that's specific to guns. Any hobby is going to end up with statistics like this. If you take a sample of say, motorcyclists - you might find that for 10 people who own exactly one, there's a collector who owns 20 who skews the average strongly (and a few more who own 2-5).

Guns are cheaper (on average) than motorcycles, they last longer, have been around longer, and tend to get passed down by generations (so one might find themselves with their grandfather's collection of 20 guns, and then add another 20 over their lifetime, then pass them along to their grandchild), so the skew is going to be much stronger.

Remington Is Planning to File for Bankruptcy

Related Stories