Sold my last 742 ... Was a sweet rifle, but did not need a 257 Bob rifle cluttering up my nice 30 bore stash
Remington?
- Thread starter bigj_16
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Sold my last 742 ... Was a sweet rifle, but did not need a 257 Bob rifle cluttering up my nice 30 bore stash
I can see that. Real rifles start at .277
Sold my last 742 ... Was a sweet rifle, but did not need a 257 Bob rifle cluttering up my nice 30 bore stash
I can see that. Real rifles start at .277
Friends dont let friends buy Remington guns.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Friends dont let friends buy Remington guns.
Some are not a bad buy. The 1911's are pretty decent for the price point. Just make sure to break them down and make sure the ejector and plunger tube is staked in well. I heard there was a batch that shipped with the wrong extractors installed (may or may not be true), but there is little with a 1911 that cannot be fixed as long as the slide to frame and barrel fitment is all good.
But big green is certainly sick. I really want to get a nice 1100 again, but will have to track down a pre Freedom era one.
Friends dont let friends buy Remington guns.
Some are not a bad buy. The 1911's are pretty decent for the price point. Just make sure to break them down and make sure the ejector and plunger tube is staked in well. I heard there was a batch that shipped with the wrong extractors installed (may or may not be true), but there is little with a 1911 that cannot be fixed as long as the slide to frame and barrel fitment is all good.
But big green is certainly sick. I really want to get a nice 1100 again, but will have to track down a pre Freedom era one.
I bought a Sendero in 264 Win mag from Wholesale Sports. The action wouldn't close on a cartridge or even an un-primed brass, because the chamber wasn't finished. They exchanged it for a rifle with a trigger recall,which they knew about at the time. I found out a week later and they would not exchange again or refund the $1,300 I paid for it.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I bought a Sendero in 264 Win mag from Wholesale Sports. The action wouldn't close on a cartridge or even an un-primed brass, because the chamber wasn't finished. They exchanged it for a rifle with a trigger recall,which they knew about at the time. I found out a week later and they would not exchange again or refund the $1,300 I paid for it.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
So where is the rifle now? How does it shoot?
I bought a Sendero in 264 Win mag from Wholesale Sports. The action wouldn't close on a cartridge or even an un-primed brass, because the chamber wasn't finished. They exchanged it for a rifle with a trigger recall,which they knew about at the time. I found out a week later and they would not exchange again or refund the $1,300 I paid for it.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
So where is the rifle now? How does it shoot?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I bought a Sendero in 264 Win mag from Wholesale Sports. The action wouldn't close on a cartridge or even an un-primed brass, because the chamber wasn't finished. They exchanged it for a rifle with a trigger recall,which they knew about at the time. I found out a week later and they would not exchange again or refund the $1,300 I paid for it.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
So where is the rifle now? How does it shoot?
My guess is if you contact Remington directly they take care of your issue!
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I bought a Sendero in 264 Win mag from Wholesale Sports. The action wouldn't close on a cartridge or even an un-primed brass, because the chamber wasn't finished. They exchanged it for a rifle with a trigger recall,which they knew about at the time. I found out a week later and they would not exchange again or refund the $1,300 I paid for it.
Wholesale Sports is now closing all of its 12 stores.
So where is the rifle now? How does it shoot?
My guess is if you contact Remington directly they take care of your issue!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
The biggest problem with the Remington trigger is people adjusting them to reduce trigger pull that don't know what their doing. I would stick with the Model 700. The biggest problem with handling guns the best safety is planted firmly between your ears not on the side of the receiver. 99.999999% of all gun accidents can be prevented by good gun safety.
I have 3 Remington 700's that were bone stock and had 2 of them fire when I flipped off the saftey.. Others go their whole life with the rifle and never have an issue.. I can tell you that it happens and all mine have Timney's in them now.. As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R, I did buy a new RP9 because it was ridiculously cheap and it is a good shooting pistol, but is picky about ammo it will cycle reliably.
The biggest problem with the Remington trigger is people adjusting them to reduce trigger pull that don't know what their doing. I would stick with the Model 700. The biggest problem with handling guns the best safety is planted firmly between your ears not on the side of the receiver. 99.999999% of all gun accidents can be prevented by good gun safety.
I have 3 Remington 700's that were bone stock and had 2 of them fire when I flipped off the saftey.. Others go their whole life with the rifle and never have an issue.. I can tell you that it happens and all mine have Timney's in them now.. As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R, I did buy a new RP9 because it was ridiculously cheap and it is a good shooting pistol, but is picky about ammo it will cycle reliably.
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
None of what you just said. Remington didn't do any of that. They had no say in the matter what so ever. In fact, they were in the same financial sinking boat both Marlin and H&R were in. The holding company that owns them did. If Cerberus Capitol Management had not moved them, Marlin would have gone bankrupt, and would no longer exist. They were hemorrhaging money, And had operating costs that were going through the roof. And they would have gone broke if they had remained in Connecticut. They were no longer economically viable as a company. The factory was falling apart. The tooling and machines were worn out and outdated. And the workers were overpaid for what they were doing. Add it all up, and the fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Cerberus and the buyout they orchestrated with the Freedom Group, Marlin, Remington, and H&R would be long gone today.
This is why these multi corporation takeovers happen. You have a group of similar companies that are all in financial trouble. All of which can no longer continue to produce product at a profit on their own. By all of them being purchased by a large holding company, with a large amount of both working and venture capital, they can combine them. And in the process move them were employment is cheaper and more cost effective. And production can be made more efficient and less expensive. And in many cases it's cheaper to purchase new modern equipment, then it is to move heavy, worn out, outdated machinery.
Remington, Marlin, and Harrington & Richardson have all been in financial trouble for decades. None of them would be here today if it weren't for the Cerberus buyout. Would that have been better? It was much the same with Winchester. They went under, only to resurface. And today their guns are no longer made by the same people, in the same plant, on the same equipment. In today's worldwide global market it's the only way many of these companies can survive. Especially if they're financially dying on the vine, the way these 3 were. And even with the buyout Remington is still in trouble, and may not survive. That company has been allowed to bleed too much for far too long.
Yes, there have been growing pains along the way with all 3 of them. Quality dropped after these companies were taken over and moved. And workers, along with management and manufacturing equipment replaced. But the quality of today's Marlins overall, is as good or better than any of the JM guns. And if your sisters cousin's boyfriend somehow managed to get a "bad one", and tells everyone on 27 Internet gun forums, it doesn't accurately reflect the overall quality and production of every gun that leaves the factory today. Companies are forced to move, and lay people off if they are going to survive. It's a nasty fact of life. If you need to be reminded of it, look under the hood of your car. It's why you see the words, "Mexico", "Korea", and "Alabama", far more than you do, "Detroit".
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
None of what you just said. Remington didn't do any of that. They had no say in the matter what so ever. In fact, they were in the same financial sinking boat both Marlin and H&R were in. The holding company that owns them did. If Cerberus Capitol Management had not moved them, Marlin would have gone bankrupt, and would no longer exist. They were hemorrhaging money, And had operating costs that were going through the roof. And they would have gone broke if they had remained in Connecticut. They were no longer economically viable as a company. The factory was falling apart. The tooling and machines were worn out and outdated. And the workers were overpaid for what they were doing. Add it all up, and the fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Cerberus and the buyout they orchestrated with the Freedom Group, Marlin, Remington, and H&R would be long gone today.
This is why these multi corporation takeovers happen. You have a group of similar companies that are all in financial trouble. All of which can no longer continue to produce product at a profit on their own. By all of them being purchased by a large holding company, with a large amount of both working and venture capital, they can combine them. And in the process move them were employment is cheaper and more cost effective. And production can be made more efficient and less expensive. And in many cases it's cheaper to purchase new modern equipment, then it is to move heavy, worn out, outdated machinery.
Remington, Marlin, and Harrington & Richardson have all been in financial trouble for decades. None of them would be here today if it weren't for the Cerberus buyout. Would that have been better? It was much the same with Winchester. They went under, only to resurface. And today their guns are no longer made by the same people, in the same plant, on the same equipment. In today's worldwide global market it's the only way many of these companies can survive. Especially if they're financially dying on the vine, the way these 3 were. And even with the buyout Remington is still in trouble, and may not survive. That company has been allowed to bleed too much for far too long.
Yes, there have been growing pains along the way with all 3 of them. Quality dropped after these companies were taken over and moved. And workers, along with management and manufacturing equipment replaced. But the quality of today's Marlins overall, is as good or better than any of the JM guns. And if your sisters cousin's boyfriend somehow managed to get a "bad one", and tells everyone on 27 Internet gun forums, it doesn't accurately reflect the overall quality and production of every gun that leaves the factory today. Companies are forced to move, and lay people off if they are going to survive. It's a nasty fact of life. If you need to be reminded of it, look under the hood of your car. It's why you see the words, "Mexico", "Korea", and "Alabama", far more than you do, "Detroit".
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
None of what you just said. Remington didn't do any of that. They had no say in the matter what so ever. In fact, they were in the same financial sinking boat both Marlin and H&R were in. The holding company that owns them did. If Cerberus Capitol Management had not moved them, Marlin would have gone bankrupt, and would no longer exist. They were hemorrhaging money, And had operating costs that were going through the roof. And they would have gone broke if they had remained in Connecticut. They were no longer economically viable as a company. The factory was falling apart. The tooling and machines were worn out and outdated. And the workers were overpaid for what they were doing. Add it all up, and the fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Cerberus and the buyout they orchestrated with the Freedom Group, Marlin, Remington, and H&R would be long gone today.
This is why these multi corporation takeovers happen. You have a group of similar companies that are all in financial trouble. All of which can no longer continue to produce product at a profit on their own. By all of them being purchased by a large holding company, with a large amount of both working and venture capital, they can combine them. And in the process move them were employment is cheaper and more cost effective. And production can be made more efficient and less expensive. And in many cases it's cheaper to purchase new modern equipment, then it is to move heavy, worn out, outdated machinery.
Remington, Marlin, and Harrington & Richardson have all been in financial trouble for decades. None of them would be here today if it weren't for the Cerberus buyout. Would that have been better? It was much the same with Winchester. They went under, only to resurface. And today their guns are no longer made by the same people, in the same plant, on the same equipment. In today's worldwide global market it's the only way many of these companies can survive. Especially if they're financially dying on the vine, the way these 3 were. And even with the buyout Remington is still in trouble, and may not survive. That company has been allowed to bleed too much for far too long.
Yes, there have been growing pains along the way with all 3 of them. Quality dropped after these companies were taken over and moved. And workers, along with management and manufacturing equipment replaced. But the quality of today's Marlins overall, is as good or better than any of the JM guns. And if your sisters cousin's boyfriend somehow managed to get a "bad one", and tells everyone on 27 Internet gun forums, it doesn't accurately reflect the overall quality and production of every gun that leaves the factory today. Companies are forced to move, and lay people off if they are going to survive. It's a nasty fact of life. If you need to be reminded of it, look under the hood of your car. It's why you see the words, "Mexico", "Korea", and "Alabama", far more than you do, "Detroit".
[censored]. Marlin today is junk. I sent a 17HMR to the police to be melted down. I wouldn't even sell that piece of junk to anyone. You obviously love Remington.
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: nwjones18
..... As for Remington itself I have a hard time forgiving them for what they did to Marlin and H&R.
What is it you think Remington "did" to Marlin and H&R?
Shut down the factory that Marlin had been in forever laid off all the employees that wouldn't move to Illinois, and proceeded to make subpar Lever-actions for several years. They pretty much closed H&R down as far as I know they are nothing more than an importer now. What do you think they didn't do?
None of what you just said. Remington didn't do any of that. They had no say in the matter what so ever. In fact, they were in the same financial sinking boat both Marlin and H&R were in. The holding company that owns them did. If Cerberus Capitol Management had not moved them, Marlin would have gone bankrupt, and would no longer exist. They were hemorrhaging money, And had operating costs that were going through the roof. And they would have gone broke if they had remained in Connecticut. They were no longer economically viable as a company. The factory was falling apart. The tooling and machines were worn out and outdated. And the workers were overpaid for what they were doing. Add it all up, and the fact of the matter is, if it weren't for Cerberus and the buyout they orchestrated with the Freedom Group, Marlin, Remington, and H&R would be long gone today.
This is why these multi corporation takeovers happen. You have a group of similar companies that are all in financial trouble. All of which can no longer continue to produce product at a profit on their own. By all of them being purchased by a large holding company, with a large amount of both working and venture capital, they can combine them. And in the process move them were employment is cheaper and more cost effective. And production can be made more efficient and less expensive. And in many cases it's cheaper to purchase new modern equipment, then it is to move heavy, worn out, outdated machinery.
Remington, Marlin, and Harrington & Richardson have all been in financial trouble for decades. None of them would be here today if it weren't for the Cerberus buyout. Would that have been better? It was much the same with Winchester. They went under, only to resurface. And today their guns are no longer made by the same people, in the same plant, on the same equipment. In today's worldwide global market it's the only way many of these companies can survive. Especially if they're financially dying on the vine, the way these 3 were. And even with the buyout Remington is still in trouble, and may not survive. That company has been allowed to bleed too much for far too long.
Yes, there have been growing pains along the way with all 3 of them. Quality dropped after these companies were taken over and moved. And workers, along with management and manufacturing equipment replaced. But the quality of today's Marlins overall, is as good or better than any of the JM guns. And if your sisters cousin's boyfriend somehow managed to get a "bad one", and tells everyone on 27 Internet gun forums, it doesn't accurately reflect the overall quality and production of every gun that leaves the factory today. Companies are forced to move, and lay people off if they are going to survive. It's a nasty fact of life. If you need to be reminded of it, look under the hood of your car. It's why you see the words, "Mexico", "Korea", and "Alabama", far more than you do, "Detroit".
[censored]. Marlin today is junk. I sent a 17HMR to the police to be melted down. I wouldn't even sell that piece of junk to anyone. You obviously love Remington.
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
What year/years did Marlin move from Connecticut?
How could I identify a Marlin manufactured in one of their good or bad years?
Marlin closed their North Haven plant in March of 2010. The North Haven, Connecticut guns have the "JM" stamp on the barrel. The Madison, North Carolina guns do not.
What year/years did Marlin move from Connecticut?
How could I identify a Marlin manufactured in one of their good or bad years?
Marlin closed their North Haven plant in March of 2010. The North Haven, Connecticut guns have the "JM" stamp on the barrel. The Madison, North Carolina guns do not.
Originally Posted By: FastLane
I sent a 17HMR to the police to be melted down.
You "sent it"?
I sent a 17HMR to the police to be melted down.
You "sent it"?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
What year/years did Marlin move from Connecticut?
How could I identify a Marlin manufactured in one of their good or bad years?
Marlin closed their North Haven plant in March of 2010. The North Haven, Connecticut guns have the "JM" stamp on the barrel. The Madison, North Carolina guns do not.
thanks!
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
What year/years did Marlin move from Connecticut?
How could I identify a Marlin manufactured in one of their good or bad years?
Marlin closed their North Haven plant in March of 2010. The North Haven, Connecticut guns have the "JM" stamp on the barrel. The Madison, North Carolina guns do not.
thanks!
I have to speak up in support of billt460's observations. The gun industry of today is nothing like it was in the 1970s. The markets have changed, the products changed, and to survive, you have to cover all the bases.
Ruger has an advantage over everyone else in that Pine Tree Castings accounts for the vast majority of the overall revenue generated for the company - which allows them to market as many oddball configurations as you can come up with.
Ruger along with S&W are two examples of market spread over a wide field. If you want rifles, shotguns, rimfires, pistols, revolvers, Ruger has something for everyone. Single action and double action wheelguns from .22LR all the way up to .480. Auto pistols from the .22 semi autos through all sorts of center fires (and I don't include the Mark III). Want rifles? Bolt action - what caliber ? You name it, they probably have it. They even jumped into the AR market to keep up with everyone else. Smith & Wesson still leads the pack with snub .38 Special CCW wheelguns, and one of the better service autos on the block (Sorry, I'm still carrying my Glock). Their AR clone is on par with Ruger, or any of the major producers.
Colt - (cough) . . . the once great company had some of the best handguns on the market. Revolvers for all levels from the Python to the Trooper, the **** Special to the Cobra. The Colt Woodsman is still a prized find. But they gambled on US Govt contracts only, ditched the double action revolvers, tossed aside most of the civilian market except for the M1911A1 still built on 1915 machinery, and the AR15. Then along came F.N. and beat them at their own game. From what I gather, Colt no longer even owns the famous Blue Dome of Hartford that was once the east armory.
Marlin - they made, essentially for all intents and purposes, one gun - the lever action rifle. Their bolt actions were so-so. But the name Marlin and Lever Action were somewhat synonymous. But not everyone wants, or likes, the 336 --- so they go elsewhere.
Harrington & Richardson was out of the rifle game in the 1960s. They had a heyday making M1 Garands in the 1950s, and the M14 in the 1960s. They made a cheap double action revolver that was, well . . . cheap. They settled in making single shot shotguns, and again like Marlin, not everyone wants single shot shotguns.
I don't even want to think about what's come of Winchester. They had nothing of interest at the NRA meeting in Atlanta this past April.
Mossberg is an anomaly with their bread and butter being the M500/590 shotguns. At one time, Mossberg was not even a contender against the Remington shotguns - but that changed, and now the 870 and the 590 run neck and neck. Mossberg brings out the 'Shockwave' and Remington has to follow up. It's a market share grab. Yes, they each have specific features that are pluses and minuses, but essentially, they're both solid reliable platforms. (You get one of each so as you flip flop on which is your favorite, you already have one)
Some names lost are no loss - Lorcin, Bryco, and RG as examples. But for any of the major gun companies to go under is not just an injury to the marketplace, but potentially harmful nationally. Look at WW-II at how many companies made M1 Garands and M1 Carbines (including auto makers). Remington made M1911A1 pistols and M1903A3 and A4 bolt action rifles, all the go up against another country with the best armaments industry of its day. By the time the 1960s rolled around, you had General Motors back making M16 rifles for Vietnam.
Yes, we all take turns bashing certain gun makers, I do it myself. I still haven't fully forgiven Bill Ruger for selling out to the Clintonistas in 1994, but that doesn't mean I haven't bought Ruger guns since he passed away. (compared with not having to do with anything Smith & Wesson with their stupid sideplate locks)
Billt460 is correct that any time a company falls from grace, it's not going to be the gun, but those running the company. Yes, labor costs are through the roof, but American can still build some of the best firearms in the world. Are they going to be built like in the 1960s - no, but neither are our automobiles. Personally, I find a CNC made gun that can take drop in parts more attractive than one that has to be entirely hand fitted (can you spell 'Python'). Does a Ruger GP100 look and feel as elegant as a Colt Python? Certainly not, but that GP100 will be on the range firing away with magnum loads long after the Python goes back to Colt for a tune-up.
Ruger has an advantage over everyone else in that Pine Tree Castings accounts for the vast majority of the overall revenue generated for the company - which allows them to market as many oddball configurations as you can come up with.
Ruger along with S&W are two examples of market spread over a wide field. If you want rifles, shotguns, rimfires, pistols, revolvers, Ruger has something for everyone. Single action and double action wheelguns from .22LR all the way up to .480. Auto pistols from the .22 semi autos through all sorts of center fires (and I don't include the Mark III). Want rifles? Bolt action - what caliber ? You name it, they probably have it. They even jumped into the AR market to keep up with everyone else. Smith & Wesson still leads the pack with snub .38 Special CCW wheelguns, and one of the better service autos on the block (Sorry, I'm still carrying my Glock). Their AR clone is on par with Ruger, or any of the major producers.
Colt - (cough) . . . the once great company had some of the best handguns on the market. Revolvers for all levels from the Python to the Trooper, the **** Special to the Cobra. The Colt Woodsman is still a prized find. But they gambled on US Govt contracts only, ditched the double action revolvers, tossed aside most of the civilian market except for the M1911A1 still built on 1915 machinery, and the AR15. Then along came F.N. and beat them at their own game. From what I gather, Colt no longer even owns the famous Blue Dome of Hartford that was once the east armory.
Marlin - they made, essentially for all intents and purposes, one gun - the lever action rifle. Their bolt actions were so-so. But the name Marlin and Lever Action were somewhat synonymous. But not everyone wants, or likes, the 336 --- so they go elsewhere.
Harrington & Richardson was out of the rifle game in the 1960s. They had a heyday making M1 Garands in the 1950s, and the M14 in the 1960s. They made a cheap double action revolver that was, well . . . cheap. They settled in making single shot shotguns, and again like Marlin, not everyone wants single shot shotguns.
I don't even want to think about what's come of Winchester. They had nothing of interest at the NRA meeting in Atlanta this past April.
Mossberg is an anomaly with their bread and butter being the M500/590 shotguns. At one time, Mossberg was not even a contender against the Remington shotguns - but that changed, and now the 870 and the 590 run neck and neck. Mossberg brings out the 'Shockwave' and Remington has to follow up. It's a market share grab. Yes, they each have specific features that are pluses and minuses, but essentially, they're both solid reliable platforms. (You get one of each so as you flip flop on which is your favorite, you already have one)
Some names lost are no loss - Lorcin, Bryco, and RG as examples. But for any of the major gun companies to go under is not just an injury to the marketplace, but potentially harmful nationally. Look at WW-II at how many companies made M1 Garands and M1 Carbines (including auto makers). Remington made M1911A1 pistols and M1903A3 and A4 bolt action rifles, all the go up against another country with the best armaments industry of its day. By the time the 1960s rolled around, you had General Motors back making M16 rifles for Vietnam.
Yes, we all take turns bashing certain gun makers, I do it myself. I still haven't fully forgiven Bill Ruger for selling out to the Clintonistas in 1994, but that doesn't mean I haven't bought Ruger guns since he passed away. (compared with not having to do with anything Smith & Wesson with their stupid sideplate locks)
Billt460 is correct that any time a company falls from grace, it's not going to be the gun, but those running the company. Yes, labor costs are through the roof, but American can still build some of the best firearms in the world. Are they going to be built like in the 1960s - no, but neither are our automobiles. Personally, I find a CNC made gun that can take drop in parts more attractive than one that has to be entirely hand fitted (can you spell 'Python'). Does a Ruger GP100 look and feel as elegant as a Colt Python? Certainly not, but that GP100 will be on the range firing away with magnum loads long after the Python goes back to Colt for a tune-up.
The Remington 742 afore to mentioned, is going here tomorrow:
http://www.accuracysystemsinc.com/index.php
to get checked out and see if it is a good shooter.
http://www.accuracysystemsinc.com/index.php
to get checked out and see if it is a good shooter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked