Remington takes the money from NY/Pentagon deal

larryh1108 Wrote:
Also, who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY?
Click to expand...

Actually, they most likely do care. Working for a shop that has done work for government/military and major corporations, I know the hoops you have to jump through to win a bid for a job. During the vetting process you have to conform to a lot of stuff and part of it is the facility itself. If you upped and moved your shop after winning a bid that probably took a while to get everything in order, you would most likely void the contract and the bidding would start all over again (competitor bidders would cry foul in a heartbeat if it didn't).
 
I dont think it makes since for a company like remington to move there entire manufacturing plant. the people at remington cant control what the state legislature does. all i know is that all of my remington guns are great guns and thats what i care about. i am a fan of remington but id have to say my favorite gun company is ruger. they just seem to do it right.
 
who said they would have to give up the contract they just won? Why can't they honor it? Does the government care if it's made in Texas or NY?
Click to expand...

My father was a defense contractor for most of my life. Most of our work was for the Corps of Engineers and one of the stipulations, for whatever reason, was that we use only union labor.

That might be an additional consideration.
 
FoghornLeghorn said:
My father was a defense contractor for most of my life. Most of our work was for the Corps of Engineers and one of the stipulations, for whatever reason, was that we use only union labor.

That might be an additional consideration.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you do business with the govt you will play by their rules and these often include favors to political supporters of the current admin, though this one has been in there for some time through multiple administrations and is baked on now.
 
I dont think it makes since for a company like remington to move there entire manufacturing plant. the people at remington cant control what the state legislature does. all i know is that all of my remington guns are great guns and thats what i care about. i am a fan of remington but id have to say my favorite gun company is ruger. they just seem to do it right.
Click to expand...

It's not about them not moving, at least for me. That's only a part of the equation. It's the fact that they took a sweet deal from a government entity that seeks to limit citizens Constitutional rights, and haven't done anything to publicly denounce the proposed and passed laws. In my eyes, it's a big giant middle finger from Remington to all the people that have supported it in the pass. It's as if they released a statement that says:

"$80 Million in our coffers is far more important than that 'little book' you call a constitution."

Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do.

By the way, on Mossberg and them not moving, they have at least publicly denounced proposed and passed gun laws. Remington hasn't done that. Remington is happy to take your money while watching the Constitution go up in flames.

I do want to make it clear...I don't care if gun manufacturers stay in states that clearly infringe on 2A rights. I say this because the costs of moving in some cases can be too much for a company to handle. If a company chooses to move, that's great, and I fully support it. But if you can't move, that's fine, I just need a statement as to why you can't and showing support for the 2A.
 
There is nothing that Remington makes that's really unique. Other companies that support my 2A rights make basically the same products.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You weren't listening what you were reading. Only two companies met the criteria for the competition, Remington and Seko, Remington won. Don't even try to imagine that these sniper systems are anything like the other rifles you imagine other companies can make cause they are in a whole different class.

If you don't believe me then you go through the effort to hunt down the specifications for the contract and show me wrong, I have seen enough of them in the past.

As for who is giving who what, This is an Army Contract, the Army put it out, the Army ran the test, the Army announced the winner, The Army will be doing the paying.

The Army isn't Congress and the SF Community doesn't offer "backroom deals" for political reasons like this.

Everyone get's to make there own decisions on this, but I do not see a reason to boycott or badmouth Remington on this one. Not when I know who these rifles are for, our US Army Green Berets.
 
by staying where they cannot even legally sell the product they make.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Remington doesn't really make any weapons effected by New York's new laws. At least nothing that can't be "fixed" with a plug in a magazine. Remington doesn't make AR type rifles, some of their Defense Shotguns will be effected, maybe a handgun or two will need some special new magazines if they are Hi-Caps. That's about it unless I am missing something.

What Remington has made is the Army's and the Marines best sniper rifles for about the last 60 years.
 
Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do.
Click to expand...

I think you need to research the topic before you go on record w/such statements.

Remington Arms isn't some family business that gets to make such statements as you demand. They were owned by Cerberus, which is a multinational investment corporation that only bought Remington Arms (and Bushmaster, etc) as a business entity. Cerberus specializes in buying distressed companies.

But after Sandy Hook, Cerberus has been divesting itself of Freedom Group (Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS) because of the stigma of manufacturing firearms in this climate.

Remington firearms are manufactured by a bunch of Joe Schmoes who have nothing to do with the people who make the decisions you're talking about. The people who have the power to do that, instead of making a pro-gun statement, are doing their best to distance themselves from Remington.

You're making demands of a group of people that are powerless to do what you say
 
Remington doesn't make AR type rifles,
Click to expand...

Except for the R15 and R25.

r-25-prod.ashx
 
Sort of proves what i said in earlier posts on firearms manufacturers not selling to government agencies. In the end it all comes down to money if one stops selling others will be queuing to take their place. If some of the ones not selling were offered similar contracts you would see a change of attitude.
 
I was just going through their products list, those pages were slow.

It's why I said this ....
That's about it unless I am missing something.
Click to expand...

As for your earlier statement, it makes me wonder if you have been tracking my arguments at all.

I never said Remington should make any statements or take any stance.

I never said they even possess the freedom to do so, I do not know what they can and can't do as they are owned by Freedom Group.

What I did say is that this Contract was announced for competition over 3 years ago in 2009. It's old business. Only two companies were able or wanted to compete for it. Remington won it, and the award has nothing at all to do with a back room deal to keep Remington silent on the gun control debate.

As I said before
This is an Army Contract, the Army put it out, the Army ran the test, the Army announced the winner, The Army will be doing the paying.

The Army isn't Congress and the SF Community doesn't offer "backroom deals" for political reasons like this.
Click to expand...
 
Sort of proves what i said in earlier posts on firearms manufacturers not selling to government agencies. In the end it all comes down to money if one stops selling others will be queuing to take their place. If some of the ones not selling were offered similar contracts you would see a change of attitude.
Click to expand...

Manta, I am not sure what you are saying here. I guess I missed it earlier.

Did you know that if the Government Opens a Contract for Competition that pretty much anyone can compete. You can even start your own brand new Company just to compete for a new contract. They are not generally closed to competition.

Actually, more correctly, there are what are called "Sole Source Contracts". These are supposed to be avoided when possible, but they are allowed if only a single source for the required product exists or if for some other reason it just makes too much sense to only buy from the one manufacturor selected.

An Example would by Wireless Networking equipment. Unless this has changed recently, only one Company manufactures wireless networking equipment to sufficient standard that it can be used on Classified networks. Therefore if the Government want's to use wireless equipment, they must buy from this company, ergo, a sole source contract.

Also, if a contract calls for something that could come from other manufacturers, but the government already has invested significant resources and money into spares, warranties, etc, they can sole source because if they switched manufacturers it would cost them big money in wasted equipment they already have on-hand.

These are example that justify a sole source contract. Otherwise it's the wild west, everyone is invited to the party although US Manufacturers are given the prime seat at the table over foreign companies.

One thing about Military type contracts when it comes to tactical type equipment, there are usually very serious specifications for things like being able to operate in very harsh climates, and or specific requirements like in this one, the barrels had to be easily removed, ie ... buy the Snipers themselves, not just by an armorer or maintenance guys.

I hope this is helpful.

EDIT: I said I wasn't going to hunt this down but here is the contract notice anyway.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=7c3671c8b65d782bbbfe7da8228f827e&_cview=1


Notice the date of this notice is Jan. 2008.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. You weren't listening what you were reading. Only two companies met the criteria for the competition, Remington and Seko, Remington won. Don't even try to imagine that these sniper systems are anything like the other rifles you imagine other companies can make cause they are in a whole different class.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the contract. I was talking about products that Remington makes that I can use. There's really nothing unique about the company that make me have any loyalty whatsoever. They're in a state that wants to take away people's Constitutional rights and they haven't made a statement regarding it? Ok, I'll buy my bolt gun from Ruger instead. At least I'll know that a portion of my money will likely go to pro-2A groups, and to a company that has a vested interest in my rights. That's MORE than enough reason not to buy from Remington again, even without the contract.

Remington Arms isn't some family business that gets to make such statements as you demand. They were owned by Cerberus, which is a multinational investment corporation that only bought Remington Arms (and Bushmaster, etc) as a business entity. Cerberus specializes in buying distressed companies.
Click to expand...

That's part of my point. They don't have the luxury of making their customers feel good about where they're spending their money? Fine, that's their prerogative to serve their shareholders first and customers second. It's my prerogative to serve a company that supports my rights. If Remington (Cerberus) does support my rights...I have no idea because they haven't made a statement about it, except for a vague explanation of why they're selling off the Freedom Group.

I think I'm going to change the way I look at this then. This might make more sense and be more palatable. Don't think of it as me not giving my support to Remington, or other companies that don't seem to care about individual rights, as long as they're getting paid. Think of it as I'm going to go out of my way to support companies that will get in the thick of the debate, and do everything they can to support 2A.

Remington does what Remington does because they have to. That's fine. But if I can buy my new bolt gun from a company that is actively supporting and fighting for my rights, I'll buy from them instead.
 
Don't think of it as me not giving my support to Remington, or other companies that don't seem to care about individual rights, as long as they're getting paid. Think of it as I'm going to go out of my way to support companies that will get in the thick of the debate, and do everything they can to support 2A.
Click to expand...

Summed up perfectly.
Thank you.

I won't not buy from a particular company that is ambivalent but I will go out of my way to buy from companies active in preserving our rights, whether by moving, donating to our cause or making statements against the way things are being done to it's customers. All of my efforts did nothing to change the minds here in CT so I'll let my $$ do the talking. Money seems to be the driving force in this country. I'll go out of my way to make sure it goes to those who care about us.

My ex worked for a company that was bought by Cerberus. Cerberus is all about buying a struggling company, cutting jobs, cleaning up the bottom line and then selling it. They are cold, calculated and care only about the bottom line. That's fine. We can be the same way. If Cerberus owns Remington then all the more reason to see that they get none of my money. There are many more choices out there that makes similar products. Brand loyalty means less now than ever.
 
If Cerberus owns Remington then all the more reason to see that they get none of my money. There are many more choices out there that makes similar products. Brand loyalty means less now than ever
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they don't care they would rather have large government contracts and don't care if you buy from them or not.
 
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/remin...-operations-after-getting-80m-govt-contract/#

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've spent the last dollar I will ever spend on any Freedom Group products. Too bad, I've been thinking about another Marlin. Not now.

I've boycotted GM since '86 for sucking on the tax incentives udder. I guess I can add these guys, too.

To be clear, my complaint is not that they haven't relocated in protest to NYS draconian gun law or that they (Remington) accepted a lucrative Army contract.
My concern is that they have not done or said anything in opposition to the "gun grab" or in support of 2A.

It would be very interesting to learn what portion of their total sales revenues are derived from the manufacture and sale of arms to private citizens; non-gov't entities. If their calculus is such that they think they can live on gov't contract sales alone, then private customers simply aren't important (enough) for them to risk gov't censure.
 
Last edited:
Gaerek
Remington does what Remington does because they have to. That's fine. But if I can buy my new bolt gun from a company that is actively supporting and fighting for my rights, I'll buy from them instead.
Click to expand...

Gaerek, I can see where I misunderstood you and I apologize for it.

I am one of those guys that doesn't like injustices and I don't feel that Remington has done anything wrong. But as you posted above, they don't seem to have done anything particularly right either and others are.

It's not that I am trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I just don't want them to blame the innocent. Rewarding those who are there helping us the most, now that is a different matter entirely :D
 
OK, counter point time.

Remington has 1,200 workers. They are one of the largest suppliers of guns and ammunition in the US.

What's happening to us right now? Ammo and gun shortage anybody?

So, Remington refuses the contract, uproots, re tools, and moves a 1200 man operation to another state. They spend millions, are out for months, and when they come back other companies have filled the gaps and with all the extra workers and shifts they can't make enough money to cover the costs of an $80 million contract, moving, and being out of work for at least a month while paying 1,200 people. They can no longer stay in business so goodbye Remington guns and ammo. And now there's less ammo on the market which brings a higher cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top