Remington strikes again.......

[pirate ammo]

Dont be sad except we dont want a run on em

just ordered a Rem.700 in 204 Ruger for someone this afternoon,,thats what he wanted,,but I ordered a CZ 75 for him at the same time,so thats good,,

 

[fatelvis]

Must be their unionized labor?? Can’t get fired, WTF, pass the joint!!!!

Please, let’s not bring union labor into this. Factory defects on mass produced products happen. Unfortunately more in some plants than others.

 

[SBS]

Yeah, the only way I can figure to cut a chamber and leave half the throat uncut with rifling completely intact would be if they were machining the entire chamber headspace, finish and all with a CNC driven boring bar. I just don't know how one would accomplish this with a reamer.
I have had several belted magnum rifles that had accuracy trouble and found that the headspace on the belt was correct, but the distance to the shoulder was way too long. Almost like they were using a two piece or "two step" reamer. Maybe they aren't using chambering reamers at all??? I have roughed chambers in with a boring bar and it works fine...but you are right, CNC would allow the final finishing of a chamber with a boring bar or similar tooling. This thing almost looks like I could take a finish reamer, run it lightly into the chamber by hand and correct the throat because there is nothing all gunched up further down the bore on the side that was cut to denote severe misalignment. I am stumped on how one would do this.



It sure appears so in my borescope. I see a lot of tooling marks similar to the ones I see in Douglas and Shilen barrels. If they are hammer forged barrels then they are doing a very poor job of grinding the mandrel...in fact, I don't know if you can grind one this badly. This rifle reminds me of the motivational photo of a freshly painted white line on the side of a highway that goes right over a dried up dead coyote...the caption reads "Quality, that's not my job!!"

You can have tooling marks in the barrel on hammer forged barrels also, just like button rifled. Had a post 64 Win. barrel once that was hammer forged and had deep circular tool marks all the way down the barrel and caught copper very badly. Was told by U.S. Repeating Arms (Win. plant) that this barrel was obviously only drilled, and the reaming step had been omitted before hammer forging. Shilen barrels until just a few years ago only lapped barrels after button rifled. I have had some of the later ones that are lapped before rifling and also after rifling and there is a distinct difference in tool marks between those and the earlier ones when examining them with a borescope. BTW, Winchester initially tried forging the chamber with the rifling with the post 64 models and gave it up after a short time, as results were not good. Companies used to do chambering as a 3 step process: rougher, finisher and burnishing reamers -- all in a short length of time. Don't know if this is still done, maybe someone from a major manufacturer will chime in and give us some details on how they do it now.

 

[LarryDScott]

I recently bought a new 700 varmint in 204. The barrel looks like 40mi of bad road, but in powder testing, it shot 3 shot groups of .076/.078/.082 @ 50yds. Shoots a lot better than it looks. LDS

 

[shortgrass]

Its my understanding that the chamber and rifling are formed by the mandrel used in the hammer forging process. If Remington is using hammer forged barrels then it could be and issue with a worn mandrel.

I'm thinkin' the chamber might be rough formed into the barrel when hammer forging, but then finished with a reamer. Either way, I'm not a fan of unlapped, hammer forged barrels that haven't been properly stress relieved. Ya' pay for what ya' get. The 700s at Wally World are about $400, give or take. That's near the price of a custom, hand lapped, S.S. barrel blank. Ya' can't expect custom quality from production runs of anything! Yes, Remington and most of the other makers could stand to improve their QC, but that, like most other things in life, comes with a cost. Have the 'bean counters', insurance companies and their lawyers messed some companies? Yep! And not just the firearms manufactures, either! There's a fine line between "acceptable" production quality, which includes a percentage of rejects, and profitability. The vast majority of buyers look closely at the price and are happy with 1" to 1 1/4" groups from their hunting rifles that they'll use once a year.

 

[Steve Ladino]

It is a horrible shame that the "management guys" at Remington have degraded the quality of the 700's to embarrassing. It was once the flagship of bolt guns. Not so much anymore. If buying factory and expecting quality go with a Tikka T3.

I believe you are 100% correct about the Tikka's, got two of em. Makes you really wonder why Remington has such a G A S attitude about their rifles accuracy/quality, it's a crying shame.

 

[JimT]

Please, let’s not bring union labor into this. Factory defects on mass produced products happen. Unfortunately more in some plants than others.

The fact of the matter is the first line of defense in enforcing quality control is production employees giving a sh:t in the first place.

 

[K22]

This is sad indeed. The Rem Model 700 use to be a top quality excellent rifle at a reasonable price with a great trigger. I wonder whose running this company now? Why can't they produce the fine rifles they use to make?

 

[Steve morgan]

This is sad indeed. The Rem Model 700 use to be a top quality excellent rifle at a reasonable price with a great trigger. I wonder whose running this company now? Why can't they produce the fine rifles they use to make?

They don't know how.

 

[mtang45]

This is what happens when accountants start running a business (nothing against bean counters, they have their purpose). Critical decisions are made based on $$ and the decision makers rarely see the escalation of the "hidden costs". Its a death spiral.

 

[Nature Boy]

This is what happens when accountants start running a business

And that generally happens after a company files for bankruptcy. I can assure you "bean counters" didn't cause this.

 

[mtang45]

And that generally happens after a company files for bankruptcy. I can assure you "bean counters" didn't cause this.

How so? Why else would they change something that has worked forever. Its not because someone felt like it. Its because someone demanded a cheaper process. Someone making the decisions wanted the cost of manufacturing a rifle to be less; thus the change in processing. Those decisions are made by people focused on the bottom line and nothing else. They now can pat themselves on the back and tout the fact that they took $X million out of the manufacturing process. What they are oblivious to, is the added costs of warranty returns coupled with declining sales because of poor quality. Next year it will be the same. They will look at the bottom line and see the year over year decline, and their first thought will be "MAKE IT CHEAPER". Never will they look at each other and say, "let's make a better, higher quality product so people will want to buy it". Like I said its a death spiral.

I know this because I have seen it, lived it multiple times (trust me, I'm old enough). The financial geniuses (accountants, not engineers, not manufacturing people, ACCOUNTANTS) that are running the company, ignore the advice from the people that actually know the processing and the product, all in a desperate attempt to make that bottom line look better.

 

[Comrade Terry]

How so? Why else would they change something that has worked forever. Its not because someone felt like it. Its because someone demanded a cheaper process. Someone making the decisions wanted the cost of manufacturing a rifle to be less; thus the change in processing. Those decisions are made by people focused on the bottom line and nothing else. They now can pat themselves on the back and tout the fact that they took $X million out of the manufacturing process. What they are oblivious to, is the added costs of warranty returns coupled with declining sales because of poor quality. Next year it will be the same. They will look at the bottom line and see the year over year decline, and their first thought will be "MAKE IT CHEAPER". Never will they look at each other and say, "let's make a better, higher quality product so people will want to buy it". Like I said its a death spiral.

I know this because I have seen it, lived it multiple times (trust me, I'm old enough). The financial geniuses (accountants, not engineers, not manufacturing people, ACCOUNTANTS) that are running the company, ignore the advice from the people that actually know the processing and the product, all in a desperate attempt to make that bottom line look better.

Spot on. I've seen it many times in medium to large corporations.

 

[Nature Boy]

How so? Why else would they change something that has worked forever. Its not because someone felt like it. Its because someone demanded a cheaper process. Someone making the decisions wanted the cost of manufacturing a rifle to be less; thus the change in processing. Those decisions are made by people focused on the bottom line and nothing else. They now can pat themselves on the back and tout the fact that they took $X million out of the manufacturing process. What they are oblivious to, is the added costs of warranty returns coupled with declining sales because of poor quality. Next year it will be the same. They will look at the bottom line and see the year over year decline, and their first thought will be "MAKE IT CHEAPER". Never will they look at each other and say, "let's make a better, higher quality product so people will want to buy it". Like I said its a death spiral.

I know this because I have seen it, lived it multiple times (trust me, I'm old enough). The financial geniuses (accountants, not engineers, not manufacturing people, ACCOUNTANTS) that are running the company, ignore the advice from the people that actually know the processing and the product, all in a desperate attempt to make that bottom line look better.

You miss my point.

Remington filed for bankruptcy protection this year. That's generally when the finance folks take a larger role in running the business. They have no choice at that point. They don't have enough cash to pay the bills. Material suppliers will no longer take terms and require cash up front. No capital for investing in new equipment because banks won't lend to them. As a result, operating decisions are often short sighted. That's the death spiral you're taking about.

Having said that, to lay the blame for what caused all of this to happen in the first place, at the feet of one profession, ACCOUNTANTS, is unfair and inaccurate.

Why else would they change something that has worked forever

Because they made bad business decisions and lost sight of their customer's requirements. I've seen it and lived it too. I've also come in after and cleaned up the messes made. Enough to know it's never one thing, one person or one profession.

 

[mtang45]

You miss my point.

Remington filed for bankruptcy protection this year. That's generally when the finance folks take a larger role in running the business. They have no choice at that point. They don't have enough cash to pay the bills. Material suppliers will no longer take terms and require cash up front. No capital for investing in new equipment because banks won't lend to them. As a result, operating decisions are often short sighted. That's the death spiral you're taking about.

Having said that, to lay the blame for what caused all of this to happen in the first place, at the feet of one profession, ACCOUNTANTS, is unfair and inaccurate.



Because they made bad business decisions and lost sight of their customer's requirements. I've seen it and lived it too. I've also come in after and cleaned up the messes made. Enough to know it's never one thing, one person or one profession.

You are right, its not fair to lay all of Remington's woes at the feet of accountants. It's just that that is the profession that counts the beans and when decisions are made solely on beans it somehow becomes the accountants fault.

I would venture to say that Remington lost sight of their customers needs a long time ago (again by focusing on the beans). We are in the final days of a once very fine company.

Let me add, that generally when a company goes through bankruptcy the top management manufacturing people that know the product and processing get fired. They are normally replaced by someone with a Financial/Accounting background. That's the way its always been in my experience

 

[Nature Boy]

You are right, its not fair to lay all of Remington's woes at the feet of accountants. It's just that that is the profession that counts the beans and when decisions are made solely on beans it somehow becomes the accountants fault.

I would venture to say that Remington lost sight of their customers needs a long time ago (again by focusing on the beans). We are in the final days of a once very fine company.

Let me add, that generally when a company goes through bankruptcy the top management manufacturing people that know the product and processing get fired. They are normally replaced by someone with a Financial/Accounting background. That's the way its always been in my experience

I don't think there's much we're disagreeing with each other about, except who deserves the lion share of the blame. I always look to the guy or gal at the top of the house. If they don't articulate a vision that grows the business, and execute a strategy that achieves that goal, they are ultimately to blame. If they give too much weight to saving a nickel vs earning a buck, it's not the accountant's fault. He's just reporting how many beans are left in the jar. In Remington's case, it got to less than zero.

The real shame is what this all does to Remington's most valuable asset: Its name. That's the only thing they have to build off of and they're pissing it away.

 

[Stan Taylor]

Well I enjoy the most part of the post rendered here but this post disturbs me and I do have a right to my opinion.

 

[alf]

The lopsided throat is not a recent development, it's been going on for years.......

 

[dakor]

For all the trigger lawsuits and issues they have had they should have just created a new one or went with a timney trigger. I am sure they could have bought Timneys at a decent price with the volume they would have had. Hell even charge 100 bucks more for the rifle people would pay it.

 

[leakeyjohn]

Yes, I think it is asinine that they can manufacture a trigger...that is adjustable and then fix it so: A. You only have the luxury of adjusting it from 12 all the way down to 10 pounds. {as if that is really going to do anybody any good!!!} and B. The other adjustments, the ones that will allow it to go on down to reasonable are sealed immovable in place with permanent red Loc-Tite. and lets not forget that they install extra super soft alloy steel Allen adjuster screws so that they immediately strip out when you do try the move them. It's like gee Remington since you really have accomplished zero for us why not just put a BB gun trigger on the rifles you make and charge $100 less on the MSRP?????



Could you please clarify sir??????



Not sure what you mean Snert...they don't hammer forge in the chamber, just the rifling and initial rough outer contour of the barrel...after that it gets machined like any other barrel. "make part of that go away with the reamer"??? I might have done a bad job of explaining the problem. In this case, based on what I see at the throat it appears that the chamber might be at a pretty good angle to the centerline of the bore. But, I mean, as bad as it is someone would have had to set this thing up on the lathe that way. What I cant wrap my cabeza around is how do you get a reamer deep enough to headspace and have rifling left half way around the chamber????

I suspect that trigger issues are driven by the curse of our existence “lawyers driven by greedy people or those who want guns banned”