|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Rifles general discussion
> Remington bankruptcy
Remington bankruptcy
@ 01:47 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRemington had a good run. Nathan said Bergara rifles shoot good out-of-the-box. I’m not convinced the round-receiver was a good idea, torque-wise. Cheaper-to-produce, yeah. With a round receiver, you’re always fighting torque. Correct me if I’m wrong. |
Replies
|
@ 01:57 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyI had a model 70, purchased in 1983, that didn’t need bedding. It shot fine to 500 yards. I understand the benefits of bedding. The concept was well- understood in the late 70s. Just saying, a flat-bottomed receiver is a superior design. |
|
@ 02:10 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyNathan also excoriated the Savage “AccuStock”, and rightly so. Screwing a round piece of metal to a flat piece of metal embedded in the stock makes little sense. |
|
@ 02:16 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyIf you’re going to use a round receiver, the Ruger American bedding system makes sense, but good luck glass bedding it! Can’t be done. |
@ 03:49 pm (GMT) |
Luis VazquezRe: Remington bankruptcyHi Scott:From what I've read Bergara's are great rifles but Tikka's are provably the most accurate rifle out of the box and at a good price., again, this is based on what I've researched only. It's sad what's happening to Remington, I've always had good luck with their rifles, it's all I own. My wife's and my hunting 7mm-08's are Remington 700's SPS, my 7mm Rem Mag also a Remington 700 but an ADL. My silhouette competition rifle also a 700, varmint version also in 7mm-08. I like that their hunting rifles in medium cartridges come with 24" barrels and not just 22". My next purchase will most likely be a Tikka and for my son a TC Compass in 223 Rem to get him started Beat regards Luis |
|
@ 06:33 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyThanks, Luis. Yeah, I’ve read that, too, about Tikka’s out-of-the box accuracy, which is amazing, considering their floating lug design, which was no doubt a cost-cutting improvement on the 700’s sandwiched lug. The design has now been adopted by the TC Compass, Winchester XPR, and Sauer 100. The Compass’s dirt-cheap price makes it an attractive option for a junk-stock, low-recoil plinker. The industry has always been driven by the manufacturers’ ability to palm-off cost-cutting measures as features. I know Winchester did not invent the flat-bottom receiver, and that there’s more to accuracy than receiver shape, but, looking back at the huge success of the model 700, it’s kinda funny they did it with a cost-cutting design hidden in a beautiful, high-gloss wood stock. |
|
@ 09:46 am (GMT) |
Luis VazquezRe: Remington bankruptcyYes sir, an effective cost cutting desing. It worked but now who knows what will happen with the company.The one bad thing from tikka is their 1:9.5 twist rate on the 7mm rifles, that's what holds me back, same with the Bergara rifles. Because of that I'll provably stick with a Remington 700 if they are still around in the future, or rebarrel my current rifles. Stay safe Luis |
|
@ 12:10 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyTheir bankruptcy filings state that in spite of recent increased demand for guns, brought about by covid and the protests, they can’t afford to purchase raw materials to meet demand. So they’re auctioning off the company, either in toto, or piecemeal. This isn’t a reorganization plan to shed debt, like the last time. No wonder their QC has been lacking, and their latest offering, the 783 was so lackluster. The only Remington rifle I’ve read was good out-of -the-box was the 788. I’d buy one if parts were available. |
@ 10:18 am (GMT) |
Martin TaylorRe: Remington bankruptcy"I’m not convinced the round-receiver was a good idea, torque-wise. Cheaper-to-produce, yeah. With a round receiver, you’re always fighting torque. Correct me if I’m wrong."Scott the round receiver design is one of the easiest to work with and the basic design of many high end actions/rifles. Bedding these is by far the simplest in a good stock, they just work! The bad results with Remington is a result of poor build/machining quality & big tolerances. A shame they dove head first to the bottom of the budget barrel years ago! |
|
@ 10:45 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyHi, Martin. Yeah, I know. The round receiver made guns affordable. Montana Rifle Company went belly-up recently, testament to the fact that people don’t want to pay for a superior design (or maybe because you can buy a model 70 from FN now, with controlled-round-feed). I never had failure-to-feed or extract issues with my push-feed model 70, or any other push-feed rifle, so I don’t think that’s a big issue. Maybe torque isn’t as big of an issue as I think it is, but one has only to compare a model 700 receiver, with its thin, sandwiched lug, and a model 70 receiver, with its beefy, integral lug and flat bottom, to appreciate the difference. |
@ 03:36 pm (GMT) |
Paul LevermanRe: Remington bankruptcyNot quite sure why the difference in action shape, ie, round or flat, would have any bearing on torque values. To my way of thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, in any given configuration, if the amount of torque generated is equal between the two, then the same amount will be transferred equally to either action. And the amount of torque cannot be overly significant, or in a RH twist barrel, the force would eventually unscrew your barrel, would it not? I could be completely off base here, so please feel free set me straight. |
|
@ 06:08 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyGood point, Paul. The torque is the same, irrespective of action shape. As I said in my original post, I could be wrong about torque being a big issue. Still, if you think about the tremendous amount of force generated by a cartridge exploding, and the bullet engaging the lands, it can’t be insignificant, unless you compare it relative to the rearward force of the recoil. My point was that if you look at models 70 and 700 receivers side-by-side, it’s clear the former is a superior design, and the latter a cost-cutting design. |
|
@ 06:22 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyWinchester realized their predicament of not being able to manufacture a model 70 to compete with the budget rifles and came up with a Tikka-style action with a floating lug, dubbed d the “XPR.” |
|
@ 01:28 am (GMT) |
Paul LevermanRe: Remington bankruptcyAnother reason why round receivers are popular: machining multiple recesses and surfaces true to each other. Once the work piece is chucked, any machining will be relevant to the centre/bore line, resulting in true to centre threads, lug recesses, shoulders; thereby enhancing potential accuracy. But having said all that, with the new CNC processes, all this may not be applicable any longer. |
|
@ 06:20 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyAnother good point. I suppose if all is “true” when the bolt is locked on a chambered cartridge, with both lugs making equal contact in the chamber, the shape of the action may not matter all that much. But, if torque is not insignificant, then I’d prefer to have a receiver with a flat bottom running its full length and width of to resist it. Maybe the Tikka-style lug makes more sense than the sandwiched lug, torque-wise. You’ve got the groove cinched against the lug embedded in the stock, which theoretically would arrest any torque. A sandwiched lug, even when properly bedded, must be relieved on the sides and bottom, so there’s some torque being transferred through the action to the tang. |
|
@ 08:25 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyHi, Paul. I found a forum thread where a guy who shoots 45-70 535 grain says his gun torques to the shooter’s left as much as 45 degrees. I assume it’s a RH twist. (3rd post from the top.)http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/rifle-torque.3965858/page-1 |
|
@ 11:03 am (GMT) |
Martin TaylorRe: Remington bankruptcyTorque has to be transferred by the action/lug and yes the bigger the Cal/pill the more is generated (think bigger or longer lever, torque multiplication).This is a large part of why bedding is so critical to harmonics & accuracy. People only think of recoil as straight back which is incorrect. With flat sided actions this relief is the hardest part to get correct. Too lose or tight and it double/poorly group all multiplied/exaggerated by a cartridges energy/size/pill weight. The round receiver with its recoil lug design either sandwiched or incorporated allows most of the torque to act on one area the lugs sidewalls. Simple, yes but extremely effective leaving the uniformly shaped receiver to move and return to battery the same every time. Quality issues and design flaws they are very different things. |
|
@ 05:39 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyWhich is probably why Nathan recommends front/rear bedding for amateurs with flat-bottom receivers. When I was researching torque, I ran across an article that said bedding the first couple inches of the barrel ahead of the receiver actually came about because Mauser and its clones located the front receiver screw in the recoil lug. Torquing that action screw caused the action to be bent downward, ahead of the bolt lug recesses, resulting in uneven contact of the bolt lugs. So Winchester relocated the front action screw directly under the bolt lug recess area. I think Nathan has established that bedding the “Knoxx” has a sanguine effect on harmonics, regardless of action screw location. I started this thread because I’m flabbergasted that the manufacturer of the best selling rifle and shotgun in history is going under. I also read Smith and Wesson had a problem with barrels coming unscrewed on one of their guns, due to torque. Must have been a LH twist. Might be something to think about if you’re ordering a custom barrel with LH twist to compensate for coriolis effect. |
|
@ 01:50 am (GMT) |
Paul LevermanRe: Remington bankruptcyInteresting link there, Scott. Lots of good and not so good info. The usual mixture, and then the usual animosity common to internet threads. Two posts caught my attention: the modified stock pictures and the formula. Looking at the stock mods, the size, shape, and location of that "anti-torque lever" gives me the idea that torque cannot be a major factor, unless using a free recoil shooting technique. That stock extension, in my opinion only, could easily be replaced by a firm grip (Hold that forend!) and "get low and get wide".As to the formula, I haven't played with it yet. It's going to take some uninterrupted time to work it through, should be interesting though. With the torque value arrived at in the example, it is easy to see why benchrest shooting is free-recoil. Not much there, at all. I don't think I would like to try the same with that 45-70 load. |
|
@ 03:21 am (GMT) |
Paul LevermanRe: Remington bankruptcyAnd yes, my head was looking at the twist backwards. The torque would undo a LH twist, not a RH. |
|
@ 03:50 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyThanks, Paul. Another interesting thing I ran across is the cause of barrel jump. Since the line, or plane, of the stock is below that of the barrel, there’s a torque, or torsion, effect caused by the rearward force of the recoiling barrel encountering the weight of the stock below it. The axis, of course, is perpendicular to the barrel, and a little below it. A mechanical engineer would know it’s a torque force. I found it enlightening to see it described that way. One doesn’t need a ME degree to know that these forces begin occurring and accumulating at the moment of ignition, before the bullet leaves the barrel. So even ignoring the torque we’ve been talking about, holding the forend makes sense. After reading Nathan’s stub article about it, and his accurizing book, it’s clear anyone who sights in at the range without holding the forend is dreaming if he thinks his POI will be the same in the field. |
|
@ 10:28 pm (GMT) |
Paul LevermanRe: Remington bankruptcyYes, and then stock design enters into the equation. With an almost perpendicular angle between the butt and the barrel, that torque is more easily controlled. I'm pretty sure that, if not all, then close to it, my stocks have been either replaced or hacked to fix an almost impossible butt angle. The difference is night and day. Most stock companies are making them right now, but you still have to have a good look. And when you buy at a gun show, or used gun shop, more than likely you will end up modifying what you buy. I sometimes wonder if that's why they are sold off. Not that it matters, it makes a good source for cheap guns. |
@ 01:22 pm (GMT) |
John D Hays - New MexicoRe: Remington bankruptcyWall Street Journal: ankruptcy The firearms manufacturer is now seeking another buyer ahead of a planned bankruptcy filing, people familiar with the matter said By Alexander Gladstone Updated July 24, 2020 4:12 pm ET Remington Arms Co.’s discussions with the Navajo Nation over a potential bankruptcy sale of the firearms manufacturer have fallen through, leaving the company still searching for a buyer and struggling with debt, people familiar with the matter said. The Navajo Nation, a territory with roughly 175,000 people across parts of the Southwest, had been in advanced talks regarding a deal in which it would acquire Remington following a near-term bankruptcy filing, before the nation’s governing body decided not to move forward. |
|
@ 02:44 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyHi, John. Remington filed when that deal fell through. This time, unlike their 2018 Chapter 11, they’re looking to liquidate via auction, rather than reorganize and ccontinue as a going concern. The proposal is to sell all, or parts, of the company to the highest bidder(s). If you put in a bid for Barnes Bullets, they’d entertain it. |
|
@ 01:32 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyI have no particular interest in gun history . . . just trying to figure out how Remington could be going under. My conjecture about Montana Rifle Company’s insolvency was off-base. According to Roger Rule, Winchester reintroduced controlled round feed in 1992. Montana Rifle Company started in 1999, so competition with Winchester on that feature was obviously not an issue. |
|
@ 12:11 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Remington bankruptcyMaybe the Walker trigger recall and settlements did them in. It’s surprising their X-Mark Pro trigger has a trigger/sear engagement adjustment. The competition opted for non-adjustable sear/actuator engagement. The first thing I do when I buy a potentially dangerous product is remove all the safety features, such as the plastic flap on the back of the push mower designed to prevent you from chopping off your toes, or the blade guard under a table saw that fills up with sawdust causing it to spew back at the user. If you want to know all about how override triggers work, read the stuff the experts (I assume hired by the plaintiffs in the Walker trigger cases) had to say about the connector piece Remington added to the Walker trigger, apparently just to make it patentable. |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |