Seems like the gun protests are more a convenient excuse than anything else.
> $950 million debtload... Cerberus Capital Management LP, the private equity firm that controls Remington, will lose ownership in the bankruptcy.
This looks like another case of a leveraged buyout destroying a business.
Edit follows:
Cutting the quality is straight out of the leveraged buyout playbook.
Buy the brand, cash out any public goodwill it has remaining, then sell off the company before the debt payments catch up. In this instance, they couldn't sell the company fast enough, partly because a Remington Bushmaster was used to murder children at Sandy Hook.
If a private equity company buys your favorite brand, buy up some of the warehoused product as quickly as you can, then just forget about it. Otherwise, it's like watching someone slowly succumb to cancer.
Sure, sometimes that isn't the play, and the company actually improves post-buyout, but if you're talking about a nationally recognized brand, the odds are that someone is going to burn the brand to fuel their personal money engine, and then dump the husk of the company on the side of a lonely country road.
I doubt this is really due to the protests. Remington's quality has been dropping for years. Their most popular model, the 870, used to be one of the most reliable and affordable shotguns out there, but now it is one of the worst ones you can buy. It seems just a coincidence that this is happening at such a high point of the gun control movement.
"This has been in the works for a while and nobody is really concerned about it. They're still selling guns, building guns, and planning for the future. This was more of a they were behind on their financial payments because of their last buyout and such. When the industry took a downturn they were hit with it. So they need to restructure to be able to pay off debts. They're not going out of business, and they won't be likely to go out of business any time soon, their name is still hugely valuable and they still sell some of the most popular guns on the market (and their quality across the board seems to be getting better, especially their Marlin line). Source: Person in the industry (though not at Remington)"
Code tends to have short lines and are easy to read with the current formatting (even on mobile). Quotes can have long lines which should be wrapped (especially on mobile).
Code blocks render properly already. The proper rendering of code blocks (monospaced, fixed line breaks reflecting the original source, because both consistent line breaks and spacing are important for reading code and at least the first and sometimes both are semantically material in code) is not a good rendering for blockquotes.
It would be nice if HN had a format option designed for blockquotes, but in the absence of one using code formatting is the worst possible option, worse than just wrapping the quoted block in quotation marks.
Until HN gives us better formatting for block quotes, don’t expect people to stop using code formatting. Or they can fix code format rendering on mobiles. Or they don’t see a problem with the current setup.
That's what's implied by financial reporters every time. Most people don't understand restructuring and professionals call it bankruptcy too. Strictly speaking the company goes into creditor protection under CH11 to reorganize it's capital structure or sell it's assets/itself.
Is this purely a "screw the creditors" move a la Trump where company coerces negotiations via threat to fall apart? Except in Trump cases it seems he's usually avoided formal bankruptcy ?
> Most people don't understand restructuring and professionals call it bankruptcy too.
It's called bankruptcy because it is, in fact, a form of bankruptcy established in the Bankruptcy Code under Congress’ Constitutional power to set uniform rules for bankruptcy. See, e.g., the info about chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcies from the US Courts website:
Professionals have their own colloquialisms wrt 'bankruptcy', which differs from a laypersons use of the word.
Ch 7 bankruptcy is what most laypeople call 'bankruptcy', which usually applies to individuals (but can apply to corporations). I am aware that Ch 11 is under the US bankruptcy code.
However, bankruptcy in this context (headlines), as used by distressed debt journalists, lawyers, bankers and investors, refers to CH 11 not Ch 7. They'd refer to Ch 7 as 'Ch 7 bankruptcy'. Ch 11 just goes by 'Ch 11' or simply 'bankruptcy'.
"It was still a profitable company, except that its owners had loaded it up with debt in typical private-equity style to divert profits to themselves. In the first nine months of 2016, the company could pay $45 million in interest to its creditors and still walk away with a $19 million profit. In the same period in 2017, Feinberg and the company’s remaining investors faced a $60 million loss"
So this just appears to be another example of a private equity company buying up and saddling a profitable business with unsustainable debt, much like what happened with Toys'R'Us et al. The same pattern we've been seeing for a while.
My understanding of how this game works is pretty bad, so hopefully someone can correct me. The way I understand it, one way to do this is to take a company that has a lot of debt and to use that debt to acquire control over the company without needing to actually buy it as face value. Then the new controller begins charging huge "management fees" to the child company, has the child company pay "dividends" to the new owner, etc, basically lifting the money out of it as directly as they can get away with. Then the empty, indebted shell falls into bankruptcy, and the managers claim a big tax write-off for taking a big "loss" on their investment.
Shareholders can sue if the company's management clearly acts against the shareholders' best interest. For example, some shareholders are suing Facebook over the data misuse issue, since it's impacting the stock price: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/23/facebook-hit-with-sharehol...
Terrible quality control and terrible product development is responsible for this. Principles of mass manufacturing reliable firearms were figured out in the early 20th century and Remington as a company seems to have forgotten how to do this in the last 20 years. The launch of the R51 pistol was a textbook disaster in terms of product quality and public messaging and pretty emblematic of the overall problems the management had.
So what does "bad quality" look like in a firearm? Because a "quality" problem in a device that ignite an explosive propellant in the palm of your hand and propels a piece of metal at deliberately lethal velocities sounds really bad.
Ammo jams, rusting, poor MOA, that kind of thing. Firearms tend to fail around the moving parts, you need something close to criminal irresponsibility or stupid end users to blow it up. If you load your shotgun with a 4oz slug and a high brass load, you might actually blow it up, but otherwise the receiver or ejector jamming is far more likely.
Rust is also a problem when you’re dealing with lots of heat, and corrosive gasses. Good question!
Poor tolerances (or "bad quality") lead to jamming, misfeeds, excessive wear, ect. In really bad cases (famous on the Remmington 700) the gun can actually fire when you close the bolt or drop the weapon.
I apologize for not going down the list but there are numerous things that count towards being a quality product when it comes to firearms that have nothing to do with its safety. These qualities can even vary across the range of gun owners such as plinkers, hunters, and collectors that look for different things based on their needs.
That's because your personal bias is preventing you to see legitimate uses for a firearm. Good quality would be being able to hit a target in self-defense without the gun jamming (for example).
Mostly not that bad. The problems were typically that the guns just sucked. The R51 might have had safety issues, I can't remember off the top of my head, but the other ones were just bargain quality guns at middle of the line prices.
"Hot gasses escaping the chamber were essentially flame cutting the top of my hand"
"Problems keeping the magazine in the gun"
"The slide action was very rough, and the rear sight was loose in the dovetail"
"An Idaho man was accidentally shot while loading his R51 pistol. According to court documents, the man did not press the trigger, nor did he depress the grip safety. Yet, the gun allegedly fired and struck him in the abdomen when he inserted a magazine."
"The left side of the R51’s slide rail contacted my hand when the gun cycles"
"The R51’s trigger had no perceptible reset"
"Disassembling Remington’s carry piece is almost as challenging as changing an M1 Carbine’s extractor... When you re-assemble the R51 you must slip a small tab on the slide stop of the gun underneath this little spring. You must insert it perfectly parallel to the slide. If you tilt the slide stop upwards by as little as a 1/16th of an inch, if it rides above the spring, the gun will malfunction" (Note, they did fix this in the second version of the r51)
"Even when the gun is absolutely 100% assembled correctly, it still fails to fire, fires out of battery, and fails to feed with alarming regularity"
I don't see why they bother implying the recent protests have had or will have an effect on Remington. Bankruptcy has been a long time coming due to garbage management and deteriorating quality. The timing is just coincidental and makes no material difference.
yeah absolutely this. They tried to make their factory in Upstate NY 'lights out' in the 1980's before the technology was ready. It failed miserably. Since then I don't think they have done anything to advance their manufacturing operations in any meaningful way.
Add in that a long history of treating their union employees like garbage has led to a lot of internal disconnect between management, engineering, and labor and you have a situation that is not tuned for long term growth.
To point to as evidence of a firearms company brought low by their movement in action. I doubt many people, if any, in the post-Parkland protest wave are aware of Remington's quality issues, or that there are distinctions between firearms companies at all.
> I doubt many people, if any, in the post-Parkland protest wave are aware of Remington's quality issues
While I think it's ridiculous to attach the "if any" claim to this sentence, I think the more general claim (the one referencing "many people") is fair.
> or that there are distinctions between firearms companies at all.
This is an absurd claim to make. You really think that people protesting don't know the difference between various firearm brands and manufacturers?
I'm sure they can't all name every brand or manufacturer, but your claim is that most aren't aware that there are distinctions between various firearm companies. That's ludicrous on its face.
I don't think it's so ludicrous -- maybe if there were many people in the protests who were gun owners or former gun owners, but I've only seen a few. Why is someone who has never owned guns, and quite probably doesn't want to, going to know the difference between Armalite and Remington? (Unless maybe they're dedicated activists doing research and pressuring those companies.)
"or that there are distinctions between firearms companies at all."
as saying most in the protests were unaware that there were differences between firearm manufacturers. Not that they would be familiar with what the specific differences were.
I think the vast majority of people know that there are differences between firearm manufacturers. I think you're quite correct in the claim that many activists may not be aware of what those specific differences are.
The mask really slips when they mention Fred Meyer (the grocery chain)'s PR about no longer selling guns, as if that has any measurable effect on the gun economy
Calling Fred Meyer a grocery chain is like calling Walmart a grocery chain. They're essentially a department store with a decent-sized grocery department.
It depends on where you are. The AZ version - Fry's - is almost 100% grocery. Whereas other parts of the country I've seen their stores be close to 50/50
Unfortunately Reuters and AP have picked up the Fox/CNN style habit of speculatively including other current event stories to support a specific narrative while ignoring other information more relevant to the story - such as Remington's recent management and manufacturing issues.
Their profits are down because the salad days of Obama/Hillary fear induced sales are gone for now. Just shows how poorly run Remington is that they can't plan more than a year into the future.
Their profits are down because Freedom Group made absolute shit quality firearms with QC issues out the wazoo.
Pre FG Rem guns often sell for more than new ones simply because of the manufacturing quality differences.
The pro gun community is actually responsible for the Remington issues, as they have been railing on Remington for years now, which really started around the Rem 700 recalls.
They bother implying that because of a political agenda.
In point of fact the "hundreds of thousands" of useful idiots will eventually come to understand the real world
- and in the meantime little will change. The millions of NRA members alone trump them, and NRA membership has just had a significant jump.
"When it's a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away."
Particularly as a common effect of expected regulation of firearms is increased sales, as customers try to preempt new legislation. Especially true for laws which focus on sale rather than possession.
However, on the other hand, expectation of future regulation may affect expected future revenue and thus present creditability.
I think the gun industry has a problem with a product that doesn't really go bad and isn't able to expand much. Sure, bullets need to be replaced, but it is really hard to make a gun that wears out quickly but that also is not a safety hazard for the shooter. At a certain point people will have enough guns that will occasionally be used. And the more guns you have, the less any one gun will wear out. Also, the hot guns on the market now are what? AR-15? That gun was developed in the 1960s. Sure there is new tech in accessories, but `the gun` can't really improve, because bigger and faster are limited by physics and laws.
I'd say it is exactly not like the new iPhone: repeated private gun buying happens for completing a collection (which never happens), not for upgrading to the latest keynote filler feature. When IPhone enthusiasts keep their discarded phones in some drawer it's more a matter of laziness than of building an arsenal.
This is a fair point. I guess it would be more like a car enthusiast. Regardless, both cars and iPhones kill more people than guns, but those facts are not as convenient to some groups of people.
I would guess the intent was to imply it's due to distracted driving (texting while driving or being on call and getting sufficiently distracted to cause an accident). Though laying it on the doorstep of iPhone specifically is not fair, nothing in iPhone makes it more prone to this than any other smartphone or even dumbphone model.
I also don't know whether the statistics about how many fatal accidents were caused by distracted driving exists (it's kinda hard to ask a person who died in a car accident whether they were texting before or not...) or is reliable. But given the ubiquity of both driving and cellphones, I wouldn't be surprised if there existed some data pointing to the way the parent post suggested. I wouldn't also make any far-reaching conclusions from it as the issues involved are of quite different nature, and the data, as I pointed, is probably very dirty anyway.
I’m just trying to point out how silly some point of views are in the current state of national discussions.
From the point of view of a 2A supporter, people are attempting to take away what is a RIGHT, while conveniently forgetting to address what is effectively a modern convenience (it is not a RIGHT to own an iPhone) that is factually more impactful on the presumed end goal.
But it makes for better TV ratings and yet another polarizing dividing issue (which is not, as there are high school kids trying to advocate for guns in schools, whose voices are being drowned out by the media and the kids “on the other side”
Imagine what it would be like if we had a march to take away the right to love the person you love, because some people who love like you do get more frequently sick of some disease.
Not only would a gun that wears out quickly be a safety concern, it would also be extremely undesirable in a market where reliability and longevity matter more than almost anything else. It would be like trying to sell Jags to a group of people who only drive old Volvos
The only possible use for this is calling lots of people quickly at close range.
I became aware of this model and cartridge when I used Google Maps to see how many gun shops are near Parkland High (3 within walking distance.) One of the shops specializes in these weapons. If the shooter could have afforded it, I would guess he would have bought this.
Considering the fact that it's an incredibly expensive rifle and that a quick FBI crime stats search shows no usage of it, and I cannot remember ever hearing about it being used in a crime, there's a high likelihood that nearly every owner of it uses it recreationally.
How many Porsche 911 Turbos or Audi R8s are used as getaway cars for bank robberies?
The bullpup format has been around since the early 1950s, and that particular form factor has been pretty normal since the 70s.
I don't disagree with your point that arms manufacturers are still producing new models, but that isn't a terribly good illustration of 'new', especially since the arm you linked has been in production for ~30 years.
That gun was made in 1986, over 30 years ago. My whole point is we are seeing an industry that needs growth but has no where to go. If they can get lots of people angry and go buy guns, then they will, but after a certain point, the angry people have all the guns they could ever use. And anytime an old collector dies, their guns get put on the market. Pawn shops are full of guns.
> The only possible use for this [FN P90] is calling lots of people quickly at close range.
This is absolutely not true.
The point of the P90 is to be a compact carbine for troops in cramped quarters (think tank crew) with the capability to penetrate soft body armor.
The way it achieves this is with a high speed, low caliber pistol round and full auto operation. Even then, it is only marginally effective. Take away the full auto part (civilian use) and I can't think of a single reason someone would use it, except that it looks "cool".
To reiterate, the purpose of this gun is not to be effective at killing. It is to be as small as possible while still being marginally effective (in the military configuration).
The effectiveness of the P90 has been called into question due to its cartridge, especially if the cartridge is used in the civilian semi-auto version of the P90, the PS90.
I think the primary use for the military full-auto version is VIP duty, where the scenario would be exactly as you describe: killing lots of threats quickly in close proximity (supposedly with minimal collateral damage due to the design of the bullet).
The primary use for the civilian PS90 is to show your friends how much you hate money by turning a questionable boutique round into noise.
The P90 in the US is largely restricted to military and LEO, there is a variant, the PS90 with lower capacity (30) and longer barrel that is available.
the 5.7x28 round though isn't as effective in many ways at /killing/ people as other rounds. It's more intended to wound, and increase attrition.
If you want to see something more affordable, that is probably equally as, if not more deadly, look at "AR" pistols (chambered in 5.56x45) instead of the P90. (Or PS90).
Or, the SIG MPX, which while expensive, is also available.
Though, it sounds from your comment, that you and I are on very different terms in opinion.
The 5.7x28mm would be a terrible choice for someone wanting to kill a large number of people. It's reason for existence is a tradeoff between the number of rounds one can effectively carry, armor penetration, and terminal performance. In short, it's designed for use in compact full-auto firearms - PDWs ("Person Defense Weapons"). That class of firearm has not been readily available in the US since 1934, and the P90 has never been available.
"The 5.7×28mm SS190 has a muzzle velocity of roughly 716 m/s (2,350 ft/s, Mach 2) and can penetrate the NATO CRISAT vest or a Level IIIA Kevlar vest at a range of 200m"
I'm not sure what's scary there. It's got a low velocity for a lightweight round and penetrates light armor. As a trade off it doesn't have great terminal performance against people.
released 1991... it's an almost 30 year old design. i remember first seeing the gun in the n64 game goldeneye. it looks like a close-range gun because it is (though they do make a longer-barrel version). however, it's for armored military targets. a 9mm round would be more effective against killing unarmored targets and has a longer range
it's a pretty interesting gun though, not necessarily because of the bullpup design, but because of the type of round it shoots. the 5.7 round is pretty unique - it's small but ultra high velocity and was designed to penetrate light body armor but is not very good at killing. anyway, it's unlikely someone would use one of these to shoot up a school or whatever.... they are really expensive (and the ammo is also very expensive and rare). as far as a vegas style shooting, the 5.7 round isn't long range because of its small size - it's seriously a tiny bullet. moreover, i'm pretty sure the fn five-seven (basically the complementary pistol) is illegal to carry in most places because of the armor pen - cops don't like them
I think this comment highlights exactly why legislation like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was made. Anti-gun people generally don't know much about firearms, and can be appeased by the banning of cosmetic features, like folding stocks or rifles with a pistol grip, without notably affecting constitutional rights, as the potency of the weapon is not affected.
I am a former gun owner and think assault weapons legislation based on pistol grips doesn't accomplish anything.
Yes, why not base legislation on the power of a weapon measured as, say, ft*lbs delivered in 20 seconds. A 50 round drum magazine on a Ruger 10/22 rifle - no problem. But on an AR-15 style rifle - not allowed.
The gun just doesn't fit as a product that can be made obsolete by future designs. Most guns were designed for the military to be field serviceable. Any attempt to make a cheap gun will just push consumers back to the established platforms. So the gun industry can't be run like other consumer industries, as we have seen with this bankruptcy. Investors came in thinking they could bleed an established brand of it's value, but evidently, consumers noticed and moved on.
I don't need to replace my wrenches or my bed or my kitchen knives. Manufacturers stay in business by keeping their operations modest, so they can stay in business with the sales from people changing interests, population growth, and occasional replacements.
* Tools wear and break from constant daily use (only war gets that kind of use out of guns)
* Beds frames can be made cheaply and if they break, you can still put your mattress on the floor (bullets don't work well if just thrown)
* You need to sharpen knives pretty often, which is wearing them out, but it is true that good knives will last a good while. (But when was the last time you heard of a knife lobbying group pushing to prevent laws from limiting the knife industry's ability to sell product)
Plenty of tools are used very infrequently, and make up a large proportion of the market. Most households probably have a screwdriver, a wrench, a spade, etc. which rarely get used. Yet people keep buying them.
Worth noting that while firearms are fairly durable goods, they do have a lot of wear when they're used regularly.
Trigger pins can wiggle loose. Butt stocks can crack. Springs lose their springiness. Barrels wear down with normal use, and that wear is accelerated to corrosion if they aren't cared for properly. Receivers will crack if used enough.
Sure. That gun in your uncle's safe will probably still shoot fine in 50 years (assuming it was cleaned before it was put away), but competition shooters replace their arms, or major parts in their guns every couple of years or so.
Another case of Cerberus being too aggressive with debt load and shoddy with its operating plan. It's a wonder anyone lends to them to do LBOs any more. Classic case of heads I win, tails other people lose
I'm not sure what to think of it. Either it's a case for gun supporters saying "see, their jobs are at stake! gun law supporters endanger the economy!!1!" Or it's a case for gun law supporters saying "making guns is bad business anyway, and your business model sucks!" At this time Remington basically says "I'm done, buy me! I'm cheap now, because you have to deal with my inflated business model". Remington could continue to make fewer, more exclusive guns, but with this debt? I think the financial managers have been busy being incompetent, so do not hire former managers of Remington.
It was incompetent financial and product management that did them in long before the protests happened. If anything, 8 years of Obama just helped them survive for a longer period of time than they otherwise might have.
This is purely related to private equity shenanigans and has nothing to do with the recent protests. Speaking of which, it's an interesting paradigm shift that people typically march for rights, but this weekend's marches were aiming to remove others' rights.
Since this is Hacker News, it's worth noting that the Remington Arms company (Remington Outdoors) and Remington-Rand (maker of the Univac, latter merged with Sperry and turned into Unisys) started out as the same company. Remington-Rand in fact produced a version of the famous "M1911" automatic handgun (well after the arms company had split off from Remington Typewriter)
Another interesting firearm connection: Vista Outdoor (parent of Savage Arms, Federal Ammo, and Hoppes #9) was spun off from Orbital ATK (who makes the Cygnus cargo spaceship and a whole range of solid rocket boosters)
I am going to speculate because quite frankly I am too lazy to do the research, but this seems to be fairly common? Is it an attempt reduce liability? Or are they just terribly run businesses?
The article goes out of its way to put this into the context of Parkland shootings and Democrat's following renewed push for firearm ownership restrictions, and imply heavily - without saying it explicitly, as it would be an obvious blatant lie - that somehow the two are connected, even though this is an absolute coincidence. Inserting this angle into this article is yet another act of journalistic malpractice.
108 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] thread> $950 million debtload... Cerberus Capital Management LP, the private equity firm that controls Remington, will lose ownership in the bankruptcy.
This looks like another case of a leveraged buyout destroying a business.
Edit follows:
Cutting the quality is straight out of the leveraged buyout playbook.
Buy the brand, cash out any public goodwill it has remaining, then sell off the company before the debt payments catch up. In this instance, they couldn't sell the company fast enough, partly because a Remington Bushmaster was used to murder children at Sandy Hook.
If a private equity company buys your favorite brand, buy up some of the warehoused product as quickly as you can, then just forget about it. Otherwise, it's like watching someone slowly succumb to cancer.
Sure, sometimes that isn't the play, and the company actually improves post-buyout, but if you're talking about a nationally recognized brand, the odds are that someone is going to burn the brand to fuel their personal money engine, and then dump the husk of the company on the side of a lonely country road.
"This has been in the works for a while and nobody is really concerned about it. They're still selling guns, building guns, and planning for the future. This was more of a they were behind on their financial payments because of their last buyout and such. When the industry took a downturn they were hit with it. So they need to restructure to be able to pay off debts. They're not going out of business, and they won't be likely to go out of business any time soon, their name is still hugely valuable and they still sell some of the most popular guns on the market (and their quality across the board seems to be getting better, especially their Marlin line). Source: Person in the industry (though not at Remington)"
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/875z4t/remington_one_...
[edit: changed the quoting for readability on mobile]
use asterisks and put your quote in italics.
Code tends to have short lines and are easy to read with the current formatting (even on mobile). Quotes can have long lines which should be wrapped (especially on mobile).
It would be nice if HN had a format option designed for blockquotes, but in the absence of one using code formatting is the worst possible option, worse than just wrapping the quoted block in quotation marks.
> This is a markdown block > quote, which could be styled > differently than a long italic > block.
If you want to quote something, the best way to do that right now is to write it like
which renders like> This is a quote
It's called bankruptcy because it is, in fact, a form of bankruptcy established in the Bankruptcy Code under Congress’ Constitutional power to set uniform rules for bankruptcy. See, e.g., the info about chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcies from the US Courts website:
http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy...
Ch 7 bankruptcy is what most laypeople call 'bankruptcy', which usually applies to individuals (but can apply to corporations). I am aware that Ch 11 is under the US bankruptcy code.
However, bankruptcy in this context (headlines), as used by distressed debt journalists, lawyers, bankers and investors, refers to CH 11 not Ch 7. They'd refer to Ch 7 as 'Ch 7 bankruptcy'. Ch 11 just goes by 'Ch 11' or simply 'bankruptcy'.
"It was still a profitable company, except that its owners had loaded it up with debt in typical private-equity style to divert profits to themselves. In the first nine months of 2016, the company could pay $45 million in interest to its creditors and still walk away with a $19 million profit. In the same period in 2017, Feinberg and the company’s remaining investors faced a $60 million loss"
So this just appears to be another example of a private equity company buying up and saddling a profitable business with unsustainable debt, much like what happened with Toys'R'Us et al. The same pattern we've been seeing for a while.
Lovely.
Rust is also a problem when you’re dealing with lots of heat, and corrosive gasses. Good question!
"Hot gasses escaping the chamber were essentially flame cutting the top of my hand"
"Problems keeping the magazine in the gun"
"The slide action was very rough, and the rear sight was loose in the dovetail"
"An Idaho man was accidentally shot while loading his R51 pistol. According to court documents, the man did not press the trigger, nor did he depress the grip safety. Yet, the gun allegedly fired and struck him in the abdomen when he inserted a magazine."
From http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/foghorn/gun-review-...
"The left side of the R51’s slide rail contacted my hand when the gun cycles"
"The R51’s trigger had no perceptible reset"
"Disassembling Remington’s carry piece is almost as challenging as changing an M1 Carbine’s extractor... When you re-assemble the R51 you must slip a small tab on the slide stop of the gun underneath this little spring. You must insert it perfectly parallel to the slide. If you tilt the slide stop upwards by as little as a 1/16th of an inch, if it rides above the spring, the gun will malfunction" (Note, they did fix this in the second version of the r51)
"Even when the gun is absolutely 100% assembled correctly, it still fails to fire, fires out of battery, and fails to feed with alarming regularity"
Add in that a long history of treating their union employees like garbage has led to a lot of internal disconnect between management, engineering, and labor and you have a situation that is not tuned for long term growth.
While I think it's ridiculous to attach the "if any" claim to this sentence, I think the more general claim (the one referencing "many people") is fair.
> or that there are distinctions between firearms companies at all.
This is an absurd claim to make. You really think that people protesting don't know the difference between various firearm brands and manufacturers?
I'm sure they can't all name every brand or manufacturer, but your claim is that most aren't aware that there are distinctions between various firearm companies. That's ludicrous on its face.
I interpreted the text of your comment:
"or that there are distinctions between firearms companies at all."
as saying most in the protests were unaware that there were differences between firearm manufacturers. Not that they would be familiar with what the specific differences were.
I think the vast majority of people know that there are differences between firearm manufacturers. I think you're quite correct in the claim that many activists may not be aware of what those specific differences are.
Pre FG Rem guns often sell for more than new ones simply because of the manufacturing quality differences.
The pro gun community is actually responsible for the Remington issues, as they have been railing on Remington for years now, which really started around the Rem 700 recalls.
In point of fact the "hundreds of thousands" of useful idiots will eventually come to understand the real world - and in the meantime little will change. The millions of NRA members alone trump them, and NRA membership has just had a significant jump.
"When it's a matter of seconds, the police are only minutes away."
However, on the other hand, expectation of future regulation may affect expected future revenue and thus present creditability.
How?
I also don't know whether the statistics about how many fatal accidents were caused by distracted driving exists (it's kinda hard to ask a person who died in a car accident whether they were texting before or not...) or is reliable. But given the ubiquity of both driving and cellphones, I wouldn't be surprised if there existed some data pointing to the way the parent post suggested. I wouldn't also make any far-reaching conclusions from it as the issues involved are of quite different nature, and the data, as I pointed, is probably very dirty anyway.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving
I’m just trying to point out how silly some point of views are in the current state of national discussions.
From the point of view of a 2A supporter, people are attempting to take away what is a RIGHT, while conveniently forgetting to address what is effectively a modern convenience (it is not a RIGHT to own an iPhone) that is factually more impactful on the presumed end goal.
But it makes for better TV ratings and yet another polarizing dividing issue (which is not, as there are high school kids trying to advocate for guns in schools, whose voices are being drowned out by the media and the kids “on the other side”
Imagine what it would be like if we had a march to take away the right to love the person you love, because some people who love like you do get more frequently sick of some disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90
The only possible use for this is calling lots of people quickly at close range.
I became aware of this model and cartridge when I used Google Maps to see how many gun shops are near Parkland High (3 within walking distance.) One of the shops specializes in these weapons. If the shooter could have afforded it, I would guess he would have bought this.
How many Porsche 911 Turbos or Audi R8s are used as getaway cars for bank robberies?
I don't disagree with your point that arms manufacturers are still producing new models, but that isn't a terribly good illustration of 'new', especially since the arm you linked has been in production for ~30 years.
This is absolutely not true.
The point of the P90 is to be a compact carbine for troops in cramped quarters (think tank crew) with the capability to penetrate soft body armor.
The way it achieves this is with a high speed, low caliber pistol round and full auto operation. Even then, it is only marginally effective. Take away the full auto part (civilian use) and I can't think of a single reason someone would use it, except that it looks "cool".
To reiterate, the purpose of this gun is not to be effective at killing. It is to be as small as possible while still being marginally effective (in the military configuration).
I think the primary use for the military full-auto version is VIP duty, where the scenario would be exactly as you describe: killing lots of threats quickly in close proximity (supposedly with minimal collateral damage due to the design of the bullet).
The primary use for the civilian PS90 is to show your friends how much you hate money by turning a questionable boutique round into noise.
If you want to see something more affordable, that is probably equally as, if not more deadly, look at "AR" pistols (chambered in 5.56x45) instead of the P90. (Or PS90).
Or, the SIG MPX, which while expensive, is also available.
Though, it sounds from your comment, that you and I are on very different terms in opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90#Ammunition
The 5.7x28mm would be a terrible choice for someone wanting to kill a large number of people. It's reason for existence is a tradeoff between the number of rounds one can effectively carry, armor penetration, and terminal performance. In short, it's designed for use in compact full-auto firearms - PDWs ("Person Defense Weapons"). That class of firearm has not been readily available in the US since 1934, and the P90 has never been available.
"The 5.7×28mm SS190 has a muzzle velocity of roughly 716 m/s (2,350 ft/s, Mach 2) and can penetrate the NATO CRISAT vest or a Level IIIA Kevlar vest at a range of 200m"
it's a pretty interesting gun though, not necessarily because of the bullpup design, but because of the type of round it shoots. the 5.7 round is pretty unique - it's small but ultra high velocity and was designed to penetrate light body armor but is not very good at killing. anyway, it's unlikely someone would use one of these to shoot up a school or whatever.... they are really expensive (and the ammo is also very expensive and rare). as far as a vegas style shooting, the 5.7 round isn't long range because of its small size - it's seriously a tiny bullet. moreover, i'm pretty sure the fn five-seven (basically the complementary pistol) is illegal to carry in most places because of the armor pen - cops don't like them
Yes, why not base legislation on the power of a weapon measured as, say, ft*lbs delivered in 20 seconds. A 50 round drum magazine on a Ruger 10/22 rifle - no problem. But on an AR-15 style rifle - not allowed.
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can chronicle the use of polymer frames in firearms, which maybe really caught on in the 1990s?
Failure to improve on old designs seems like a good thing to me as a consumer, it's preferable to churn
I don't need to replace my wrenches or my bed or my kitchen knives. Manufacturers stay in business by keeping their operations modest, so they can stay in business with the sales from people changing interests, population growth, and occasional replacements.
* Beds frames can be made cheaply and if they break, you can still put your mattress on the floor (bullets don't work well if just thrown)
* You need to sharpen knives pretty often, which is wearing them out, but it is true that good knives will last a good while. (But when was the last time you heard of a knife lobbying group pushing to prevent laws from limiting the knife industry's ability to sell product)
I don't think either industry depends on such breakage to stay in business.
Trigger pins can wiggle loose. Butt stocks can crack. Springs lose their springiness. Barrels wear down with normal use, and that wear is accelerated to corrosion if they aren't cared for properly. Receivers will crack if used enough.
Sure. That gun in your uncle's safe will probably still shoot fine in 50 years (assuming it was cleaned before it was put away), but competition shooters replace their arms, or major parts in their guns every couple of years or so.
Oh wait there was never an epidemic: https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-gun-homicide-epidemic-isn...
Though, I do have a major soft spot for the 870 as visually it's much nicer.
The Wikipedia entries on these companies are quite thin, actually, but you can follow the thread, if you care, this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Remington_and_Sons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Rand