Talk about Remington's QC down the drain!!!

stello1001

Professional Newb
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Feb 20, 2017
    4,550
    3,250
    Corpus Christi TX
    So a huge percentage of rifle owners can agree that Remington's quality control had gone down the drain. I am one who thinks that way. My brother in law's 700 has a very shitty action which feels nasty and gritty. It also feels poorly when chambering a round. Since its deer rifle to be used within 300 yards, it's still fine. However, a cousin of mine bought a pack of ammo and found this. Just thought I'd share with you all. A bullet loaded the other way. That's crazy!!!
     

    Attachments

    • IMG-20180109-WA0001.jpg
      IMG-20180109-WA0001.jpg
      46.7 KB · Views: 103
    • IMG-20180109-WA0002.jpg
      IMG-20180109-WA0002.jpg
      48.4 KB · Views: 103
    I really hate to see Remington sliding down the tube like this. I have several old Remmys of various models from the 90s and before that are golden. But my buddy's new ones are pretty iffy. Terrible to see such a dynasty screw the pooch.
     
    I really hate to see Remington sliding down the tube like this. I have several old Remmys of various models from the 90s and before that are golden. But my buddy's new ones are pretty iffy. Terrible to see such a dynasty screw the pooch.

    1) 1 round of ammo out of the millions of rounds of ammo are not an indication of anything.......no one has perfect QC.....especially on "middle of the road" ammo.

    2) yall want a remington 700 for 1970s prices....and 1970s quality......in 2018......and thats not gonna fly......in 1970, a 700 cost the equivalent of $1000 today, and no one is buying $1000 rifles......theyre buying $600-700 rifles.......so of course fit and finish are going to suffer.
     
    The $1000 options still have the same issues. No primary extraction, long throats, damaged rifling, gritty fit and finish, tough triggers.... It's the same rifle in a different stock.... That Remington doesn't make.
     
    1) 1 round of ammo out of the millions of rounds of ammo are not an indication of anything.......no one has perfect QC.....especially on "middle of the road" ammo.

    2) yall want a remington 700 for 1970s prices....and 1970s quality......in 2018......and thats not gonna fly......in 1970, a 700 cost the equivalent of $1000 today, and no one is buying $1000 rifles......theyre buying $600-700 rifles.......so of course fit and finish are going to suffer.

    I get it's only one round (one that I know of), but it's completely upside down.

    My dad has a model 70 Winchester that costed him like 450 bucks back in like 2002. That thing is butter smooth and very accurate when compared to a Mossberg, Remington, and savage in the same price range. These are other hunting rifles my dad owns or has owned. I hate to bash on Remington because I really wish they were good enough for me to like them, but that's not the case. My brother in law's Remington seems to be of cheap quality.

    And even if we stay in 600 dlr range, you can get a Tikka lightweight or featherweight (whatever it is they're called) and you'll notice a difference.
     
    I really hate to see Remington sliding down the tube like this. I have several old Remmys of various models from the 90s and before that are golden. But my buddy's new ones are pretty iffy. Terrible to see such a dynasty screw the pooch.

    I have to agree. Not long ago I had my unfired 1990's Rem. 700 VLS listed here on the Hide for sale. The fit and finish on that gun is excellent. The action is super smooth. I was in my LGS a few weeks ago and decided to handle some of Remington's new production guns. The quality of the guns I looked at was abysmal. It was very easy to see and feel the difference in quality from guns they made 20+ years ago. That day I withdrew my gun from the sale section and decided to keep it.
     
    Bought a new 1187 when they came out in 3 1/2 inch 12 gauge. Short barreled turkey gun. Would shoot once and jam. Sent that gun back 3 times and each time they said it was fine. Still would not shoot more than one shell. After several phone calls they gave me a 870 and some cash to make up the difference. Had to send that gun back twice. Wouldn’t extract properly and then the entire rib fell off. This was a 870 express camo. They put new barrel on then I sold it. Gave them one more crack at getting my business cause a 700, 870 was all I had ever wanted or owned. Was Remington thru and thru. Last crack was a heavy barrel tactical 308. Brand new wouldn’t extract nor eject. I sent it back and they told me they gave me a new bolt, said it was a 700 LTR 308 bolt. Who knows if that was true or not but I got it back and sold it as well. I will never ever again buy a new Remington of anything. Terrible qc and I think there are way better options out there that are of better quality and some are more affordable. Hate to see this from Remington but it doesn’t seem they really care.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    1) 1 round of ammo out of the millions of rounds of ammo are not an indication of anything.......no one has perfect QC.....especially on "middle of the road" ammo.

    2) yall want a remington 700 for 1970s prices....and 1970s quality......in 2018......and thats not gonna fly......in 1970, a 700 cost the equivalent of $1000 today, and no one is buying $1000 rifles......theyre buying $600-700 rifles.......so of course fit and finish are going to suffer.

    The cost of production is supposed to go down the longer that an item is manufactured, as they figure out new and hopefully "better" ways of manufacturing that item. Since the 700 hasn't changed hardly at all since introduction, I would expect the rifles to be the same price they are now AND have the same quality as they did then. Alas, it is a race to the bottom for Remington.
     
    The cost of production is supposed to go down the longer that an item is manufactured, as they figure out new and hopefully "better" ways of manufacturing that item. Since the 700 hasn't changed hardly at all since introduction, I would expect the rifles to be the same price they are now AND have the same quality as they did then. Alas, it is a race to the bottom for Remington.

    Why would it cost less, when marketing, shipping, and paying taxes costs more? What world do you live in that if you make something for 100 years the cost goes down? You think machines, reamers and cutters don't wear out? You think they cost the same as they 100 years ago? You think the techs that repair and run them make the same wage as 100 years ago? God damn, do you think?

    I hear is a bunch of pseudo bull shit artists spouting retarderry. "Oh the fit and finish isn't that good" Oh yea compared to what? "Oh the action is gritty." Well, go shoot it instead of jacking off over it in your living room. It will smooth out.
     
    The cost of production is supposed to go down the longer that an item is manufactured, as they figure out new and hopefully "better" ways of manufacturing that item. Since the 700 hasn't changed hardly at all since introduction, I would expect the rifles to be the same price they are now AND have the same quality as they did then. Alas, it is a race to the bottom for Remington.

    You've never run a manufacturing business (or been responsible for P&L) in your entire life, have you?
     
    1 round of ammo out of the millions of rounds of ammo are not an indication of anything.......no one has perfect QC.....especially on "middle of the road" ammo.

    You're right.

    But I'm going to bet this isn't the only one like that and that at some point between bullet seating and packaging, these cartridges line up in a row in some sort of material handling system. If I'm right, it's not that hard (or expensive) to setup a simple high speed vision system interfaced with a pusher/trapdoor/deflector to detect and cull shit like this. It's not like it's nevah bin don befoah.......
     
    Remington MSRP for Remington 700 Tactical Chassis is $3,100.00. Remington description: [FONT="&amp]MILITARY-GRADE TACTICAL. MISSION ADAPTABLE. New rifle - chamber had to be polished and bolt handle timed. There is a Gentleman in Alaska making a living fixing Remington quality control - bolt handle timing/tig welding.[/FONT]
     
    Soldiers in WWI unseated than reseated upside down as it was reported they were potent AP rounds.

    Its in the pack in case you come across that one deer wearing armor.
     
    I've purchased about seven different boxes 6.5 CM in various grains and from various manufacturers. While the Remington was the cheapest, it is by far the least quality. At least in build. Will find out how it shoots soon. Even the Winchester Match wasn't up to the Hornaday at similar pricing. All the Hornaday includes a lot # while the Winchester Match "match" ammo does not. At least the Remington does not claim to be "match" amm0.
     
    Shills from LSI have been upping their post counts. This kind of stuff was showing up with one digit post counts
    Forget Remington......
    We need chassis for our howa Barreled actions...,
    Mob mentality is un attractive.


     
    Why would it cost less, when marketing, shipping, and paying taxes costs more? What world do you live in that if you make something for 100 years the cost goes down? You think machines, reamers and cutters don't wear out? You think they cost the same as they 100 years ago? You think the techs that repair and run them make the same wage as 100 years ago? God damn, do you think?

    I hear is a bunch of pseudo bull shit artists spouting retarderry. "Oh the fit and finish isn't that good" Oh yea compared to what? "Oh the action is gritty." Well, go shoot it instead of jacking off over it in your living room. It will smooth out.

    Go pick up a Bergara B14 and a Tikka T3 CTR and set them side by side with a $1000 rem 700 Target model.

    Okay now set a Ruger American Ranch next to a $450 m700 sps.

    Some companies have it figured out. Remington doesn't. The used to. They don't anymore.
     
    Won't dispute reports of complete Rem firearms being sub-par where quality issues are concerned - haven't bought a complete rifle from them for some time. But the last M700 I did buy was a M700 SS fluted in CDL stock in 17 Fireball that Zanders was running a special sale on. Mine was a very nice looking rifle, with great fitting in a really fine looking CDL stock. I bought it as a complete rifle to get the action & stock, since I wanted to build myself a 20 VarTarg, and this was by far the least expensive way to get a good action & nice stock. It turned out fine with a Bartlein bbl, and was a good shooter.

    More recently - since Remington started heat treating M700 actions before machining them - I've been buying bare actions & PTG custom bolts as the basis for custom builds. The vast majority of these actions - as well as several bought as complete actions - haven't needed much if any work to get them true enough to shoot very well when barreled with a custom bbl. These were all polished/blued, and the finish on them was uniformly very good. IOW, QC in my experience has been at least as good - if not considerably better - than it was back 25+yrs ago. It's my opinion that shooters are reaping the results of their reluctance to spend more than the $350-$450 that WalMart & other box stores charge for a very basic hunting rifle. You want better quality, be prepared to pay for it.

    As far as Winchester M70s being superior in QC - I bought a M70 Heavy Varmint 223 in '92 that had a nice big ding on the muzzle that looked like someone had taken a 1/8" pin punch and given it a nice whack with a hammer. Got it re-crowned locally instead of sending it back, only to find that it had a grossly oversized chamber. Sent it back, they replaced the bbl, and this one was eccentric enough to see when a fired case was rolled across a counter top. I'm a Winchester fan from way back - my first 22 rifle was a Win 250 that Dad bought me when I graduated from 8th grade in 1964, and a M70 in 243 was the 1st CF rifle I bought in '67. There's a nice old M 61 pump 22 in my safe, along with '86, '92, '94 lever rifles made at or before the turn of the century, along with a single nice example of a High Wall single shot in 32-40, and one M70 Super Express in 375 H&H. So I at least have a clue where real quality is concerned. All it takes is a look at the inletting of those old Winchester buttstocks, done by real craftsmen, to appreciate what was expected back in the day...
     
    Why would it cost less, when marketing, shipping, and paying taxes costs more? What world do you live in that if you make something for 100 years the cost goes down? You think machines, reamers and cutters don't wear out? You think they cost the same as they 100 years ago? You think the techs that repair and run them make the same wage as 100 years ago? God damn, do you think?

    I hear is a bunch of pseudo bull shit artists spouting retarderry. "Oh the fit and finish isn't that good" Oh yea compared to what? "Oh the action is gritty." Well, go shoot it instead of jacking off over it in your living room. It will smooth out.

    Hey, listen fuckhead. Once you have recouped the money that was spent on r&d, developed better processes for manufacturing (as you should always be looking to do) etc, the cost should go down. It's a basic law of economics. You want to talk to me like that were going to have problems.

    Remington made up their r&d cost by the late 60's at the latest. You also can't tell me that with their bankroll that they couldn't develop machinery that makes rifles faster, and higher quality.

    So nothing ever gets cheaper huh? Computers, televisions, I guess those are all still $5999. Suck a fucking egg, dickwad.
     
    Hey, listen fuckhead. Once you have recouped the money that was spent on r&d, developed better processes for manufacturing (as you should always be looking to do) etc, the cost should go down. It's a basic law of economics. You want to talk to me like that were going to have problems.

    Remington made up their r&d cost by the late 60's at the latest. You also can't tell me that with their bankroll that they couldn't develop machinery that makes rifles faster, and higher quality.

    So nothing ever gets cheaper huh? Computers, televisions, I guess those are all still $5999. Suck a fucking egg, dickwad.

    i suggest you go spend time in a manufacturing environment then come back and try to have a discussion like an actual adult......because its blatantly apparent you dont know what youre talking about, and your shitty attitude isnt helping
     
    Hey, listen fuckhead. Once you have recouped the money that was spent on r&d, developed better processes for manufacturing (as you should always be looking to do) etc, the cost should go down. It's a basic law of economics. You want to talk to me like that were going to have problems.

    Remington made up their r&d cost by the late 60's at the latest. You also can't tell me that with their bankroll that they couldn't develop machinery that makes rifles faster, and higher quality.

    So nothing ever gets cheaper huh? Computers, televisions, I guess those are all still $5999. Suck a fucking egg, dickwad.

    You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever held P&L or significant mfg engineering responsibility in a manufacturing business?

    By the way you talk, I'm going to bet not. Which means those of us who have pretty much ignore your dumb rants.
     
    Hey, listen fuckhead. Once you have recouped the money that was spent on r&d, developed better processes for manufacturing (as you should always be looking to do) etc, the cost should go down. It's a basic law of economics. You want to talk to me like that were going to have problems.

    Remington made up their r&d cost by the late 60's at the latest. You also can't tell me that with their bankroll that they couldn't develop machinery that makes rifles faster, and higher quality.

    So nothing ever gets cheaper huh? Computers, televisions, I guess those are all still $5999. Suck a fucking egg, dickwad.

    LOL. Do you machine computers and televisions? Which do you think has changed more, the process for mass producing interchangeable parts, or the technology for building electronics?

    You listen here, you can go have a problem by yourself.

     
    Last edited:
    You still haven't answered my question. Have you ever held P&L or significant mfg engineering responsibility in a manufacturing business?

    By the way you talk, I'm going to bet not. Which means those of us who have pretty much ignore your dumb rants.

    Alright. So. You're looking at short term costs. Yes, initial costs are high because of the tooling, research, training, etc. However, over time the cost should go down. The cost to manufacture a rifle has undoubtedly gone down. Why is it though, that Remington's QC has gone down with price while other manufacturers that make a substitute product have not dropped off in quality? Is it because it's made in America and going cheap in America likely means skimping on quality? That I don't know.

     
    i suggest you go spend time in a manufacturing environment then come back and try to have a discussion like an actual adult......because its blatantly apparent you dont know what youre talking about, and your shitty attitude isnt helping

    I was replying to supercorndogs being an asshole. Thanks, though.
     
    Go pick up a Bergara B14 and a Tikka T3 CTR and set them side by side with a $1000 rem 700 Target model.

    Okay now set a Ruger American Ranch next to a $450 m700 sps.

    Some companies have it figured out. Remington doesn't. The used to. They don't anymore.

    Tikka I see a better BA with a cheaper stock. Never handled any of the others. What are my trigger, pre-fit barrel and stock options for the ruger american?
     
    Alright. So. You're looking at short term costs. Yes, initial costs are high because of the tooling, research, training, etc. However, over time the cost should go down. The cost to manufacture a rifle has undoubtedly gone down. Why is it though, that Remington's QC has gone down with price while other manufacturers that make a substitute product have not dropped off in quality? Is it because it's made in America and going cheap in America likely means skimping on quality? That I don't know.

    Do you think tooling and reamers last forever? Do think employees last forever? "The cost of building a rifle has undoubtedly went down." Why? Yes, we know the longer something gets used, the less its amortized value is. That is not the only cost of building and selling things.
     
    I work for a manufacturing business (machine shop, assembly, etc). Our products and processes are very mature and efficient. We have virtually no competition in our market. We use Lean manufacturing principles and our production cells run extremely efficiently. Our costs go up every year. The increase in cost is generally attributed to higher health care costs, benefits, employee cost of living raises, insurance increases, price increases from suppliers who experience the same issues and must pass that along to us at some point to remain profitable. We can only absorb so much of that until we must pass that along to our customers. If the production employees at Remington are members of a union, then it's even worse. If a company can't increase their revenue by at least 3%-5% a year, they won't be able to stay afloat for long. In Remington's case, they have seen a huge increase in competition over the last few years. 30 years ago, it was Remington and Winchester. Now there are many more competitors turning out products that are more innovative, higher quality, and meet the wants/needs of today's shooters, especially those shooters who aren't looking for a "hunting" rifle.

    Remington reminds me a lot of Sears. They fell behind and had so much baggage that they could not move forward at a pace to keep up, and probably couldn't afford to do so now if they wanted to. Material and processing costs are only a small part of the total cost to run a business. Employee costs are a HUGE part of it, and young small companies can handle it much better than old large ones, most of the time.
     
    Alright. So. You're looking at short term costs. Yes, initial costs are high because of the tooling, research, training, etc. However, over time the cost should go down. The cost to manufacture a rifle has undoubtedly gone down. Why is it though, that Remington's QC has gone down with price while other manufacturers that make a substitute product have not dropped off in quality? Is it because it's made in America and going cheap in America likely means skimping on quality? That I don't know.

    ok a few things.....

    1) manufacturing technology has remained roughly the same in the past 100 years....we have CNC manufacturing.....but as far as the mechanical operation to cut the material, its not changed....unlike electronics which you were so keen to point out, where materials and manufacturing process have grown by leaps and bounds, which attributes to their rapid price drop.

    2) more goes into the cost of a rifle than just R&D/ Tooling/ Materials.......a lot more.......and honestly, we have no way of knowing what costs Remington is rolling into those rifles.....or how much their tooling costs......but ultimately the rifles are going to be priced for what they can sell for.....and obviously they are because Remington is selling millions of the damn things.

    3) remingtons QC issues are LARGELY overblown.......in all honesty, Remington QC is more or less on par with Savage.....the reason you see more people bitching about remingtons is because more people own remingtons.

    if company A and company B both have 10% lemons that leave the factory........and company A sells 20,000 and company B sells 100..........you are going to have 2000 people bitching about company A and only 10 people bitching about company B.

    now are either Remington or Savage on par with Tikka?......well no......but then again, Tikka really only makes 1 rifle, so its a lot easier to divest your time and energy to making 1 thing well Vs. having to make a variety of products.
     
    I work for a manufacturing business (machine shop, assembly, etc). Our products and processes are very mature and efficient. We have virtually no competition in our market. We use Lean manufacturing principles and our production cells run extremely efficiently. Our costs go up every year. The increase in cost is generally attributed to higher health care costs, benefits, employee cost of living raises, insurance increases, price increases from suppliers who experience the same issues and must pass that along to us at some point to remain profitable. We can only absorb so much of that until we must pass that along to our customers. If the production employees at Remington are members of a union, then it's even worse. If a company can't increase their revenue by at least 3%-5% a year, they won't be able to stay afloat for long. In Remington's case, they have seen a huge increase in competition over the last few years. 30 years ago, it was Remington and Winchester. Now there are many more competitors turning out products that are more innovative, higher quality, and meet the wants/needs of today's shooters, especially those shooters who aren't looking for a "hunting" rifle.

    Remington reminds me a lot of Sears. They fell behind and had so much baggage that they could not move forward at a pace to keep up, and probably couldn't afford to do so now if they wanted to. Material and processing costs are only a small part of the total cost to run a business. Employee costs are a HUGE part of it, and young small companies can handle it much better than old large ones, most of the time.

    Same experience here. I just didn't have time to spell it all out to DumboKing who thinks he knows what he's talking about but just talks out his ass.

    But maybe he's got it all figured out in his shop.

     
    I work for a manufacturing business (machine shop, assembly, etc). Our products and processes are very mature and efficient. We have virtually no competition in our market. We use Lean manufacturing principles and our production cells run extremely efficiently. Our costs go up every year. The increase in cost is generally attributed to higher health care costs, benefits, employee cost of living raises, insurance increases, price increases from suppliers who experience the same issues and must pass that along to us at some point to remain profitable. We can only absorb so much of that until we must pass that along to our customers. If the production employees at Remington are members of a union, then it's even worse. If a company can't increase their revenue by at least 3%-5% a year, they won't be able to stay afloat for long. In Remington's case, they have seen a huge increase in competition over the last few years. 30 years ago, it was Remington and Winchester. Now there are many more competitors turning out products that are more innovative, higher quality, and meet the wants/needs of today's shooters, especially those shooters who aren't looking for a "hunting" rifle.

    Remington reminds me a lot of Sears. They fell behind and had so much baggage that they could not move forward at a pace to keep up, and probably couldn't afford to do so now if they wanted to. Material and processing costs are only a small part of the total cost to run a business. Employee costs are a HUGE part of it, and young small companies can handle it much better than old large ones, most of the time.

    Blame the Fed and fractional reserves for part of that, blame the rest on people who want more free shit. I'm not sure if they are union at Remington, probably at the manufacturing plant but the ammo plant is in Arkansas which as far as I know is a right to work state. I showed that backwards loaded round to my friend who is one of the machinists that work at the ammo plant and he said he'd look into it.
     
    Blame the Fed and fractional reserves for part of that, blame the rest on people who want more free shit. I'm not sure if they are union at Remington, probably at the manufacturing plant but the ammo plant is in Arkansas which as far as I know is a right to work state. I showed that backwards loaded round to my friend who is one of the machinists that work at the ammo plant and he said he'd look into it.

    Yes, I think you are right about the Fed.

    I bought a box of 500 6.5mm Berger 140 hybrids a couple years ago. The box was new and unopened from Midway. I found a .284 diameter bullet in the box. Upon weighing, it was 195 grains, so it must have been one of the 195 EOL bullets, which weren't even released when I bought that box. I have no idea how it ended up in my box of 6.5 bullets, but somehow it did. So a mess up can happen to just about everyone.
     
    Just a little something to add about QC in Remies. Ever since the SAFEACT was strong armed into Prince Cumo's fantasy land, Rem has been planning on vacating NY. I'm not sure if they still are. But if this holds true then I would say it safe to assume that the employees just don't give a f@#k. They're loosing their jobs if Rem leaves. Anyone have any latest current events on this? Hopefully Rem can get this all sorted out and be the company they once were.
     
    Tikka I see a better BA with a cheaper stock. Never handled any of the others. What are my trigger, pre-fit barrel and stock options for the ruger american?

    PVA is doing prefits for Ruger Americans and Tikkas. I'm not sure on triggers but the factory Ruger triggers are adjustable and better than factory Remingtons. I think Timney has triggers for Americans.

    Stocks, Boyds, Magpul, Several chassis options and a few DBM makers out there for AICS magazines, too.

    M700 has the aftermarket nailed down still. I think Tikkas are catching up and Rugers won't be too far behind. That aside, I think we're talking quality of the factory rifle, not the aftermarket options.

    You'll catch no disagreement with me that a M700 is okay if your primary intention is to gut it and replace the stock, barrel, bolt handle, open up the scope holes to make sure they're in line, and time/tig the bolt handle. Then you have a solid rifle. Bergaras and Tikkas have primary extraction, decent barrels, and decent stocks as-is.
     
    Last edited:
    You'll catch no disagreement with me that a M700 is okay if your primary intention is to gut it and replace the stock, barrel, bolt handle, open up the scope holes to make sure they're in line, and time/tig the bolt handle. Then you have a solid rifle. Bergaras and Tikkas have primary extraction, decent barrels, and decent stocks as-is.

    and before you spend all that money.....you may want to actually shoot the damn thing........because i have not own a remington that has not shot MOA or better out of the box.
     
    Tikka I see a better BA with a cheaper stock. Never handled any of the others. What are my trigger, pre-fit barrel and stock options for the ruger american?

    PVA is doing prefits for Ruger Americans and Tikkas. I'm not sure on triggers but the factory Ruger triggers are adjustable and better than factory Remingtons. I think Timney has triggers for Americans.

    Stocks, Boyds, Magpul, Several chassis options and a few DBM makers out there for AICS magazines, too.

    I really like the timney trigger for the american if for no reason that it gets rid of the factory blade, that said the american trigger isnt horrible by any stretch once you turn it down from 5 pounds. Since I have mine set up with a thermal I dont precision shoot it much and could honestly have done just as well with the factory trigger.

    Magpul hunter isnt out for it yet, should be soon though, I was expecting it this past fall. I know MDT has the lss for the american and Ive heard good things about it but it wont work with 300 BO mag situation. Which is kind of a blessing as I bought this rifle to be as light as possible for carrying around the big ass thermal scope. The chassis would be nice but could only make it heavier which is the opposite of its current purpose. Supposedly there is a new IDC (Indian Creek Designs) of which I know zero about other than it showing up in google just now.

    I have seen where someone was making new bolt handles too, the aftermarkets cooking along alright for the american actions. Maybe at some point Ill SBR it and put a 10" BO pva rug-age on it...
     
    Last edited:
    Blame the Fed and fractional reserves for part of that, blame the rest on people who want more free shit. I'm not sure if they are union at Remington, probably at the manufacturing plant but the ammo plant is in Arkansas which as far as I know is a right to work state. I showed that backwards loaded round to my friend who is one of the machinists that work at the ammo plant and he said he'd look into it.

    You know way less than you think you do about the business of manufacturing. Back to mom's basement you go........
     
    You guys need to go back to ECON 101. MachoKing is correct, the cost to manufacture a product decreases over time. That concept is a pretty basic building block of modern economic thinking. I think his example of electronics is a good one, think how much the very first flat screen TV cost. They were four or five thousand dollars, now you can go buy a better TV for four hundred dollars. I mean look at anything you do, take shooting for instance, don't you get better at shooting the more you practice? It’s the same for manufacturing, the more times you produce the same item, the more efficient you get at producing that item and the more efficient you are the lower the cost is to produce. There is no way it costs Remington more to manufacture a 700 action today than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Most of the differences you are talking about, (tooling, labor, machinery, etc.) the rising costs of those items are a function of inflation. If you took the bare bones direct cost of building an action in 1970 vs today and you accounted for inflation, I guarantee you the cost per action is way less today. Now their profit margins might be smaller today than they were in 1970, but that is more of a function of competition than direct manufacturing costs. Because of competition the sale price of an item doesn't go up as much as inflation and they may be paying way more for things like advertising compared to 1970, but no way are they paying more for direct manufacturing costs. If they were, they would've gone out of business a long time ago. Of course, it sounds like they are on the brink of bankruptcy, so maybe they didn't take ECON 101 either.

    If it makes anyone feel better, I bought a 700 SPS-SD in 6.5 Creedmoor a few months ago and I've been pretty happy with it. The trigger was good enough out of the box and so far it has shot really well.
     
    There is some truth to what the econ guys are saying. Unfortunately it is not the entire story. The key is total cost of production in a fairly labor intensive product field.
    Cost like labor, taxes, utilities, insurance, and raw material cost are not included in the economy of scale model. If you can get these items for the 1962 price it might work out. Anyone working for 1.90 per hour now? Product liability insurance at 1962 rates?
    No, producing a rifle today is not going to happen at sub 1962 or 1972 cost. Even considering inflation.
     
    Costs go down as processes improve. Simple stuff.

    Regarding Remington, they've made their own grave. They produce bad products poorly and then ask uncompetitive prices for them.

    Regarding the original photo in this OP, that's pretty funny looking.