Shotgunworld.com

Ran across a major PR campaign by Remington today, pushing their Buckhammer Slug as best in the West, of course, and wondered why there was a direct comparison being made to "the most popular competitor" when most ads just talk about how good the product advertised is, and not how badly the "other guy's" stuff works

After going through the comparison, now I wonder how the "other guys" can even sell their stuff?!



Anyway, when you go into Remington's $5.00 Coupon zone and click through all the stuff to get to that coupon, finally, what you see is a real comparison, not just the regular "We're the best" stuff, so much as "We are BETTER than this other stuff", which struck me as pretty unusual, since they didn't identify "The Competition"

Of Course, Anybody who ever bought any can clearly see that it's Lightfield Sabots they are showing, and criticising, here.

The criticism matches what I've seen happen with the stuff, just never thought one of the big guys would bother to point it out this way.

Any of you slug hunters out there who know what's what, go here Compare Slugs and check it out.

Only complaint I've got is, by not "really" saying who the "competition" is, there's the risk that someone might not figure out what shells are doing such a bad job.

Looking at the results, seems they ought to be issuing a warning about that "other" product, and naming it..... Any other opinions out there? :8_9_6[1]:

Remington has to do something. Their profits have gone to the far side and their quality has dropped through the bottom. New sales are mostly through discount houses and that leaves them with little,if any, profit. They do not really make a competitive target gun any more and the only quality gun in their whole line is the M700 rifle. Their attempt to enter a new .22 rifle into their line was a huge failure. They have tried to import cheap guns and put their name on them and,while the jury is still out on that venture,the import market is glutted with all sorts of products and not really profitable for anyone near the low end of the scale. There are well founded rumors that they will file for bankrupcy before the end of the year.

Like a politician that is loosing,they have turned to mud slinging.

OneInch you are correct in saying that they compared it to a lightfield. IMO they are WAY off base with there claims. I have shot almost every slug known to man and lightfields BY FAR shoot better (sub 3" groups at 100 yards) and have more knock down power than anything we have ever shot. All 3 of our guns shoot lightfields the best. Thats odd because all guns tend to not be the same right? HMMMMMMMM IMO remington can shove the buckhammer where the sun doesnt shine and lightfields will stay in my slug guns till something better comes out!!!!!!!

A5Guy wrote:


I don't know there A5Guy..........Your comments sound at lot like political mud slinging to me. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way now, did ya Or maybe you work for Winchester

Happy shooting.....................Levi

Remington slinging mud. I really dont think they have much room to yack about anything. Remington is the King of the cheap imports, and bottom feeders.

I don't work for Winchester. I have alot of older Remingtons that range from nice to really good guns but those days are long gone.

I "tested" this slug this year while trying to find a good load for my gun after re-scoping it. Of anything I shot, it kicked like a Budwiser Clydesdale on PCP. They weren't the most accurate in the two guns I tried them in either. (Although that may have been due to flich )

I did recover one from the "ballistic sand backstop". It held together including the wad. I'll post a pic of it when I get a chance.

Bottom line for me is that they can keep them. There are other slugs in the same price range that perform better to or equal to these but don't have anywhere near the kick.

ONEINCHGROUP.........I visited your web site and I commend you for it's professional appearance. Sounds like a good idea and it may benefit a lot of fellow shotgun slug shooters.

Your posting about Remington is disappointing to me, however, because it shows a lack of professional tact on your part. I'm of the opinion that you are naively over-reacting to an "age-old" advertising tactic used buy every company in the world. What do you expect them to say "Remington introduces it's new Shotgun slugs, they may not be as good as some others, but try them anyway!!!!!!!!" :lol:

If you are going to continue as the leader of your organization you might want to learn to practice some diplomacy, especially when it comes to condeming major manufactors related to your field.

I wish you success with your organization and happy shooting....................Levi

Remington is indeed in financial hot water. Everyone seems to think these gun companies have deep pockets. This isn't the case, and competition is tough as hell in the gun industry. Look at Ithaca. They once again went under because they couldn't sell their excellent Model 37 pump at a profit. Remington is jumping around too much. On one hand they come out with a "quality" .22, (the 504), then on the other they start importing all this cheap Russian crap under the Spartan banner. They need to get their priorities straight. They are starting to impress me as a company that really doesn't care that much about quality, just how much wood, steel, and plastic they can shove out the door. I have 4 Remington 700's, an 870 Wingmaster, and a Trap Grade 1100, as well as a XP-100 handgun. But these were all purchased in the 70's and 80's when their quality was excellent. Now I'm not so sure. Bill T.

Though I do not like it myself, comparison advertising has been around a while and Remington did not just invent it.

I recall the first ad I saw doing this was a car ad in 1969 or 70 so it has been with us for at least 35 years.

Companies selling everything from ATV’s to crossbows have used this sales technique; they even try to sell Metamucil this way;

http://www.metamucil.com/drmetamucil/co ... ysis.shtml




Are there any reliable sources or links to the rumours that can be quoted?

If the five-year-old article in the link, I have posted below, is correct, the firearms business in general in the U.S. is a high earning proposition. It is a lengthy read that I have quoted previously but it doesn’t paint a great picture for any of the manufacturers;

http://www.njit.edu/v2/pwt/reports/Volu ... alysis.htm

Coming back to the comparative ad for the slugs; Don’t like Remington, don’t like the slugs, don’t like the ad, not everyone does, best thing to do is don’t buy them.

Personally, I don’t care for the ad but then I have no particular requirement for slugs.

One foolish ad doesn’t alter my opinion; if I stopped buying stuff from outfits that have used ads I didn’t like over the past 20 years, there would be very little left for me to buy, ranging from cars to house paint.

If you don’t like “Big Green”, don’t buy the guns and products. Choice in the market is a wonderful thing. Unlike some, I have had good service and shooting success with Remington products from 1972 to the present day and so I will continue to use them, myself.

Hi Levi,

Wasn't blasting Remington, or being naive about the advertising. Just this is the first one of these direct comparos I've seen in ammunition, and being very concerned with slugs, accuracy, performance, etc. the poor performance of the Lightfield as documented in the Remington Buckhammer Challenge was just amazing to me.

I posted the comment primarily to see if anyone else had the same results. The thread title was intended more to bring in members to see what was up than to make any comment about Remington. Of course mentioning Big Green had the unintended consequence of touching off another round of criticism of them by folks carryting that agenda anyway, when the post had not been aimed that way, especially.

ASSA is not advertiser supported, so the "Professional Tact" and "diplomacy" criticism, while not unexpected, is not an issue we're inclined to be concerned about. Our approach is to tell it like it is. Tact and diplomacy will not win any slugshooting competition, or put any venison on the dinner table.

If there is an issue with poor performance of somebody's slugs, or their guns, or scopes, etc. and it comes to our attention, we'll likely have something to say about it. We're not going to let issues of professional tact, or concern for lost advertising revenue, or some kind of economic intimidation, stop us from telling folks about a potential problem with somebody's products.

Part of being professional and impartial does sometimes involve identifying a problem, which is why we actually mentioned that it was Lightfield slugs that Remington was talking about when they referred to performance failures with "the competitor's slugs", when nobody else mentioned the name.

IMHO, now is the time for Lightfield to put up their own Challenge, if the Remington expose' is somehow incorrect. The thing about these sorts of comparison ads is that they absolutely demand a response from the fellow getting "hammered", unless the results are accurate, in which case those boys at Lightfield need to fix what looks like a big problem.

Slugs for deer hunting are not worth buying if you can't hit anything with them, or they fly to pieces downrange.....

So I'm looking to see the other shoe drop here.