Germansheperd said:
This right here. We want cheap but we say quality and what do we buy? The cheapest thing we can find and cry when it's not up to par with a quality item of yesteryear.
As I stated earlier me personally I have never seen anyone whine about their new $700 Wingmaster compared to an 'older' from the 70's. I have seen people cry about the 'PERCEIVED' quality of their $200 box store Express vs an older Wingmaster.
When asked why didn't you buy a Wingmaster I always get the "deer in the headlights" look, "I'm not paying that", or "can't afford it" answer EVERY TIME-ok.
I'm sorry a new Corolla is never going to be an older Lexus. Especially one that's been kept in a climate controlled garage never used with a cover on it.- read the last TWO lines exactly how I wrote them and think about that primo 70s Wingmaster kept in a case in the back of the closet for 40+ years.
I agree. If we're going to go with the car comparison, we started buying Hondas in the late 80's. My grandfather lived next door to us, had owned the GMC/Buick/Pontiac dealership for decades, but we got tired of taking the Buicks and GMC's back in constantly to have shoddy build quality fixed, even when it was free/done under warranty. New 83 GMC had the gas gauge, speedometer, and A/C all dead within a year of buying it new. All under warranty so it's ok? NO, not ok. The final straw was a brand new Buick Lesabre wagon that had a roof rack that leaked and ruined the headliner less than a week after it came off the lot. It still ran. Stuff worked on it. It was comfortable, but it wasn't RIGHT. GM quality control, surprise surprise, went to crap. We started buying Hondas then. The Lesabre wasn't the only problem car we had, just the straw that broke the camel's back. That car was highly optioned (even had a factory CB!) but it wasn't well made. Not ALL GM vehicles had problems at the time, but the number of GM vehicles that did have problems was much higher than it had been in the past.
The Hondas weren't luxury cars but they had excellent build quality.
The original poster asked if the build quality has fallen on Remingtons like it has on Marlins, since the buyout. My opinion is that, YES, it did fall off. You want to have a different opinion, that's fine. That's your right. I doubt he expected to get all "yay" or all "nay".
The thing is, in the days of the web, there are a helluva lot of people who have had problems with the Cerberus era Remingtons (not just the shotguns, but the whole line) and the Remlins. I guess we just ignore all that though, right?
For those who keep saying I'm comparing an Express to a Wingmaster, NO I'm not. I'm comparing Dupont era Wingmasters to Cerberus era Wingmasters, and the number of problem guns went WAY up during the Cerberus era.
Try google folks. Or just go to your local gun shop and talk to them. Or look over at the guy in the dove field next to you with a jammomatic. I didn't say they were ALL bad. I said the chance of getting a bad one is much higher if you buy one from the Cerberus era.
So again, I will repeat ad naseum, LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT THE GUN YOU ARE BUYING AND DON'T ASSUME IT IS GOOD BECAUSE IT'S A REMINGTON.
Or even better, find an older one where the risk of getting lemon was much lower.
I didn't say don't buy one period, I just said to be wary.