Remington sucks
First they sell the under engineered Remington 597 in 17 HMR...then they offer to buy it back for $200...when you have $300 in it with tax and registration... and the only way you can get the $200 spent is to spend it on more Remington products...is there anything we can do about this totally unfair situation? Any lawyers want to help?
0
-
This don't make sense, especially if they are worried about liability. If that were the case they would be doing their best to get these firearms off the street. If someone gets hurt they are still gonna get sued no matter what the recall says. Besides a recall would include some type of corrective action that would be performed at the factory and then the firearm would be returned to the consumer. This ain't no recall, scuse my french, this is theft.
Bode0 -
quote:Originally posted by 5mmgunguy
First they sell the under engineered Remington 597 in 17 HMR...then they offer to buy it back for $200...when you have $300 in it with tax and registration... and the only way you can get the $200 spent is to spend it on more Remington products...is there anything we can do about this totally unfair situation? Any lawyers want to help?
For a net loss to you of about $100, lawyering up here is a waste of time.
If you like the gun keep it. If it blows up Remington will still probably buy it back for the same $200 (or more). Alternatively, after Remington recalls all the guns, maybe yours will be worth something someday (wouldn't hold my breath, though).
A bit more seriously, have you considered simply sending Remington customer service a polite letter explaining your concern and asking for a complete refund?
Ultimately, that's about all a lawyer would do anyway, at least to start with, though the lawyers' letter would look a little more threatening coming on legal letterhead.
Something along the lines of "I've been a loyal Remington customer for years, I own fifty-gazillion other Remington rifles, and I was disappointed to hear that you are recalling your gun serial # whatever that I bought at so-and-so sporting goods in July '08. While I understand that you are concerned about safety, and I would like to participate in your recall, now I feel cheated, because I spent $X of my hard earned money on this gun with taxes and fees (receipt enclosed), but you are only offering me $200 to buy it back from me, etc.
If you're polite, state your case, and ask for something better, Remington may just respond with a better offer. While they probably won't be willing refund your full purchase price (see below), you never know, and maybe they can offer you something else you might like to try and make it better (some ammo, some accessories, etc).
Instead of a refund, you could ask explicitly if Remington would be willing to swap your .17 gun for an identical (or similar) model in another caliber. Would that make you happy? Maybe they could even drop the action of the new gun into your stock and reserialize it to the old number (that way you wouldn't have to re-register it). Short of fixing the defective gun and returning it to you, I think realistically, that would be the closest Remington could get to a "true" recall.
Now, I don't know exactly what its distributor cost was for this gun, but in fairness to Remington, I've got to believe its can't be MORE than $200. If Remington offered $200 cash, it would be taking a loss on every gun it recalls. Maybe that it would be "fair" but its just not realistic for Remington to pay everyone full retail price for the gun (which has to be significantly more than its own cost), PLUS tax, PLUS whatever fees you've incurred to buy it.0 -
I agree to disagree Beantown....
It was Remingtons flaw that they rushed this to market. It was their mistake that it is under engineered...perhaps they should fire a few of them bean(no punn intended) counter/ wanna be engineers, and use their salaries to refund. It was Remington who established their MSRP price..so that is what they should pay.
I am sure a lawyer for an individual who had parts and pieces of the rifle imbedded in his/her face, and/or body, could extract way more than the retail price of the said defective rifle from Remington.
In all, this was a gamble that the managment at Big Green took, and I am sure along the way, truth be known, there is doccumentation on their premesis to prove it.
Best0 -
That's standard practice today.
Ford had a problem with a defect in one of their SUV's a few years ago. The lawyers sued, & all the buyers got was a couple of thousand dollar coupon good towards the purchase of a new Ford. The lawyers got about $50,000,000. So far, > 100 Ford owners took advantage of the coupons.
Give beantown's suggestion a try, just so that you can be satisfied that you tried everything possible. Then, accept your beating like the rest of us who have been s
d by big business.
Stay on this forum. Every time a newbie asks about buying a new Remington product, you can warn him away; that should give you satisfaction, & may help to put financial hurt on Remington.
Neal0 -
Remington ticked me off years ago. They market and hype a new round (5mm), then after people buy it, discontinue THE AMMO!! And its a rimfire, so no reloading. You think they would run a abatch every once in awhile just out of loyalty to their customers. (Winchester kept making the 44 Rimfire for decades after they stopped producing cartridges for it). At least now Aquila is making some. As far as the 597, yes it should be a total recall with all fees and money reimbursed. 0 -
Remington's product support has always been poor.
That is why I shoot a 7mm WSM instead of a Rem 7mm SAUM.
CP0 -
MM8Nambu,
You wouldn't have recently had a run in with a divorce attorney by chance?[;)] Sounds a lot like my brother's opinion on lawyers after his recent ugly divorce. However, in general I agree with you.0 -
C'mon nambu. You're among friends - you can tell us how you really feel.[;)] Sorry, thread drift. 5mmgunguy, I feel you should AT LEAST get back the MSRP at the time you bought the gun. Write a POLITE letter to Remington like was earlier suggested and see if that helps. I don't think getting an attorney involved would be helpful or cost effective. A corporation like Remington likely has more attorneys on staff than you can find in your phone book.
yooper0 -
Agree with going with the polite, but firm, letter to Remington. A couple years ago I had a problem with a Nikon scope. Sent it in to Nikon and got a letter back saying they would be happy to fix it for $250. . .which was about the price at the time of a new one. I replied with a letter stating my disappointment, my long history of buying Leupolds which have lifetime warranty, but that I had heard good things about Nikon and wanted to try one. Obviously I was quite disappointed by their warranty response. The next week I got a brand new Nikon scope in the mail. . .an upgrade of what I had. Try the letter. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
I agree to disagree Beantown....
It was Remingtons flaw that they rushed this to market. It was their mistake that it is under engineered...perhaps they should fire a few of them bean(no punn intended) counter/ wanna be engineers, and use their salaries to refund. It was Remington who established their MSRP price..so that is what they should pay.
I am sure a lawyer for an individual who had parts and pieces of the rifle imbedded in his/her face, and/or body, could extract way more than the retail price of the said defective rifle from Remington.
In all, this was a gamble that the managment at Big Green took, and I am sure along the way, truth be known, there is doccumentation on their premesis to prove it.
Best
I agree, maybe Remington "should" provide a complete refund along with an engraved apology for selling you a piece of crap gun.
I'm saying in the real world they WON'T, and if you want to hold your breath waiting for it, be my guest. If you don't like it you can spend $500 in lawyer fees to sue them into giving you that $300 refund you wanted to begin with.
Personally, I'd rather just walk into a lawyers office, hand them a $100 bill, then walk out again. Faster. . .less emotional involvement. [;)]
Even if you were inclined to sue Remington here, you're STILL going to have to ASK them for that refund FIRST. So you might as well just ask and see what happens.
If I were in this situation, personally, I'd be satisfied if Remington were to simply replace my rifle with a functional one in another caliber. That's what a proper recall should do, and that is what I would ask for. I'd even tell them EXACTLY which gun I wanted in replacement, emphasizing that I think that this is the least they can do to be fair. Again, you may be surprised what they do.
Maybe they could apply the offered $200 refund to their WHOLESALE price of a new gun, and transfer it directly to you through your FFL. So you'd have a brand new gun, with maybe only a few dollars out of pocket, and technically they wouldn't be offering you a replacement gun. Not necessarily the "best" outcome, but I think I could live with that.
In terms of the rest of this, Remington may have had poor design, but I strongly doubt that Remington set out from the onset to create and sell a defective rifle. Liability in the gun business is bad enough as it is. They may have cut corners in putting the thing out, but no way is ANY established company going to DELIBERATELY sell a potentially dangerous product, that would damage its own reputation and bottom line.
In terms of waiting for the gun to blow up in your face, so you can sue Remington for beaucoup damages. . .good luck with that approach.
Since you've now posted in a public forum that you know the gun is defective and potentially dangerous, if you knowingly shoot it anyway you're assuming liability for doing so.
You could take your chances with a jury, and after permanently scarring your face and losing eyesight in one eye, maybe you'll find some of them sympathetic to your BS story about not knowing the gun was dangerous, and after 3-5 years of litigation and subsequent appeals collect a nice paycheck (1/3 of which will go to your lawyer).
Or you might go through this and get nothing.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments