|
|
Post by encore50a on Feb 28, 2015 18:32:28 GMT -5
Evidently this is the only one you've read about. Many of those barrels have had to be replaced, taking up to 12+ weeks, just to do a 20 minute barrel change. Remington let a bad bunch of barrels hit the market. They've been returned for refunds and traded in for different muzzleloaders, ending up on the "used" rack. Here's another "screwup" you must not have read.
dougsmessageboards.proboards.com/thread/16953/remington-700-ultimate-another-screwup
That guy expressed that his Remington was the single most accurate ML he'd ever shot. Sounds like his had a good barrel. "After a day at the range I became quite surprised as I put together groups like I had never achieved with a ML before, heck I would be happy from any gun with the results I achieved. I was a happy Remington customer" Reference your friend's barrel, my opinion that gun would likely have shot exceedingly well, like most the others, but, you were hell bent for leather to royally screw up that barrel without firing a single shot. You've never owned one of these guns, you've never shot one of these guns, you've never hunted with one of these guns, and you have no first hand knowledge of anything involving one of these guns. Yet, most every single one of those alleged bad barrel stories, you note, which are reported all over the web on just about every web ML forum, have come through you. Heck, you were talking about this muzzleloader having a bad barrel back when the pre-production guns were being tested by gunwriters before being sold to the public. Like I said earlier, you went into this thing with an agenda which has clouded everything involving your friend's gun. It is just odd how you spend so much time and go to such extremes to embellish the most minor details on a piece of equipment which you have absolute zero investment, other than having an internet fight with that Randy Wakeman guy over his insults about the particular gun you do own. Any statements you make on the matter as a body of evidence would be impeached.
I stated and posted EXACTLY what condition the rifle was in when received, it wouldn't clean up properly, never cleaned up properly and the barrel was JUNK as stated by Remington themselves. Sorry if you work for, have stock in, or are married to someone at Remington. The facts were presented so that all could see and comment. I do appreciate the great rifle builders reading and commenting though. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however wrong I consider it to be or, inaccurate it actually is.
You have absolutely NO CLUE what I know or don't know about the Remington Ultimate, its ignition system or how it was designed. I know more about it than you'd imagine, how it was developed, who shot it, and what the first barrel on the rifle actually was. I'm personal friends with the man that invented and patented the entire ignition system Remington uses. Nobody screwed up a barrel or was "hell bent" to screw one up, however you being an EXPERT professional gunsmith, gun cleaner, shooter and RU professional, can have your own opinion. Your right, I don't own a RU and won't either. However I do own its big brother, the actual Ultimate Firearms Rifle and, it doesn't have a bad barrel on it. So about your "you have no first hand knowledge" remark believe me, I do have a little clue.
What part of Remington themselves stating that it was one of the bad barrels don't you understand? Its pretty clear isn't it? Would you like the direct number and name of the representative who told both me and that rifle's owner that??? Do you believe you can get an explanation of how Remington ever let that barrel out of the factory???
Now if you're interested enough to do a little research, I'd suggest you call Matt Watts www.wattsammunition.com/ Ask Matt about the new RU he sold and the customer brought back, that they couldn't get to hit a 4'x4' piece of cardboard at 37 YARDS. Then ask Matt how long it took Remington to replace the entire rifle, not just re-barrel it and then send it back. ......... NOW THERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO PROVE "THOSE ALLEDGED BAD BARREL STORIES". We'll see if you make the call, talk to Matt, then report back publically about my "alleged barrel stories". You called me on it, now make the call.......
|
|
|
|
Post by frontiergander on Feb 28, 2015 19:05:02 GMT -5
So what ever happened with the Redemptions with the sloppy hinge fit?
|
|
|
|
Post by encore50a on Feb 28, 2015 19:11:20 GMT -5
So what ever happened with the Redemptions with the sloppy hinge fit? Both rifles are still on the rack at Jay's Sporting Goods, in Gaylord, MI When I make that 2 hour drive, I ask Mark (manager) if anyone or a rep has been in to review them. The answer is always no.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Mar 1, 2015 11:47:00 GMT -5
This is a good case in point. The statement "couldn't hit a 4 foot x 4 foot piece of cardboard at 37 yards" sounds very dramatic, and you've skewed this third hand information on a gun belonging to a customer of a gun shop owner you know, to allude an accuracy issue with a junk Remington barrel that groups so badly it cannot hit a large board at 37 paces. You've spent countless hours posting this all over the world wide web to the tune of not being able to hit the broadside of a barn. I requested you clarify your repeated claims: "Could you clarify? Are you saying the groups were off the mark greater than 2 feet when aiming at the center of the 4 foot by 4 foot board?? Or are you saying the groups were so much larger than 4 foot by 4 foot in diameter that they left a donut sized hole in the middle bigger than the board??? I'm pretty good at math, and just crunching the numbers reference a scope being mounted off, for the bore axis and the scope tube center to be askew greater than two feet at only 37 yards, with the receiver forward and rear base holes being 5.11 inches apart, the front and rear mounts would be markedly off a good 0.090". If you include maxing out the scope adjustment range, it would be even more askew. Be it the short action receiver was machined that far off, or the scope being mounted that far off, how was this not noticed when mounting the scope? Alarm bells should be going off when aligning the rings, if two piece, and if one piece, the collimator would indicate a big problem, long before bullets are sent down range on paper. If not talking scope, but talking the factory fixed sights, the front and rear sights would be so far askew that it would be noticeable to the naked eye, being they would be mounted off greater than half an inch." Your response was that you had no clue, other than repeating the statement of a 4 foot by 4 foot piece of cardboard at 37 yards. You never saw the gun, you had no clue if it had a scope or if it was fixed sights. But, you took that bit of information and twisted it to fit your predisposed bad barrel theory which you started way back yonder when you were insulted by Wakeman. Your above warranty repair ticket has no bearing on your friend's gun, it is evident that ticket is relation to a different gun, and it appears to me it relates to your "bad barrel" gun not hitting the big board. That ticket relates to two complaints, one being mechanical involving a complaint of an extraction issue, which was determined and corrected during a simple safety and function evaluation. That issue was nothing more than brass particles needing to be cleaned out so the ignition casing could be properly inserted and removed. The second was not a mechanical issue involving a bad or defective barrel bore, but was a sight regulation issue involving point of impact in relation to point of aim. This by the way was the same sight regulation issue I reported with my gun. Mine were fixed sights and Remington used the front sight off their custom shop 458WM and it could not be made to regulate when combined with the Williams Guide sight for a model 700. They wanted me to send my gun back for a replacement, but it shot so insanely well and I was replacing the sights anyway, so I did not send it back. None of this, however, has any bearing on a bad barrel that was shooting poor groups, being so large that a 4 foot by 4 foot piece of cardboard would fit within the donut sized hole in the middle of the group. So, that is the point I am making. You are all over the map taking bits of third hand information without vetting the facts, and then running with that third hand information to fit your agenda, which in my opinion, you are trying to insult Wakeman's preferred gun, because he insulted your preferred gun. Otherwise, you have zero investment in anything involving this Remington, but you are hell bent for leather to throw out skewed facts, be it the barrel, the breech plug, the powder it can shoot, its accuracy, etc., which in my opinion clutters the internet with goofed up information. My suggestion would be to enjoy your Johnston rifle and forget that Wakeman guy. If he puts out bad information on your rifle, showcase how he is wrong. I think that is a better route than attempting to bad mouth his rifle with stuff which you have zero first hand knowledge. There are better things in life than going on a vendetta against that guy. Best  |
|
|
|
Post by encore50a on Mar 1, 2015 12:11:14 GMT -5
Make the call.......... you'll get "first hand" information. You have the information at your finger tips, use it.
I'm sure many readers are also waiting for your response from calling the dealer.
Nobody's hiding or alluding to anything...... make the call. |
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Mar 1, 2015 14:22:27 GMT -5
Could we stop this or take it to a PM?
I don't feel like we are accomplishing much here except talking to the point we're figuring out who's full of poop which I guess is valuable in its own right but I haven't learned anything new since I drew this conclusion already.
All the keyboard ninja poop in the world is meaningless because it is hard to substantiate. A phone call won't fix anything because it isn't a party line for all involved/interested. The Web has a certain anonymity for board members because you only know as much about a person as they let you know and if they talk enough you can draw your own conclusions.
So far one guy cleaned a gun and returned it for warranty work and posted a lot of conjecture based on experience with a different gun designed by a friend. Another guy has a gun that shoots well although had deficiencies that were corrected himself. Both are a sample of one although one is better articulated than the other probably due to superior technical competence.
It feels like the recent spat over 300yds shooting of ML's with irons. The truth is some guns and shooters are capable and some aren't same as these RU rifles; some are good some aren't and it wouldn't shock me if a bad batch got out early on. That's why I don't buy initial issues of anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by 10ga on Mar 1, 2015 20:05:48 GMT -5
It feels like the recent spat over 300yds shooting of ML's with irons. The truth is some guns and shooters are capable and some aren't X2 Anybody who has been to a BPCTG long range matches know that they shoot way more than 300 with iron sightsThat's why I don't buy initial issues of anything. another X2
AS, I've been wanting to try a 17WSM but it seems to not be through the shakedown phase yet. And not enough choice in rifles available to meet what I think I'll need. Perhaps one of the mods will move this back and we can move on to productive messaging. |
|
|
|
Post by frontiergander on Mar 1, 2015 22:13:14 GMT -5
enjoy that 4 feet of windage adjustment at 400 yards. And with open sights....oh my!
|
|
