Remington levered up and took on a ton of debt at the wrong time. The owners gambled and lost. It's a shame that people will lose their jobs over this.
It was actually strategic by the private equity that bought them. They leveraged Remington to the hilt, extracted all of the value and then bankrupted the shell. Not that I am an advocate of what they do but it was actually brilliant. Gun companies on average don't go bankrupt, so they where able to significantly leverage Remington while hollowing it out and moving the assets to other companies. Leaving the shell for the debtors.
Maybe I'm biased because everything I know about guns comes from Forgotten Weapons [1], but my impression is the opposite: Very few guns are ever a commercial success, and absolutely loads of gun makers go out of business.
Prototype guns are like startups you get a bunch of ideas and few stick. I probably should have clarified established gun companies and gun companies manufacturing established popular weapons. If I start a company building 1911's, AR's and AK's. Chances are the venture will be commercially successful. If I try to reintroduce the Bren-10 or a new concept gun, then I am playing a game of long odds unless I am an established gun designer with a track record of reliable designs e.g John Browning. Gun owners, other than collectors can be pretty fickle about reliability, it is why SIG, Glock and SAIGA do so well, due to the fact that they have multi-decade history of producing reliable guns.
I never understood how this works. If you're a bank, why would you lend money to Remington knowing that there's a good chance the owner strips the company and leaves you holding the bag?
