TexasCHLforum.com

Maybe Perry should make Remington an offer they can't refuse to move to TX.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rem ... yHGySzDoes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

They would have to improve their assembly, fit/finish before I would accept them in Texas!

I lived 5 min away from that plant. It is huge, they test fire 50's is the basement.
It would cost them way to much to move. They just don't want to spend money on something that wont make them more money.

swiber wrote:I lived 5 min away from that plant. It is huge, they test fire 50's is the basement.
It would cost them way to much to move. They just don't want to spend money on something that wont make them more money.

Very true but we texans can dream can't we, hell apple is coming why not a gun maker

FYI, this budget amendment failed to pass. In fact, the budget committee also removed NY's useless ballistic fingerprinting program (COBIS) which cost NY taxpayers over a million dollars a year and hasn't contributed to solving a single crime since it was created over 10 years ago. I'm sure Chuck Schumer is rolling over in his grave right now (no, he's not dead, but have you looked at him recently? Yeesh...zombies are real!)

For those not familiar..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_microstamping" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

• Stamped casing can only be traced to the last registered owner, not to the person who used the gun when the casings were stamped. In the case of a stolen gun, as is the case for most firearms used in crime, the stamped case would not lead to the criminal.
• Unscrupulous individuals could collect discarded brass from a firing range and salt crime scenes with microstamped cases, thereby providing false evidence against innocent people and increasing the workload for investigators.[4]
• High costs for testing the efficacy of the technique must be passed on to customers, increasing the cost of firearms for those who obtain them legally.[4]
• Microstamping is easily defeated. Diamond coated files are inexpensive and will remove microstamping. Firing pins are normally replaceable and can be changed with simple tools or without tools. Firing a large number of rounds will wear down the microstamp.[4] Marked components such as slides, barrels, firing pins and ejectors are all easily and commonly replaced items.[5]
• Microstamping is an immature, sole source technology, and has not been subjected to sufficient independent testing. Transfer of microstamped marks to the cases is less reliable than proponents claim.[4]
• Microstamping would be irrelevant/non-applicable for implementation of revolvers as these types of weapons do not eject shell cases necessarily.
• Ejected casings can be easily collected and removed from a crime scene.
  
  Specific to California, opponents say:
• Firearms sold to law-enforcement are exempt. Problems could arise if a police officer's firearm is used in a crime or stolen, and the fact that a firearm is "unsafe" if not provided with stamping technology exposes the police to liability.[6]
• Guns manufactured before an effective date are exempt and the bill does not extend to guns outside of California. There's no possibility that this bill would ever cover enough guns to provide the investigative advantage claimed for it by the proponents.[4]
• Failures of the microstamping parts of a firearm makes it "unsafe" under the California law, which then becomes illegal to sell, give or lend under existing law.[7]

swiber wrote:I lived 5 min away from that plant. It is huge, they test fire 50's is the basement.
It would cost them way to much to move. They just don't want to spend money on something that wont make them more money.

I worked up and down "The Valley" many times in my career as a telephone man, and used to love to take my lunch at the plant.