Remington LE web site. [Archive] - Glock Talk


View Full Version : Remington LE web site.

08-26-2010, 01:13
Why does Remington put the 870 Police shotgun on a separate Law Enforcement web site instead of its regular web site with all its other shotguns???

08-26-2010, 12:15
Marketing. There is only one 870 and they differ by finish, furniture and one or two small parts. So, you are going to pay a lot more for a wepaon that is stamped with the word "Police". Now, when the these models first came out there were more difference and the LE was there for Departments to see the models offered. Today HD's come with the extension that only the P models used to come with, the parts are all the same now days except for two very small parts that cost less then $20. Finish is still and issue and the parkerized P models have the best finish for weapons intended for that use.

So, they keep the web site to market this model to LE Agencies. It is to try and show these models as being different, superior and worth more money then the other models, however, that is just not true. Express barrels cost more then police barrels. All the internal parts are the same except as mentioned and the stock sets can come on the P or the Tactical models. So why the higher cost? three reasons. 1. Marketing 2. Marketing 3. Marketing.

There are also some features on that web site only availible to us and not to civilian or non LE armorers so they have a very valid reason to keep it there other to sell the product as it is a support site for us.

08-26-2010, 12:26
They are also trying to keep all their products meant for LE on one page so that an agency can one-stop shop. Say a PD is going to need new shotguns because they are getting worn so they go see what is available. Now say they are putting together a SWAT team or designated marksman program. They can look to see what Remington can offer without having to weed through all the sporting rifles to see something that would work for them better.

08-26-2010, 19:30
thanks for responding and clarifying this. I appreciate your responses. It makes more sense now. Thanks again.