quote:

Originally posted by MikeG50:
Hot Cor says: "Excellent layman description, but I'd change "will fail" to "may fail".

Having the Trigger Assembly enclosed protects it from a lot of Trash and Debris that will cause other open style Trigger Designs(M70, Mauser variants, Savage, etc.) to jam or Fail quickly."



Interesting that when it is Remington, you insist on use of "may fail", but when it is "open style trigger design" it is "will fail".

Your rebuttal is fair except for one big mistake. You want to equate the fact that a Remington "may fail" with a Winchester "may fail". Yes, they both "may fail", ...

Hey Mike, Good point. I'll go back and Edit it to correct those words.

Best of luck to you.

quote:

Originally posted by brayhaven:

quote:

Originally posted by rogue1:
Don't remember that one (lawsuit), but Rem had to replace @ 60,000 (IIRC) 1100 & 870 barrels that either bulged or split. I saw 20 or so of them. Since they beefed up the barrels, no more split barrels. Some of the ones I saw were "banana peeled" using steel shot loads. Remington admitted they were not "adequate" and replaced them free of charge. I never saw any injuries from them, but that was pure luck. There may well have been some elsewhere.

And your drive-by media/lawyer references for this are..........???[/QUOTE]

Er..uh... Remington, your Deity, RECALLED them.... Any other questions? Talk about "unconditional love"... You (& hotcore) have a bad case of it
The gardeners down here in FL have a saying,
"You can lead a horticulture.. but you can't make 'er think"
End of discussion.[/QUOTE]

“End of discussion� Not hardly. Nothing’s that easy.

Brayhaven, you might want to rethink that gas you just passed. Here is a link to Remington’s 870 “recall†notice where they admitted nothing as alleged by you:

http://www.gunsmoke.com/guns/rem_lawsuit_result.html

which states, in part, that “Remington and DuPont denied--and continue to deny--such claims. They assert that (1) the steel used was appropriate for use in Shotguns; (2) barrel bursts are extreamly rare and occur only when improper ammunition, including improperly loaded ammunition generating much greater than normal firing pressure, is used, or when the barrels are obstructed;â€.

And it appears that the old “dangerous†barrels were not required to be returned or even removed from service, to wit:

To obtain a share of this fund, YOU MUST:
PUT YOUR VERIFIED SIGNATURE, ADDRESS, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS FORM ALONG WITH THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF ANY 12-GAUGE REMINGTON MODEL 870, 1100, 11-87, 3200, AND SPORTSMAN 58 AND SPORTSMAN 12-A and 12-P SHOTGUNS YOU OWN. THE FORM MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND SENT TO THE ADDRESS BELOW.
AS A CONDITION OF CASHING YOUR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT CHECK, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO READ, AND TO AGREE THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN, THE SAFETY BROCHURE WHICH WILL BE SENT WITH YOUR CHECK.

I know it was tough, but one simply had to read that safety brochure before cashing his check and buying shells for his “dangerous†old barrel.

Just for the record, and to be somewhat relevant in this thread, my favorite safety is between my ears but in physical manifestation, it is the two position as found on my No.1 Ruger. And if Hot Core chooses to weigh in, I’ll be glad to read his comments.

You did an excellent job of refuting it with Facts. No need for me to add anything except to say - well done!

quote:

Originally posted by rogue1:
Brayhaven, you might want to rethink that gas you just passed. Here is a link to Remington’s 870 “recall†notice where they admitted nothing as alleged by you:

http://www.gunsmoke.com/guns/rem_lawsuit_result.html

which states, in part, that “Remington and DuPont denied--and continue to deny--such claims. They assert that (1) the steel used was appropriate for use in Shotguns; (2) barrel bursts are extreamly rare and occur only when improper ammunition, including improperly loaded ammunition generating much greater than normal firing pressure, is used, or when the barrels are obstructed;â€.

And it appears that the old “dangerous†barrels were not required to be returned or even removed from service, to wit:

Of course they didn't "admit" anything. They never have, even though some of their designs have proven defective. They had to pay up in this case too. Read on.... These aren't "old" barrels. These guns were made in the 70's etc when factory loads were the same pressures they are now... Duh. Talk about passing gas. You better change your underwear, cause that wasn't gas you just passed. Read on from your own link:
"""Under the terms of that settlement, Remington has begun to make, and will continue to make, barrels for Model 870, 1100, 11-87, 12-gauge shotguns from a different type of steel, which can withstand higher pressures. Also as part of the Settlement, eligible shotgun owners are entitled to receive shares of a cash settlement fund, accompanied by a safety brochure. After payment of notice and administration costs, compensation for Class Plaintiffs, and class counsel's fees and expenses as awarded by the Court, the amount available for distribution as Settlement Checks to owners of the Shutguns is $17.125 million.""
"
It was a tough situation for your rem folks. They had a tough judge, an incompetent lawyer, a prejudiced jury... and they were guilty as hell
Nothing wrong with the old steel, yeah right )(except it was cheap like everything remington does), but they're changing steel on the new barrels. Guess what. Problems went away... duh
Give it up.. you lost big time. You & hotcore can start a support group. Remington lovers anonymous, or something like that. I'd quit trying to say they never did anything wrong though. It makes you such an easy target, it's just not much of a challenge. Don't you guys have some homework to do or something?

Google, Smoogle, if you look hard enough you can find lawsuits for damn near anything. This discussion is about as useless as debating global warming with AL Gore.

Hey Greg, I would suspect you probably have a copy of PO Ackley's Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders.

1. What do you see on page 36 in Volume II?
2. What does the chapter have to say about those rifles?
3. Were they ever recalled?

Don't let the Hurricanes get you.

brayheven: If you can back up anything you say, you might have some standing, but so far you're just blowing smoke. You were wrong on the recalled barrels and you have no proof that Remington has changed steel in their arrels. You spin like a Democrat. Call John Edwards. You need him.

quote:

Originally posted by joecool:
This discussion is about as useless as debating global warming with AL Gore.

jcool: Yew-w-w-w-w-w-w are right!!!!!!!!

You know boys there comes a time when it may be best to just piss on the fire and call the dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwight:
You know boys there comes a time when it may be best to just piss on the fire and call the dogs.

You're right Dwight. Rogue & HC tried, but they "pissed in the whiskey" instead, & even their dogs won't listen to them anymore.
Say g'night boys...

the model 70 safty still blows

quote:

Originally posted by CRUSHER:
the model 70 safty still blows

SAFETY

From PO Ackley's Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders.

1. What do you see on page 36 in Volume II? A totally exploded Pre-64 M70.

2. What does the chapter have to say about those rifles? A quick summary is that many of them have "impurities" in the steel and EXPLODE with Factory Ammo.

3. Were they ever recalled? I've never been able to locate ANY source that said the EXPLODING series of Pre-64 M70s were ever recalled.

safety

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
From PO Ackley's Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders.

1. What do you see on page 36 in Volume II? A totally exploded Pre-64 M70.

2. What does the chapter have to say about those rifles? A quick summary is that many of them have "impurities" in the steel and EXPLODE with Factory Ammo.

3. Were they ever recalled? I've never been able to locate ANY source that said the EXPLODING series of Pre-64 M70s were ever recalled.

Hey Greg, Since you seem to believe Mr. Ackley was wrong, why would he include the pictures of the EXPLODED (rag) Pre-64 M70 and details about "impurities" in the steel in his Books?

Are you aware of some motive, or simply showing your ignorance?

Back to the 3 position safety I like them one of the reason I like buying Ruger MKII's.

I had a remington 870 barrel blow up many years ago unknown reason.


As far a unsafe model 70's I sure don't know.

I rather buy a newer Ruger with newer and better metalurgary (excuse spelling) and better testing.

quote:

ortunately I was taught to never rely on the safety anyway, so I never use them -

It is ok not to rely on a safety, but to not use them is quite close to stupid. I don't know howe your hunting terrain is where you live but where I hunt it is not unusual to stumble or fall once in awhile. It's just so unforgiveable to shoot your hunting buddies because you are just lazy.

I always felt the M70 safety should have been switched over to the left side so it could be flicked off with your thumb.

Look at the position of the Colt 1911 45 safety... it's easy to operate as is, but put it on the other side of the slide and it's awkward.

I shoot lefty and always thought right handed model 70s worked better (and quicker) left handed. But all rifle safetys are on the right side of the bolt... it seems backwards but what do I know...

quote:

But all rifle safetys are on the right side of the bolt... it seems backwards but what do I know...

If you carry your rifle on your back now and then you will see that it is quite smart to not have the safetylever in your back where it is sertain to alter position. Those who made this system has thought toroughly through this problem and it is the safest position of the lever. Speed is something else, but frankly can anyone ever really say that they lost any game because of this? It is mostly a practice thing.

I hate model 70 safetys.I missed getting any shots from the noise or try to slip it off and game running.I shoot my old tang safety Ruger 77 safety like a fine double Barrel.I have shot so much running game deer,hogs,bears and wild dogs chasing deer.I have never liked a model 70 safety the Remington model 700 safety is my next least favorite.

quote:

Originally posted by David Walther:
It is ok not to rely on a safety, but to not use them is quite close to stupid. I don't know howe your hunting terrain is where you live but where I hunt it is not unusual to stumble or fall once in awhile. It's just so unforgiveable to shoot your hunting buddies because you are just lazy.

Whoa, thems fighting words. Most of my rifles/guns don't have safeties, due to design or they have been removed. Lazy doesn't come into it. Having a rifle cocked with the safety on, falling, and having it pointing at a mate, is not my idea of being safe.

You might find the poster above that doesn't use his safety doesn't carry with the chamber loaded, or he may have the bolt unlocked etc.

With my bolt unlocked, I've fallen and had it come open more, but never close up. Same with carrying over shoulder or sling.

The character above that knows so much about why the safety must be on the right for safety when carrying (I presume) over his right sholder, must never get tired and swap over to the left side.

'loody 'ell, millions of rifles have the safety on the left, the SMLE for instance.

quote:

Whoa, thems fighting words. Most of my rifles/guns don't have safeties, due to design or they have been removed. Lazy doesn't come into it. Having a rifle cocked with the safety on, falling, and having it pointing at a mate, is not my idea of being safe.

You might find the poster above that doesn't use his safety doesn't carry with the chamber loaded, or he may have the bolt unlocked etc.

With my bolt unlocked, I've fallen and had it come open more, but never close up. Same with carrying over shoulder or sling.

The character above that knows so much about why the safety must be on the right for safety when carrying (I presume) over his right sholder, must never get tired and swap over to the left side.

'loody 'ell, millions of rifles have the safety on the left, the SMLE for instance.

I don't get tired! (Off course I do). I do understand your points, and I know the basics on not to ever point your gun at your buddies. But removing safeties from a gun gives me a feeling that you either own a terrible cheap dung of a gun where the safety is so badly constructed that it is better to remove it, or you may just be another Rambo dude that believes that all circumstances is in your divine control.

I am no fan of the Model 70. Not the safty or anything else.

quote:

Originally posted by David Walther:
[QUOTE]
But removing safeties from a gun gives me a feeling that you either own a terrible cheap dung of a gun where the safety is so badly constructed that it is better to remove it,

That's it. And no it's not a Rem 700.

Others were single shot range rifles turned into longrange varmiters, hammer styles, like the M 94 pre safety, or just unusable like a mauser wingthing under a scope.

My M70 still has it's safety, but the only ones I really might "trust" is the "lock-in" Rugers, and the SMLE. One of my Gunsmiths sold me a second hand M70 and commented that "the safety even still works, and that is unusual."

quote:

or you may just be another Rambo dude that believes that all circumstances is in your divine control.

Not me mate, all my AD's / ND's were the direct result of me getting confused with whether the safetys were on or off. (With the muzzle in a safe direction of course). Still, it plays havoc with ya shooting mates nerves.