Imagine that you or one of your family or friends is hit by a bullit, comming from one of those rifles that can fire without the trigger beeing tuched.
Accepting that the shooter didnt pay attention to basic safteyrules. Would you just put the blame on the ignorant shooter, or wouldn't you think, at the funeral, that a better and safer design would have been prefered.

Shit happens, and often people make mistakes, and forget rules, bsically because it is human to make mistakes. Why not realising it, and listen to feed back, and concentrate all your effort to making a safer design, if possible.
Basicaly that is what i call responcible behaviour, and sutch behaviour often makes oponents respect you. Respect from chritics often is better than confrontations.

quote:

concentrate all your effort to making a safer design, if possible.

Given your example of a family injury or death, I suppose the only rational way to make any trigger safe enough is to weld it in place. Otherwise perhaps good muzzle control and an open bolt when around others should suffice. ?? NEVER depend on a mechanical safety!


Jack, I respect your knowledge but I believe you are wrong about the loose Remington trigger connector. I can see why it is made as it is and it demands to be "floating" to function as intended; otherwise it would only a conventional trigger mechanism that depends on costly fabrication that would be, in fact, less safe and much less durable than it is.

I am convienced that all of the AD events have occured due to owners trying to make a good trigger "better" AND/OR letting old oil gum up the connector so it can't work properly.

I'm not a sufficently skilled technical writer to explain the floating connector's method of working well enough to 'win' an argument but it's real. Walker's obvious purpose was to provide a good hunting - not target - trigger with little creep and overtravel, having a crisp release and a good safety that could be made economically and (IMHO) he succeeded spectacularly in that.

It seems the "weak point" is the likelyhood of dry oil gumming/gluing the connector to the trigger in such a way as to prevent it from resetting if the trigger is pulled when the safety is on.

Occasionally spray cleaning the trigger unit with gun scrubber/brake cleaner and then oiling it with a non-gumming gun oil (annually) will likely prevent such problems. I've tried to set mine off "accidently" every way I can think of!

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

Shit happens, and often people make mistakes, and forget rules, bsically because it is human to make mistakes. Why not realising it, and listen to feed back, and concentrate all your effort to making a safer design, if possible.
Basicaly that is what i call responcible behaviour, and sutch behaviour often makes oponents respect you. Respect from chritics often is better than confrontations.

I am not sure what you are trying to say exactly but your description is that of irresponsibility and any negligence resulting in injury should fall more squarely on the individual than the failed devise. It should be assumed when loading any firearm that a failure of some unknown sort could occur and to take appropriate precaution. Injuries associated with this form of negligence are inexcusable in my opinion.

Everyone is preaching muzzle control but we are talking about a freaking high power rifle that can travel through walls and long distances. The boy that was killed was behind a trailer. The bullet went through an RV and killed him.

Your safety should work, period. I'm not sure how anyone can defend a firearm manufacturer that not only produces a rifle with a faulty safety but also decides to keep producing that design for over 50 years. It's inexcusable. They deserve to be shut down for such criminal negligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Finlander:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:

Shit happens, and often people make mistakes, and forget rules, bsically because it is human to make mistakes. Why not realising it, and listen to feed back, and concentrate all your effort to making a safer design, if possible.
Basicaly that is what i call responcible behaviour, and sutch behaviour often makes oponents respect you. Respect from chritics often is better than confrontations.

I am not sure what you are trying to say exactly but your description is that of irresponsibility and any negligence resulting in injury should fall more squarely on the individual than the failed devise. It should be assumed when loading any firearm that a failure of some unknown sort could occur and to take appropriate precaution. Injuries associated with this form of negligence are inexcusable in my opinion.

As a mfg company, you must realise that the customer, basically is untrained, and often acts impulsive. So your damned job is to make a product, that only fires when the safety is off, and the trigger is pulled PERIOD.

Accidents is prevented by a line of safety precautions. And a firearms related acident, often can be prevented.
1 NO firearms must be designed so it can fire without the safety is off,
2 No firearms must be designed or adjusted so it can fiere without the trigger is pulled
3 nobody must point a gun in an unsafe direction

according 3, Murphys law is relevant, What can go wrong will go wrong. Bullet can richoshe, bullets can penetrate, and change direction. Bullet launched upwards, has to come down somewhere.

So in the real world 1 and 2 is the most relevant points in preventing accidents.

Btw i looked at the link where Remmington tried to blow smoke. There was a video following a family hunting and shooting with remmington 700.
Try to look at the part where the young boy is fiering the rifle.
How do you evaluate the safety in this situation. Where does the bullet end if he misses the target. What i see, is a pretty flat area, and the target is placed on a hayball, placed infront of a small wood. Where does the bullet go. Nobody knows, as nobody can see what is behind those trees.
http://www.remington700.tv/#/home
Under the video, push the 2end dot from the right, and start by pointing at the picture

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Bullshit!!!!!

If the number of times the rifle was pointed directly at a (sadly unfortunate) individual at the time of releasing the safety or closing the bolt was deleted from the record, this thread and others like it would never have come to pass.

Yeah Vapodog, then these post would be discussing; "Why did my M-700 go off before I had the scope on a prairie dog, elk, deer, etc., etc., etc, and I never had my finger on the trigger!".

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

I don't think a M-70 type 3-pos safety would make 1 iota of difference if the trigger connector was dislodged.

Not true, The M70 could be safely unloaded the M700 could not. More the older M700, but even the current M700 safety does not block the firing pin.

Unfortunately there are two design problems with the M700. This was explained by the gun designer himself on the cnbc interview. First the safety design and 2nd the trigger design. And then with the safety there were two issues there. A Friggin Nightmare!

The M70 safety has two advantages over the old M700 safety. One can both unload or carry with a round chambered in reasonable safety. Because:
1. It directly blocks the firing pin.
2. Allows the gun to be unloaded with safety on.

I agree, when you go off safe with any loaded gun you are at the mercy of the trigger.

How would a M-70 safety make a gun W/a defective trigger safe?

Granted, the gun could be unloaded W/O an AD, but what about when the safety is switched off when preparing to fire. Let's say our nimrod is preparing tp make a finishing shot at let's say a wounded cape bufalo?

The M-70 type safety is switched off, because of the deffective trigger, the gun ADs, the buff chargers the hapless hunter that is now standing there W/an empty gun. The hunter has no time to cycle the bolt & get off another effective shot & is killed by the buff.

No safe gun handling issues here, but an AD is not acceptable @ ANY time.

Blocking the firing pin will not cure the M700 trigger issues.

This issue ain't about the F**king safety, it's about trigger.

quote:

How would a M-70 safety make a gun W/a defective trigger safe?

AS YOU ACKNOWLEDGE "DURING UNLOADING"! Thats when many of the injuries occurred. It does not fix the bad trigger. Why would you say that? You think I meant that?

In the designers own words. There was a problem with the origional safety design. Nothing to do with the lack of 3 position or unloading. that missing unloading feature is a 2nd issue and also very important. The safety did not properly block the firing pin (first issue)or so I was lead to believe by the designer's interview. I cannot quote his words. That safety has now been modified to address both problems. No recall, just quietly changed over time. I guess it does the job now accord to prior post.

Yes, the trigger is a obviously a big problem and remains a problem.

Obviously a firearm should have BOTH a good safety and trigger. You can F%%^^ this and F&&%%# that all you want. But this issue, is was about both.

What I dont understand is all the debate and comment about where the gun is pointed. I want a working & reliable safety and trigger on all my guns and dont need a "safe gun handling lecture".

All this talk about the mechanical safety itself ignores a fundamental rule about proper firearm safety; ALWAYS open the damp action when others are around AND when pulling ammo outta the magazine.

Ain't no firearm yet made that will fire if it's open, makes no difference if it's a revolver, autoloader, bolt, slide or lever; OPEN THE ACTION AND IT'S SAFE, CLOSED IT ISN'T SAFE, no matter about the "safety"!

I do it. I insist that those I hunt with do it, when I'm around anyway. Anyone who uses my little private range does it. On my range all actions are ONLY closed immediately before firing and reopened immediately afterwards.

Remington removed the bolt lock from their rifle safeties some 25 or 30 years ago so there is NO VALID REASON to unload them from a closed action.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
Those that most need to know are the least likely to listen.

Exhibit One.

<Snort, chortle, guffaw…> Said as only the inimitable Jack Belk could say. Mr. Belk, it just made my month to see you posting!

Fwiw, I’ve been present at two separate accidental discharges involving an M700. Now, I didn’t watch it happen, so for all I know the person’s finger could have been on the trigger each time, but after the second one I decided I don’t want to be around them.

I haven't seen a rifle that would fire with the
safety on. If that happened I would send it back
to the manufactor and tell them the problem and
let them fix it.

I think this issue is running in circles.

Everyone agrees that if a part is truly defective than the manufacturer is responsible for correcting it. The problem here is that it is not a chronic issue and does not effect

enough rifles to discern the fact that it could be more human error than manufacturing defect. All mechanical devices are subject to failure at some point due to metal fatigue,

debris or what ever. If there was truly a defect than it could be traced back to an entire batch of rifles. There is no real defect in this case so it is being sold that there is a

design flaw. The problem with that is that this rifle has been produced since 1962 and there is a staggering number of these firearms in the field. When you way the numbers

statistically it becomes very difficult to associate this issue to anything other than indirect human error.


My definition of accidental discharge would be: "The loaded gun sitting on the kitchen table discharged all by itself with no human manipulation."

Once we enter in the human factor then the only way to prove defect is with statistics. Yes, there are a number of instances reported with this rifle but there is also no

consistency when compared to manufacturing run. Along with the human factor we need to consider care and maintenance along with the situation & conditions. The variable become

staggering.

It is much easier to just point a finger and cry foul but you need to overcome 48 years of manufacturing success.

Capt Finlander
One thing I picked up on during the CNBC show was Mr Walkers mention of having to inspect each connector to make sure it was inside of the tolerance window.
The effect is known as tolerance stack-up, and a good designer makes sure that everything will still work properly if all Min or Max parts are used IE a worst case scenerio. If you start letting "out of spec" parts enter the system, than all bets are off.
In this case a shorter than spec arm on the connector matched with a minimum length on the sear and a trigger pivot point that's off slightly, and the stack-up may well bite you in the ass.
I have noticed also how everyone skipped over the "Consumer Reports" test, and how their sample FSR'd multiple times, or do you believe they "tampered" with the trigger on their new in box sample to make it fail?

quote:

I have noticed also how everyone skipped over the "Consumer Reports" test, and how their sample FSR'd multiple times, or do you believe they "tampered" with the trigger on their new in box sample to make it fail?

Yep they must have been out to get Rem and just make them look bad. People are going to believe what they want. Yes an open gun is better than closed leave the bolt or ammo at home and it gets even more safe. I had a new out of the box ADL fire on the 3 rd as I took it off safe. I used my trigger finger to do it so I know for a fact my finger was not close to the trigger.

Are they all bad no is there a chance you will get a bad one out of the box. I believe so. Can ANY trigger be f'd up by the user you bet.

quote:

There is no real defect in this case

Huh? As to always "opening the damn action", last I heard on a bolt action rifle this was done by opening the bolt. Please tell me if I have been doing this wrong after all these years. Problem is, if you had bothered seeing the damn program, Sir, touching the "damn bolt" caused the rifle to fire!
Peter.

Peter is correct. I find it absurd that people are actually defending a safety that doesn't work. Guns should never go off with the safety on. Guns should never go off without pulling the trigger. These are basic gun principles.

Remington apologist want to hold gun owners responsible for firearm safety yet are unwilling to hold the gun maker responsible for basic firearm safety.

Anyone that defends Remington on this issue has no credibility. I personally hope they go out of business for this crap. There are plenty of other "Responsible" firearm makers. Good riddance Remington.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailgunner:
Capt Finlander
One thing I picked up on during the CNBC show was Mr Walkers mention of having to inspect each connector to make sure it was inside of the tolerance window.
The effect is known as tolerance stack-up, and a good designer makes sure that everything will still work properly if all Min or Max parts are used IE a worst case scenerio. If you start letting "out of spec" parts enter the system, than all bets are off.
In this case a shorter than spec arm on the connector matched with a minimum length on the sear and a trigger pivot point that's off slightly, and the stack-up may well bite you in the ass.
I have noticed also how everyone skipped over the "Consumer Reports" test, and how their sample FSR'd multiple times, or do you believe they "tampered" with the trigger on their new in box sample to make it fail?

As someone who works in a plant, that caught my attention. Mr Walker also said his safety check was no longer done because it "cost to much". If true, then Remington is in it deep. I do wonder where they got the documents.

I caught the CNBC Remington re-run last evening. The drawings and animation confirmed my understanding of how the connector works to improve the trigger perfomance AND how/why it can fail.

The loosely held connector serves as a "tipping point" in trigger travel. It crisply releases the pin without having to rely on a perfectly square and highly polished - expensive to make - sear. BUT, the connector MUST be free to reset if the trigger is pulled while the safety is on and that is potentilly a weakness. A gummy layer of dried oil in and on the trigger unit will certainly inhibit connector reset.

NO safety is safe if the trigger-to-sear release engagement is reduced passed a safe point. The 700 trigger is an excellant hunting trigger but it's not practicle to make it a safe <2 pound target type trigger. (And, trust me, the only way the 700 can fire by touching the bolt handle is if the user HAS "adjusted" the trigger to the point of spontaneous release. THAT part of the TV show was greatly misleading... and done in such as way as to be plain stupid OR a plain lie.) Any user trigger adjustment to "improve" it too much will make the connector reset both more difficult and more critical.

The 700's Owner's Manual does caution against trigger adjustments but they fail to discuss proper methods of cleaning/oiling the trigger so it will remain safe. In that, they were certaily "negligent" but it's easly proven that many people don't read instructions anyway. (Ever notice the number of posts asking how to adjust loading dies? And how to know what each die does? Etc.).

Mr. Walker's suggested 5.5 cent trigger block would have prevented the need for the connector to reset after trigger pulls with the safety on. But I can see why Rem management would have thought it was un-needed in '48; they were wrong. As Walker said, it wasn't due to a lack of management concern, more likely they were simply to stupid to visualize the value of his suggestion. Such stupidity is a common trait in American industrial management and it's gotten more prevasive with the rise of modern "bean counter" MBA concepts.

Rem did - wisely - remove the bolt locking arm from the safety in the early 80s. That was a great step for safety because it allowed users to unload without releasing the safety. But that left all of the rifles made to that time potentially hazardous if the users neglicted muzzle control when the rifle was "on safe".

The two poor souls they showed who had injured themselves sorta proves that muzzle control IS important! One guy had his left hand blown apart; how anyone can shoot himself in the left hand while taking his 700 off safe with his right hand is beyound my imagination. And, how in the world could the other guy blow away his own lower left leg with a rifle? Try to fit the required contortions for either of those events in your mind, I can't.

I will continue to use my 700s without fear because I keep my triggers clean and oiled with a PROPER LUBE, I handle them with muzzle discipline and I OPEN the action when around others or at camp, truck or home.

It was impressive to see Walker being able to hear and converse with the TV people, he has obviously found much better hearing aids than he had a few years ago! Also interesting to see him still useing his old WWII surplus South Bend metal lathe. (I had the privilidge of watching him thread and chamber a new Hart barrel to .22 BR on that thing about 10-12 years ago!) He's one very intelligent and skilled man, all riflemen owe him a debt of gratitude.


.

quote:

I just tuned the trigger on a 700 for a friend's son. After backing it down to the point where you can make it go off with impact or slamming the bolt, you just move it back up to the point where you cannot. How hard is that? A plastic/rubber mallet and half an hour of pretty simple work and the gun is pretty well fool proof.

So; knowing what you all know now. What do you think of this procedure? I copied from the adjacent thread, starting with a joke about "Remington ADL". I thought it was sarcasm, But I now believe this was a serious post.

quote:

half an hour of pretty simple work and the gun is pretty well fool proof.

Make anything fool proof and the gene pool will produce a more capabile fool.

quote:

it is our practice to keep a round in the chamber for a quick shot. However, for safety, we set the weapon up in this fashion: when we close the bolt with the round in the chamber, we hold the trigger down, so that the firing pin spring is “un-cocked”. The weapon cannot fire in this configuration, until the shooter lifts the bolt handle and puts it back down, cocking the firing pin spring. The trick is to make sure your finger is not on the trigger when you do this, and in all cases to be aware of where the muzzle is pointed! I attribute our (harmless, due to obeying the simplest safety rule of muzzle direction awareness!)AD’s to the wearing of heavy gloves, and in our excitement, putting finger inside the trigger guard while cocking the bolt. (The safety will not go “on” until the bolt is cocked, ready to fire.)

To prove Jim's point. This is from another forum discussing the CNBC program.

Hey Jack, found the TV show interesting in more ways than one; had wondered what you looked like and how old you were. Hope all the health and other issues are behind you now.

It is very true that proper gun handling and muzzle control is the best way to avoid shooting anyone - but how does muzzle control stop a poor trigger design from performing an AD in the first place? The AD may still happen, but you hopefully avoid a tragedy. It doesn't make up for a faulty design.

From an engineering standpoint: the fact that a stock rifle with a stock trigger has been documented to discharge when the bolt is lifted or the safety switched off, even if it is uncommon, should have been enough to indicate that there is a flaw in the design or component and force a redesign of the mechanism. If the safety is on, the user should be able to manipulate the trigger in any sort of way without the rifle firing when you switch the safety off with no further touching of the trigger. It's that simple. If it can't do that EVERY TIME, there is a design problem to solve.

What happens as a result of the AD is completely dependent on proper gun safety adherence. Has anyone ever popped their rifle to the shoulder for a quick shot on game, pulled the trigger and realized that the safety was still on? I have. Now, with the rifle in that condition, should it be dangerous to switch the safety off? Should the shooter have to worry about the rifle firing just by moving the safety? I don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:

quote:

when we close the bolt with the round in the chamber, we hold the trigger down, so that the firing pin spring is “un-cocked”.

To prove Jim's point. This is from another forum discussing the CNBC program.

Leaving a firing pin resting on a live primer?

As I pointed out to that poster, all it takes to fire the rifle is an impact on the butt sufficient to 'bounce' the firing pin by inertia. It also means that any sharp lick on the cocking piece also fires the rifle.
It is about as dangerous a way to carry a hunting rifle as can be found.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
As I pointed out to that poster, all it takes to fire the rifle is an impact on the butt sufficient to 'bounce' the firing pin by inertia. It also means that any sharp lick on the cocking piece also fires the rifle.
It is about as dangerous a way to carry a hunting rifle as can be found.

Glad to hear that. In your first post above you seemed to be condoning that method.

quote:

Originally posted by Blacktailer:
If your rifle isn't pointed at anything, it won't kill anything. Anyone who has a rifle pointed at anything that they do not intend to kill is NEGLIGENT. End of story. Treat EVERY firearm as if it is loaded AT ALL TIMES and do not expect the safety to work. We can't legislate against all of the idiots.

That is about the most ignorant statement I've ever read on AR!

You are right we can't legislate against all the IDIOTS with their heads in the sand where the Rem 700 is concerned! Riflemen have known about that piece of junk for years and have complained to Remington without any action on the problem.

Everyone knows you don't point a rifle at anything you don't want to kill! The fact is when a fires accidentally when the safety is disenguaged discharges the rifle is defective, and when it fires it may kill someone a mile away. It may shoot a hole in the roof, or the transmission of your 4X4.

The fact is a rifle is not supposed to fire when the safety is disenguaged, or missfire when the trigger is pulled, then fire when you open the bolt.

If the brakes on your car don't work sometimes, if you don't drive it, it will never crash into the canyon when you can't make the curve because you are going down hill too fast! The same goes for the 700 if you never load it it will never have an AD.

The damn Remington 700 rifles are dangerous PERIOD! Remington has known about this since the 1940s and did nothing about it because it cost 70 cents per rifle to re-design. Legisation is not the fix, Remington is the problem, they need to fix the damn thing!

quote:

Originally posted by fourbore:

quote:

I just tuned the trigger on a 700 for a friend's son. After backing it down to the point where you can make it go off with impact or slamming the bolt, you just move it back up to the point where you cannot. How hard is that? A plastic/rubber mallet and half an hour of pretty simple work and the gun is pretty well fool proof.

So; knowing what you all know now. What do you think of this procedure? I copied from the adjacent thread, starting with a joke about "Remington ADL". I thought it was sarcasm, But I now believe this was a serious post.

If it's serious, it may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Now we are supposed to gunsmith our own rifles to make them safe? If that is the case, 99.9% of us are in trouble.

go here and watch the videos. http://www.remington700.tv/#/home
Sure its remingtons side of the story and may be a bit biased but it will show without a doubt that this was total bs and nothing but a witch hunt by the antis and in my opinion the posters who are defending this witch hunt are just as guilty of feeding the antis as the tv show was. Not once were any of the reported cases of them going off repeatable or documentable. If anyone was going to have a problem with it it would be our military and they just signed a contract for a new batch of them. Seems kind of funny dont it. My opinion and i know it isnt worth much is where remington opened the door to this thing was when they started producing those cammo ars and really started the ar as a hunting gun thing. It made the antis flip over backwards to see the market in ars bloom and made them there #1 target to take down. The question i have for everyone here who is taking the side of that tv show and posting that its a flawed design is to show me one gun that is not tampered with and kept even halfway clean that will go off without pulling the trigger. Theres guys here that prefer a ruger or a winchester or some other brand but this is NO WAY to express those opinions. Remember the antis cruse these sites too!

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
go here and watch the videos. http://www.remington700.tv/#/home
Sure its remingtons side of the story and may be a bit biased but it will show without a doubt that this was total bs and nothing but a witch hunt by the antis and in my opinion the posters who are defending this witch hunt are just as guilty of feeding the antis as the tv show was. Not once were any of the reported cases of them going off repeatable or documentable. If anyone was going to have a problem with it it would be our military and they just signed a contract for a new batch of them. Seems kind of funny dont it. My opinion and i know it isnt worth much is where remington opened the door to this thing was when they started producing those cammo ars and really started the ar as a hunting gun thing. It made the antis flip over backwards to see the market in ars bloom and made them there #1 target to take down. The question i have for everyone here who is taking the side of that tv show and posting that its a flawed design is to show me one gun that is not tampered with and kept even halfway clean that will go off without pulling the trigger. Theres guys here that prefer a ruger or a winchester or some other brand but this is NO WAY to express those opinions. Remember the antis cruse these sites too!

So......just to take one small example, the Consumer Reports article was lying?

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
The question i have for everyone here who is taking the side of that tv show and posting that its a flawed design is to show me one gun that is not tampered with and kept even halfway clean that will go off without pulling the trigger. Theres guys here that prefer a ruger or a winchester or some other brand but this is NO WAY to express those opinions. Remember the antis cruse these sites too!

Lloyd, This is not a brand problem it is an ignorance of a very dangerous porblem by Remington, and has nothing to do with the ANTIs because this has been going on for over 50 years starting with the 721 Rem! That was before anyone had ever heard of an anti gun movement. Remington has known about this and has done nothing to solve the problem. That is the problem!

I'm not saying that the ANTIs are not going to make a meal out of the notoriety but if Rem had kept their house clean the antis would have nothing to talk about. Simply blaming everything on the customer for these many Accidental Discharges, and blaming the exposure on the Antis, but disregarding the complaints to Remington over a 50 yr period, is in a word insane!

I can account for a death in El Paso Texas back in the 1960s when a friend of mine, who lived up on the side of Mount Franklin, attempted to unload a Mod 700 in his driveway! When he moved the safety forward so he could open the bolt the rifle went off, and his hand was not touching the trigger. He immediately called the police to tell them if they got a call about a gun shot it was an accidental discharge of his rifle in his driveway. Ten minutes later a police car arrived in his drive way. They had also gotten a call from the wife of a man who was shot in the head while mowing his lawn about three quarters of a mile away down hill from my friend's home. This is not hearsay I was there, and it is a matter of record.

Another witnessed by me was a brand new 700, 338 Win Mag, owned by another friend of mine while we were hunting Moose in Alaska he and I were in a group of trees watching a game trail through a gap from one drainage to another one on the other side of a ridge. A very large moose was making his way up that trail toward us I was squatted at eye level with his hand looking at him when he moved the safety to the fire position as the moose approached. His hand was on top of the action, nowhere near the trigger, when the rifle fired, and thank God he had the barrel pointed up when it happened. He sent the rifle back to Remington, and they simply sent him a new rifle though his dealer, and made no comment about the incident! Talk about ignoring a problem.

I spent a lot of time on the Desert Sands shooting range in the outskirts of El Paso, Texas, working up loads for my rifles, and there were several accidental discharges on that range with 700 Rem rifles. It go so bad that we watched anyone who uncased a rifle but especially a 700 to make sure they were pointed down range.

You and some others need to get your head out of the sand and get into Remington’s life with this thing and make them fix this piece of dangerous junk, instead of making excuses for them! The best light we, as hunters, and shooters can show is to publicly demand SAFE fire arms, showing regard for the public safety, from any maker who chooses to sweep their mistakes under the rug!

I hate the ignorant anti gun folks, but we simply don't need the same kind of people on our own side, who simply disregard a problem, or the cause for it! That is the thinking of the antis, to disregard the truth, and work on fantasy, rather than facts. Keep our own house clean before we blame our dirt on the misinformed antis. In this case they are not misinformed!

MacD37, good post! I was going to respond but decided against it. Yours is much better.
Peter.

Those that see no negligence on the part of Remington are truly ignorant.

Those that blame Remington for all the resulting deaths and injuries are equally ignorant.

Look at this

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
My Uncle had a Remington that you could put on safety and pull the trigger and the gun would go off!

At this point Remington is absolved of the liability simply because the uncle now knows about the safety hazard. It's now his responsibility to deal with it.

It's the same if the brakes go out in your car. The first time we can blame the automaker but after we know there's no brakes in the car it's we that are to blame for using it until the repairs are made.

This coin definitely has two sides.

quote:

As to always "opening the damn action", last I heard on a bolt action rifle this was done by opening the bolt. Please tell me if I have been doing this wrong after all these years. Problem is, if you had bothered seeing the damn program, Sir, touching the "damn bolt" caused the rifle to fire!

Yes, Sir, opening the action on a bolt rifle does require "touching the damn bolt", accute observation there. I did see the show and at first ignored this as being to silly to address but some who have been following this "discussion" won't and can't have a clue what's going on and that's what the TV people hope for. So, in the interest of truth rather than snarky sarcaism, let me explain some TV and Walker trigger stuff further.

The 700 the TV people showed "accidently" firing when someone touched the bolt was a farce. The rifle clearly had the trigger's pull set so light AND the sear engagement so tiny that any contact with it would release the sear. NO 700 trigger will do that UNLESS it's been deliberatly maladjusted!

Next, the dastardly "screw driver" firing they showed was a also a total agenda driven con job. It required removing the barreled action from the stock, then pushing a very small screw driver behind the trigger and twisting the connector out of its place to release the firing pin. Done with a loaded action it could be deadly but any such event would be due to determined stupidity; that's not a MECHANICAL failure! ??

Last point: None of us should EVER believe anything from the national "news" media if there is any possibility of a politically agenda driven purpose behind it. And we should all know they do have an anti-gun political agenda!

Well said jim and i stand behind my belief that ALL of the problems have come from people who have tampered with the trigger and didnt know what they were doing and I also remind all here that our military has been using them since the vn war and if anyone would be having problems it would be them and they are having none. I was fooling with my weatherby vanguard trigger the other night and had it ajusted so that a small bump on the ground with the stock would drop the sear too. I guess wed better lump weatherby into this same thing. Like i said this is nothing but a witch hunt with timing just right for halloween.

Does it seem odd that while Remington is recalling these rifles they are not reimbursing they owners for the shipping so the consumer is still out of pocket $$.
If you car is recalled by Ford the only expense to you is the time it takes to drive to the nearest dealer.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
Well said jim and i stand behind my belief that ALL of the problems have come from people who have tampered with the trigger and didnt know what they were doing and I also remind all here that our military has been using them since the vn war and if anyone would be having problems it would be them and they are having none. I was fooling with my weatherby vanguard trigger the other night and had it ajusted so that a small bump on the ground with the stock would drop the sear too. I guess wed better lump weatherby into this same thing. Like i said this is nothing but a witch hunt with timing just right for halloween.

You can't fix stupid.

Thanks Lloyd. Our Vangards have simple override triggers and it is indeed easy to set them too sensitive.

I do think a LOT of the 700 trigger problems probably rise from old, gummy oil interferring with free movement of the connector. Sadly, the old triggers had the bolt lock arm that required going off safe to open the bolt to unload and that's probably what caused the discharge that killed the 9 year old. Along with poor muzzle discipline, but I wouldn't want to add that emotional burden to the parents at this point.

(In the 70s I used a Dremel to cut the bolt locking arms off my friends 700 safties so they could unload them with the safety on. That was before Rem started doing it on the first re-call.)

Short, your concept is rational on it's face but Remington isn't nearly as big a company as Ford and Rem doesn't have local dealer repair shops to fall back on. Nor is it likely Obammy would pump tax payer money into saving the company and its employees jobs if the costs drove them to their knees. Especially since I (and Lloyd) are convienced there are simple ways the owners could correct any trigger problems with adjustment and occasional cleaning.

quote:

Originally posted by shorthair:
Does it seem odd that while Remington is recalling these rifles they are not reimbursing they owners for the shipping so the consumer is still out of pocket $$.
If you car is recalled by Ford the only expense to you is the time it takes to drive to the nearest dealer.

So let me get this straight.

It's OK that we pay out of our own pockets to deliver the car back to the franchised dealer to repair our Ford but not OK to deliver the gun to Remington out of our own pocket for a repair that might be life threatening?

Remember that when I return my auto to Ford it probably will consume half a day of my time but to go to the post office with my gun will usually be a drop off on the way to work or the way home.

What a stupid post!

Guys surely we can have disagreements without personal attacks. After all, we aren't pollyticians!