beemanbeme and 500grains:

Actually I was in the top 25% of my class at The University of Texas and MD sure as hell doesn't stand for Maryland.

Oh yeah, one other thing:

I have witnessed an AD (or whatever the proper term is) with a Remington 700. In fact, if the guy was looking the other direction it would have blown my head off, as I was approx. 5' away from him.

The guy with the rifle was confident he had not touched the trigger. I don't know, I wasn't holding the rifle. It could have just been operator error, I don't know...

But it certainly seems to me that this issue is worth discussing on a rational basis, not on a "it never happened to me therefore it doesn't exist" basis.

There are two sides to every argument and Jack has made his known on this forum. I stand in agreement with Jack in that the separate connector style of the Remington design, can be a source of problems resulting in a weapon firing when the bolt is closed or when the safety is removed.

Since the start of this particular thread, I did some thinking back over the years to past times when I encountered trigger failures in the Remington rifles. I would have to say, without pulling every invoice, that the clear majority of these malfuntions were the direct result of the crap that Remington sprays on their weapons as a preservative.

The majority of these triggers were heavily gummed up from the factory and I believe this added to the problem by either not allowing the trigger to move freely forward into position under the sear, or by attracting foreign debris which worked it's way between the connector and the trigger.

A thorough "detailed" cleaning of these trigger assemblies were all that were required to restore free movement and satisfactory performance provided the factory springs and adjustments were left untouched.

Of those that were not clearly the fault of the perservative, I would have to say that these failures were the result of someone attempting to "lighten" the pull by either backing off the trigger spring screw, or installing a spring that was too light to keep the connector engaged with the trigger.

Since Remington has not addressed the separate connector issue over these years, leads me to think that they do not view this as a serious problem. With litigation as rampant in this country as it is these days, I can't help but think that were this an ongoing problem, that Remingtons insurance carriers and their staff of Lawyers wouldn't push for some kind of change. I don't know.

This I do know. The separate connector can be a problem. Things can be done to the Remington factory trigger to minimize the likelyhood of an accident involving the separate connector. I will not be discarding my Remington triggers anytime soon because of the separate connector design because I understand it and I know how to deal with it.

I will continue to work on Remington triggers and see no reason to discard them at this point. I know the design has it's weakpoints, but knowing this and knowing how to address this problem gives me confidence that a lot of you may not have in the Remington trigger as a whole.

On a professional note, I don't feel that Jack is being disingenuous in his stance against Remingtons trigger design. I believe that Jack is motivated as we all are, and that is by promoting safety amongst the shooting community. Anything we can do to improve products or safety without additional governmental regulation is good for us all. God knows we don't need the trial lawyers causing dissent among the shooting public over safety issues involving firearm designs. Product safety law suits involving firearms would have a disastrous effect on our sport and freedoms.

I also agree with Jack that a solid trigger would be a better design over the "floating" connector. I don't believe that those who have these triggers should panick due to this thread. If you are unsure as to the safety of your Remington trigger, take it to someone who is knowledgeable with these and have it serviced.

In closing let me say this. Safety begins between the ears. No safety can compare to that of being informed. Be informed, stay informed...

Regards,

Malm

[ 03-15-2003, 03:53: Message edited by: G.Malmborg ]

So far I still am not completely positive by the posts here that a Shillen, Jewel or Timney will cure the problem.

Can someone say for sure if each one will exactly and how each one does it?

Shilen... no, or yes and how?
Jewell... no, or yes and how?
Timney... no, or yes and how?

Sorry if I misunderstood and you already tried to be clear before, sometimes I'm a little thickheaded.

GM,

could you or Jack post a pic of the modifications you were talking about with the glass, I can't picture it? Another one of those thickheaded things going on I guess.

On the safety thing, I always keep my chamber empty unless I'm stalking something, checking it visually and with a finger, and I never point the muzzle at anyone even then. When I do chamber a round the gun is never pointed at anyone still, and is always pointed in a direction that won't cause a ricochet either. My dad practically beat this into me as I was growing up after a few people he knew were shot and killed in simply avoidable situations, yes a few not just a couple either. One common denominator was a careless gun handler. All could have been avoided if the muzzle was not pointed directly at them when it discharged.

We all know the risk of a ricochet, discharge into the air or an unclear backstop is real and it's the risk we take, which usually is a very, very small one but still likely. We still do everything to minimize this risk. I still would rather a guy be pointing his rifle in the air or at a rock cliff than at mine or my kids BODY any day, UNLOADED OR LOADED!

Revolvers don't have safeties on them, and if everyone handled a chambered rifle like a cocked revolver we'd have a lot less to fricken worry about, wouldn't we?

Sure, the Remingtons at issue are not safe as they come from the factory, but personal responsibility COULD HAVE prevented the death of someone in almost every case I've heard about, save just a couple.

Anytime you have an armed cartridge in a tube aimed at someone, you are not going to find a smiling face on the muzzle end of it... SAFETY OR NOT! Gun safety first IMHO.

Brent,

The Shilen, Jewell, and Timney are "solid" triggers. None of the mhave the floating connector thus they do not posses the Remington trigger fault. By swapping the Remington trigger with one of these you do correct the problem. Shilen and Timney both offer safeties that use the current Remington safety parts which lock the bolt in the closed possition when the saety is on. So you still have to take the rifle off safe to unload but since the trigger is replaced the potential danger from accidental discharge is not present. Shilen and Timney also offer triggers that require the Remington safety to be changed with an aftermarket safety that would allow unloading with the safety on. I am not familiar with Jewell's product line to know if they offer both styles.

So to correct the AD possibility change out the trigger.

To allow unloading without taking the rifle off safe you change out the safety.

This is all fine and good and Remington has fleeced a million shooters and made them like it.

I won't own a Remington or support such a company...In my opinion they have showed their dark side and they have cost human life and the lives of children, out of pure greed..They have chosen to pay off the law suits and continue to produce a proven dangerous product..

It is white coller crime at its highest level, and reeks of pure greed and evil...The bean counters at their best, untrustwothy, no integrity, no honor, and have set aside the milk of human kindness to make money. Screw'um!

Come on Ray, tell us how you really feel. Don't hold nothing back...

RickMD:

You altogether missed Beemanbeme's point of inquiring about qualifications. I assure you, it was not an invitation to you to tout your credentials. But I certainly understand your misreading in light of your preoccupation with your own professional degree---manifested in your predilection to tout your "MD" status in discussions having absolutely nothing to do with
medical matters. Phsyicians whose insecurity moves them to advertise their status as "MDs" in discussions about matters having nothing to do with medicine remind me of those military types whose insecurities move them to post their rank in discussions about matters having nothing to do with the military.

In defense of Jack Belk: I have had personal experience with the man and in my dealings with him have found his integrity to be absolutely beyond question. I have also seen displayed his vast knowledge on matters related to firearms more times than I can remember. His opinions are not to be easily discounted.

Jordan

RMK,

What are you doing sneaking on your parents computer to post what you did? They must have been sleeping. Shame on you.

Actually bearstalker,I was using your computer,while your old lady was giving me head. Damn I like it when she takes her false teeth out.

Dang, Wismon, you want me to make my point telepathically? Your tougher than that foreign cop's DUI test in the Steve Martin movie!

However I submit to you the irony is apparent, not real. My suggesting Mr. Belk's critics substantiate their remarks factually hardly constitutes a defense of either party, as it neither supports their argument nor bolsters their credentials.

My offer of my experience with my own rifle does neither as well, as the logical possibility exists that Mr. Belk's diagnosis may be false, or there may be two separate explanations for the same mechanical failure.

As in political campaigning I welcome negativity as long as it is truthful and factually supported. Simply asking for intellectual honesty doesn't make me a party to the disagreement.

(But it does make me a party to any disagreement whether there should be intellectual honesty!)

[ 03-15-2003, 06:06: Message edited by: steve y ]

I need some help here, please---

I've been posting on two boards for about two years. Something has become apparent and it's mystifying to me. It's beginning to bug me too.

On every one of these Re: M-700 trigger threads I've always ask that the design be examined and understood before further comment......but it never happens. Every time it boils down to who believes my "theory" and who doesn't. Sometimes it' just who likes *me* and who doesn't.

There's only been two people, out of the several hundred readers of these threads, that have written me with serious questions about the trigger that convinced me they had looked at the design and read the patents and saw the same things I did.

I consider being closed-minded about as bad as it gets. Live and be sure to learn SOMETHING everday, is my daily goal. I LOOK for things to try to figure out...(anybody got one of those stick-handled urinal valves laying around? I want to know how that spring works...)

If there is truly an interest in it, I'll write a simple description and post a picture or something. It's only three parts, in it's simplist form. That's only fifty percent more complicated than a pair of pliers, ya know.....

[ 03-15-2003, 06:59: Message edited by: JBelk ]

54,

Thanks for the explanation. Sometimes my reading comprehension is truely lacking.

Jack,

I'm not sure if your diagram and pic comment was meant for me or someone else, but if it was for me I would like to see it, I'm definatly a visual learner not a book type, sincerely.

I've never disassembled a Remington trigger before, I never needed to and it looked like something I'd likely end up taking to my smith to get back together agian so I just never screwed with it other than to adjust it. For some reason stupid reason I just never dove into it like
I do everything else. If it's that damn easy I'll tear into it. Appreciate the vote of confidence there. Still like to see a pic of the improvement, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

Thanks, and even though we always don't have the same preferences or whatever, I always appreciate your input and help whenever you give it.

Take care, Brent

LOL! RMK, you funny troll you!

TCarr, email on the way.

Do all Remington Bolt Action have This PROMBLEM??
What About the Model 725 Trigger???
Any replacement Trigger for the Model 725???

Thanks.

I have seen the subject of the Remington 700 trigger debated ad infinitum (ad nauseum!) on various forums, but there are several points about them which I have never seen properly explained. J Belk is often the harshest critic, or is quoted quite often, so I guess I should address my questions directly to him.

We are often told that these triggers are full of �weaknesses�, �design faults� and �fatal flaws�, among them being:

1 It relies on a spring to re-set the connector.

Yes, it does, but just about every trigger I can think of also relies on a spring to re-set either the trigger piece or some intermediate lever, so that it can engage correctly when the action is next closed. Why is the Remington considered to be so different in this regard?

2 The �works� of the trigger are in an enclosed housing, which can trap dirt and other foreign bodies and cause malfunctions.

True, but the same could be said of the Jewell, the Hart, the Timney, the Canjar and almost every after-market triggers. So once more, why is the Remington considered to be so different in this regard?

Also, how does all the debris (that Mr Belk refers to) get in between the trigger piece and the connector so easily?

I don�t presently own a Rem 700, but in my recollections of those that I have owned, there was only a clearance of about a thou or two per side between the inner walls of the housing and the internal levers. Certainly not enough to admit any pieces of debris the size of a grain of sand. Stuff could get in from the back, but it would have make a difficult journey to get from there, along the top of the trigger piece (and under the top part of the connector) and drop down the front.

I am certainly not suggesting that it is impossible for debris to get between the front of the trigger piece and the connector. Fine dust is such insidious, creeping stuff that it will get into ANYTHING, given long enough, but I can�t see it happening very easily.

If a Rem 700 trigger is properly set up to give a more or less creep-free release, and minimal over-travel, the top of the connector only separates from the front of the trigger piece about 10 or 15 thou. It�s not sweeping through some huge great arc, enabling it to scoop up every scrap of dust that happens to get anywhere inside the housing.

However, lets assume that some debris does find its way in between the trigger and the connector, and pushes them apart at the top. This would have exactly the same effect as turning the engagement screw in too far, namely, it would reduce the amount of engagement between the sear and the connector, and probably prevent the rifle from cocking.

How is it, then, that firing on safety release is so widely attributed to this condition?

If there is so little engagement between the sear and the connector that releasing the safety will over-ride it, how did anyone manage to cock the rifle in the first place? Closing the bolt in a normal manner will almost certainly put a heavier impact load on the engagement point than releasing the safety catch will do. (anyone who finds that they can only get their rifle to cock if they close the bolt very gingerly, and goes on using it in this state, needs to have their head read!)

We are to also supposed to believe that at some time between when the safety catch was applied and when it was released, more debris finds its way in between the trigger and the connector, and causes firing on safety release.

How?

When the rifle is cocked and the safety catch is applied, the sear SHOULD be lifted off the connector, and the weight spring is pushing the connector into contact with trigger as tightly as it can. How does more debris get in at this time, and force the trigger and connector further apart?

3 The trigger piece is dynamically unbalanced - there is more mass in the finger piece portion, below the pivot pin, than there is in the portion above it. This can supposedly cause the rifle to fire if it is, say, dropped butt-first on the ground.

Yes, maybe so, but plenty of triggers are just as bad or worse in this regard. The Winchester 70 trigger is FAR worse, yet it is considered to be a magnificent, and very safe trigger. Hmmm?

4 quote: The sear and trigger surfaces MUST be FLAT and smooth.

Friction between these surfaces is what secures the trigger and the sear.

????

Surely the fundamental principle of a sound, over-ride type trigger is that engagement and contact angles at the disengagement point should be such that the forces applied to one lever (from bolt closure impact force, and mainspring force) should be transmitted directly through the line of the pivot pin of the other lever? In other words, very close to a ninety degree engagement angle and zero rake on the contact angle. Under this condition, the set-up is basically stable, no matter how little friction between parts exists. In fact this is the very condition that the makers of ultra-light triggers (e.g. Jewell, Hart, Kenyon, etc.) are trying to achieve.

5 quote: The connector DOES NOT do what the patent claims anyhow......it was based on a lie to start with.

What clause(s) of the patent do you think is bases on a lie? And why?

There are some other things I would like to ask, too, but I�ll leave it at that for now.

Could you respond, please, Mr Belk?

To save you repeating an earlier suggestion, I HAVE read US Patent 2,514,981, I HAVE read accounts of the workings of the Rem trigger by de Haas, Otteson and others, and I HAVE pulled a few of them apart and adjusted them. I guess I must have SEEN the same things as you have, in the literal sense, but maybe I haven�t drawn quite the same conclusions.

No, I�m not trying to claim that Rem triggers are flawless, and I have no vested interest in trying to prove that they are � I�m just looking for answers.

Hey Jack, thanks for not answering my simple questions.

From RMK

I guess the next step is suing the horse trailer manufacturer for not making their trailers bullet proof.

You got it right.

Mike

In a lifetime of shooting and hunting I've only had 1 rifle discharge when the safety was pushed off. It was a tang-safety Ruger M77, which didn't have the dreaded trigger connector piece. Turned out the sear engagement surface on the trigger was worn so I replaced it, adjusted the trigger and went on with life. I've also owned winchesters and lots of remingtons, never had problems with them. The thing to keep in mind is this, a rifle is a simple mechanical device, mechanical devices can fail, Keep your rifle clean, properly lubricated and if you are going to adjust the trigger be sure you test the safety of your adjustments yearly. A rifle by its nature is not a particularly safe device, only the person operating it can make it so.

Redrover---

Great post!! Great questions. I'll try to do enough cut and paste to keep everthing straight and understandable. Your questions are in bold type.

1) It [M-700 series triggers] relies on a spring to re-set the connector..... Yes, it does, but just about every trigger I can think of also relies on a spring to re-set either the trigger piece or some intermediate lever, so that it can engage correctly when the action is next closed. Why is the Remington considered to be so different in this regard?

The Remington is different because the movement of the connector is not associated with the trigger. Many of us have had a trigger rub on the guard or stick to the rear. Pushing it back foward fixes it. The Remington connector is hidden and out of control of the shooter. It can become displaced and pushing the trigger forward won't re-set it.

2) The ‘works’ of the trigger are in an enclosed housing, which can trap dirt and other foreign bodies and cause malfunctions.....
True, but the same could be said of the Jewell, the Hart, the Timney, the Canjar and almost every after-market triggers. So once more, why is the Remington considered to be so different in this regard?

The problem here is in the way the Remington mounts the trigger. Instead of a hole through the rear tang to admit the sear up and in engagement with the cocking piece with the rest of the trigger pretty much sealed as is a Mauser, Springfield and others, the Remington trigger is open all along the entire top suface and is at the bottom of a natural funnel. Everytime the sear drops it dumps or pushes more debris into the trigger. Any oil, solvent or moisture goes into the trigger housing. WD-40 is a TERRIBLE problem.

Also, how does all the debris (that Mr Belk refers to) get in between the trigger piece and the connector so easily?

It doesn't get there easily. If it did they would fail more often. More below.

........there was only a clearance of about a thou or two per side between the inner walls of the housing and the internal levers. Certainly not enough to admit any pieces of debris the size of a grain of sand. Stuff could get in from the back, but it would have make a difficult journey to get from there, along the top of the trigger piece (and under the top part of the connector) and drop down the front......I am certainly not suggesting that it is impossible for debris to get between the front of the trigger piece and the connector. Fine dust is such insidious, creeping stuff that it will get into ANYTHING, given long enough, but I can’t see it happening very easily.

You're right. It doesn't happen often or easily. The key is that it *can* happen....and if it can, given enough time and chances, it WILL. There's nothing to prevent it happening and no provision for preventing a discharge *when* it does. Other designs use a "wipe and debris ditch" or other design feature to prevent a failure under those conditions.

If a Rem 700 trigger is properly set up to give a more or less creep-free release, and minimal over-travel, the top of the connector only separates from the front of the trigger piece about 10 or 15 thou. It’s not sweeping through some huge great arc, enabling it to scoop up every scrap of dust that happens to get anywhere inside the housing.

High speed moving photography shows an amazing about of travel on the connector. The angle on the back of the connector contacts the sear as it's falling and the connector moves away from it until the stacking of the trigger return spring catches it and pushes it back or contacts the overtravel screw. It looks like a little PacMan taking a bite. Of course this motion occurs during recoil which affects any debris that may be present, too. There can be an amazing amount of activity going on in there under recoil.

.....lets assume that some debris does find its way in between the trigger and the connector, and pushes them apart at the top. This would have exactly the same effect as turning the engagement screw in too far, namely, it would reduce the amount of engagement between the sear and the connector, and probably prevent the rifle from cocking.

Correct. That's the most usual occurance, but sometimes the debris is only on one side. That cocks the connector out of square and alters the contact patch, ESPECIALLY in the older two piece 721/2 triggers that only have one half of the connector under the sear.

How is it, then, that firing on safety release is so widely attributed to this condition?

Because about 99% of all shooters "test" the safety by pulling the trigger. I know *we* don't....but 99% of shooters do.

If there is so little engagement between the sear and the connector that releasing the safety will over-ride it, how did anyone manage to cock the rifle in the first place? Closing the bolt in a normal manner will almost certainly put a heavier impact load on the engagement point than releasing the safety catch will do. (anyone who finds that they can only get their rifle to cock if they close the bolt very gingerly, and goes on using it in this state, needs to have their head read!)

Exactly!!!

We are to also supposed to believe that at some time between when the safety catch was applied and when it was released, more debris finds its way in between the trigger and the connector, and causes firing on safety release.

How?

In the case of a misfit between the connector and the trigger or the early 721/2 connectors without the bottom leg to hold it in place, the connector can ride upward and cam forward as it contacts the sear.

My very first study of this failure was a 722 that was was on safe, bottom up, muzzle down in a truck on dirt roads. The connector would displace by inertia and the gun would fire on safety release every time after tapping the top of the receiver with a plastic mallet to reproduce the inertia introduced by the vibration of the truck.

The condition is tested for by the "screwdriver test." Place the rifle in a cocked and on safe condition then push upward on the bottom of the connector. Then push the safety forward. If there's too much slack between the connector and the trigger it'll fire on safety release because the connector was cammed out of position by contacting the sear.

When the rifle is cocked and the safety catch is applied, the sear SHOULD be lifted off the connector, and the weight spring is pushing the connector into contact with trigger as tightly as it can. How does more debris get in at this time, and force the trigger and connector further apart?

Most of the time it's the aforementioned vibration, dislocation and inertia. In at least one case it was attributed (my me) to a freezing and expansion of condensation in the trigger housing. There was considerable other evidence to point to that conclusion.

3) The trigger piece is dynamically unbalanced - there is more mass in the finger piece portion, below the pivot pin, than there is in the portion above it. This can supposedly cause the rifle to fire if it is, say, dropped butt-first on the ground.

Actually the Remington is almost perfectly balanced and doesn't cause a problem. The M-70 can but it takes a fall of about 20 feet to do it.
Trigger shoes are DANGEROUS for exactly this reason.

a redundancy has been edited by JB

4) quote: The sear and trigger surfaces MUST be FLAT and smooth. Friction between these surfaces is what secures the trigger and the sear. ????
Surely the fundamental principle of a sound, over-ride type trigger is that engagement and contact angles at the disengagement point should be such that the forces applied to one lever (from bolt closure impact force, and mainspring force) should be transmitted directly through the line of the pivot pin of the other lever? In other words, very close to a ninety degree engagement angle and zero rake on the contact angle. Under this condition, the set-up is basically stable, no matter how little friction between parts exists. In fact this is the very condition that the makers of ultra-light triggers (e.g. Jewell, Hart, Kenyon, etc.) are trying to achieve.

Exactly! Idealy half the trigger pull should be the effort needed to break the mechanical connection of the trigger/sear contact and half the pull should be the return spring.

In poorly made triggers the frictional forces are much more than half and triggers or sears that have been rounded by poor finishing (buffing) it's much less. Geometry is VERY important to triggers. The Remington trigger can change geometry depending on how the connector re-seats against the trigger. Other triggers use parts that are pivoted to the housing which positively positions the parts the same each time.

5) quote: The connector DOES NOT do what the patent claims anyhow......it was based on a lie to start with.......What clause(s) of the patent do you think is bases on a lie? And why?

I don't have quick access to the patent right now, but look for the line that describes the action of the connector and the "benifit" it produces.

The language is approximately--- .... the angle on the back of the connector allows the sear to push the connector out of the way and provides a faster disconnect with the sear and thereby reduces the "slap" of the trigger...

Trigger "slap" is a term that we now call "backlash" or "overtravel" of the trigger after the sear falls.

That's patently untrue. Once the sear falls off the connector the angle on the back slows it down if anything, not speeds it up. There is no need for the connector to reduce trigger overtravel. Once they disengage the trigger has done it's job and there's no need for it to move further. Every other override trigger on the market proves it.

There are some other things I would like to ask, too, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

Ask away. If I don't *know* the answer, I'll tell you I don't know.....and then I'll try to find out for you.

To save you repeating an earlier suggestion, I HAVE read US Patent 2,514,981 .....

Thanks for the number. My copy is "somewhere". That covers a lot of territory around here. I went to the usual IBM site but find it's now a pay site. If anyone can find a link to the patent and post it, it would be appreciated.

...........I edited the balance for brevity....too late

Anything mechanical can malfunction. Nearly all of my hunting rifles especially in earlier years have been of the M700 type. I have never had a AD(with a 700) but I have personally seen two with Rem model 7s-(different Model 7s.) I have never had a Remington M700 extractor fail either. However I 'believe' that the trigger on M700s are more dangerous because of the disconnector and that the extractors are problematic. Plateau Hunter

ksduckhunter--

I've never seen but one prototype Sake M-75 and it didn't have a trigger. Sorry.
The Howa has had at least three different trigger in them. I haven't been inside one.

Tiny---

All but the M-788 has the same Walker trigger. the M-725 has the same trigger but a very different safety. If you replace the safety with a shroud mounted one any M-700 trigger will fit and work.

deleted (double tap)

[ 03-15-2003, 20:39: Message edited by: jpb ]

I understand that it doesn't effect the poor design, but it seems like the risk of accidental discharge can be greatly reduced just by keeping the trigger assembly clean???

Bob

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Some information a member sent me to for posting:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4290521895

Password: rifle

Click on each of the three images and you should get an image large enough to read.

Regards,

Terry

[ 03-15-2003, 22:04: Message edited by: T.Carr ]

jpb--

Thank you!! That's what I needed.

The above referenced citation is on page 2, Column 4, lines 25 through 61.

bobvthunter--

Yes! The likelyhood of malfunction is greatly reduced by regular and complete cleaning of the trigger......but there's a problem with that from a legal point of view.

In order to clean the trigger the trigger and connector has to be removed from the housing. To do that the adjustment screws have to be backed off. To do that you have to break the factory seal on those screws. If that's done it means the trigger group is no longer in factory new condition and has been altered. That makes any recourse extremely difficult and MUCH more expensive to the plaintiff because there will have to be additional testimony, test, and arguments as to whether the trigger is in the same condition as it was when it left the factory. It can be done, but it sure complicates things.

T. Carr--- I get a "password needed" message for that albulm.

Mr.Belk, Thank you for sharing the imformation you have posted concerning the Remington trigger. When talking to most gunsmith's they refuse to answer questons, seems like they want to mantain some deep secret. I've learned alot from this thread, minus the rem bashers. Thanks!

Jack,

Sorry, try the password: rifle

Regards,

Terry

[ 03-15-2003, 22:03: Message edited by: T.Carr ]

Does the Remington 40X or the 541 have the same or similar trigger as the 700?

Tony--

The 40x DOES have the Walker trigger in it. The 541 doesn't.

ksduckhunter---

No problem. Sometimes I miss a question and sometimes I forget to go back and answer one. I don't mind being reminded. Anybody tough enough to dodge tornadoes in Kansas can have an attitude problem sometimes.

Thanks Terry, I hope it helps a little.

Jack,this has been the best school class I have set through,thank you for the info.

Mr.Belk: Thanks for the information.

Plateau Hunter----

You said,

quote:

---

Anything mechanical can malfunction.

---

This is widely quoted and is certainly true....

But, (knew that was coming, huh?) When dealing with things stronger than you are, like guns, you want those failures to DIS-able the mechanizm, not activate it.

For those that looked at the patent drawings and see how the levers in an over-ride trigger work and think you're ready for something more complicated, Look into the chittlins of a S&W revolver and see how they're designed to "Fail Safe". If any part or combination of parts break, stick, bend or rusts the gun quits working. It *can't shoot*. It has "Failed Safe".

The best example of fail safe devices is air brakes. If a trailer or train car comes undone the air supply is interrupted and the brakes apply *from the lack of* compressed air and the thing stops instead of running away. George Westinghouse invented the air brake, I think.

The "Hammer the Hammer" design of the Iver Johnson DA revolver in 1898 was the first of the pocket revolvers to adopt fail safe designing. S&W and Colt soon followed suit.

There are two ways to make a fail safe trigger-- One transfers neccesary energy and one blocks that energy. S&W is a block design, Colt is a transfer.

The transfer bar fail safe has been adapted to Ruger SA and DA, D. Wesson, H&R, and others. The transfer system is much easier and cheaper to do than the complicated S&W-style blockers.

The odd thing is that the old DA Colt designs like the Match Targets, Det Spec/Agent/Cobra, Pythons and such are pure transfer bar designs but done in the most complicated manner possible. The transfer bars are driven by an ingenious likage unlike any other gun design but it's surprisingly tough and trouble free......until you drop in on the butt. That can lock the gun up...unable to fire, unable to open, and unable to unload.

The S&W is not near as fragile.

So yes. Mechanical things DO fail, but mechanical failures should bring cuss words and impatience, NOT blood and tears. There IS a better way.

Jack: Not all air brakes apply when they're out of air. There are a lot of trailers still on the road that were made before Maxi's. Also, if the Maxi brakes are not adjusted by a competent mechanic, they will not be applied when air runs out.