The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Rem 700 fires when safety is moved to fire.Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Rem 700 fires when safety is moved to fire. | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
It’s all due to black helicopters, grassy knolls, and a vast Military/Industrial Complex conspiracy!!! I have it on good authority that Remington is actually owned by Sara Brady and that she is using the faulty trigger/safeties to kill off gun owners one by one. I swear to God...I’ve seen the memos on this!  | |||
|
one of us |
Remington knows full well that the average hunter that they market their guns to do not give the triggers of their rifles the meticulous attention that "Robar,,The Triggersmith ,,,Armorers at Quantico" give their triggers. Nor should they be required to. Weagle | |||
|
One of Us |
I certainly hope all those people who fear and distrust the safeties on their Remington rifles will do the safe thing to protect themselves and those with whom they may have future contact....pack them up and send them to me as gifts! I've fired perhaps 50,000-100,000 rounds through perhaps 50 rifles with Remington triggers/safeties over the last 46 years with no safety-mechanism problems whatsoever that a good periodic spraying with brake cleaner wouldn't solve (or is that "dissolve"?). That doesn't mean Remingtons are PERFECTLY safe, but what is? I'm willing to take my chances with those cursed, risky, things. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's not the ones that are fired frequently that are prone to Fire on Safety release. It's the ones sold to the average hunter that mostly sit around and collect that pesky dust. Weagle | |||
|
| One of Us |
Oh? And where is the documented data supporting that contention? This is kind of a new one on me. Sort of a "If you don't use your gun it may kill you." axiom? My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's the same documentation that makes you knowledgable enough to know that you should take a can of brake cleaner to your triggers to prevent it. Weagle | |||
|
| One of Us |
weagle, So I assume from your comments that if properly handled and maintained that this unsafe design magically becomes safe??? I own and use several 1903’s and I can “trick†each and every one of them into firing when the safety lever is moved to the Ready position...if I have been stupid enough to leave the lever in the vertical position insead of the Safe position. Following your logic I would have to conclude that 1903’s suffer from a dangerous design flaw that the government knew about and never fixed. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If someone “accidentally†shoots another person it is pretty safe to assume that at the moment of discharge the muzzle was pointing at the other party. Now, call me silly and old fashioned, but how does one explain that away by claiming that the rifle has a bad safety?????? What ever happened to not pointing a weapon at anything you weren’t willing to destroy? | |||
|
| one of us |
You don't have to read into any of my comments or decode them. As an owner and lover of many rifles including remingtons. I simply accept the same fact that remington has that their rifles will and do drop the firing pin somtimes when the safety is released. And this is caused by a 2 piece disconnector design that tends to malfunction if it is not maintained better than the average hunter tends to maintain it. I fully agree with you about keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and you'll note that I never said it wans't the user's responsibility to always ensure safety. My only contention is that remington triggers will and do fire when pushed off safety because of a design flaw that they are fully aware of. You mentioned your rifle that you can "trick" to do the same thing. The problem with the remington is it comes factory "tricked" Weagle | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, and that same data tells me it may not be the machine's design that is the problem, it may be the machine operator's design. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| new member |
what butchlok said is a best bet, back off sear engagement and it should resolve. That's the rear screw, if you don't know how to adjust go to someone who does. Good Luck!!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
So do Springfields then. It’s just always a bit amusing on here when a rifle exhibits this problem. If it’s a Remington then the posts go on forever with horror story after horror story...if its a Winchester 70, Mauser or Sako, one or two people tell the guy that he needs to clean the mechanism or that it isn’t adjusted properly...end of story.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Hot Core Earlier this year we actually agreed on a subject as it relates to the receiver strength and bolt face design of the M/700 series concept and here we are again.... You mentioned that we should make an attempt to get along better which is great news to me but this is one issue that we must agree to disagree on I am afraid? I would respectfully request that you consider emailing me if you so choose to do so and I will wait till tomorrow before I interject factual material bearing on this topic of discussion in my attempt to keep the peace between us per your request which are my sincere wishes also. Sincerely, Augustis ><> To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
| one of us |
I'll never understand why people are so loyal to a trigger design when the designer himself said it had a problem and suggested it be changed. Weagle | |||
|
| One of Us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
All it takes is once. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think it is a danged shame that the kid's mom shot him. I don't think that is Remington's fault. Remington wasn't pointing the gun at the child, and presumably it did not put the crud in the trigger/safety assembly. As with every machine, I believe the user has to be smarter than the machine for him/her to operate it safely. I do not think it is the obligation of a manufacturer to make its products absolutely fool proof. Just as a rifle operator should know to keep the bore clean and clear of obstructions, and to check it before each firing, I contend they are obliged to learn enough about each rifle they buy to be able to maintain & operate it safely. This whole subject reminds me a lot of the clowns who were rolling over jeeps on the highway and wanted to blame the manufacturer(s). Or the people who sue McDonald's because they bought hot coffee, spilled it in their own laps, and then, surprise, got burned. Anyone who does not control the direction their gun is pointing AT ALL TIMES, is 100% totally responsible for/to those who may be injured as a result. Perhaps some of the Europeans ARE ahead of us when they require passing a proficiency and knowledge test before allowing anyone to buy or possess a firearm legally. A firearm is a deadly tool. It is designed to be deadly. Otherwise it would be useless as a hunting tool. If a person is not going to learn how (and take action EVERY time) to maintain and operate it safely, why are they surprised when their use of it has a deadly result? Properly maintained, the Remington safety works well. The second lever is the bolt lock, not the safety, anyway, but we could disagree over that all day...just as folks seem to be able to argue about Remington extractors ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and whether or not the recessed Remington bolt face is an advantage or disadvantage. (Not really a Remington invention, that, anyway. Look at the bolt face of a M1891 Mauser some time.) Anyhow, for anyone who is not willing to spend the time and effort to keep their rifle in safe operating condition, don't buy a Remington. And please don't hunt or shoot near me regardless what you buy. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The famous 1979 Remington memo: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/meeting.pdf Although I am all in favor of proper gun handling practices, a rifle with no safety at all is better than a rifle with a safety that malfunctions. | |||
|
| one of us |
We agree 100% on the responsibility of the user to make sure the gun is pointed in a safe direction at all times. Given that, I still want a trigger that fires when I pull the trigger , not when I release the safety. Even though my muzzle is 100% of the time pointed in a safe direction when I slip off the safety, I may be waiting for the deer to take one more step and would prefer that the gun not go bang before I want it to. Weagle | |||
|
| One of Us |
I certainly agree with this statement. A good many of my rifles have no mechanical safeties. The best safety I can think of is between the user's ears. It still leaves the question though as to whether a properly maintained Remington safety is unreliable. I do not currently believe it has been proved that it is. My country gal's just a moonshiner's daughter, but I love her still. | |||
|
| One of Us |
People may tire of hearing me always referring to the Marine Corps when it comes to the reliability and safety of Remington 700’s...but that doesn’t alter the fact that the armors who build and maintain those rifles have never seemed to experience all of the boog-a-boos that the civilian population is so fond of spouting off about. After 40 years the basis of every M40 sniper rifle is still a Remington 700 receiver with all factory parts, including triggers and safeties. Their bolts handles don’t fall off, their extractors don’t break, and their triggers and safeties seem to work just fine and have been for the last 40 years that they have been using 700’s for sniper rifles. Now...maybe the Corps is just real “lucky†but I kinda doubt that. The Corps 700’s probably fire more rounds through them each year than a civilian’s rifle would fire in 20 years...and those rifles get used in the harshest climates on the planet. Personally, I don’t buy or use factory rifles...never have, probably never will. I build my rifles or have them built, and I have never had any problems with any of them...other than not being able to figure out how to get them clean themselves.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Being a former Marine Corps Armorer, I will second that. But the Marine Corps is comprised of diciplined shooters who properly maintain their weapons and know which end the tube round comes out. They know enough to keep their fingers off the triggers and the muzzles pointed in a safe direction. I personally never witnessed any accidental discharges while in the Marine Corps. The general population is much different when it comes to firearm safety and maintenance. I don't even know if an idiot proof gun would make a difference in the hands of some people. That lady who killed her kid should have been brought up on charges. As long as there are idiots, there will always be attorney's willing to sue the manufacturer for their clients own stupidity. Where will it end...  | |||
|
| one of us |
Some history,the trigger is a Sheeny(sp),Remington just bought the patent.To extent the patent,they added the conector. This trigger for a rifle hunted where there are bears is much more reliable design than the Rifle Basic.To avoid sidewall friction the Rifle Basic sides are releived.If anything gets in there ,the very small reset spring can't overcome the hang up.No second shot. You can hunt longer with the wind at your back | |||
|
| One of Us |
Malm, I can't disagree with you more about the accident in Montana with the Barbers. The rifle went off and thru an horse trailer and her son was on the other side of that trailer. Any accident like that has contributory negligence on several sides. It is rarely 100% responsibility to one party. She certainly was part of the equation and so was Remington. If either faulty element was removed, her son would still be alive today. And you do not have to bring her up on charges, her husband Russ told me that there is not a day in her life that she does not feel responsible for his death. And if she should be brought up on charges, then so should the board of directors of Remington, who decided to risk the lives of their customers with an item with a dangerous flaw they knew existed with their product. BTW, the Barbers never did sue Remington. They tried to get the legislators in Montana to force Remington to fix the problem. There is a state law in Montana that basically says if there is some type of product flaw that has caused injury or death, the manufacture can be required to correct the error. I don't know how they would enforce that on a company in another state but that is another matter. In previous years a law suit was filed by a party in Butte Montana and they did win a settlement with the same trigger problem. Remington has always sought and received from the courts a condtion that the files from the case would be sealed from the public as part of the settlement. There has been a lot more than just those few cases involving this situation. I have heard the cases were around 80 in number that have been brought to trial. Remington paid. Great decision they made after the original problem was uncovered. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Remington that did an AD on me was brand new other than being shot on a clear sunny day on 4 or 5 previous occasions. It had no dust on it and no rust. It had not been disassembled or adjusted. Yet it still malfunctioned in an unsafe manner. The problem with Remington rifles is definitely there. It's not just old clunkers that fire when the safety is pushed. | |||
|
| one of us |
Chic As to your comments on Montana Legislation that protects the public? Augustis ><> etc: Capitol Notebook Edition by Ron Selden Not content with merely ruling the world, corporate interests and the insurance industry are now targeting a bill that would allow Montana consumers to know whether dangerous products are hidden by confidential court documents. Senate Bill 196, also known as the “Gus Barber Anti-Secrecy Act,†is named after a 9-year-old Gallatin County boy killed in 2000 when the Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle his mother was holding suddenly fired when she clicked off the safety. The errant bullet tore through a horse trailer and hit the boy in the abdomen. He bled to death as his family rushed him to the hospital. While the incident was tragic enough, Richard Barber, the boy’s father, discovered that the manufacturer had long known about a defect in the rifle’s shooting mechanism. But that knowledge had been covered up by company executives, in part through confidential settlement agreements with other victims of the malfunctioning firearms. Such agreements are common in product-liability cases for two reasons: Companies don’t want other injured parties to know how much they’re paying to end a lawsuit, and incriminating internal memos and other documents—smoking guns, if you will±—can discreetly be kept out of the public eye. The issue offers a glimpse into the chilling world of liability cost-benefit analysis, wherein the price of fixing known defects is weighed against the number of consumers who might reasonably be expected to die or be injured because of them—and the likelihood of being successfully sued by anyone bullheaded enough to take on a manufacturing giant. Since watching his son’s life ebb away, Barber, a Republican building contractor, has embarked upon a relentless campaign to ensure that consumers are apprised of defects in all types of products so further tragedies can be avoided. His efforts, however, are being vehemently countered by business interests and their political boosters nearly every step of the way. SB 196, sponsored by Sen. Mike Wheat, D-Bozeman, and backed by the Montana Department of Justice, would prohibit state courts from authorizing judgments or orders that conceal a known “public hazard.†The bill is now encountering the same opposition that killed two similar bills in the 2003 Legislature. At a hearing last week before the House Judiciary Committee, bill opponents defended industry’s right to hide while innocents are killed and maimed. They preached about the personal responsibility of consumers but not the rampant greed and malfeasance of product makers. “Why don’t we just strap everybody up and stop living?†said Helena attorney and General Motors lobbyist Mona Jamison. “This bill shoots at a mosquito with an atomic bomb.†Through amendments, the medical profession has already excused itself from SB 196. With all the dark suits elbowing lawmakers in the halls, one wonders where the Grim Reaper will strike next. To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
| one of us |
By WALT WILLIAMS Chronicle Staff Writer HELENA -- Courts should not be allowed to seal information about dangerous products unveiled as part of a lawsuit, a House committee decided Friday. The "Gus Barber Anti-Secrecy Act" cleared the House Judiciary Committee by a 13-5 vote Friday, but not before several amendments were added to the bill to appease business groups opposed to the legislation. The bill is named after a 9-year-old boy who died after he was accidentally shot with a rifle with a defective trigger mechanism. His father, Richard Barber of Manhattan, has pushed lawmakers for two sessions to pass legislation preventing courts from sealing information about dangerous products as part of settlements in lawsuits. He believes such information in the right hands may have saved his son's life. Barber's hopes were dashed in 2003 when lawmakers killed two anti-secrecy bills on technicalities. With Friday's vote, the proposed law is closer than ever to becoming a reality. "I just hope these people will act on the side of the best interest of the public," he said. Barber hovered around the committee as lawmakers took up the bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Mike Wheat, D-Bozeman. Several amendments were made to make it more palatable to business groups, including language clarifying that the settlement amount would remain private and no information would be made public until a final judgment is made. The amendments were the result of negotiations between business lobbyists, lawmakers, the Montana Trial Lawyers Association and Barber, who approved of them. The bill passed with no debate on its merits, although lawmakers had several questions about what it would do. It now heads to the full House for approval. The bill is Senate Bill 196. To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
| one of us |
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 Father sees five-year fight to open court records become law By WALT WILLIAMS, Chronicle Staff Writer BELGRADE -- Richard Barber of Manhattan isn't one to step away from a fight. For two legislative sessions he roamed the halls of the state Capitol, pressuring lawmakers and confronting business lobbyists to get what he wanted: a law preventing courts from sealing information about products that have harmed people and are likely to do so again. The fight started five years ago when his 9-year-old son Gus was killed by bullet from a Remington rifle that discharged while Gus' mother was unloading it, her finger nowhere near the trigger. The family found out later that Remington had been sued more than 80 times for a problem with the gun's trigger mechanism. Most of those lawsuits had been settled, often with gag orders preventing the plaintiffs from ever speaking about what Remington knew about the defective guns' danger. And on Tuesday, he got the law. "I never doubted it for a minute," Barber answered when asked if he thought this day would come. Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed into law the "Gus Barber Anti-Secrecy Act" during a ceremony at Belgrade High School, where Barber's daughter attends school. The entire senior class was on hand for the event, with Schweitzer signing three copies of bill, one of which was given to the Barber family for framing. "It's law," Schweitzer said after signing the final copy. The governor presented Barber with a silver bolo tie imprinted with the state seal, "not only for his dedication to his own family, but to every family in Montana." Barber teamed up with the Montana Trial Lawyers Association to push for the law in 2003. That effort failed, thanks in part to business lobbyists who warned it would reveal embarrassing information and trade secrets to the public. Barber came back in 2005, getting Bozeman Democrats Rep. Chris Harris and Sen. Mike Wheat to carry similar versions of the same bill. Wheat's bill was the one that was signed into law. Both lawmakers attended Tuesday's event. "If you know me, you know I can be fairly relentless and a real pain in the butt," Barber said. By his own admission, the crusade came at the expense of losing time with his family. His daughter Chanda, 17, was proud of what her father had accomplished, but also relieved that her dad has finally won his battle. "Last night we went roping," she said. "For the last five years he hasn't been around very much. He's been busy and he's been making trips out of town. ... For him being here for my last year (of high school), that's really important to me." Barber's wife, Barb, said passage of the law would bring some peace to her family. "I was happy to see it pass for the simple fact that our daughter is a senior this year and that way he got to enjoy some of her time this spring," she said. But she doesn't regret her husband's dedication to the cause. "I supported him all the way with it," she said. "It doesn't benefit us, but it is going to benefit everyone else in the long run." Walt Williams is at wwilliams@dailychronicle.com To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
Moderator |
Alberta Canuck, here's a simple test... and I'll do it today.. I'll walk around the gunshow and see if there's any remmies that i can work the actions on.. new ones, old ones, junk ones... and see if they can't be tricked.. if not, i'll swing by wallyworld. Dan, thanks for posting the memo... To all, no safety is "safe" .. but to have one that fails after it is "used" (safety's job is to prevent an AD with the trigger involved) is DUMB FOUNDING Seriously, let's look at what a safety does.. it prevents (you hope) the gun from firing after the trigger has been engaged... then you take the gun off safety.. and it appears, in some cases, that this safety/trigger fails during use (taking it off safety).... jeffe opinions vary band of bubbas and STC hunting Club Information on Ammoguide about the416AR, 458AR, 470AR, 500AR What is an AR round? Case Drawings 416-458-470AR and 500AR. 476AR, http://www.weaponsmith.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
I feel bad for the young kid, and I'm sure his mom will suffer the rest of her life over this, and while I concede that that is probably punishment enough, it doesn't change the fact that she was THE cause of his death. If the muzzle of the rifle were pointed in a safe direction at the time she removed the safety, then the kid would still be alive. I don't walk on water, I've done shit in my life that continues to haunt me to this day, but I accept full responsibility for my actions. The good and the bad. While Remington is certainly not without fault, the full brunt of responsibility to ensure that tragedies like this don't happen lies with the individual holding the gun. Or am I missing something??? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Being a former Marine Corps Armorer, I will second that. But the Marine Corps is comprised of diciplined shooters who properly maintain their weapons and know which end the tube round comes out. They know enough to keep their fingers off the triggers and the muzzles pointed in a safe direction. I personally never witnessed any accidental discharges while in the Marine Corps. The general population is much different when it comes to firearm safety and maintenance. I don't even know if an idiot proof gun would make a difference in the hands of some people. That lady who killed her kid should have been brought up on charges. As long as there are idiots, there will always be attorney's willing to sue the manufacturer for their clients own stupidity. Where will it end... G Malmborg Lock, Stock and Barrel SLC, Ut I was Marine also and what you describe about Marines is the way EVERYONE using a firearm is supposed to behave. I’ve witnessed a few “accidental†discharges over the years and every single one of them had a finger on the trigger involved. One was in boot camp at the rifle range and that young Marine had his trigger finger smashed in the hinged buttplate of his M14 to “remind†him not to put his finger on the trigger until his sights were on the target. That worked not just for him, but for all of us that were “allowed†to watch the safety lesson of the day! | |||
|
| one of us |
Mine discharged when the safety was taken off while on a javelina hunt. The muzzle was pointed in a safe directiom, scared the shit out of me and the guide, ruined the stalk. No body got hurt other than my pride because I was accused of being "trigger happy" and at the time was not aware of the problem. The trigger was clean but the AZ desert is dusty. At the very least it's a problem that's inherent to Rem. 700 trigger that should have been addressed long ago. At the worst, tragedies have occured. Granted there are solutions and precautions that can be taken but let's not deny there's a problem. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Without a doubt! 
Those were the day's! | |||
|
| one of us |
Rick So it would come as a complete surprise to you to learn of incidents of this nature happening to USMC SWS rifles. I might suggest you inquire as to the opinions of "Hal Johnson" at Quanitco back in the 60s then later out of the Pentagon MTU5 detachment. I have been informed about incidents involving USMC Scout Snipers M/40 SWS rifles from the Vietnam era and including incidents involving US Army M/24 SWS rifles as well... From what has been indicated to me Hal used to cut the external safety tang off of the rifles so the snipers would not inadvertently divulge their presence and hide location prematurely before accomplishing their tasks in the event of FSR. Your comments sounded good for argumentative purposes in public forums however ;O) Augustis ><> To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
| one of us |
couldn't believe it but i seen it happen this year deer hunting luckly the gun was pointed at the ground cause there was 6 people standing around when it happened. | |||
|
| one of us |
Considering the context of where this discussion originally started, the comparison between USMC Scout Sniper teams discipline and that of the general public are not relevant because it is not a fair analogy of the dangers that potentially exist to the general public, in large part due the grossly different operating environments in which the two differing populaces interact with others in the same immediate area. For the sake of argument however... One must consider the public demographics and the average populace as to who might be employing these rifles in the public sector. The range of course is from the first time hunter to the experienced veteran hunter whom might or might not develop muscle memory discipline skills through exhaustive training and given practices and techniques to become efficient as one could only expect from military and LE SRT members. As a manufacturer certain events are actually for seeable within the boundaries of that demographic as well as the age boundaries that exist within the range of individuals that will purchase that product and operate the rifle as designed and intended by the manufacturer, however even though the rifle firing when the safety is released (FSR) may come as a great shock and surprise to the owner the fact that this happens inadvertently at the very leased is not and has not been a surprise to Remington Arms Company and so now the question begs to be asked if this condition was identified before the concept was made available to the public back in 1948 then why in the world was the safety fitted with a bolt lock devise that required the handler to push the safety to the fire position to unload the arm, the safety in effect then becomes a potential trap in a sense and yet this design feature remained until about Feb. of 1982. Potentially everyone down range in a theater of war could potentially be a threat or classified as collateral damage for the better good of the situation being prosecuted by military force... ...that being said and looking at the civilian counterparts of LE tactical units, I would inquire as to a absolutely safe direction in the operational urban environment, Lets say the greater Seattle area for instance as this malfunction has actually occurred there on a live call out. I think it fair to say the officer did not beat his chest about his muzzle discipline but instead considered the event to be dangerous and thanked god no one was killed during this event a couple years ago! As far as I know still to date on US soil collateral damage is not a recognized or a acceptable solution to neutralize a threat to society, potentially barring issues with regard to national security? The gross comparison of military and civilian population training that has been made here is a Mute point, IMHO! Augustis ><> To Be Safe, First Think You Might Not Be. | |||
|
| one of us |
the number one lesson that is taught and drilled into your head is and should be followed to a "T" "Make sure your firearm is pointed in a safe direction" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Malm, What you are missing or do not understand it the concept of Contributory Negligence. In most situtions there are more than one element and if that is removed then the issue is nonexistant. Certainly on her part if the rifle had been pointing another direction then the disaster would not have occured. If the rifle had not been faulty, then also it would have been a non issue. Those are the two basic elements and both share responsiblity. Had the Barbers taken this to court and they did not, then at least the courts would have agreed. They did in a great number of cases previously. Try this for an example. Back in the day of the Ford Pinto cars, Ford had information that the gas tank would rupture and easily explode on a rear end collision and the collison did not have to be a severe one. The public did not know that and Ford made no attempt to fix the problem. Now take Joe Average. He backs his car up and hits an object and the tank breaks and catches on fire. Now is it all his fault because he was backing up and did not know what was behind him. Contributory negligence would put blame on both sides. An attorney in Spokane brought a class action law suit on behalf of a large number of injured Pinto owners and won what was at that time, the largest damage claim ever awarded. In this case she nor did the general public know that this was an issue with these rifles. Her rifle was pointing towards the horse trailer and we know the rest of the results. Now is she totally at fault? If Remington has fixed the problem years ago, nothing would have happened. Both are at fault in this. And it has been well documented and displayed that this trigger can and does fire on safety release WITHOUT ANYONE TOUCHING THE TRIGGER. My friend in Alaska had it do it again after it went off. His friends who were with him also thought he had to have had his finger on the trigger until they saw it first hand wehen they reconstructed the event. This was with a trigger that had never been adjusted outside the factory. I have never heard of this situtation in any other brand of gun, at least where it is well documented. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Augustis, I’m sorry but your “logic’ is not real “logical!†If a product is defective no amount of training by the individual using it will overcome that. I don’t know your military background or experience, but “accidental discharges†in combat can be just as dangerous, and in many instances more dangerous, than ones that happen in the hunting fields and target ranges of the good old peaceful USA. If you’ve ever piled in and out of helicopters and vehicles or had to bunch up behind a wall or in a hole in the ground this is very obvious. I totally agree with Chic that Remington has a degree of legal/moral responsibility for any accident caused by one of their rifles that malfunctions...but no more so than the person using it in an unsafe manner. The “Montana†case is a perfect example. Why would a person, removing a rifle from a vehicle, push the safety to the fire position while the rifle is pointed at a horse trailer? Was she planning on shooting the horse trailer? If not, why did she push the safety off? | |||
|
One of Us |
Bama (I hope that doesn't imply any loyalty to that UGLY crimson helmet and jersey  ),Just be careful. I'm with weagle on considering an aftermarket trigger. WAR EAGLE!! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Gunsmithing Rem 700 fires when safety is moved to fire.
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia