Chic,

The problem of 1903 Springfields doing this was documented and exhibited enough to have language put in the manuals to warn users about the danger of going to the READY position from the vertical position on the three position safety. Not ALL of them will fire when you do this...but most will. I happen to own several that will do it about 90% of the time.

I have also seen several model 70’s over the years that will fire, with the trigger being pulled, when the safety is taken off after the trigger has been pulled with the safety engaged then flipped to the fire position.

How many years did Colt make “Six-Shooters†that were only safe if you loaded five rounds and left an empty chamber under the hammer?

Chic, I understand what you're saying about contributory negligence.

Had the mother been made aware that the trigger could have posed such a problem, perhaps she would have thought twice about the direction the muzzle was pointing when she removed the safety.

This is exactly why gun safety rules exist. To prevent such shit from occuring. But regardless, it is a tragedy...

Posted on here recently.

SteveByrd
new member
Posted 28 November 2005 04:49
Today I was unloading my 2003 Super Grade Model 70 300. Win Mag and it fired when I lifted the bolt. I had a guy clean the bolt, take it down and put it back. I have only shot the gun once after that. I reached under the gun to release the bullets, when the door opened I held my hand over the trap so the shells would not fall on the ground, I then reached with my right hand lifted the bolt and it fired. Scary to say the least. I think the safety was in the middle position. Any one have any thoughts. SB

Posts: 3 | Registered: 10 July 2004

Rick

"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?"

Where did you read that the rifle was being removed from a vehicle in the Montana incident, this is news to me?

I would very much doubt she was attempting to shoot the horse trailer, however according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle article, the children were sitting on horse back together ( Double), she knew this because she observed them there before attempting to clear the action on a pre-82 rifle fitted with bolt lock mechanism (See Remington Safety modification Program) implemented in 2002.

After the rifle discharged she ran to the back of the horse trailer and screamed where is Gus, where is Gus to the daughter where she was informed the boy slid off of the back of the horse and ran to the other side of the trailer (Bozeman Daily Chronicle Article) apparently the boy moved around to a position where they could no longer see each other in the blink of an eye....

Without adding more detail you know the out come.

So, do scout snipers carry their precision stick around like regular infantry carry their AR's boarding aircraft and fighting in an urban environment or employ another system with a higher sustained rate of fire unless they are on a stalk or counter sniping with a patrol, I suppose that would depend on the actual deployment criteria, huh?

I never meant to imply that one situation would be more or less "dangerous" as we may or may not agree that at ANY TIME a weapon of any make or model for that matter accidentally discharges with other individuals in relative close proximity, the consequences can become catastrophic and result in a fatality, after all that is exactly what weapons are specifically intended and designed to accomplish, with the velocities and kinetic energies generated by a high pressure cartridge even if shot straight into the earth injuries can still be quite severe.

I read a report several years ago based off of about 155 actual hunting related accidents in Montana in that 1 in 4 accidents in Montana result in fatality and occur within close proximity of 15 yards of hunting companions, in which usually a family member accidentally shoots another family member or a friend shoots a friend.

Further research would indicate that a given amount of accidents attributable to the loading/unloading process were the result of someone moving after the shooter determined the "Muzzle (was) pointed in a safe position" to clear a chambered round and that if most of you perform self analysis and being honest with yourself you may determine that after you determine the muzzle rule you may then overt your eyes if even for a moment to the chamber area so the extracted chambered round does not find its way to the mud or snow on the ground . Also these accidents occur around camp and vehicles where people congregate after a day of hunting.

For the record within a one month period there were 3 accidents involving M/700 rifles in the area, these Bozeman Daily Chronicle articles were generated initially due to the exposure of this issue in large part because the Barbers went public with info that was produced by the investigating LE agency that pursued the homicide investigation surrounding the circumstances of the boy's death. It appears there was a pattern...

My post was more directed to the potential consequences to a USMC SS team waiting on their target objective to materialize while laying in wait from their hide location in the event of a FSR malfunction as this relates directly to the topic of discussion here and the relationship of the M/700 fire control connector design which is of course IS also employed in the M/40 SWS and M/24 SWS, although the later mentioned utilizes a ball plunger type trigger adjustment similar to that of the adjustable 40X concept....

"If a product is defective no amount of training by the individual using it will overcome that."


Rick, the above comment you made puzzles me to some degree, instead of me misinterpret your intended meaning would you care to elaborate further?

Augustis ><>

quote:

Had the mother been made aware that the trigger could have posed such a problem, perhaps she would have thought twice about the direction the muzzle was pointing when she removed the safety.

Malm

Or possibly employed another brand of firearm that allows extraction of a chambered round with a safety that blocks the internal components of the striker or trigger that protects against accidental discharge, or at the very leased gone to a safer alternative aftermarket fire control without the infamous "Resiliently Mounted Trigger Connector" retrofitted to the M/700 rifle with the bolt lock deletion to allow the unloading process to begin by raising the bolt instead of pushing the safety to the fire position...

Who knows, things might have been different, the choice would have been theirs?

Augustis ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:

quote:

Had the mother been made aware that the trigger could have posed such a problem, perhaps she would have thought twice about the direction the muzzle was pointing when she removed the safety.

Malm

Or possibly employed another brand of firearm that allows extraction of a chambered round with a safety that blocks the internal components of the striker or trigger that protects against accidental discharge, or at the very leased gone to a safer alternative aftermarket fire control without the infamous "Resiliently Mounted Trigger Connector" retrofitted to the M/700 rifle with the bolt lock deletion to allow the unloading process to begin by raising the bolt instead of pushing the safety to the fire position...

Who knows, things might have been different, the choice would have been theirs?

Augustis ><>

Doesn't matter the gun, what matters is how one handles it...

Augustis,

Forgive me if I was wrong about the woman in Montana removing the rifle from a vehicle prior to the accident...but I would still ask why she was pointing the rifle at the horse trailer while attempting to unload it.

As for my other comment...I got the impression from your statement that you felt it was unfair of me to compare the gun handling/training of professional soldiers (or Marines in this case) with that of “Joe Six-Pack.†I was only pointing out that if your theory of the Remington trigger system being an unsafe design was true then it seemed a bit unlikely that mere training would somehow magically correct a defective and/or unsafe design.

A properly set up Remington fire control unit is as safe and reliable as any other system out there. The smiths at Robar, McMillan, GA Precision, Triggersmiths, Texas Brigade Armory, and the boys at Quantico, do it everyday and I have not heard or read about any of them having any accidents with the triggers on their rifles. They do not remove or add any parts, they just fit, polish, and adjust the factory assembly and it turns out just fine. That tells me that the “design†itself is sound.

What the Remington factory guys put out, I have no idea...nor do I care since I don’t use them as they come from the factory.

My suggestion to anyone who has no faith in the product is to not purchase it in the first place. There are plenty of great rifles out there to choose from.

I looked the trigger over, the trigger stays depressed after pressure is removed. move the safety to fire and the firing pin releases. If I manually move the trigger forard each time it is depressed the trigger works fine. Since the gun belongs to my 12 Y.O. nephew my brother-in-law has decided to send it back to Remington for a check on the problem. I figure they will say it was dirty and charge for the cleaning. I'm glad I didn't mention he shoots a .243 with matchkings for deer are this topic really would have gotten ugly
Thanks for all the input
Bama

I already menthioned that I had the same thing happen with my father's 700. Now this rifle is probably 20 years old but it was infact well maintained. In preparation for the a NM Antelope hunt I detailed cleaned the rifle and trigger using the methods already mentioned here. We then fired several hundred rounds through the summer and I cleaned the whole thing again and then we did our final zero. We then went on our hunt. The Desert of NM is a very dusty environment and after a couple days of bouncing around eating dust the trigger was not up to the task. The rifle fired once while the bolt was closed chambering a round. Later the rifle fired again when the safety was taken off. Neither of these situations is good. Fortunately the rifle was pointed in a safe direction both times. The only thing hurt was a little pride and time. It meant that a new staulk was required on another animal. Fortunately I already had taken my Antelope by this time and we swapped rifles. I would not put either of us into the ordinary rifle owning public catagory. My father served almost 30 years in the military, first in the Army as an infantryman with the 82nd ABN, and later with the Air Force. I served seveal years with the Army and attended the Armorers Course. As I said earlier the rifle now wears a Timney Trigger and a Gentry three possition safety.

True without propper maintenance any mechanical device can fail. In this case we have a mechanical device that can fail even with proper maintenance. Even the designer states there is a flaw.

Had my father continued to just shoot this rifle and deer hunt from stands as usual he propably never would have "discovered" the problem. I tried to convince him to have the work done before but he was a true Remington fan saying if there was a problem Remington would have corrected it. I am the last to say that a NM Antelope hunt is a difficult hunt. Physically it is not. However, it can be for rifles due to the dust and fine sand.

In the end all the debate will solve nothing. Those who believe there is a problem will have it corrected and others will continue to use their Remingtons as they are because they personnaly have not had nor witnessed the problem.

Final Thought ... Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe."

Hey 500grains, You are seriously using CBS as a "reputable" source on firearms? Those are belks old buddies.
---

Hey Augustis, I figured this thread would pull you out. No desire to argue with you at all. Even glad to say, it is nice you have an opinion, even though it is just TOTALLY WRONG!!!

Any idea "WHY?" the US Consumer Product Safety Commission(no pun) hasn't shut Remington down??

And the correct answer is - TAA DAA - There is no inherent Design Problem with the trigger mechanism. Just that simple.
---

Life is w-a-y toooooo short to hunt with a constantly warping Termite Food stocked rifle.

There are actually two questions involved in this subject...1) is the Remington trigger a poor design?...2) does Remington have good quality control?

My view is NO on both counts.

It’s similar to the “bolt falling off†debate. Brazing parts together is a totally sound and well established manufacturing process, and when done properly produces a joint that is as strong or stronger than the metals being joined. Because the Remington factory folks botch that job on occasion doesn’t mean the process or the design is any less reliable.

The smiths mentioned in previous posts have proven that the Remington factory trigger, when properly set up and adjusted, is as safe and reliable as any other system out there...and that is nothing inherently unsafe about the design itself.

Perhaps someone can post the infamous communication from the “designer†where he states that his design is unsafe?

quote:

Originally posted by bama7x57:
I looked the trigger over, the trigger stays depressed after pressure is removed. move the safety to fire and the firing pin releases. If I manually move the trigger forard each time it is depressed the trigger works fine. Since the gun belongs to my 12 Y.O. nephew my brother-in-law has decided to send it back to Remington for a check on the problem. I figure they will say it was dirty and charge for the cleaning. I'm glad I didn't mention he shoots a .243 with matchkings for deer are this topic really would have gotten ugly
Thanks for all the input
Bama

You might consider sending it to the Triggersmiths. They set up and adjust Remington triggers for approximately $35.00 and I have heard nothing but good things about their work.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
...Perhaps someone can post the infamous communication from the “designer†where he states that his design is unsafe?

Hey Rick, I'm going to go out on a short rebar enforced limb and "guess" anything in that reguard has simply been "fabricated" by someone and it has been passed along until some people actually believe it.

There is NO WAY a document of that type could ever get out of ANY Company for two reasons:
1. If true, the Company would just fix the problem and be done with it.
2. (The easy part.) The idea of an "inherent Design Problem" in the excellent and perfectly SAFE Remington Trigger Mechanism, as anyone with enough brains to chamber a round knows is - full of beans.

The last three rifles I had brought to me with the Fire on Safety Release issue were; 1. Mauser. 2. Mauser. 3. M70.

Two simply needed adjustment and one had apparently never been out of the factory stock and needed cleaning REAL Bad. Pine needles had it all clintoned up.
---

Hey AC, I've heard that Brake Cleaner leaves no oil, but that Carb Cleaner does leave just a bit as it flash dries. Apparently that is the "difference" between them.

I’ve seen some of the supposed inter-company memos on this issue...but I can’t recall seeing one from the actual “designer†stating that his design was unsafe. Not saying it doesn’t exist...I just haven’t seen it personally.

I do find it interesting that a company like Triggersmith would give a lifetime 100% guarantee against any malfunction on a product that is unsafe by design???? They don’t “re-design†the Remington triggers that they guarantee, they just clean, square up, polish and adjust them for weight of pull.

A legitimate question, and one I would not argue with, would be...if these guys can do this for $35.00 why can’t Remington do it when they build the rifle?

I will stick with my belief that this is a quality control issue...NOT a design fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey 500grains, You are seriously using CBS as a "reputable" source on firearms?

If they got the facts wrong in that article, let us know.

From Sinclair International's site --

"Shilen triggers are an excellent choice for shooters wanting to upgrade their standard Remington triggers. The Standard Shilen trigger is a replacement for the Remington 700 style trigger. Shilen states that this trigger can safely be "tuned" to a lighter pull tan the factory trigger. This trigger comes without a safety but will accept the safety from your Remington trigger. The Shilen Competition trigger is a 2 oz. style trigger designed for benchrest shooting. It is a Remington 700 style trigger that can be used in most Remington centerfire bolt actions. It does not incorporate a safety and WILL NOT accept the Remington safety. Both triggers will fit Remington 700 and 40X actions, and also most custom actios (Shilen, Stolle, Hall, Hart, and Wichita). They will not work on Model 7's, 788's, or 600's."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

If one were to buy and install the Shilen Standard trigger in the Rem. 700, using the Remington safety (note "bold" text above), would this solve the problems being discussed in this thread??


L.W.

quote:

Originally posted by Leanwolff:
From Sinclair International's site --

"Shilen triggers are an excellent choice for shooters wanting to upgrade their standard Remington triggers. The Standard Shilen trigger is a replacement for the Remington 700 style trigger. Shilen states that this trigger can safely be "tuned" to a lighter pull tan the factory trigger. This trigger comes without a safety but will accept the safety from your Remington trigger. The Shilen Competition trigger is a 2 oz. style trigger designed for benchrest shooting. It is a Remington 700 style trigger that can be used in most Remington centerfire bolt actions. It does not incorporate a safety and WILL NOT accept the Remington safety. Both triggers will fit Remington 700 and 40X actions, and also most custom actios (Shilen, Stolle, Hall, Hart, and Wichita). They will not work on Model 7's, 788's, or 600's."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

If one were to buy and install the Shilen Standard trigger in the Rem. 700, using the Remington safety (note "bold" text above), would this solve the problems being discussed in this thread??


L.W.

Yes. The problems being discussed are centered in the trigger mechanism...NOT the safety lever itself.

quote:

If one were to buy and install the Shilen Standard trigger in the Rem. 700, using the Remington safety (note "bold" text above), would this solve the problems being discussed in this thread??


L.W.



Yes. The problems being discussed are centered in the trigger mechanism...NOT the safety lever itself.

Rick 0311

I don't believe the situation is quite so 'open-and-shut.'

IF - because of the trigger mechanism coming from one manufacturer and the safety catch mechanism coming from another - there was some small mis-match bwtween the two components, the so-called 'trick condition' could still occur.

If operating the safety catch failed to lift the sear slightly, and the trigger was then pulled, the sear could drop fractionally. It's highly improbable that it would be able to drop far enough to allow the rifle to fire, unless something was GROSSLY wrong, but the trigger mechanism would have no way of re-setting. The edge of the connector could not possibly get back under the engagement ledge on the sear, even with a massively heavy trigger weight spring fitted. The sear would then be held back only by the safety catch cam, and when it was released, the rifle would fire.

This sort of thing can happen with almost any type rifle with the safety catch mechanism improperly set up, not just Remingtons, and it has nothing to do with trigger connectors, either.

A friend of mine recently bought a used sporter rifle based on a military Mauser 98 with a Timney trigger and a two-position, 'low-swing' type of safety catch fitted. It can be 'tricked' every time - if you can call it that. Cock the rifle, apply the safety catch, pull the trigger, there is a faint 'click', and the firing pin drops fractionally. Release the safety catch and it drops completely. (i.e. it fires) The safety catch doesn't even begin to retract the striker, which it MUST do with this type of action in order to operate correctly. I have seen an un-altered military M98 with non-matching receiver and bolt numbers which did much the same thing. Some years ago, somebody at our local range produced a bolt action 22RF - can't remember the brand now - which could also be 'tricked' the same way.

There are too many 'safety catches' which AREN'T - and Remington doesn't have a monopoly on them.

redrover,

The man’s question, as I interpreted it, was if using a Shilin trigger would remove the question being discussed on this thread in regards to the safety, or lack of, designed into the Remington factory trigger assembly.

The question of the functioning of the actual Remington safety lever has not been a part of this problem, that I am aware of, it is the design of the connector of the Remington assembly that some feel is the flaw.

I agree with you that a safety cannot be reliably assumed to be so...and that those who make that assumption can be subject to great surprise at times!

Rick,you are wrong.The Shilen is very well made trigger,I replaced a Rifle Basic with a Shilen.But if the sear engagement is not enough,it's possible to fire on releasing the safety.You have to pull damm hard on the safety blocked trigger to get enough "wind-up" in the steel trigger mechanism.It's just one of those checks you do.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey 500grains, You are seriously using CBS as a "reputable" source on firearms?

If they got the facts wrong in that article, let us know.

Aren't they the ones that "got the facts wrong", concerning Chevy pickup gas tanks exploding? Even though they staged the blowups? Grant.

quote:

Originally posted by downwindtracker2:
Rick,you are wrong.The Shilen is very well made trigger,I replaced a Rifle Basic with a Shilen.But if the sear engagement is not enough,it's possible to fire on releasing the safety.You have to pull damm hard on the safety blocked trigger to get enough "wind-up" in the steel trigger mechanism.It's just one of those checks you do.

I’ve kinda lost track of what we are supposedly arguing about here.

Last I remembered, the debate was over whether or not Remington’s trigger design was at fault for their rifles sometimes firing when the safety is moved from safe to fire.

Now you’ve moved the debate to the design of Shilin triggers...and what can happen when they do not have enough sear engagement??????????

If you have a botched up trigger adjustment that doesn’t give you sufficient sear engagement you can fire the rifle by just banging it against something.

Although I always try to pratice safe firearms handling, it is completely forseeable that someone is going to inadvertently point his rifle at another person. When that happens (not IF), the safety had better work.

It is also forseeable that some drivers will run a red light. That is why the car has air bags.

Remington failed us. There is just no way to explain it away.

quote:

Any idea "WHY?" the US Consumer Product Safety Commission(no pun) hasn't shut Remington down??

Hot Core

Since no one already answered this question I will address it....

In 1967 Congress specifically exempted firearm, ammo and tobacco manufacturers from ANY government oversight what so ever, including manufacturing quality and safety standards. We have the ATF but they enforce the established laws, but they have absolutely no authority to enforce quality standards or investigate incidents involving alleged defect issues surrounding safety....

I would concur that if these broad powers were given to the government in our political climate of gun control today, abuses could render the current climate tougher on firearm manufacturers politically to"Shut Them Down". I think one argument at that time was Firearms are specifically referenced in the US Constitution ( second amendment) and as such was thought to be protected or "Not (To Be) infringed" by the acting government in that era. The thing I do not clearly understand however is tobacco nor the tobacco industry is not referenced in the US Constitution as far as I am aware of, so I would be then forced to conclude it boils down to power and lobby money bringing about this legislation.

Hot Core, I hope this answers your basic question? As to the other questions, I will be a day or so catching up, I had to haul horses out to the ranch today and the trip is 2.5 hours one way so needless to say I am behind...

Hot Core, would you again please consider emailing me at AugustisRanch@aol.com so we may have a brief private discussion, at leased I will be able to say I tried to show you the error of your ways discreetly ;O)

Augustis ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
How many years did Colt make “Six-Shooters†that were only safe if you loaded five rounds and left an empty chamber under the hammer?

Rick,

Sorry dude, but Colt "Six Shooters" have absolutely no relevance when it comes to rifle triggers. It's the old apples and oranges thing, don't ya know.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldmodel70:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
Hey 500grains, You are seriously using CBS as a "reputable" source on firearms?

If they got the facts wrong in that article, let us know.

Aren't they the ones that "got the facts wrong", concerning Chevy pickup gas tanks exploding? Even though they staged the blowups? Grant.

The provided link wasn't a CBS document.

It was an internal Remington memo from their safety subcommitee.

GV

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Although I always try to pratice safe firearms handling, it is completely forseeable that someone is going to inadvertently point his rifle at another person. When that happens (not IF), the safety had better work.

It is also forseeable that some drivers will run a red light. That is why the car has air bags.

Remington failed us. There is just no way to explain it away.

So someone “inadvertently†points their rifle at another human being...and then proceeds to “inadvertently†push the safety from safe to fire???? Personally, I don’t think I would want to be around someone who had such utter lack of mind and muscle control...especially if they had a firearm. Even if the damned safety worked, how would they stop themselves from “inadvertently†pulling the friggin trigger after they “inadvertently†lined me up in their sights?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

So someone “inadvertently†points their rifle at another human being...and then proceeds to “inadvertently†push the safety from safe to fire???? Personally, I don’t think I would want to be around someone who had such utter lack of mind and muscle control...especially if they had a firearm. Even if the damned safety worked, how would they stop themselves from “inadvertently†pulling the friggin trigger after they “inadvertently†lined me up in their sights?

Well, that's basically the defense Remington outlined in their safety subcommitee memo. And the reason they didn't invoke a recall on potentially 20,000 unsafe rifles. (1% of 2,000,000)

GV

Are you telling me that that is not a reasonable question to raise?

I have yet to hear anyone state that a Remington rifle went off by merely holding it and pointing it at someone. I’m trying as hard as I can to think of some good reason for pointing a rifle at someone then pushing the safety from safe to fire...and I can only come up with the obvious one.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Are you telling me that that is not a reasonable question to raise?

As a gun-related safety issue? Absolutely a reasonable question to raise.

Is it reasonable for a gun manufacturer to conclude a potential safety problem in its product is not worthy of recall.......because the problem would not manifest itself if the accidental discharge was managed correctly?

That's basically what they concluded.

GV

quote:

Originally posted by GrandView:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Are you telling me that that is not a reasonable question to raise?

As a gun-related safety issue? Absolutely a reasonable question to raise.

Is it reasonable for a gun manufacturer to conclude a potential safety problem in its product is not worthy of recall.......because the problem would not manifest itself if the accidental discharge was managed correctly?

That's basically what they concluded.

GV

Liability is something decided by courts, lawyers, and juries...and I would sure hate to have to sit on the stand and explain to a jury why I pointed a loaded firearm at another human being and then proceeded to push the safety from safe to fire.

Rick,

Remington failed us by (i) producing 20,000 unsafe rifles (by their own calculation), and (ii) refusing to correct the problem.

Note that their "fix" is the safety which does not lock the bolt handle down so that the gun can be unloaded with the safety still on. That's pretty lame.

quote:

Liability is something decided by courts, lawyers, and juries...and I would sure hate to have to sit on the stand and explain to a jury why I pointed a loaded firearm at another human being and then proceeded to push the safety from safe to fire.

Rick,

They are never going to let you or me near a jury in a case like this, we would be disqualified in the first five minutes.

quote:

Well, that's basically the defense Remington outlined in their safety subcommitee memo. And the reason they didn't invoke a recall on potentially 20,000 unsafe rifles. (1% of 2,000,000)

quote:

Are you telling me that that is not a reasonable question to raise?

Both valid arguments, however neither withstood jury scrutiny for very long because you must review other material to further investigate the depth and scope of this issue which is not available to you, and which I do not care to discuss on open forums before hearing from Hot Core.


Augustis ><>

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Chic, I understand what you're saying about contributory negligence.

Had the mother been made aware that the trigger could have posed such a problem, perhaps she would have thought twice about the direction the muzzle was pointing when she removed the safety.

This is exactly why gun safety rules exist. To prevent such shit from occuring. But regardless, it is a tragedy...

She shot THROUGH a horse trailer.. the child was on the other side. The initial read on the story almost reads like she was KNOWINGLY pointing her rifle at a person....

Dan posted the brief on the subject
jeffe

Here's the overall good thing about this thread and this discussion.

Most of the regulars here are very aware of this issue and fall onto one side or the other of the design flaw issue.

However the average joe gun owner that may not have a clue might read this thread and educate himself regarding proper safe handling of guns and realize that "safeties" are not SAFE without proper gun handling. Infact some safeties may be downright counter productive in preventing a rifle from an accidental discharge.

After "Avaerage Joe" reads this thread he may then be educated enough to choose one camp of thought over the other, but hopefully he will be fully expecting that his firearm might discharge when he releases the safety and handle it accordingly.

Weagle

Hey Augustis, Go ahead and discuss it right here. I have no problems at all disagreeing with anyone, and I have the potential to learn things when we do it in a civil manner.

I am seeing some things I did not know already in this thread. Don't doubt what you said about the Product Safety Commission. But, it just seems reasonable to me that the clintonites would have gone after Remington regardless of what you mentioned. I remember they confiscated firearms from Chicago residents living in Government housing projects which clearly violates the 2nd Ammendment, yet nothing could stop them.

As I sit here thinking about it, it also seems to me that CBS, belk, schummer, heil-ery, boxer, caravel and the other clinton clowns would have been slobbering at the mouth to get ahold of an "Inherent Firearm Defect" that they could go after, regardless of the manufacturer.

However, the real reason I know there is a lot of "smoke" in this thread is simply because I thoroughly understand the Remington Trigger Design. People tend to quote sources that become shall we say "enhanced toward their stance" and accept it without actually knowing the truth.

CBS and the old "Guns of Autum" special is a classic. (NBC rigged the Chevy gas tanks.)

Recently belk's old buddy dan rather did a hose job on President Bush's last election, with "enhanced" documents, which eventually cost rather his job. I find it extremely interesting to note rather didn't actually loose his job because of what he had done though. CBS just didn't care about him using false documents. What did him in was when the few viewers they had, became less and less.

Anyway, I would encourage you to dive right in and post what ever you believe and whatever sources you want to reference. Just don't be surprised if in the end I still realize there is no Inherent Design Problem in the Remington triggers.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by malm:
Chic, I understand what you're saying about contributory negligence.

Had the mother been made aware that the trigger could have posed such a problem, perhaps she would have thought twice about the direction the muzzle was pointing when she removed the safety.

She shot THROUGH a horse trailer..

Yeah, like that's a good backstop.

You guys make it sound like she INTENTIONALLY pointed the rifle ay her kid. Sheesh! My understanding is that she was preparing to unload the rifle and (as required by the then current design) clicked the safety off.

How many of you Remington owners unload your rifles with the barrel pointed straight up while you work the bolt? Be realistic...you point it to the brush or generally away from where you can see anyone and go to town most likely. She apparently pointed it in a direction where she could not see anyone and started the unloading process. The rest is history. Let the poor woman alone...she's suffering enough.

quote:

However, the real reason I know there is a lot of "smoke" in this thread is simply because I thoroughly understand the Remington Trigger Design. People tend to quote sources that become shall we say "enhanced toward their stance" and accept it without actually knowing the truth.

My intent is not necessarily to protect you, its to protect info that I do not care to disseminate publicly, because of a sense of loyalty I have to certain members of Remington, past and present....


Understanding the functional aspects of Walker fire control concept and the evolutionary truth of this matter are two separate issues, Historical factual conclusions reached by Remington engineers in the development of this concept over rules your mere opinion, except in a court of law as it seems in some instances and of course open forums.

Simply because you are an engineer "with learned intelligence" and perhaps with some understanding of the concept does not mean your statements are not slanted to serve your opinions rendered in this forum which I have found to be some what arrogant and distasteful to me at times which totally lack foundation or facts, which has brought us to this impasse.


"Hey Rick, I'm going to go out on a short rebar enforced limb and "guess" anything in that regard has simply been "fabricated" by someone and it has been passed along until some people actually believe it.

There is NO WAY a document of that type could ever get out of ANY Company for two reasons:
1. If true, the Company would just fix the problem and be done with it.
2. (The easy part.) The idea of an "inherent Design Problem" in the excellent and perfectly SAFE Remington Trigger Mechanism, as anyone with enough brains to chamber a round knows is - full of beans."


The document you say that possibly does not exist was Authored by Merle H Walker on 12-3-1946, Subject Title: "Theoretical Unsafe Condition Of M/721 Safety" and one of many through the years. What I find interesting about your comment is that you would go out on a limb to say possibly that the document may or may not exist and be fabricated, but then you say in the next breath in the event the document does in fact exist...

"There is NO WAY a document of that type could ever get out of ANY Company"

...and yet I have it in my archive. The statement you make sounds dangerously like discovery abuse, a common corporate tactic to deprive the plaintiff AND the public of relevant information to the claim and prior knowlege of defect!

And my response to the possible motive regarding "Reason 1", unless there "are already 2 million units in the field and a recall would undercut the message we plan to communicate to the public concerning safe gun handling"....

1) Keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

2) Never trust the safety, a mechanical devise which can fail (Research the "Half Safe Is Unsafe" campaign)

3) NEVER touch the trigger while the rifle is in the ON safe position (Anyone heard of the "Trick Condition"?)

(Source: Feb 23, 1979 Product Safety Sub Committee Meeting Minutes)

Again you stand corrected my old friend, and of course there will be more to follow when time allows and the content of this post is digested by the readers of this forum...

Augustis ><>