quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:
They call it "FBO" (fires on bolt opening) there are other conditions that exist also "FBC" (fires on bolt closing) and the most famous "FSR"?



Wayne said in his memo that: (WORD FOR WORD) on 4-9-1947

"There is evidence from the functioning of the above mentioned guns that the connector, safety cam and sear are not within design limits. This situation can be very "DANGEROUS" from a safety and functional point of view and the existing condition has caused the following listed malfunctions to occur in several guns that were inspected:

1) Firing pin moves forward during bolt locking cycle.

2) Possible to fire the gun by pushing the safety to the off position.

3) Occasionally the firing pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle.

From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the "MOST DANGEROUS" in that the malfunction might not occur during the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection"

Of course there are still yet hundreds of other pages that were generated through the years that would complement this one document, however if it happens inside the plant during inspection and Wayne points out that rifles could get out past inspections then it is entirely possible for you to get a complaint of this nature in the field.

But we still have yet to address the why it happens... (To Be Continued...)

Augustis ><>

FBC and FSR is old news. I don't see anything mentioned about FBO in the above print except that which you mentioned at the top of this.

Brad,

I can't find that memo. This one addresses all the Luddites who believe all Rem 700 AD's are the fault of the users and ham-handed adjustments. (FWIW, this comment is definitely not addressed to malm or Rick 0311, with whom I disagee, but who have at least a reason for their positions.)

BTW, the memo was an Acrobat .pdf file that I had to convert to image format to post. If anyone has a similar problem, PM me and I'll post if for you.

Jaywalker

I have had only one "accidential" discharge, and that wasn't with a Remmington but with an old SKS.

The sear gave way, and when the bolt was released to close it slammed fired. Since the barrel was pointed in a safe location, all that happened was a few extra holes in the hill.

While the trigger design of the Remmington in question may have had a part to play in the incident, the best thing is for good gun safety. Always assume that the gun is .
1. Loaded.
2. Will discharge.

Hot Cores mission from Remington is to discredit anyone who speaks out against Remington products. He is doing a piss poor job. No substance in what he says, he just goes after the messenger. He asks Augustus to post on here and then goes after Augustus when the evidence is damning to Remington. He tries to link Jack Belk with Dan Rather as friends and how CBS went after the president. Such shallow misdirection just shows the fool he is.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaywalker:
Brad,

I can't find that memo. This one addresses all the Luddites who believe all Rem 700 AD's are the fault of the users and ham-handed adjustments. (FWIW, this comment is definitely not addressed to malm or Rick 0311, with whom I disagee, but who have at least a reason for their positions.)

BTW, the memo was an Acrobat .pdf file that I had to convert to image format to post. If anyone has a similar problem, PM me and I'll post if for you.

Jaywalker

Jaywalker,

What exactly have I said that you disagree with?

I have stated numerous times that I have absolutely no problem, or argument, with the fact that mass produced firearms (including Remingtons) pop out of the factory with varying degrees of workmanship ranging from good to really poor.

I have also stated, and backed up with posts from others, that Remington’s are not the ONLY rifles that have experienced accidental discharges due to failures of either the triggers or the safeties.

I just find it a bit amusing that Remingtons are the only ones that get blamed for the problem...while all the others get attributed to the user.

No one yet has answered my question of what causes all these other brands of rifles to experience accidental discharges.

Rick, the M700 Trigger design is FUBAR. Its very design lends itself to a greater percentage of failures. All designs have the potential to fail because they're mechanical. Some are more prone than others because of their very DESIGN... why is that so hard to understand? The M70 trigger is much safer because of its simpler design. Does that mean it won't fail? No, it's a mechanical device in an imperfect world.

The Walker trigger is the Ford Pinto of the firearms world...

Rick,

I disagree with what I believe to be your characterization of the Remington issues to be manufacturing errors rather than design deficiencies. If I have misunderstood or misstated your position, then I apologize.

My belief that the Remington's connector is a design problem flows from Jack Belk's posts. In absorbing them, I believed them to be an accurate and reasonably complete summary. If that's not the case, then my understanding of the issue is at fault.

I'm not interested in the legal liabilities of the situation. At best, they have tended to cloud a "pure" engineering issue with "advocacy" engineering, defending and attacking rather than discovering and fixing, problems. If there's a design problem, Remington should fix it, not fear to fix it out of fear of admitting guilt. I believe they have a problem, both in engineering and ethics.

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by Jaywalker:
Rick,

I disagree with what I believe to be your characterization of the Remington issues to be manufacturing errors rather than design deficiencies. If I have misunderstood or misstated your position, then I apologize.

My belief that the Remington's connector is a design problem flows from Jack Belk's posts. In absorbing them, I believed them to be an accurate and reasonably complete summary. If that's not the case, then my understanding of the issue is at fault.

I'm not interested in the legal liabilities of the situation. At best, they have tended to cloud a "pure" engineering issue with "advocacy" engineering, defending and attacking rather than discovering and fixing, problems. If there's a design problem, Remington should fix it, not fear to fix it out of fear of admitting guilt. I believe they have a problem, both in engineering and ethics.

Jaywalker

And what if it isn’t a design problem...as is suggested in one of the infamous “memo’s†that has been posted on here that flatly states that the malfunctioning parts were NOT manufactured within design limits?????????

Is that a problem in design or in manufacture?

As far as Mr. Belk’s comments...give me a day or two and I can find numerous “experts†who will say just the opposite...as all “experts†tend to do most of the time.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain what causes this condition to occur in other brands of firearms...and what those manufacturers have done to fix the problem.

I am not now, nor have I ever been in anyway, affiliated with Remington or any other manufacturer of firearms...and the only factory made rifles I have ever used are the ones I was issued in the military, and ones I have used in the motion picture business (with blanks.)

Rick,

As I said, I respect your position, though I disagree with it.

Belk's position seems pretty simple; I'd be interested in reading why it might be in error.

Edited to add: Sorry, I have no knowledge of ADs from other makers, so can't comment on reasons for them.

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by Jaywalker:
Rick,

As I said, I respect your position, though I disagree with it.

Belk's position seems pretty simple; I'd be interested in reading why it might be in error.

Edited to add: Sorry, I have no knowledge of ADs from other makers, so can't comment on reasons for them.

Jaywalker

My “opinion†isn’t any more or any less valuable than any other lay persons...so don’t worry about respecting it!

All I am trying to point out is that a bunch of other “lay-people†are making claims and stating as fact things that they don’t seem to be able or willing to fully discuss or analize beyond reading and posting a bunch of 40 and 60 year old memos, and 2nd and 3rd hand stories told to them. And even then they are somewhat distorting what was actually said by the authors of those memos.

Two cases in point: Mike Walker’s memo where he uses the word “theoreticallyâ€...and in the translation it gets reported as “Mike Walker says his design is faulty and dangerous.â€

Then you have the one I just referenced where the author says the parts are not made within design limts, and due to that may cause a dangerous situation...and yet it is inferred on here that he is saying the design is dangerous. NOT AT ALL what the memo says.

As far as Mr. Belk...he is stating his “opinion†...and there are numerous other firearms “experts†that hold a differing opinion on the topic and have stated so in numerous articles.

“Liability†is a funny thing when it comes to accidents because there is seldom a case when the liability falls on just one party. If someone is using a defective product in a careless manner how much responsibility do they have in the accident? Was the accident caused by the defective product...or was it caused by the careless way in which it was being used?

Did the guy on this forum that had his model 70 Winchester fire when he lifted the bolt sue Winchester? Why not? I will bet you that if an injury or death would have resulted his lawyer would be doing just that, and using it as his defense...and Winchester’s lawyers would be saying that it was the users fault not theirs.

quote:

People on here have flatly stated that it is the “design†of the Remington trigger that causes the unsafe condition. Yet, here we have an engineer stating that the parts he inspected were not manufactured within “design limits“ and that this was causing a “dangerous†condition.

Rick
I think the key words in Wayne Leeks statement is:

"This situation can be very "DANGEROUS" from a safety and functional point of view".

We have established the rifles are in new condition, so new in fact the "Concept" has not been outside of the plant to even be recognized as a "Design" yet.

As an engineer he appears to consider the "safety" of the public in the event these malfunctions were to occur in the field, and "from a functional point of view" these malfunctions do not seem to be acceptable to his engineering standards...

"From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the "MOST DANGEROUS" in that the malfunction might not occur during the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection"

In this statement do you sense he may of had some concern that rifles could slip past current inspection procedures and make into the field?

Hey, if people can account and control their muzzle every second of every minute than I guess if the rifle fires when loading, unloading, releasing the safety or even bumping the rifle with the safety off should not be a concern in the leased?

BTW, Wayne was discussing "Design Limits" of those parts, not the tolerance of internal components...

Wayne, all through his years at Remington and even after his retirement seemed to be a safety advocate with concerns with regard to this design...

Augustis ><>

Rick

As to your other question as to other manufacturers is purely anecdotal for all practical purposes. Remington's R&D staff identified other manufacturers who's products potentially exhibited the "trick condition" so I guess that makes this issue justified and nothing should have been done with regard to their own house keeping, is that your point?

With Winchesters design, besides being comprised of fewer components with less chance for "Tolerance Stack Up" conditions to exist there would have to be a defect present in the specific piece not the design as the striker block retracts the firing pin and cocking piece rear word which allows the sear spring to elevate the sear out of contact with the support lever, being the trigger.

For the Winchester design to trick, the safety would not retract the striker and allow interference between the trigger and sear, if that happened the trigger would be trapped in the firing notch and prevented from retracting to sear support... That would mean the rifle was defective, not the design in that instance....

Boy now you have me thinking.....


Augustis ><>

Augustis,

With all due respect...you are back tracking and offering your “opinion†as if it were established fact, and also adding your impressions, meanings and opinions into the words and thoughts of others...most specifically Mr. Leeks.

I’ve read the memo that you attribute to him and nowhere in it do I see any mention or reference made to a design flaw in the triggers in question. He states that the parts are not within design limits...are you saying that wasn’t what he meant to say? If anything, his statement infers that if the design limits were followed the parts would function properly.

You state that my instances of accidental discharges by other types of firearms are “anecdotal.†It would appear from the same memo that you posted that so were many of the instances involving Remington’s. You will note that the memo states very clearly that a large number of the “reported†instances had absolutely nothing to do with the factory trigger, but were in fact due to issues related directly to previous or present owners/users of the rifles that were tested.

Hate Remington all you want...but if you are going to ask others to share and place value on your opinion you need to be a bit more logical and accurate in your basis for that opinion. Injecting your own thoughts and meanings into other peoples words and minds is normally a poor way of advancing your point...because it is extremely transparent that you are staring out with a preconceived theory and you are injecting what you “want†to hear into the discussion.

quote:

FBC and FSR is old news. I don't see anything mentioned about FBO in the above print except that which you mentioned at the top of this.

Why would operation of the bolt closing precipitate a malfunction to begin with, that would potentially result in a chambered round being expended without the handler of the arm intending it to do so?

connector sear engagement.... This is a single stage over ride system, the operation of the bolt creates a vibration in the receiver and if the engagement is not suitable for whatever reason the potential for malfunction is potently present, the condition discovered by Wayne Leek in 1947.

The mating surface of the connector and the sear are held in place by frictional forces to some degree and spring load of the adjustment screw. The spring load on the adjustment screw performs two functions as you already know but I will post it for some of the other readers.

This same spring load also returns the trigger and connector to sear support keeping in mind the "Trigger Connector" and "Trigger Body" are two separate pieces both of which create friction in some degree, the spring load must over come the friction of the two components to compel them both to sear support.

At some point in the process of intentionally pulling the trigger the forces on the main spring will over ride the connectors frictional ability to remain engaged with the sear causing the connector to be compelled to rotate forward on the trigger body to allow sub sequential mechanical events to occur, which as I understand it the connector breaks contact with the sear before the trigger body reaches the over travel screw....

I have recently received 4 cans of high speed films taken at 1000 frames per second that will hopefully allow me to see this mechanical reaction occur in real time?

Now with reduced sear connector engagement bumping the receiver or operation of the bolt could under certain conditions depending on the amount of engagement, and keeping in mind this is an over ride system, the connector will complete its intended function due to the vibrational forces of the before mentioned functions without trigger contact being made.

See my point?

Augustis ><>

Augustis,

And that very same phenomenon “can“ occur with ALL override trigger/sear mechanisms (which is basically all newer rifles)...and they ALL require a pretty substantial engagement between the sear and the cocking piece in order to hold safely when the bolt is closed hard.

quote:

Augustis,

And that very same phenomenon “can“ occur with ALL override trigger/sear mechanisms (which is basically all newer rifles)...and they ALL require a pretty substantial engagement between the sear and the cocking piece in order to hold safely when the bolt is closed hard

Rick
Good point for sure!

How many of these modern rifles you describe have a 2 piece trigger and specifically employ a "Resiliently Mounted Trigger Connector"...Which is intended to be over ridden by the main spring force bearing on the sear???

Could you name one please?

Augustis ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:

quote:

Augustis,

And that very same phenomenon “can“ occur with ALL override trigger/sear mechanisms (which is basically all newer rifles)...and they ALL require a pretty substantial engagement between the sear and the cocking piece in order to hold safely when the bolt is closed hard

Rick
Good point for sure!

How many of these modern rifles you describe have a 2 piece trigger and specifically employ a "Resiliently Mounted Trigger Connector"...Which is intended to be over ridden by the main spring force bearing on the sear???

Could you name one please?

Augustis ><>

And your point is??????

You haven’t answered my question yet concerning the apparent contradiction between that memo’s words and your‘s.

Did that gentleman state that the “design†of the Remington triggers was dangerous...and if so, where in his memo would I find that statement?

quote:

With Winchesters design, besides being comprised of fewer components with less chance for "Tolerance Stack Up" conditions to exist there would have to be a defect present in the specific piece not the design as the striker block retracts the firing pin and cocking piece rear word which allows the sear spring to elevate the sear out of contact with the support lever, being the trigger.

This statement is plain nonsense. Rather than try to find my own words to explain why, I will quote directly from the book ‘The Bolt Action’ by Stuart Otteson. (a book which many experts in the ‘gun world’ have acclaimed as being about the most searching and precise analysis of the subject that has ever been written)

“A bolt-sleeve mounted safety lacks a precise relationship with the cocking piece. While physically adjacent, relative positioning between the two depends on too many intermediate parts and dimensions (safety/bolt sleeve, bolt sleeve/bolt, bolt/receiver, receiver/trigger, and finally, trigger/cocking piece). Thus, although only a few thousandths cam-back is actually required, many times that is used to assure functioning with all tolerances.

Because the Remington safety, on the other hand, pivots directly on the trigger housing, and operates on the sear, all critical locating holes are drilled on the same part, VIRTUALLY eliminating tolerance errors.â€

My emphasis on the word ‘virtually’ – clearly nothing can be guaranteed 100%. The Remington memo of 2 January 1979 mentions finding one trigger with insufficient clearance between the sear and the connector (with the safety catch applied) and another with a warped connector which presumably led to a similar condition. I suppose one could assume that these were manufacturing defects, because it probably would have been stated in the memo if there had been any visible evidence of modification or tampering having occurred.

quote:

How many of these modern rifles you describe have a 2 piece trigger and specifically employ a "Resiliently Mounted Trigger Connector"...Which is intended to be over ridden by the main spring force bearing on the sear???

You are playing with words here, Augustus.

Sure, the connector is 'intended to be over ridden by the main spring force bearing on the sear' - AFTER THE PULLING THE TRIGGER HAS MOVED THE TOP LEDGE OF THE CONNECTOR AWAY FROM THE LEDGE ON THE SEAR, AND PAST THE 'POINT OF NO RETURN.'

This has been a very enlightening discussion! Thank you all, very much.

I've only owned one Remington rifle, a 513-T until now. I actually haven't even taken delivery yet, but it's the Model 700 Classic in 8x57 Mauser. I'm presuming that this one, from 2004 production, doesn't require the safety be moved to "off" to open the bolt?

As to cleaning, I thank the poster who mentioned the brake cleaner vs carb cleaner issue.

Now I have a question as to lubrication. I have some "NAPA Balkamp" "dfg 123 Dry Graphite Film Lubricant" that I'm considering as a lube for the trigger assembly. Contents are listed as: Propane, Isobutane, Acetone, Butanol, Isopropanol, and Solid Lubricant (Graphite).

Are any of those materials likely to "attract" dirt, grime, etc.?

Thanks again for the education!

Edited to fix "fat finger" typing.

C1PNR,

You are correct in your assumption...the Remington safety does not require moving the safety to fire in order to operate the bolt.

If you want the best lubricant for any trigger, send your trigger to Robar and have all the parts treated with NP3. This finish gives you built in lubrication and is totally corrosion proof.

"Did that gentleman state that the “design†of the Remington triggers was dangerous...and if so, where in his memo would I find that statement"


In a letter to Clark Workman dated Jan. 15 1982

"Subject: Jan reports on silhouette activities in Arizona, matches attended, and repairs to Remington products. Also a more detailed report on suggestions supporting a new line of rifles and shotguns"

page 7 in discussion of the M/700 safety and trigger that operate in a parallel plane that "allows a dangerous condition to exist"
Wayne discusses the fire control and adjustments on page 5....

In a "Confidential Report" dated Jan. 15, 1982 he discusses the "Negative Features" of the M/700 CF Rifle.

I call your attention to line 4 and 6....

That is about as close as I can come to answering your question.

"I’ve read the memo that you attribute to him and nowhere in it do I see any mention or reference made to a design flaw in the triggers in question. He states that the parts are not within design limits...are you saying that wasn’t what he meant to say? If anything, his statement infers that if the design limits were followed the parts would function properly."

I guess it is open to interpretation as to the meaning of the term "design limits", you insist it infers tolerance issues my interpretation believes otherwise but bears on the security and safety of the design because of the reference to "from a safety and functional point of view"....

"You state that my instances of accidental discharges by other types of firearms are “anecdotal.†It would appear from the same memo that you posted that so were many of the instances involving Remington’s"

BTW,I did not post that document.

With the exception that I have reviewed "Gallery Reports", "Special Safety Audit Reports" and "Malfunction Index" records concerning inspections and audits and the results conducted on new firearms still inside the plant after assembly or rifles that were shipped outside but then returned from wholesalers from around the country still NIB by Remington's request to be tested internally....


"Hate Remington all you want.."

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!!, Please do not assume to know anything about me!

I do not hate Remington, but continue to support them in the most important way possible, with my hard earned money!!!
I purchased a M/700 heavy barreled 220 Swift 2 weeks ago to replace the Ruger M/77 I sold, and recently restocked one of my highly prized 40X rifles within the past month!!!!!!!

I purchase Remington pistol ammo for my primary carry handguns and I like the brass they produce for my rifle handloads!

Augustis ><>

Augustis,

Technically speaking the answer to your question is: “NONE.â€

I have stripped several Remington fire control units, and I have a schematic of one, and I don’t find a connector “spring†as a part of the Remington system.

The connector is held in position by the tip of trigger stop screw (a non-resilient form of mounting) which passes through a hole in the connector to contact the trigger body, and there is no up and down movement possible. The connector is rotated forward out from under the sear ledge by the action of pulling the trigger to the rear. The mainspring has absolutely no effect on any movement of the connector or the trigger.

quote:

‘The Bolt Action’ by Stuart Otteson. (a book which many experts in the ‘gun world’ have acclaimed as being about the most searching and precise analysis of the subject that has ever been written)

“A bolt-sleeve mounted safety lacks a precise relationship with the cocking piece. While physically adjacent, relative positioning between the two depends on too many intermediate parts and dimensions (safety/bolt sleeve, bolt sleeve/bolt, bolt/receiver, receiver/trigger, and finally, trigger/cocking piece). Thus, although only a few thousandths cam-back is actually required, many times that is used to assure functioning with all tolerances.

Because the Remington safety, on the other hand, pivots directly on the trigger housing, and operates on the sear, all critical locating holes are drilled on the same part, VIRTUALLY eliminating tolerance errors.â€

"Thus, although only a few thousandths cam-back is actually required, many times that is used to assure functioning with all tolerances."

Problem Solved!

"Because the Remington safety, on the other hand, pivots directly on the trigger housing, and operates on the sear, all critical locating holes are drilled on the same part, VIRTUALLY eliminating tolerance errors"

Did Mr. Otteson take into account the slip fit of the connector on the trigger body which could possibly create an "Interference" (Which I address later in my post) which could potentially allow the vertical lift of the connector to exceed the lift of the sear safety cam with the safety in the on safe position....

...A tolerance buildup or stack up condition!

Jan. 19, 1977

"Fire Control Design Considerations" "Bolt Action Rifles

Fire controls have many interacting parts, and there function requires minimum part movement. Because of this, tolerance buildup problems can be solved in a variety of ways:

1) Adjust tolerance buildup out by screw adjustment, bending swaging or filing.

2) Have several parts sizes in inventory for a selective fit.

3) Eliminate the tolerance buildup by performing a manufacturing operation during final assembly. For instance, a critical hole could be drilled during assembly up to that point as a fixture.
(Note from me: fire controls are assembled by sub assemblers and furnished to final assemblers who put all the components together)

4) Design parts which can move a lot, to move even more to take up tolerance buildups.

5) Parts whose function is not critical to safety can be tolerance statistically.....

The document goes on to describe the function of various safety designs, but the author says under this heading:

"Blocked Trigger Safety
This safety blocks the movement of the trigger , the trigger in turn blocks the movement of the sear which blocks the firing pin. When the safety is disengaged the trigger may be pulled to fire the rifle. In my opinion this is the ultimate safety because it blocks all of the functions required to fire the rifle"

but goes on to say...

"This type of safety will not work on a target type trigger because the sear engagement might be adjusted too fine for the tolerance in the safety. Then the rifle could be fired with the safety on"

He also describes the function of the striker block safety and goes on to say...

"A binding trigger will also cause a rifle with this type of safety to fire "off" safe"
(Note: the quotation marks are included in the report next to the word "off")

"Initiated Date Feb .2, 1973 Process Record Change Authorization" Remington Arms Company

" M/700 Final Assembly

Add element to final inspection to check for possible connector - sear interference.
At leased twenty in 1972, and 4 so far in 1973. Customer complaints including one personal injury are attributed to this interference"

This was recorded as a "Permanent Change"

These engineers that were employed by Remington that generated these reports certainly did not get the notoriety as some other people who's work was published, but I will honestly say I have learned so much more about firearms in general than could possibly be learned from a fair share of recognized authorities, especially today....


Augustis ><>

Augustis,

I admire your love of research...but based on many of your statements I would respectfully suggest that you spend a bit of that time and actually take apart a Remington trigger so you can see for yourself how the parts interact and what they can and cannot do.

The infamous connector is absolutely nothing more than a cheaper and easier way of manufacturing because it removes the steps necessary to harden and fit triggers and sears to each other. It literally fits right over the trigger body and is held in place by the tip of the trigger stop adjustment screw as well as a 90 degree lip on both ends that fit over the top and bottom of the trigger body.

I’ve never tried it, but I would assume that you could silver solder the two pieces together if you wanted to and the result would be pretty much the same thing, only it would be one piece instead of two pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I’ve never tried it, but I would assume that you could silver solder the two pieces together if you wanted to and the result would be pretty much the same thing, only it would be one piece instead of two pieces.

Rick, I use to epoxy the connector to the lever but now I drill and tap the lever, where the little over travel screw hole is on the connector, for a 2x56 screw, and with a little extreme loctite, screw the two together. Problem solved...

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I’ve never tried it, but I would assume that you could silver solder the two pieces together if you wanted to and the result would be pretty much the same thing, only it would be one piece instead of two pieces.

Rick, I use to epoxy the connector to the lever but now I drill and tap the lever, where the little over travel screw hole is on the connector, for a 2x56 screw, and with a little extreme loctite, screw the two together. Problem solved...

As I mentioned before, this is an excellent fix. (But a fix is only needed if there is a problem as the gun comes from the factory...)

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I’ve never tried it, but I would assume that you could silver solder the two pieces together if you wanted to and the result would be pretty much the same thing, only it would be one piece instead of two pieces.

Rick, I use to epoxy the connector to the lever but now I drill and tap the lever, where the little over travel screw hole is on the connector, for a 2x56 screw, and with a little extreme loctite, screw the two together. Problem solved...

Sounds logical to me.

quote:

I admire your love of research

Rick
It is my love of history, research and firearms ;o)

I am done writing tonight, I have felt overwhelmed all day and my eyes have grown tired. Talk to you and the others tomorrow... Good night.

Sincerely Yours, Augustis ><>

Augustis,

The placement of the safety and the trigger on a parallel plane has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you have continued to make about the “two-piece†trigger design of the Remingtons.

Any rifle with a top, side mounted safety that is pushed forward to take the weapon off safe has this condition present, and one must be careful where the trigger finger is when pushing forward on the safety since the natural act of pushing forward with the thumb causes the trigger finger to move in the opposite direction due to body mechanics.

Like I said though...this has nothing to do with your argument, and it is also not unique to Remington rifles or their factory triggers.

Quote:

"Thus, although only a few thousandths cam-back is actually required, many times that is used to assure functioning with all tolerances."
Problem Solved!

Yeah, right – all that is required is to ensure that there is no significant tolerance stack-up in the sizes and fit of trigger/sear/receiver/bolt/bolt sleeve/safety catch. Six separately fitting parts. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that this is simpler and more positive than controlling tolerance stack-up in the Remington trigger, wherein there are only two critical fittings relating to operation of the safety, namely safety cam/sear, and sear/connector, and all parts are contained in a single housing? If you really are suggesting this, then I would have to ask – in all seriousness – what planet you are on.

Quote:
Did Mr. Otteson take into account the slip fit of the connector on the trigger body which could possibly create an "Interference" (Which I address later in my post) which could potentially allow the vertical lift of the connector to exceed the lift of the sear safety cam with the safety in the on safe position....

...A tolerance buildup or stack up condition!


I can’t find any reference to connector ‘slip’ in any of Otteson’s writings that I have.

Before you get yourself all excited and triumphant over this ‘tolerance buildup or stack up condition’ let us take a close look at the potential for it to significantly affect anything. Up and down movement of the connector relative to the trigger is strictly limited by the bent-back flanges at top and bottom, and by the shank of the over-travel screw which fits through a hole in the connector. I don’t currently own any Rem 700 rifles, but from what I remember of those that I have owned, the amount of possible up and down movement of the connector was in the order of only a few thou.

As you are probably aware, in the original design of this trigger unit, there was no bent-back flange at the bottom of the connector. I don’t know when the flange was added, but I have no doubt whatever that the purpose of it was to limit any possible upward movement of the connector relative to the trigger. Probably to ensure that no binding of the connector on the over-travel screw occurred on firing, and also to ensure that the top flange of the connector could not contact the sear when the safety catch was applied.

When the rifle is cocked, the sear ledge will bear on the top flange of the connector, pressing it downwards as far as it can go. Sure, this pressure will be removed when the safety catch is applied, but friction between the trigger piece and the connector will do a lot to keep it in the same position. In all the Remington 700 triggers I have seen with their insides out, the surfaces of the front face of the trigger pieces and the inner faces of the connectors have not been any too smooth. The coefficient of friction between them, combined with a normal force of 2 or 3 pounds or more (coming from the trigger weight spring) means that causing ‘slippage’ between then would require quite a lot of force. My memory of mechanics is too rusty now for me to recall how to calculate it. Maybe if one was to cock the rifle, apply the safety catch, hold the rifle upside down in a horizontal position and rap it sharply with a hammer, the connector might slip.

Perhaps you could try this with one of your rifles, and tell us the results?

Quote:
The document goes on to describe the function of various safety designs, but the author says under this heading:

"Blocked Trigger Safety
This safety blocks the movement of the trigger, the trigger in turn blocks the movement of the sear which blocks the firing pin. When the safety is disengaged the trigger may be pulled to fire the rifle. In my opinion this is the ultimate safety because it blocks all of the functions required to fire the rifle"


This statement is bloody incredible, and I reckon it will cause a lot more people than just me to sit up and blink!!!

So rifles such as the Remington 788 and have the ultimate in good safety catches, and by inference, rifles such as the Mauser 98 and the Winchester 70 (firing pin blocking types) are the worst? C’mon – who is this guy trying to kid???

How safe would the Remington 700 be with just the trigger piece alone blocked? If the 10 or 15 thou or so of engagement between the connector and the sear failed for any reason, the rifle would fire with the safety catch still engaged. At least with the current sear blocking system, an engagement of four or five times that amount (between sear and striker) would have to fail before the firing pin could fall.

quote:

The infamous connector is absolutely nothing more than a cheaper and easier way of manufacturing because it removes the steps necessary to harden and fit triggers and sears to each other.

Not quite so. The patent application for the Remington 700 fire control system details the true reasons for it, in a somewhat laborious manner. Otteson, in his book 'The Bolt Action', says essentially the same things in a much simpler and more succinct style. Rather than try to improve on his description, I’ll quote it verbatim, and hope I am not committing some heinous breach of copyright.

Quote:
“Our sample rifle had a 3lb. and 0.012in. letoff, with 0.017in. overtravel, exceptional performance for an out-of-the-box standard grade rifle.

The secret to this level of performance in a reasonable-cost assembly primarily involves a unique connector piece resiliently mounted on the trigger. Normally, unless the trigger ledge is perfectly sharp and true – an almost impossible thing to both produce and retain in service – the sear begins breaking before the edges are fully clear, resulting in a spongy and imprecise release. The Remington trigger connector, a hardened steel strip sandwiched between the trigger and sear, allows precise trigger function without perfect surfaces and a sharp and clean release without perceptible overtravel.

The trigger connector is held against the trigger piece by a small spring and thus is capable of moving forward separately. Trigger pull displaces the connector until the sear begins breaking downward. The overtravel-stop pin then blocks the trigger, while the connector, which has a small clearance hole, continues forward until completely out of the sear’s path.

(Some historical background omitted)

The resilient-mounted connector has added purpose in this particular Remington trigger. Unlike most more recent swing-down designs, the Model 700 sear pivots at the front. It thus swings forward as it drops, requiring an increasing clearance. Were it not for the connector piece, added trigger movement would be required on that account for a clean release.â€
End of quote.

So that was the design philosophy behind the Model 700 trigger. I’m not sure that I totally agree with the second sentence of the second paragraph of the quote, but for a moderate-cost, mass-production item, perhaps they are correct. That’s what Mike Walker and Phillip Haskell said in their patent application, anyway, and what they told Stuart Otteson.

I see one of the Greatest Trigger EXPERTS of all time(in his own mind) has joined the argument with his normal lack of understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by brad:
...All designs have the potential to fail because they're mechanical. Some are more prone than others because of their very DESIGN... why is that so hard to understand?

Some people just don't want to understand.

quote:

The M70 trigger is much safer because of its simpler design...

Apparently bradly has trouble erasing error in his memory. Fortunately for all of those who are convinced bradly knows what he is talking about, we have a thread available for you to view that should completely clear up that illusion.

Here is where bradly expounds on what an outstanding Trigger is in the M70 and Matt Williams simply states the "facts", which as usual, blows bradley completely out of the water:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp...1043/m/183105923/p/1
---

In that thread you will also find my most favorite bradley quote:

quote:

Originally posted by bradly:
C'Mon now Matt, don't go muddying-up this thread with facts...

---

Life is w-a-y tooooooo short to be flim-flammed into wasting money on a constantly warping piece of Termite Food for a stock.

It is impossible to "pretty" them to death.

Hey RemHore, never claimed "expert" status (unlike you)... funny, I KNEW you couldn't intelligently argue any of Augustis' points and figured I'd bear the brunt of another of your childish rants... no worries, I've big shoulders and solid mental health unlike you.

Make it your best day,

Brad

quote:

The placement of the safety and the trigger on a parallel plane has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you have continued to make about the “two-piece†trigger design of the Remingtons.

Any rifle with a top, side mounted safety that is pushed forward to take the weapon off safe has this condition present, and one must be careful where the trigger finger is when pushing forward on the safety since the natural act of pushing forward with the thumb causes the trigger finger to move in the opposite direction due to body mechanics.

"Before you get yourself all excited and triumphant over this ‘tolerance buildup or stack up condition’ let us take a close look at the potential for it to significantly affect anything. Up and down movement of the connector relative to the trigger is strictly limited by the bent-back flanges at top and bottom, and by the shank of the over-travel screw which fits through a hole in the connector. I don’t currently own any Rem 700 rifles, but from what I remember of those that I have owned, the amount of possible up and down movement of the connector was in the order of only a few thou."

There is no excitement or feeling of being triumphant on my part because I already know I am correct on this issue of tolerance stack up and the past issues with regard to the vertical rise of the trigger connector on the trigger body.... I feel nothing what so ever with the exception of a splitting headache from sitting in front of this computer!

The bend at the bottom of the connector is called the "Stabilizing Leg" From process and assembly records it becomes evident that engineering has reduced the amount of slip fit through the years as well as a modification to the cam lobe on the safety cam to form dimensional changes to the design to ensure adequate sear safety cam lift to prevent "interference" of the 2 mating surfaces with the safety in the "On" safe position....

"As you are probably aware, in the original design of this trigger unit, there was no bent-back flange at the bottom of the connector."

Yes sir I am, the change came in either 1953 or 1955, I can not exactly remember but I could look it up for you if it matters?

"Not quite so. The patent application for the Remington 700 fire control system details the true reasons for it, in a somewhat laborious manner. Otteson, in his book 'The Bolt Action', says essentially the same things in a much simpler and more succinct style. Rather than try to improve on his description, I’ll quote it verbatim, and hope I am not committing some heinous breach of copyright."

"That’s what Mike Walker and Phillip Haskell said in their patent application, anyway, and what they told Stuart Otteson."

Mr. Haskell's part in this was the 2 piece sear and safety cam design.... Did you know the M/721 rifles were already in the warehouse when a possible patent infringement was discovered which necessitated the change to the 2 piece design?

"Patent Date July 11,1950, Patent #2,514,981"

What does Mr. Otteson say about this claim in the patent in his book, if any reference is indeed made?

"The value of any safety is proportional to the positiveness of its action. To this end we have found it to be essential that the safety means be so arranged that an inadvertent operation of the trigger while the safety is in "Safe" position will not condition the arm to fire upon release of the safety" (End Quote)

With this claim made in the patent, what do you think the designing engineers already knew, or potentially suspected?

WOW, THE "TRICK CONDITION", Which did in fact manifest itself and came to Remingtons attention in the early to mid 70s!!!!! The term for this malfunction was termed (FSR) "Fire On Safety Release" also so named in the 70s.

Could this actually be possible or purely coincidental?

What were the functional difference with regard to the safety between the M/721 and the M/725, BTW the M/725 was Wayne Leeks pet project...

"Yeah, right – all that is required is to ensure that there is no significant tolerance stack-up in the sizes and fit of trigger/sear/receiver/bolt/bolt sleeve/safety catch. Six separately fitting parts. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that this is simpler and more positive than controlling tolerance stack-up in the Remington trigger, wherein there are only two critical fittings relating to operation of the safety, namely safety cam/sear, and sear/connector, and all parts are contained in a single housing? If you really are suggesting this, then I would have to ask – in all seriousness – what planet you are on."

But you have already stated:

"Because the Remington safety, on the other hand, pivots directly on the trigger housing, and operates on the sear, all critical locating holes are drilled on the same part, VIRTUALLY eliminating tolerance errors"

Sir, is this your opinion, I do not care what Mr. Otteson says about the Walker Fire Control, you are very bright as is Rick and it is my intent to attempt to spur thought....

While I am at work and of course if anybody is actually interested in this other than to debate for the sake of debate, Research the Mohawk 600 recall and then we will discuss the slip fit of the connectors ability to exceed the sear safety cam lift with the safety in the on safe position, please also read the content of the PRCA document I copied to my post that discusses "Interference".

Rick:

"The placement of the safety and the trigger on a parallel plane has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you have continued to make about the “two-piece†trigger design of the Remingtons.

"Any rifle with a top, side mounted safety that is pushed forward to take the weapon off safe has this condition present, and one must be careful where the trigger finger is when pushing forward on the safety since the natural act of pushing forward with the thumb causes the trigger finger to move in the opposite direction due to body mechanics."

You are of course absolutely correct and I could not have said it better myself!!!

Now that I have established for myself you are exceptionally bright and appear sincere in your logic I will continue to invest my valuable time into this thread for another short period of time....

Why would Wayne Leek make such a statement? Read the "Subject" heading again, please...

I am baffled that you did not jump on me concerning this statement I made:

"In a "Confidential Report" dated Jan. 15, 1982 he discusses the "Negative Features" of the M/700 CF Rifle.

I call your attention to line 4 and 6....

That is about as close as I can come to answering your question."



Sincerely, Augustis ><>

Augustis,

I too enjoy spurring people (including myself) to use the old brain-housing group for its intended purpose...and I admire all of you who have taken the time and effort to research the hell out of this topic.

My argument comes when evidence that conflicts with your theory is ignored as being nothing but corporate propaganda...and all evidence that supports your preconceived theory is accepted without any question at all.

Also, if one takes the time to speak to a professional liability lawyer one will find that the words and actions of Remington are not at all out of the ordinary when it comes to liability suits against their product. Virtually ALL liability suits that are settled out of court by the parties have provisions in the settlements that seal the records and evidence. If this wasn’t done the companies involved would literally be supplying every ambulance-chasing lawyer in the country with the means to file never ending law suits in order to get their “cut-of-the-pie.â€

In order to prevent law suits every manufacturer of firearms must at some point inform consumers that the “safety†on their rifles should not be totally relied upon to prevent the weapon from firing. The moment a manufacturer claimed that their rifles were 100% safe, liability lawyers would start salivating.

Courtroom Scenario: “So Mr. Riflemaker, would it be safe for someone to point one of your rifles at another person as long as the safety was engaged? No??????? Well, ladies and gentleman of the jury, Mr. Riflemaker has just told you that his safety isn’t really safe hasn’t he?â€

Start down that path and it becomes a case where there aren’t any “right†answers that won’t make someone look like an idiot to a jury...especially a jury of people who probably have very little understanding of firearms.

Redrover

After reading the link provided by Jaywalker I see you have already met my good friend "JB" (Jack Belk) and have already learned the basic protocol for the "Screw Driver Test" which was listed as an internal "Critical Function Test" on the M/700 series rifles which I believe was adopted in 1974 or 1975 in "the final assembly process"....

To refresh your memory....

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp.../r/62510674#62510674


Are we going to continue the discussion concerning tolerance stack up as it relates to the vertical rise of the connector on the trigger body and the potential consequences of an "Interference" condition that ensues in the event this phenomenon occurs?

So you understand, Jacks background is mechanical and mine is historical, that is why I do not mind mixing words of historical significance and my research with a great writer and mind like Mr. Otteson, you rely on his writing and I will continue to rely on the engineers and designers internal memo's and reports generated while employed by Remington Arms Company which directly bears on this subject.

I enjoy your tough questions as well as Ricks, you are challenging me to dig deep into the well of my historical research as well as my understanding of this issue...



Malm

You were previously "<G.Malmborg>" in the above link, JB also references "FBO" in a post or two in the link provided above to refresh you memory....

I very much enjoyed your post in the above mentioned link based off of your personal experience as a Smith.

Is this thread done, either way that's OK with me as I am sure all of us can find suitable ways to "Spend" our valuable spare time, The one thing in life money cannot buy, more time....

Augustis ><>

Redrover---

These are your questions to JB and his replies from the previous thread.

Augustis ><>

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.

So now we have the answer to those dangerously designed triggers.

Take parts that don’t fit correctly, jam a bunch of gunk into the housing...and if that doesn’t work, smack it around with a hammer for awhile and you “might†get the rifle to fire when you push the safety off! Oh...and don’t forget to point it at someone when you do that.

But Rick, how do we explain this happening during inspection procedures and in the gallery on NEW rifles still inside the plant during the production process, and do these inspected rifles have the potential to pass inside but then make it out, then subsequently fail in the hands of the consumers in the field?


Augustis ><>