quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
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.

That isn't even funny!

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
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.

That isn't even funny!

It’s at least as funny as some of the arguments I‘m hearing.

Rick

Maybe so, but kind of poor taste coming from a guy such as yourself.

Funny is when two folks use CBS and belk as "references" for firearms related issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:

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


Malm

You were previously "<G.Malmborg>" in the above link,

Guilty as charged...

quote:

JB also references "FBO" in a post or two in the link provided above to refresh you memory....

And that proves what???

quote:

Malm
Are you aware that brand new rifles inside the plant being inspected and tested during the course of manufacture have experienced the same malfunction you described in your post, 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"?

We can end this FBO discussion right here and now IF you will produce for me, factory documentation describing the FBO and how it occurs. And, if by some miracle you can, then please produce the documentation that shows that this is a design trait of the 700 trigger.

Before Christmas please...

Gentlemen:

I'm enjoying this "discussion" and trying hard to learn a little something. However, Rick, the statement "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...." is utter horseshit. You'd better drag out your kinesiology or arthrokinematics or physical therapy degree or tell me you were just making a funny.

Mike Kane, Physical Therapist

quote:

Originally posted by MKane160:
Gentlemen:

I'm enjoying this "discussion" and trying hard to learn a little something. However, Rick, the statement "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...." is utter horseshit. You'd better drag out your kinesiology or arthrokinematics or physical therapy degree or tell me you were just making a funny.

Mike Kane, Physical Therapist

Excuse me, but put your shooting hand in the position that it would be if holding a rifle, and lightly place the thumb of your other hand against your trigger finger as if it were a trigger. Now...push forward with your shooting hand thumb as if pushing off a safety and see what you feel pressing back against the other thumb.

Malm

If the "FBC" and "FSR" malfunction is old news to you, do you believe it actually happens inside the plant on newly manufactured rifles as well as in the field in the hands of the public on factory original well maintained rifles or newly purchased rifles as well?

Nobody seems to want to answer this question for me?

Augustis ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:
Malm

If the "FBC" and "FSR" malfunction is old news to you, do you believe it actually happens inside the plant on newly manufactured rifles as well as in the field in the hands of the public on factory original well maintained rifles or newly purchased rifles as well?

Nobody seems to want to answer this question for me?

Augustis ><>

If these types of things didn’t happen there would be no such job as “inspector†at factories.

Because a design requires close and proper fitting of its parts does not automatically mean that the design itself is flawed.

All of us have agreed that Remington, as well as most other mass producers of products, has sloppy workmanship exhibited by some of their products on occasion. However, that is totally separate from saying that the design of their product is faulty.

I hope the formatting of all the bits that I am trying to quote from various places turns out in a comprehensible manner - if it doesn't, well - I'm sorry, but I tried. (Is there a preview option hidden somewhere?? There used to be one, but I can't find it now)

'Augustus'

quote:

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?

I was actually intending to drop out of this debate, because I feel a sense of utter futility in continuing to participate in it. In fact I am starting to kick myself for getting involved in the first place, because I really had a pretty good idea of how it would all turn out. I doubt that you, or anyone else who supports your views, will ever accept any verdict on the Rem 700 trigger other than that it is an absolute PoS, a lousy design, badly made.

My view of it? Well, I don’t think the basic design is too bad, but if even only some of the stories of failures we hear are true, certain tool-setters and quality control people at Remington deserve to have their arses kicked black and blue! I don’t have a real stake in the matter, though in as much that I don’t presently own any Remington rifles, and maybe never will again. If I do decide to acquire some in the future, the reliability - or lack of it - of the safety catches is not going to worry me, because I never, EVER, use them!!! When I am hunting, my chamber is empty most of the time. Only when I am closing in on an animal do I put a cartridge ‘up the spout’ and then I leave the bolt handle raised until I am ready to shoot.

Some of you reading this may hoot in derision, but I simply don’t care about that. It’s the procedure I, and all the people I have hunted with over the last forty five years, are unanimously agreed on following, and we are too old to change now. Yes, we might occasionally miss a chance of a shot because we haven’t got our chambers loaded at all times, but we are prepared to live with that. There has never been an AD in any hunting party I have been in, and we intend to keep it that way.

OK, having got that off my chest, and now being in writing mode, I’ll make a last few responses to some of the points ‘Augustus’ has raised.

Quote: (RR quoting from Otteson)
"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"
Quote: ( comment by Augustus')
Sir, is this your opinion, I do not care what Mr. Otteson says about the Walker Fire Control …

I agree entirely with the above statement of Otteson’s. It should be obvious to anyone with any understanding of engineering that it is easier to control tolerance stack-up in a trigger housing mounted sear-blocking type of safety catch than in a bolt sleeve mounted firing pin blocking type, for reasons already stated. It is also blindingly obvious that the finished product meeting required specifications depends on the skill (and conscience) of the person making it, and the QC people doing the checking – matters which are not so easily quantified. Whether Remington are better or worse than other arms manufacturers in this regard, I wouldn’t know. Probably varies over the years in all companies, with changes of personnel, management practises, and financial pressures.

QuoteAugustus)
To refresh your memory....

I remember what I wrote, in fact I looked at it again a few days ago – which might account for the use of some similar wording in what I have written in this discussion. Frankly, I felt that Mr Belk was being quite evasive in some of his replies – or lack of them - to my questions, and I think you are too, at times.

Here, for example, is what I consider to be one of the most crucial questions:

Quote:
Question: (RedRover to J Belk, 2003)

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!)

(Added note by RR, for clarity: I was referring here to sear/connector engagement significantly reduced by foreign matter becoming lodged between the face of the trigger and the connector)

Reply: (J Belk)
Exactly!!!


Pretty informative reply, eh? I started to write another lot of questions to direct to Mr Belk, as per his invitation, but before I finished doing so it became apparent that he had rolled his swag and departed into the sunset, and we would not be seeing him again on AR, nor any other forum. Since then (March 2003) nobody – and I mean NOBODY – has addressed this issue in any of the numerous debate on the subject of Rem 700 that I have seen take place on various forums. So how some dirt in the works can cause FOSR without ANY forward indications of trouble appearing is still something of a mystery to me.

I can easily understand how FOSR occurs if applying the safety catch fails to lift the sear clear of the connector, due to faulty manufacture, or tolerance stack-up. (which is really just a special case of faulty manufacture) But if the above situation DOES apply, why doesn’t the owner of the rifle become aware of it well before an AD occurs in the field, and somebody gets a bullet in them?

Don’t rifle owners ever check the functioning of their safety catches on an empty chamber before going afield??? Maybe some don’t – God help us all!

quote:

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 don’t much rely on Otteson’s writings on this particular subject, though I have certainly found them hugely helpful and informative on others. The operating principles of the 700 trigger were quite clear in my mind long before ‘The Bolt Action’ was even published. I bought my first Rem 700 about 1967, and I was seriously puzzled by the split, two-piece sear. I was fairly young and ‘green’ then, but I nonetheless took the whole trigger unit apart to find out exactly what was in there. (curiosity worse than a cat!) I still couldn’t see any real purpose to the split sear, so I took it all – in bits – around to my gunsmith friend to see what he thought. His best guess was the economy of using stamped out sheet metal parts, though he didn’t think it was a very convincing reason. (it was years later that we learned about the possible patent infringement issue)

Anyway, we picked over and discussed the thing at some length, after which I knew quite well how it was all supposed to work. (and did) I went home and re-assembled it, adjusted the trigger to my liking, used the rifle for a year or two, then sold it because I needed the money to help pay for a house. About 25 years later, I happened to meet the man I sold it to – he told me that it was still his Number 1 hunting rifle, and it had never missed a beat.

Regarding your quote from the Remington trigger patent:

I think you are playing with words again. Yes, what you quoted IS verbatim from the ‘opening statement’ of the patent claim. To suggest, as you appear to be doing, that they were applying for a patent for a safety catch system which they were saying in the same breath was UNSAFE, is quite ridiculous.

They were simply acknowledging the obvious fact that if the safety failed to lift the sear off the connector (because of some defect) and then the trigger was pulled, the rifle would fire when safety catch was released. The so-called ‘trick condition’. Of course they were aware of that possibility. Peter-Paul Mauser undoubtedly knew full well that if the safety catch of his M98 did not retract the striker off the sear face, and the trigger was pulled, that rifle would also fire when the safety catch was released.

Though they may exist, I cannot think of any bolt action rifles which have either a firing pin blocking or a sear blocking safety catches which cannot be ‘tricked’ if applying the safety catch does not allow the trigger to re-set. In the case of a typical two lever, over-ride type of unit, this means that on applying the safety catch, the trigger lever and the sear must separate at least fractionally at the engagement point, allowing the trigger weight spring to push the trigger fully up against its engagement stop.

I feel this sense of futility coming on again, so I’m going to stop writing here. I hope somebody has learned something from it, even if no one has changed their mind about whether the Remington 700 trigger/safety catch system is good, bad or average.

quote:

Originally posted by redrover:
...I think you are playing with words again.

Hey Redrover, If you include belk in the "playing with words", that really explains why I've found it not worth the time to try and discuss the issue with AUGUSTIS><>. Of course, it is obvious AUGUSTIS><> is simply quoting belk in a lot of places and it becomes illogical because neither of them really has an idea at all about what they are even arguing about.

quote:

... To suggest, as you appear to be doing, that they were applying for a patent for a safety catch system which they were saying in the same breath was UNSAFE, is quite ridiculous....

"Quite ridiculous" can be applied to 99% of anything coming from them. Gets back to "a complete lack of understanding" and "clinton spinning" the actual facts.

The further you all get into the argument with AUGUSTIS><> and belk, you will realize their actual knowledge concerning the Trigger Mechanism and it's function are simply skewed fabrications of facts. belk knows as little about Mechanical Design as clinton knows about ethics.

No doubt at all, the excellent, Totally Safe, and fastest factory Trigger design comes on every Remington rifle as Standard Equipment.

quote:

Hey Redrover, If you include belk in the "playing with words", that really explains why I've found it not worth the time to try and discuss the issue with AUGUSTIS><>. Of course, it is obvious AUGUSTIS><> is simply quoting belk in a lot of places and it becomes illogical because neither of them really has an idea at all about what they are even arguing about.

Hot Core

It has always been about FIREARM SAFETY and EDUCATION, In an attempt to prevent possible injury and death, anytime any rifle fires without the firearm handler intending it to do so creates an un-necessary risk.


I will admit Redrover is absolutely brilliant IMO and his posts a joy to read because he spurs though with merit and valid points, even though we may agree on some aspects or not even remotely agree still on others, this man has integrity and
honor and my utter respect!!!!!

If we agree or not its OK, that is human nature because none of this is personal, but simply differing opinions possibly based off different content in the course of study that shapes those differing opinions....


Closing remarks:

This thread is about expired because the buzzards are circling....

Rick, Redrover, thank you for the challenges and your sincere input and contribution to this thread, I possibly have one more post to make concerning some of the comments made by Redrover, after I digest them and after I locate and review a few records ...


Augustis ><>