Sopposedly Benneli (sp) is buying them.

BUT this whole rumor came from the rocket scientist that handed my gunsmith a rifle. The gunsmith marked it down in the book and picked it up to go to the safe. When he did he hit the trigger and it went off. Left a nice little pock mark in the concrete wall. luckily it was a 22rf. He said it was the second loaded rifle he had gotten this month.

He now has a sign for morons posted on the door. NO LOADED FIREARMS IN STORE.

I would find another gunsmith. Guns 101 assume all guns are loaded. I don't even shop at dealers who don't break open guns prior to handing them off the shelf. And to pull the trigger on a gun with out checking it yourself....

Boy, I agree with bad_karma.

You would have thought the first time would have cured this idiot of not checking the weapons people bring in.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Boy, I agree with bad_karma.

You would have thought the first time would have cured this idiot of not checking the weapons people bring in.

Actually the one that went off was the first. Anyway he stated the fact that it was as much his fault as anyones, and that 20 in the business with not one loaded rifle in the shop had made him a little sloppy.

That accident could have killed someone. It's each persons responsibility to check every firearm.

Neither person involved in that accident looks good.

quote:

Originally posted by ElCaballero:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Boy, I agree with bad_karma.

You would have thought the first time would have cured this idiot of not checking the weapons people bring in.

Actually the one that went off was the first. Anyway he stated the fact that it was as much his fault as anyones, and that 20 in the business with not one loaded rifle in the shop had made him a little sloppy.

I must have misread your post, because I thought you said that he said that this was the second loaded rifle he got handed in one month.

Perhaps this one was the first to “go off†but he still had been handed a loaded firearm before and I would think he would make an effort to check them all after that.

Sorry I miss stated Rick. The one that went off was the first one in 20 years of business that ever handed to him in his store loaded. Maybe I have it right this time.

quote:

Originally posted by ElCaballero:
Sopposedly Benneli (sp) is buying them.

BUT this whole rumor came from the rocket scientist that handed my gunsmith a rifle. The gunsmith marked it down in the book and picked it up to go to the safe. When he did he hit the trigger and it went off. Left a nice little pock mark in the concrete wall. luckily it was a 22rf. He said it was the second loaded rifle he had gotten this month.

He now has a sign for morons posted on the door. NO LOADED FIREARMS IN STORE.

El Cabellero, Your gun plumber broke one of the Cardinal rules of fire arms safety. ALL GUNS ARE LOADED UNTIL YOU OPEN THE ACTION YOURSELF AND SEE TO IT THAT IT IS INDEED EMPTY. Those are good words to live by(survive by). If the gun plumber did what he was supposed to his wall would not have a pock mark and his and all the lives around him at the time would not have been jeoperdised. That was a valuable lesson. Forget the empty gun sign, check all firearms yourself. My son learned this rule when he was 7 yrs. old and he's still alive because of it.

I knew to always check for myself at six years old.

Hog Killer

WOW,
I don't know any gunsmith that I'd want to work on my guns that doesn't open the bolt immediately when he get a gun in to work on.
And, what's this bit about some "rocket scientist" bringing in a loaded gun? Do you know for a fact that the guy was a "rocket scientist"? Why not just say someone brought in a loaded gun.
Your slam on a segment of society isn't well received.
Don

quote:

Sopposedly Benneli (sp) is buying them

How can Benelli buy Remington when Benelli is part of the Beretta group. Does it really mean the Beretta will take over Remington? Maybe this is just another vicious rumor...

I taught my sons this little acronym:
"Look Ma, Trains and Airplanes."

Look = loaded, treat every gun as if it were

Ma = muzzle, keep it pointed in a safe direction

Trains = trigger, keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you're ready to fire

Airplane = action, open it before you hand the gun to someone or when you receive/pick up a gun

quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
WOW,
I don't know any gunsmith that I'd want to work on my guns that doesn't open the bolt immediately when he get a gun in to work on.
And, what's this bit about some "rocket scientist" bringing in a loaded gun? Do you know for a fact that the guy was a "rocket scientist"? Why not just say someone brought in a loaded gun.
Your slam on a segment of society isn't well received.
Don

The more I think about it I agree with everybody here.

Don,
I soppose you are infact a rocket scientest that gets his little feelings hurt should someone say something that might be derogatory. Grow some skin. This term has been used for years. It means that the guy was dumb. It is called sarcasm. It is not a dig on rocket scientists. It was a dig on the moron that brought a loaded rifle into a building without so much as the safety on. The statement could be used also for the gunsmith that didn't check the chamber.

quote:

Originally posted by ElCaballero:

quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
WOW,
I don't know any gunsmith that I'd want to work on my guns that doesn't open the bolt immediately when he get a gun in to work on.
And, what's this bit about some "rocket scientist" bringing in a loaded gun? Do you know for a fact that the guy was a "rocket scientist"? Why not just say someone brought in a loaded gun.
Your slam on a segment of society isn't well received.
Don

The more I think about it I agree with everybody here.

Don,
I soppose you are infact a rocket scientest that gets his little feelings hurt should someone say something that might be derogatory. Grow some skin. This term has been used for years. It means that the guy was dumb. It is called sarcasm. It is not a dig on rocket scientists. It was a dig on the moron that brought a loaded rifle into a building without so much as the safety on. The statement could be used also for the gunsmith that didn't check the chamber.

Bull Shit.
This is all about you making yourself superior to anyone you want to use for that purpose.
Your original post about "some dumb rocket scientist brought in a loaded rifle" doesn't cut it, as it still comes out the same. It's all about you not being dumb enough to do some stupid thing like that, but "some dumb rocket scientist" would. You can substitute any profession you want, and it's all the same.. You had a choice when you responded. You could have said; hey, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. But, you didn't. You came back with some bull shit like you did. You got one foot in youy mouth, now you want the other one in with it.
You see, you don't get to walk through life slamming anyone and everyone you want in this situation of anononimity. You think it's cute to slam some people and the say, it's been going on for years... Like , that makes it ok.
Then you use the ploy, "the more I think about it, the more I agree with everyone else here" BULL SHIT
Grow up
Don

For a rocket scientist, you’re pretty dense. If anything, the using of the term “rocket scientist†is or should be flattering to rocket scientists. It is sarcasm. It’s like calling someone who does something stupid a “geniusâ€. Why you would get upset over that is beyond me but then again, I’m not a rocket scientist.

quote:

Originally posted by billhilly66:
For a rocket scientist, you’re pretty dense. If anything, the using of the term “rocket scientist†is or should be flattering to rocket scientists. It is sarcasm. It’s like calling someone who does something stupid a “geniusâ€. Why you would get upset over that is beyond me but then again, I’m not a rocket scientist.

Thank you billhilly. I was beginning to wonder if I need to just go back to the rock I climbed out from under.

Back to the point of this. After the original question found here 3507 views and 99 responses. Nobody has been able to confirm this story that was originally told by a moron and then retold by a gunsmith THAT AIN'T NO ROCKET SCIENTEST HIMSELF (is that better). So my conclusion is that it is not so.

For what it's worth, I heard the same rumor re Beretta buying Remington close to a year ago. However, "my" rumor differed in that it had the US government intervening, designating Remington a strategic industry and preventing a foreign buyout.

Source: a gun dealer on Long Island.

quote:

Originally posted by whiteeagle:
For what it's worth, I heard the same rumor re Beretta buying Remington close to a year ago. However, "my" rumor differed in that it had the US government intervening, designating Remington a strategic industry and preventing a foreign buyout.

Source: a gun dealer on Long Island.

One would think a builder of tanks for the US Army would also be a "strategic" industry.....But Mercedes still bought Chrysler.

Some rumors are very easy to not believe.

Does Chrysler build tanks? I know they build them in Lima, Ohio, but I thought that was a "GOCO," government Owned contractor Operated, plant.

Nothing to do with rifles; I'm just curious.

Jaywalker

Beretta does seem to be buying everything in sight lately, huh? Burris, Sako, Tikka ... probably a bunch more that I'm unaware of too.

Redial

You can be guaranteed of one thing if Beretta does buy them and that an almost immediate couple of hundred dollar increase. Goodness gracious look at what Tikka/Tacos are selling for ?

Hell I heard at the barber shop that Beeman was the one who was buying Remington.

I was at the tire shop and heard Martha Stewart bought Remington

Remington Arms Company, Inc. - Investor Relations
http://www.remington.com/aboutus/investor

-Bob F.

Who or is it whom owns Remington now?

quote:

Originally posted by DFC:
Who or is it whom owns Remington now?

It’s “whoâ€...and I believe they are owned by their stock holders.

A little more fuel for the fire...Remington was supposed to be as close to filing Chapter 11 as last Friday. My source said only a sale would prevent it from hapening sometime very soon if not then.

ATK wants to buy them. Don't know about their ranking in the list of suiters.

The other interesting tid-bit was the Marines are a heartbeat away from adopting the 6.8 SPC. The have told ATK (and others) if they could get replacement uppers for the M-4 in volume they'd start right away. Seems our guys in Iraq are tired of needing 2-3 chest hits to put bad guys down.

Link to article



Troubles possible for Remington plant in Lonoke

Associated Press

Thu, Sep. 08, 2005

LONOKE, Ark. - North Carolina-based Remington Arms Co.'s chief executive has sent a letter to the company's 1,000 Lonoke employees saying the company's long-term survival could be in jeopardy because of pension plan problems.

"Our company is facing one of its biggest financial challenges of the past 25 years," chief executive Thomas Millner wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper of Little Rock.

Millner said the pension plan is receiving low interest rates and returns on its investments. He said the company is meeting its legal obligations regarding the plan. The Remington Arms pension plan covers all non-union employees hired before June 1996 and all union employees hired before September 1997.

The rifle and shotgun company's pension plans had assets of $109.6 million at the end of 2004, according to its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. By the end of that year the company had accumulated benefit obligations of $138.9 million, which benefit plan experts say indicates a shortfall of at least $29.3 million.

Charles Rink, manager of the Lonoke plant, said he has heard the shortfall could be more than $48 million. Millner said in his letter that the plan's multi-million dollar future liability could be beyond the company's ability to fund from its earnings.

Remington Arms had a net loss of $3.2 million in 2003 and $4 million last year after combined earnings of more than $53 million the three previous years. It's debt has grown from $157 million in 2000 to $203 million last year.

"The funding requirements of the pension plan have the long-term potential of affecting our survival," Rink said. "That's why we're looking at trying to be proactive and examining all alternatives to help protect what our employees have."

The Madison, N.C.-based company employs 2,400 people nationwide.

Link to article

Seems there are a number of large organizations experiencing financial woes due to pension plans. Delphi is filing bankruptcy, claims that the pension plans are killing them, along with paying $27.00 an hour....

quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
WOW,
I don't know any gunsmith that I'd want to work on my guns that doesn't open the bolt immediately when he get a gun in to work on.
And, what's this bit about some "rocket scientist" bringing in a loaded gun? Do you know for a fact that the guy was a "rocket scientist"? Why not just say someone brought in a loaded gun.
Your slam on a segment of society isn't well received.
Don

Genuis the rocket scientist part is sarcasm. Heck I'm younger than most of you here. Less than half the age of a lot of you and I've been hearing that used all my life as sarcasm. You know the same as saying your about as bright as a burnt out light bulb, or your not the sharperst knife in the drawer are ya. Same kind of thing.

I have some experience with pension plans and the federal ERISA laws that govern them, and a shortfall in required reserves of $24 to $48 million is chicken feed.

Pension plans routinely have their ERISA required reserves fluctuate up and down along with the stock market...and ERISA and the IRS routinely grant extension/waivers for a period of years to allow the plans to bring the reserves back into the black.

The Teamsters have had to do this several times over the years and one that I am most familiar with involved the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists that was $400 million short on their required reserve funding.

This is not to say that Remington is or is not in financial trouble, only to point out that using ERISA required funding of their pension plan is not a good tool/gauge to use to determine that.

Walked into my local gun shop one day and noticed a bunch of used Rugers on the wall (consignment guns). I asked to see one, and it was passed across the counter to me. My first action--open the bolt, and when it slid back I nearly crapped my drawers--there was a round in the chamber and the magazine was full. After I pointed it out to the 'smith, he nearly crapped his drawers. Following a careful check of all the consigned guns, 5 of 7 were loaded, and 4 had rounds in the chambers. You can never be too careful.

has anyone seen this maybe they need $$$$$$$ BADLY
Sunday, December 14, 2003


Patti Longmire / Associated Press

Lloyd Woods, at home with daughter Mechelle Magruder, was unloading his Remington 700 rifle after a hunting trip, when a design flaw caused it to unintentionally fire. The bullet ripped through Woods' leg, which had to be amputated.


Flawed Guns: Public at Risk

Faulty Remington rifles shatter lives

Preventable defect hurts, maims more than 100

By Melvin Claxton / The Detroit News


Lloyd Woods is a Vietnam veteran and longtime hunter who has spent much of his life handling and using guns.

But when he bought a used Remington 700 bolt action hunting rifle in 1988, he had no way of knowing that the sleek, carefully finished exterior hid a dangerous design flaw — a defect that has injured more than a hundred people.

The series of small, metal parts that control the gun’s firing mechanism were prone to failure, making the rifle accidentally discharge without the trigger being pulled.

Remington Arms Co. officials knew of this problem in some rifles as early as 1947, but for decades failed to fix the firing mechanism or warn customers of the danger.

The problem, the company’s own records show, could have been fixed for 32 cents a rifle.

On Nov. 12, 1996, the 56-year-old Woods killed a deer near his Kentucky home during an afternoon hunt. He got down from his tree stand and began unloading the rifle in preparation for putting it away in a gun holder in the back of his pickup truck.

The Remington 700’s design required that the gun’s safety, a device that keeps the rifle from firing, be turned off in order to unlock the bolt and remove the bullets. But Woods said when he moved the safety to off, the gun fired without the trigger being pulled.

The bullet, fired with enough force to kill a deer more than 1,000 feet away, tore through the muscle and shattered the bones of Wood’s right leg. Doctors fought to save the leg, but days later amputated it just below the knee.

It was far from an isolated incident. Since the 1970s, more than a hundred people — mainly hunters — have been injured, maimed or killed when their Remington rifles accidentally fired without the trigger being pulled.

Missouri attorney Richard Miller, who estimates he has handled about 100 cases against Remington, said the firearm manufacturer’s own records show it has received more than 1,500 complaints of unintentional discharges involving the 700 rifle.


Remington recall

Many Remington rifles made before 1982 require the user to turn the manual safety off before opening the bolt to unload the weapon. But turning the saftety off has caused hundreds of these guns to discharge without the trigger being pulled. The company is recalling the rifles.


Accidental firing
In order to open the bolt to unload the rifle, the shooter must disengage the safety. If parts are worn or out of adjustment, it is possible for the trigger mechanism to engage.
If the shooter pulls the trigger or moves the bolt handle while the safety is on, the mechanism may become preloaded. As the safety or bolt handle is moved slightly, the gun may accidently go off.
Remington recalls
700, 721, 722, 40X and 600 series reifles made before 1982, because of a potential for the guns to accidentally fire.
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery




Remington rejects taking action on injury reports

Seventeen years before Woods was injured, Remington officials debated recalling the rifle after reports of accidental shootings and injuries.

The company, owned at the time by chemical giant DuPont, decided against the recall because officials estimated only 20,000 of the rifles were prone to fire without the trigger being pulled when the safety was pushed to off.

"That would mean the recall would have to gather 2 million guns just to find 20,000 that are susceptible to this condition," the company’s subcommittee on safety explained in a Jan. 2, 1979, report on why it didn’t recommend recalling the rifle.

The committee gave another reason for its decision: "An attempt to recall all bolt action rifles would undercut the message we plan to communicate to the public concerning proper gun handling. It would indicate that the answer to accidental discharge can be found entirely within the gun, when in reality only proper gun handling can eliminate injuries resulting from such occurrences."

The safety committee insisted the problem wasn’t confined to Remington rifles, but that a "large percentage" of its competitors made rifles with a similar problem.

Instead of a recall, the committee recommended "an informational warning concerning accidental firing and safe gun handling be prepared and effectively communicated to the gun handling public."

The recommendations were approved by the company’s president, Remington records show.

Because no federal agency has the power to recall defective guns or even investigate complaints of malfunctions, Remington’s decision went unchallenged.

Attorney Miller said the gun maker not only ignored the problem, but also seriously understated it.

"Every Remington 700 has the potential to accidentally discharge," Miller said. "The problem is that the trigger connect is unreliable. It is the same mechanism in 100 percent of the rifles."

Remington, under new ownership since it was sold by DuPont for $300 million in 1993, insists that modifications in the 1982 rifles — which allow them to be unloaded with the safety on — have ended the problem. And they say an ongoing recall of pre-1982 rifles, initiated last year, is addressing the problem with older rifles.

Miller praised Remington’s new owners for addressing a problem they inherited. He said the ability to unload the weapon while the safety is on significantly lessens the chance of an accidental discharge.

Firing mechanism issue first surfaced in 1947

Problems with the firing mechanism in Remington guns first surfaced in the company’s model 721 rifles, a precursor of the 700.

On April 9, 1947, Remington test engineer Wayne Leek warned company officials of a malfunction in the 721 rifles that was "very dangerous from safety and functional point of view."

Among the problems Leek cited in a memo was the possibility of firing the gun "by pushing the safety to the ‘off’ position."

A Remington product safety subcommittee memo from 1956 acknowledged the ongoing problem: "A major stumbling block has developed in the safety design, which is considered inadequate in the Models 721 and 722."

But Remington issued no warnings and continued manufacturing rifles with the same firing assembly.

In 1962, the gun maker introduced two new rifles, the Mohawk 600 and the Remington 700. The firing mechanism in both guns, while slightly modified, was essentially the same as earlier Remington rifles, experts say.

Soon, old problems resurfaced.

A 1975 Remington internal quality audit found that at least half of the 200,000 Mohawks could potentially fire when the safety was moved to the off position.

But Remington’s product safety subcommittee met several times on the matter and concluded "the situation did not present a safety problem," company records show.

Meanwhile, people were getting hurt.

John Coates, an attorney, was one of them. Coates was shot in his Jeep on the way back from a hunting trip with his son and a friend, a local judge.

His son, sitting in the back seat, turned the safety off to unload the rifle when it fired, hitting Coates. He was left paralyzed and Remington settled the case for $6.3 million in 1977, although some company officials insisted human error, not the gun, was to blame.

The media attention generated by the case forced the company to do something it had tried very hard to avoid. Remington recalled the Mohawk 600 months after settling with Coates.

"Once the allegations of the case became public and the settlement given publicity, Remington had no other choice, regardless of our belief as to (the) cause of the Coates accident, but to recall the Mohawk 600," Remington associate counsel R.B. Sperling stated in a 1978 memo to a DuPont financial department executive.

Remington made no improvements to the 700 rifle, despite complaints similar to those about the Mohawk 600.

On June 23, 1981, a Remington field service specialist, Fred Martin, wrote to his boss pointing out that for 32 cents a gun, the company could fix the rifle so it could be unloaded with the safety on. Included in that price was an additional safety feature that prevented the trigger from moving once the safety was in place.

Martin urged the company "not to pass up this opportunity to improve our fire control."

In 1982, Remington modified the 700 by removing the bolt lock, allowing the gun to be unloaded with the safety on. But the company made little change in the firing mechanism.

It also made no move to recall earlier 700s or warn rifle owners of the danger. In fact, after removing the bolt lock, Remington told customers who asked about the change that the alterations were "based on the results of an independent marketing survey in which a greater percentage of the shooters preferred the capability of opening the bolt with the safety on."

Injuries continued to mount.

In 1985, Remington paid $1.5 million to a New York man who lost a leg after his 700 accidentally discharged.

Three years later, the company paid $800,000 to an Alaska hunter who was shot in a similar incident.

Family forces recall after boy’s shooting

In 1994, a Texas jury awarded Glenn Collins $17 million after his foot was blown off when his 700 accidentally fired as he moved the safety. Collins later settled for a lesser, undisclosed amount.

Despite its legal losses, and what lawyers suing the company described as an increased willingness by the new owners to settle cases, Remington would not publicly admit to a problem in its best-selling 700 rifles.

Then, 9-year-old Gus Barber of Montana was killed on Oct. 23, 2000.

His mother, Barbara Barber, moved the safety while unloading her 700 rifle when the gun accidentally fired without the trigger being pulled. The bullet traveled through a horse trailer several hundred feet away, hitting Gus in the stomach and arm. He died shortly after being rushed to the hospital.

Richard Barber, Gus’ father, and other family members began a crusade to have the gun recalled. After a series of television appearances and newspaper stories, they convinced Remington to recall its problem rifles, starting in March 2002.

The recall affects the 700, 721, 722, 40X and 600 series rifles made before 1982 — more than 2.5 million rifles.



Previous Story Next Story


Special Reports

Special Reports index for Sunday, December 14, 2003
Law fails to control junk guns
Top police gun prone to accidental firing
Firearm defects take toll
Defective firearms go unchecked
Faulty Remington rifles shatter lives
Law would shield gun makers against suits
Timeline: Firearm patents addressed safety
Gun Safety Tips
Sections for this date

Monday, December 15, 2003

Select indexHome PageAutos InsiderAutos ConsumerBusinessMoney & LifeCareersCensusCommutingEditorialsMetro/StateLivingstonMacombOaklandWayneDetroitNation/WorldObituariesPoliticsReal EstateReligionSchoolsTechnology..........SportsLions/NFLPistons/NBARed Wings/NHLShock/WNBATigers/BaesballMSUU-MMore CollegesGolf GuideHigh SchoolsMotor SportsOutdoorsMore Sports...........EntertainmentDecoratingEats & DrinksGardeningHealthHome ImprovementHome LifeHome Tech


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003
The Detroit News.
Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms of Service (updated 12/19/2002).

Only a moron would walk into a gunshop or a gunsmith's shop carrying a firearm with an un-opened action. Or rounds in the magazine and/or chamber.

Why would you take the safety off a loaded gun without pointing it in a safe direction?

My Dad would have (heck, still would!) tan my hide for doing that. Always assume the gun is loaded and will fire.

I read the report on Woods and have been trying to figure out how the gun fired into his leg when putting the safety on???? As NE Jack says, it should have been in a safe direction. A safety is there for a reason, BUT any mechanical device can fail. Also, why the heck didnt he unload the gun BEFORE climbing down form his tree stand. Any basic hunter safety course teaches that. Sounds like he Screwed up a couple times before being injured.

quote:

Originally posted by bad_karma:
I would find another gunsmith. Guns 101 assume all guns are loaded. I don't even shop at dealers who don't break open guns prior to handing them off the shelf. And to pull the trigger on a gun with out checking it yourself....

if I were the gunsmith, I'd be open to finding another customer...

yeah, the gunsmith has the responsibility to check the chamber to see if a round is loaded, but the customer also has a moral responsibility to check the chamber of a firearm before he transports it or puts it up....

blaming the gunsmith is like blaming an alcohol manufacturer for the over consumption of their product by a private citizen... our society all too often eleviates any responsibility on the individual.. based on too many sue happy attorneys in our society....

I ( almost) never transport a firearm, without the bolt in the action either being opened or removed.... when I do, I really chew myself out over it.....

I would think even more if I take a rifle into a gunsmith or store without the bolt being removed, unless that is why It is going to the gunsmith, because something malfunctioned on the bolt and it is stuck in the receiver...then I will let the gunsmith know ahead of time....

that is commonsense 101 in my book...

I also had a model 700 that has gone off several times on its own.. thank God no one was hurt...

I could not in clear conscience sell it to someone else and pass on the problem... Remington never seemed to concerned when I sent it to them, and they said nothing was wrong with it....It was bought in 1981..... Kinda soured me on Remingtons.. althought I have purchased a few, but it is still my last brand of choice, Winchester First and Ruger second...

I have had the Rifle rebarreled to a 6mm Remington, and it is pretty much now used as a single shot varmint and target rifle.....

A friend had wanted to buy it so I let him use it on an elk hunt we went on together... I let him know the problem and he didn't seem concerned until we were back at the vehicles and he was unloading it ( it was an ADL, so he was cycling the bolt to unload the magazine) and it went off on its own and put a bullet hole in another guys truck bed that was standing right there.. we didn't know the guy, but he was pretty pissed....

the only reason that it did not blow into something bigger, was that he had had a Remington that had done that also.... and the truck was already traded in on a new truck... he was to pick up the new vehicle the next day/Monday....

I do find it hard to believe tho, Remington turned a blind eye to the problem....

quote:

I do find it hard to believe tho, Remington turned a blind eye to the problem....

This leads to curiousity on my part. The US Army and Marines are using variants on a basic 700. They are not known for overlooking safety related issues on any firearm. Are they doing a modification at the armorer level to correct this on the current issue sniper rifles? I just can't imagine either of the above organizations turning a blind eye to this. Anybody know the scoop on this?

quote:

BUT this whole rumor came from the rocket scientist that handed my gunsmith a rifle. The gunsmith marked it down in the book and picked it up to go to the safe. When he did he hit the trigger and it went off. Left a nice little pock mark in the concrete wall. luckily it was a 22rf. He said it was the second loaded rifle he had gotten this month. He now has a sign for morons posted on the door. NO LOADED FIREARMS IN STORE.

Granted, the moron who brought it in should have cleared it! However, the GUNSMITH didn't exercise proper caution either! He should have immediately opened the action to verify it was unloaded. You'd think he would have been extra cautious, as this was not the first gun brought to him loaded. Hopefully, this GUNSMITH will now act with a little extra caution when he next picks up a gun!