quote:

Originally posted by Lost Oki:
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....

Bankruptcy filings by companies like this are merely union-busting stratagems. Note they all seem to "emerge from bankruptcy" after a few years-damn few actually are liquidated....

quote:

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 had a 721 that would do this too, until I set the trigger for a heavier pull weight. Before, it would sometiomes jar off when the bolt was slammed closed.

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

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?

IIRC the Army/Marines is using the receiver/bolt only (and that receives a full accuracy makeover). Stocks, barrels, triggers etc are made/supplied by someone else. The assembly is done by military armorers, assigned to sniper support.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

Originally posted by Lost Oki:
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....

Bankruptcy filings by companies like this are merely union-busting stratagems. Note they all seem to "emerge from bankruptcy" after a few years-damn few actually are liquidated....

El D, the point of bankruptcy is to re-emerge, not go under. Liquidation or dissolution is the step to take to close down.

And there aren't many union-busting Federal judges out there, either.

quote:

IIRC the Army/Marines is using the receiver/bolt only (and that receives a full accuracy makeover).

I thought the Army ( I know the Marine Corps builds their own ) was buying M-24's and they were delivered good to go?

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

quote:

IIRC the Army/Marines is using the receiver/bolt only (and that receives a full accuracy makeover).

I thought the Army ( I know the Marine Corps builds their own ) was buying M-24's and they were delivered good to go?

schromf,

You are correct...and the Marines use no aftermarket parts in the action. Everything, including the trigger and safety are factory Remington parts. The only modifications I am aware of(other than blue-printing) are that they TIG weld the mag boxes and the recoil lug to the receiver.

The Army’s M24’s also use all factory parts and I believe the only difference is that they are LA’s rather than the SA’s used on the Marines M40’s. The Marine’s have been using stock Remington 700 receivers since 1966 and they have never found a reason/need to use any aftermarket parts on the receivers. If there was something inherently wrong, unreliable, or unsafe with anything in the design you would think the Marines would have found it after 39 years of combat use...which as of yet they haven’t.

Hi, Rick -

I was under the impression that one of the U.S. armed services was using Mike Rock's 5R barrels for their sniper rigs...at least, that is what Mike told me. It is the reason his .30 barrels come in that pretty much unique 11.27" twist...the service branch which ordered his barrels insisted on that twist. Sorry I can't remember which outfit he mentioned. At the time it wasn't important enough to me to bother committing it to memory.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Hi, Rick -

I was under the impression that one of the U.S. armed services was using Mike Rock's 5R barrels for their sniper rigs...at least, that is what Mike told me. It is the reason his .30 barrels come in that pretty much unique 11.27" twist...the service branch which ordered his barrels insisted on that twist. Sorry I can't remember which outfit he mentioned. At the time it wasn't important enough to me to bother committing it to memory.

Hey, Alberta!

I believe the Army is using his barrels on the M24’s, but I also believe that they are already installed when the Army gets them from whoever has the contract to supply the rifles.

The Marine’s don’t use Remington barrels either. I believe at the present time Gary Schneider is suppling the barrels for the M40’s, but they have also used other makers in the past. I think it has more to do with who can supply them with what they need the quickest.

My reference was to the receivers on these rifles, and both the Army and the Marines use stock Remington receivers and parts other than barrels, stocks, and bottom metal.

Perhaps the level of training might also have something to do with those branches of the service not having their 700’s going off “accidentally.â€

The military also doesn’t use handloads, so perhaps that might explain the fact that they also don’t seem to have problems with Remington extractors breaking or failing to extract, or bolt handles falling off after having to beat on them to extract a stuck case?????????

I don’t know...but I do know that neither the Army or the Marines seem to have all these problems with 700’s like allot of civilians seem to, and those guys are hunting about the most dangerous game on the planet since it can shoot back at them!

FYI: From http://www.remingtonmilitary.com, "The M24 features a Rem®-Tough powder coated 24†Remington stainless steel hammer forged barrel with unique 5-R rifling to ensure repeated high performance over the life of the barrel (The US Army has seen as many as 14,000 rounds fired before significant barrel degradation)."

There is a description and spec sheet for this rifle at this site.

quote:

believe the Army is using his barrels on the M24’s,

No, He was building the barrels. Story goes that in the beginning the Army wanted the 5R barrels and Remington wasn't tooled up to make them. Mike prodcued the first year or so on the contract. Remington had no intention of buying aftermarket barrels long term and tooled up to make their own 5R. They built them, the Army called foul, and insisted on a requalification using the Remington barrels. Remington obviously complied, and during the testing the Remington barrels shot tigher groups on average and exceeded the Rock Barrels. The rest is history, Remington builds the whole gun now, and even sells a Mil-spec version in the consumer market. I own one and I don't want to get into group size but trust me it is a shooter and one of the two most accurate rifles in my safe, and I have dumped wheelbarrels of money in benchrest rigs over the years. There is no better value in a accurate rifle, in my opinion. I must admit I have only shot mine.

They day I broke it in on my smiths range I was shooting match ammo, he casually commented as he was spotting for me on a 5 round group " I am impressed" . Trust me that didn't comment did get said lightly, these rifles just plain shoot.

Aside from the rifling/accuracy capabilities of the barrel, I find it somewhat interesting that it is powder coated. On rare occasion, one sees a posting inquiring about the suitability of powder coating as an all weather finish so I'd like to know how it holds up in military service.

quote:

Originally posted by rogue1:
Aside from the rifling/accuracy capabilities of the barrel, I find it somewhat interesting that it is powder coated. On rare occasion, one sees a posting inquiring about the suitability of powder coating as an all weather finish so I'd like to know how it holds up in military service.

Powder coating is a marvelous water resistor. It's good weather proofing...not very practical as a sporting rifle coating as we're so used to bluing. The Military don't have that problem however.....just want it to work and don't care how it looks.

All,

I powder coat a lot of military parts. Its a little more complicated than that. Depending on base materail type, the metal is primed first. That is the real corrosion resitant coating. Different for steel and aluminum of course. Stainless in my application doesn't require plating so I am out of details for that process.

Then you also must remember talking about powder coating is like talking about paint. There a a lot of different types. And with the different materail comes the variable of bake temperature. It isn't quite a simple as just getting a part powder coated. When I call out powder coating on a print, I have a design detail that states must comply with Mil number XXXX, with a federal paint match color.

Point isn't to confuse, but the Army has legions of level funded test and engineer types that lock down details. If you are expecting the same research the spec, send off your project and get sticker shock after you get the estimate called out to match the specification.

quote:

And there aren't many union-busting Federal judges out there, either.

Our judges in Idaho say, "what's a union?"

Answers:

"I don't know either judge, but I hear they have some over on the coast".

"A device to sink an industry?"

"The reason I got fired for changing that burned out light bulb at my summer job during school."

lawndart

What many people (especially politicians) fail to realize is that our military and law enforcement communities rely on private firearms and ammuntion manufacturers to supply their needs. When these American companies go belly up it is not good for the security of the nation as a whole.

quote:

military and law enforcement communities rely on private firearms

Sounds like your familiar with Barrett and LA. PD

quote:

Originally posted by schromf:

quote:

military and law enforcement communities rely on private firearms

Sounds like your familiar with Barrett and LA. PD

Yes I am...and Ronnie Barrett is my personal HERO!!!! Actually, the flap started with the LA County Sheriff’s department, but wound up extending to any/all California state or local government agencies. I LOVE IT!!!

It’s also interesting to note that B&B gun store, made famous as the store that had to “loan†rifles and ammunition to the poorly armed and poorly trained LAPD during that bank robbery/shoot out a few years ago, has since gone out of business due, in no small part, to all the California and Los Angeles county restrictions on Gun/Ammo Sales. It was, at one time, about the largest gun store in Los Angeles county.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schromf:


the Army called foul, and insisted on a requalification using the Remington barrels. Remington obviously complied, and during the testing the Remington barrels shot tigher groups on average and exceeded the Rock Barrels. The rest is history,

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

I have no doubt the Remington barrels are tight shooters for factory products.

I do have some question as to the run of Remington average production barrels being tighter accuracy-wise than Mike's barrels over the long haul.

Having some familiarity with testing procedures in general, and with the government's susceptibility to internal politics/industry influences and resulting test design in particular, I have to wonder how "pre-selected" the Remington test barrels were, and exactly how the comparative "accuracy" was determined...i.e., how valid and how reliable statisitically it was/is.

Is the testing design available "on-line" somewhere, or has the new accellerated "classification "madness" overtaken even that type of info?

Thanks for the heads-up about them being all Remington products at the moment, though. That is useful knowledge.

And I do know Remington can make good barrels...they should, as all told, they have about 200 years of doing that, and started their company way back when making nothing but barrels.

I also have a Remington that is a superb shooter, though not with a 5-R barrel. It has their standard previous PSS barrel, bobbed 1-1/2" to remove the suppressor threads it had when I received it. It will shoot occasional groups in the high 0.1's at 100, but not very often. Average is more in the mid-high 0.2's, maybe even the low 0.3's, at least with non-BR quality bullets such as Sierra MKs or McCracken's... All 7 of my current bench guns will outshoot it easily & regularly.

Best wishes...

Not to change the subject but Remington policy is to use the first percentage of barrel runs on a new mandrel for special project guns like the PSS, BDL and custom shop. As the mandrel gets used it wears and next percent barrels go on progressively less expensive/high profile arms. The poor WalMart ADL guns get the last ones but they still shoot well enough for most folks.

Alberta Canuck,

I don’t think there was anything wrong with Remington “picking†their barrels for the tests. The Remington custom shop always has chosen the best barrels out of the runs to use on the 40x’s.

I will guarantee you that Mike Rock didn’t just grab the first barrel that came off his machine and send it in for the tests.

You know as well as I do that most custom makers have grades of barrels based on how they gauge out after they are finished, and the best ones sell as select-match.

Having said that though, I would have no trouble in believing that Remington also told the Army they could either take the complete rifle from them or they could buy the actions and build them themselves one at a time like the Marine Corps does, which the Army ain’t set up to do.

well rick, they succeded in running most of us out of the state. that's why i smithing in Oregon rather than Agua Dulce calif like i was a year and a half ago. believe me i can't think of 1. thing i miss about So.Cal. other than the good food you can get there when you go out to eat other than that good riddance. and TTFN

Hey mark!

As you know, Agua Dulce is just a rocks throw from me.

People always laugh at me when I tell them that one of the top rated French restaurants in the country is out here in “belt-buckle†country!

I sent Remington an E-mail asking who owned the company.

Response (Chris) - 10/13/2005 09:39 AM
Dear Mr. C,

Thank you for your patience. Our stock is privately held, we do have bonds that are traded in the open market, but I think they are hard to come by. The information is not readily available out in the public, I really don’t know why that is. I think it might be that once people buy the bonds they hold on to them and don’t trade that much. But I did go out on Yahoo.com under the finance section and looked up our bonds and they came up. If this helps the Security Description is CB Remington Arms Co B and the CUSIP is 759576AE1

quote:

I do have some question as to the run of Remington average production barrels being tighter accuracy-wise than Mike's barrels over the long haul.

Alberta,

Sorry on the slow response, I am in the duck pond up to my eyebrows at work and bobing. In short real long day.

On subject while I know that all things are fair in love, war and military contracting I don't think this would be possible.

I do a LOT of testing for DOD. I admit I don't know what standards or requirement these were tested to ( IE Mil-STd-167 ) the standards was in place, these were already qualified, and Remington, the contractor is substituting a part. First Remington=vendor in government contracting, many times almost a dirty word.

Second as I stated I do a lot of testing and I have my doubts that this occured for two reasons. First is when I test I am at minimum required to pick from two different lots ( if possible), yes this can be waived. Second no engineer worth his salts isn't going to flag this. Third even if Remington thought they were going to cherry pick a rifle, the Army would have probaly pulled from inventory, or selected at random from assets. Fourth Remington almost certainly paid for this test on their own dime, I can't see anybody but a moron, taking this proposal up the food chain, way too much risk with a lot of $ in a contract at stake, this could lose Remington a multi-million dollar contract. If Remington did cherry pick a you suggested they would have had to done a whole lot of rifles to that quality standard, otherwise the downside is severe finacial risk.

A last reason I don't think this happened is think like the government. Your coming to me wanting to substitute a part, on a contract I have you buy the balls tied down on. You are asking to change a part that I think is inferior, but you have assured me it is as good as or better quality. I am from Missouri, and I told you on your dime, go re qaulify your product or they will be rejected in quality acceptance. What motivation would I have to allow you to bend the rules. None, as much as we bitch about government employees, but I have been one, and worked for many. Many question things like if this was my dollars would I spend it in this fashion. And I have seen many that picture themselves as stewarts of the taxpayers dollars, and seen many times a contractor told in no uncertain terms your ripping us off.

I don't have the whole story on these barrels, I also don't think that a production remington barrel is an accurate description either. These are clearly not, the build a very few of the milspec barrels, and the PSS models are not 5R barrels. Only the M24 and a very limited quanity of production M700 5R Mil-Spec's are sold. I don't have production numbers, but anyone with details please chime in. I did a lot of homework on this and didn't get near the full picture. Look on Remingtons website the Milspec are not on the commercial sight and not on the LE site. Kinda a black hole on the commercial version, good details on the M-24 on the LE site.

Anyway I am all ears on details.

oh le chene, my wifes family has known juan alonso for years and the wife and i used to eat there about 1. time per month that's all we could afford! i used to have the buffalo ribeye steak and the wife has the salmon dumplings and escargo. me being the redneck of the family don't eat no snails i use snare-all on them. when i used to drink i used to go in there and talk to tom the bartender and he used to give michelle the little gay guy crap and call him a slut etc. ah good times, good food , good people. the eateries here in Oregon don't even come close to what's available down there sorry to say and 99% wouldn't even get on the D list as far as the restarant list rating system goes for being clean.

quote:

Originally posted by mark d. skaggs:
oh le chene, my wifes family has known juan alonso for years and the wife and i used to eat there about 1. time per month that's all we could afford! i used to have the buffalo ribeye steak and the wife has the salmon dumplings and escargo. me being the redneck of the family don't eat no snails i use snare-all on them. when i used to drink i used to go in there and talk to tom the bartender and he used to give michelle the little gay guy crap and call him a slut etc. ah good times, good food , good people. the eateries here in Oregon don't even come close to what's available down there sorry to say and 99% wouldn't even get on the D list as far as the restarant list rating system goes for being clean.

Their Sunday brunch is enough to make you stop hating the French...well, almost anyway!

If you can call the people in control of a company with negative net worth owners, this is them:Bruckmann,Rosser,Sherrill & Company. (BRS)

Remington must be getting into this 5-R thing. From Rem's website:

"We’ve also built the Model 504 with dual extractors for positive feeding and uniform cartridge support. Its 20" satin-blued clean barrel features 5-R button rifling (the same rifling used in Model 40-XR custom target rifles) with a recessed crown for extra protection."

Is anyone aware of any other production rifles using this type of rifling?

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Not to change the subject but Remington policy is to use the first percentage of barrel runs on a new mandrel for special project guns like the PSS, BDL and custom shop. As the mandrel gets used it wears and next percent barrels go on progressively less expensive/high profile arms. The poor WalMart ADL guns get the last ones but they still shoot well enough for most folks.

Very good point...and that is probably the same procedures used at every other big manufacturer.

The custom shop (where the original Marine Corps M40’s were built) always gets the “pick-of-the-litter†when it comes to parts used to build rifles...and that same process will be in place for the M24’s for the Army.

I doubt very seriously that the Army agreed to have their M24’s built on the regular production line...and as schromf has pointed out...the Army would require specs far above those for regular production $250.00 ADL rifles made for Wal-Mart.

Remington, like all other firearms manufacturers, has the tooling and the talent to produce fine, reliable, accurate rifles...if it’s profitable for them to do so. It is not profitable to put that time and effort into a rifle that they sell to Wal-Mart by the thousands for $250.00 each.

Rick & Schromf -

Well, guess I'll just have to call myself a sceptic, maybe even a cynic. In a perfect world, I agree with all the reasoning you present, right down the line.

Only thing is, after 40 some years of working at top levels in both government and industry, I KNOW it isn't a perfect world. And sometimes I think military procurement and corporate ethics are two of the least perfect parts of it.

I agree that is just my opinion, not established fact. YMMV. But I still have my doubts about Remington barrels being more accurate than Mike's.

(That doesn't mean Remington barrrels are not accurate ENOUGH for the job, so guess it doesn't much matter either way.....)

Alberta Canuck,

I don’t disagree with you on the “ethics†of large corporations or of the military procurement system in general. One would have to be blind, ignorant, or both, to think otherwise.

However, I also believe that any large firearms manufacturer has the ability and the means to produce a rifle (barrel included) that will stand equally with anything out there made by the custom guys. It is the “will†and the economic incentives to produce such a rifle that is sorely lacking in most instances.

The military has bought plenty of “pig-in-a-poke†weapons systems over the years, but I can’t really think of any that lasted real long after the feed back from the troops started pouring in. The M9 Pistol is about the only one that jumps out...and that puppy is on its last leg.

The sniper communities in the service branches are as competitive as any BR shooters are and they will not sit back quietly with inaccurate weapons that don’t shoot as well as their “competition.â€

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

However, I also believe that any large firearms manufacturer has the ability and the means to produce a rifle (barrel included) that will stand equally with anything out there made by the custom guys.



Sorry, Rick, I think only some of them do, some of the time.

One of the problems of running every large corporation is the mobility of skilled employees. And the more skilled they are, the more mobile they are too. Ergo, producing such quality consistently over the long haul is a major problem in ANY corporate manufacturing environment.
------------------------------

Quote]It is the “will†and the economic incentives to produce such a rifle that is sorely lacking in most instances.[end Quote



Boy, ain't that the truth. And incentive comes and goes as the managment changes, the employees change, the stock rises and falls, the profits and bills vary, and new contracts are obtained (or not). Once a contract is in hand, if you have a sense of the place and get any feedback off the workplace floor, you can both predict and palpably "feel" the changes in incentive level.
-------------------------------------

[Quote] The military has bought plenty of “pig-in-a-poke†weapons systems over the years, but I can’t really think of any that lasted real long after the feed back from the troops started pouring in. The M9 Pistol is about the only one that jumps out...and that puppy is on its last leg.

The sniper communities in the service branches are as competitive as any BR shooters are and they will not sit back quietly with inaccurate weapons that don’t shoot as well as their “competition.â€

Well, Rick, one would hope so. How quickly that discontent becomes credible and widespread, is felt, and is acted on, are the critical issues.

If by then the career conscious are looking at their impending civilian consulting job or their next grade in rank, or their next assignment, or even the same job but the "next" individual "weapons system" currently under their responsibility for development, it may well be that nothing much will happen to restore the quality desired.
---------------------------

And even if corporate providers are caught red-handed comitting outright fraud, these days even that doesn't neccessarily mean "loss of contract". It means a fine, more palms to be greased (and/or political contributions to be made), and writing it all off as a "cost of doing business".

Thanks, but I'll stick with the little guy that I KNOW as an individual that I can depend on...

Alberta Canuck,

Again, I don’t disagree in principal.

Hey, why do you think the Marine Corps builds their own Sniper Rifles one at a time?

The contracts for sniper rifles are no where near the size as for a service-wide issue like the M16’s, M9’s, and the light and heavy MG’s. My point is that nabbing a contract for a thousand or so rifles ain’t exactly on par with getting one for a thousand tanks, 200 airplanes, or a few million M16’s.

Bottom line...I wouldn’t worry about the quality of the Army’s M24’s since they already have a proven track record.

Rick and Alberta,

Something else to consider in this mix I don't think these barrels are anywhere close to being a stock Remington barrel. Remington is set up to build button rifled barrels in mass. These are cut rifle barrels, which means they either had to dust off and refurbish a Pratt and Whitney barrel machine, or they bought brand new machines to cut these. I would be curious as to how these are actually being produced. I have hunted and hunted for good releible information on this as I said before I own one and I am always curious for details.

Alberta,

Another item for consideration is Mike Rock barrels are not legendary quality. Not bad mind you but if you want a top dollar best quality 5R barrel look to Boots Obermeyer. He is the gold standard and all others are just imitators.

I am not going to bang on Mike Rock, but do some homework on him. Sniper Central probably has the scoop on line, all is not well, especially on the finacial side. It was a smart corporate move for Remington, to either organically grow the ability, or find another vendor source. If Rock went belly up that left Remington extremely vulnerable on Non Compliance of contract, which is a place no vendors wants to be. I think in the end the Dunn and Bradstreet report won the agruement, and it was one or the other of the above scenarios. And I have heard that Obermeyer is backed up deep on other military contracts. I am sure that Remington management tested these waters before deciding on building their own.

And yes both of your points are valid on contacting for th government and the marraige from hell. Like I said in the opening, all is fair in love, war and military contracting, as my Dad used to say god helps those who help themselves, but God help those who get caught helping themselves.

A 5R barrel can be made by all the current methods. single point, broach, hammer forge or button. What does that mean? Well, for one thing Remington has at least 2 of the above machines. 5R barrels don't seem to shoot as well as the standard button or single point barrels, just may last longer.

If I understand the process correctly a “5R†barrel is nothing more than one having angular sides on the lands...which can be accomplished with any kind of rifling machine as long as the device cutting/forming the rifling is properly shaped.

quote:

A 5R barrel can be made by all the current methods. single point, broach, hammer forge or button. What does that mean? Well, for one thing Remington has at least 2 of the above machines. 5R barrels don't seem to shoot as well as the standard button or single point barrels, just may last longer.

Two part answer and the first part about the method of manufacturer, superfically I see no reason that wouldn't be the case. Truthfully I haven't thought about it and just assumed Obermeyer were cut, so were Rocks, and figured the Remingtons were. That might not be the case and I am going to see if I can dig that detail out somewhere. I can see no reason right off my head why that wouldn't be so.

The second part I take exception to: Way too broad. And gets into testing methods. Crude not real example is, high dollar whatever barrel has a accuracy potential of .3 MOA on a almost new broke in barrel. But this number opens up with rounds fired, to say .8 MOA after 2500 rounds are fired. ( these are all bogus numbers, I am explaining method only ). Lets say the new broke in 5R will only shoot .35 MOA, but after shooting 2500 rounds it is still shooting .45 MOA. It depends on how you wieght the test, on which is more accurate. If the requirement for testing was shoot 5,000 rounds with accuracy tests done on a ransom every 500 rounds, and then average the groups, then the 5R is the more accurate barrel. If on the otherhand the test was shoot 5000 rounds and test for accuracy only after 500 rounds the first barrel would probaly look favorable.

I doubt the second method of test was used for this though, the military in general is picky on specifications and testiing, and the second method doesn't tell them much.

I do know that the Army in particular has tightened up requirements a lot in the last few years. They are having a lot of problems with heat, sand, and fungus. And a requirement that might have been waived 10-15 years ago is not today. Another item is the low/high temp operational numbers have changed in Mil-Std 810F ( notice new version from E ). The systems and equiptment being fielded in Iraq, and the first Gulf war drove them to tighter qualifactions.

I don't get to test munitions, so I can't site pargraph and verse which spec is applied to the above requiremnts, but in general the military is asking a lot more for the same cost point nowdays.

edit: a last thought logistics and long term support are big deals in military procurement nowdays. I think I am 5-10 million in contract wins in the last couple of years alone, and the reason for selection of my products was long term and logistics support. My competetors are commercial companies with not a clue how logistics in the military really works and there products while attractive on the up front cost, end up costing a ton over the life of a program. Real big deal.

I knew nothing of the Remigton safety problem when my hunting partner came within a coule of inches of killing me. We had just retured to the cabin in northern Ontario. We've always had a rule. Guns are to be unloaded outside before entering the cabin. For whatever reason Tony didn't do it. I was next to the stove, building it up when Tony's .300Win. Mag. (a Remington 700BDL) went off a couple of inches away. The bullet went through the cabin wall, then through a aspen tree and lodged in another aspen tree. I was utterly horrified. He was sincerely apologetic, but that doesn't do much good now does it? It was a year later that I started reading about the Remington probems with their safeties. Tony always swore he didn't touch the trigger, but of course I didn't believe him at the time. I never felt secure enough to hunt with him again. I have a couple of newer Remington 700BDLs and it looks like exactly the same trigger they've always had so I imagine nothing has changed in that respect. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

Cal,

I don’t know you or your friend Tony...and neither of you know me...so don’t take this comment the wrong way.

In my 50 plus years of shooting and being around firearms I have witnessed a fair number of “accidental dischargesâ€...and have yet to hear one person admit to having pulled the trigger. It’s ALWAYS the rifles fault.

The first thing my dad taught me when he handed me my first rifle (a BB gun) was that I should NEVER let the muzzle of the rifle point at anything that I was not willing to destroy.

I do not have the least bit of trouble in assuming that if someone ignored that basic rule, and also ignored your own rule about loaded rifles in the cabin, that he just might also ignore where his finger was when the gun went off.

Just my opinion.

None of us can evade the responsibility of gun handling and personal safety. To blame a gun discharging and ignore our inability to control the muzzle is unforgivable.

That said, the concept of a three position safety has been with us for well over a hundred years. Look at any 1898 mauser!!!!!

To think that we still have companies that refuse to manufacture their products with safeties that require us to take the gun "off safe" to unload them is equally unforgivable.

Long live the M-70!