Remington 700’s have had the ability to work the bolt with the safety engaged for quite sometime now.

The way this incident was described, I have a really hard time believing that this guy was trying to work the bolt to unload the rifle when it went off.

Has anyone out there ever had a bolt action rifle fire when the bolt was unlocked? What would be the logical thing that would happen? I would assume that the bolt would get pushed backwards pretty damned rapidly and anyone holding on to the bolt handle would probably have a sore hand at the very least. I would also assume that an awful lot of hot gas would get shot out to the rear if the rifle fired with the bolt unlocked.

With hinged floorplates being as common as they are there is never a good reason, IMO, to have to extract and eject more than the one round in the chamber anyway, no matter what kind of safety you have.

Personally, I have never liked three position safeties. I like a safety that is either ON or OFF, and I don’t want anything in between those two positions to have to think or worry about.

Quote] 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.[End Quote



Yes, that is correct, at least for 5-R barrels currently made in the U.S. Jack (John) Krieger and Mike Rock were two of Boot's better known students, but for top barrels, I'd certainly prefer those made by
Boots himself....assuming I could live long enough to get them. (Big grin) Actually Obermeyer barrels are not THAT hard to get, one just can't be in a big hurry. My second choice, of the three, would be harder to select.
-------------------------



Quote] I am not going to bang on Mike Rock, but do some homework on him.[End Quote



Actually I know Mike's bigger problems fairly well. I'm not going to go into them on line or anywhere else in public, but I AM aware of them.
At one point it looked as if he might have them licked, but.......

Too bad, too. A lot of native talent there, somewhat diminished by personal misfortune(s).

Cal Sibley,
The problem is not the Remington safety, it is the trigger. It can and has allowed the rifle to discharge when the safety is taken off. The key evidence in a very large number of lawsuits that Remington has lost, was a memo, written with a year of the invention, from the inventor of the trigger stating the problem, and a cheap fix. Remington chose to ignore it and let us suffer the consequences. I choose to ignore Remingtons and their products of any kind.

I’ve always thought the position of the Remington safety invited accidents if the shooter is not paying really good attention to what he is doing.

Any safety on a rifle that is operated by pushing forward with the thumb of the shooting hand requires that the shooter be acutely aware of body mechanics...as well as where his trigger finger is located when his thumb pushes forward.

This is especially true if the you have the combination of a light trigger and a safety that takes a bit of force to push forward.

Do your own experiment (with an empty rifle!) and see how difficult it is to push forward with your thumb and not have your index finger move in the opposite direction at the same time. You can do it, but not without a conscience effort.

The liability issue Chic mentioned isn't related to the position of the safety, but the internal design. Remington chose to include a piece called the "connector," designed to improve a benchrest trigger in the 1940's, to remain on non-benchrest rifles. The "connector," according to the Remington memo (ca 1980?), allows "fire on safety release" in about 1% (of what, 4 million?) rifles. Remington chose not to redesign this trigger, presumably because they estimated redesign costs to be greater than liability costs. Apparently, they were wrong.

Jaywalker

quote:

Originally posted by Jaywalker:
The liability issue Chic mentioned isn't related to the position of the safety, but the internal design. Remington chose to include a piece called the "connector," designed to improve a benchrest trigger in the 1940's, to remain on non-benchrest rifles. The "connector," according to the Remington memo (ca 1980?), allows "fire on safety release" in about 1% (of what, 4 million?) rifles. Remington chose not to redesign this trigger, presumably because they estimated redesign costs to be greater than liability costs. Apparently, they were wrong.

Jaywalker

Yeah, I’ve read all that too Jay, but I’ve also done that little experiment I mentioned with Timney and Jewel triggers, with the side safety, and with a light trigger it will go off due to the natural backward movement of your trigger finger when you push the safety forward with your thumb.

I regularly shoot Remington 700’s but I do not place my trigger finger in contact with the trigger when I push the safety forward. I’ve seen guys with other brands of rifles, that use a push forward side safety, have the exact same problem.

1903 Springfields have a safety (based on the Mauser design) that can release the firing pin if going from the vertical position to the ready position.

Some types of triggers (on some very popular brands) don’t reset themselves if you happen to pull the trigger with the safety engaged, and will sometimes fire when you later flip the safety to the fire position.

Each person has to know the peculiarities of their particular rifle, and handle them accordingly.

I still maintain that the vast majority of accidental discharges are the result of someone pulling the trigger, whatever the cause or reason may be.

I don't doubt for a second that most accidental discharges are the result of a "faulty trigger finger."

My problem is with the guys who attribute all accidental discharges to "finger on the trigger" errors, when they are not.

Jaywalker

Jay,

I feel the same way about people who say ALL Remington rifles are unreliable and unsafe!

Jay,I think you are wrong on the "why".It was to extend the patient on the Sheeney(sp) trigger.

Rick,unless you have enough sear ingagement,there can be AD if the trigger is pulled hard enough and then the safety released.I think it's wind-up for lack of a better word.In my case it was a only test when adjusting the trigger.You are right about knowing your equipment.

A very large percentage of Remington trigger/safety problems result from someone
trying for a lighter pull.
Anyone who has their finger inside the the
trigger guard whenn they are not firing
is a damn fool.
Good Luck!

Anyone that depends on a safety to compensate for their lack of safe gun handling and assumes that someone else is doing their part toward gun safety sure ain't no rocket scientist.

Anyone that wants to whine about a remark that has been in common usage since WW2 sure ain't one neither.

Firearms manufacturers, obviously, have no control over the single most important element in the safety “game.â€

I was a Marine, and once you have had your trigger finger slammed in the hinged butt plate of an M14 because you were seen with your finger on the trigger...or once you have had to engage an M14 safety with the bridge of your nose, after being caught carrying a rifle with the safety off, you sort of have a new perspective and awareness for these little things.

downwindtracker2,

It's possible the trigger was an attmpt to extend a patent, but I don't think so. The deficiencies of the Walker trigger system have been present since 1948, and have been documented (by Remington) since around 1980. See
Jack Belk's comments.

Jaywalker

Edited due to partial posts...