quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:


3 B: The belted is stopped by the mutch more precice headspacing Belt, then you have the intire wall length to absorb the stredging, before the shoulder reaches the front of the chamber. leaving very little stretching to the critical area, ahead of the buttom.

When resizing Belted magnums it is advisable not to set the shoulders unnesecary back

Me and Mike Bellm set out one day to check, in your words, "mutch more precice headspacing Belt" and discovered that the "mutch more precice headspacing Belt" on the factory new brass we had sitting in front of us varied as much as .013 in distance from the case head to the forward portion of the belt. Not very precise to me and potentially disastrous if ones barrel tennon is too short.

My very favorite round is the 375 H&H Ackley Improved cartridge and while the belt/casehead distance on factory stuff can be sloppy, I don't have any problem chambering for them and instruct all my customers who are handloading for belted chambers, to neck size whenever possible to minimize stretching which is fairly common with belted cases. Those who do, get exceptional results from their belted stuff.

Varmintguy

I have been tracking historical accounts of problems associated to this design, and base my comments off of documented internal records I have collected and or reviewed to confirm the accounts of malfunction through Remington's records generated over a span of 62 years, starting with the experiment notebook of the founding engineer Merle H Walker in September of 1943....

Or internal programs to correct malfunctions encountered in the field including the same safety related malfunctions experienced in gallery testing on NEW rifles, Remington engineering memoranda concerning the scope of the problems AND programs that were DIRECTLY developed to correct major concerns of safety related malfunctions that were first identified by Wayne Leek in 1947 in the pilot line inspection for the M/721 platform, ALL of which result in potential inadvertent discharge in various modes of operation.

As early as 1946 records exist with regard to concerns Remington engineers expressed to the company, specifically with regard to the M/721 safety, and low and behold by August of 1948 these same engineers made recommendations to the effect suggesting a change to be made to the M/721 safety design "as an added element to the safety" by adding a trigger block to the system that would have mitigated the possibility/potential of "an Inadvertent Operation of the trigger while the rifle was in the "On" safe position" which could ultimately result in a safety induced discharge which much later Remington termed "FSR" (Fires On Safety Release).

As you most likely already know the M721 entered into the main stream of public commerce in March of 1948. However Remington has received complaints from the field of the rifles firing when the safety was released from their customers by August of that same year, and embarked on an Internal "Investigation" based of these customer complaints evaluating the "adequacy" of the M/721 safety design.

Do you happen to have a M/725 rifle in your collection???

The safety development for the M/725 was the DIRECT product of the investigation I briefly described above as Remington engineers concluded the M/721 safety to be "Inadequate" in internal memoranda.

If you read my previous posts in the thread Malm posted you will see I am not anti Remington and as a matter of FACT I have acquaintances there and a few people I consider to be friends. I still purchase their products of which I prize a few 40X platforms I have as well as other M/700s that I own and use with some regularity, you will not see me once in the course of this dialog say one design is better than another so I conclude myself not to be a whore in this regard for telling it like it is!

As a matter of fact you apparently missed I boast the receiver strength of the M/700 platform earlier in THIS thread.... I can make that statement because I can back up my recommendation of the inherent strength of the "3 rings of steel" development and the testing that leads me to these verifiable conclusions IF I so choose to do so.... again internal "destructive testing" records I have reviewed and support Malm in his decription of the Sear Block safety cam blocking the forward movement of the striker, which is a sound principal IMHO....

I do not write the history of this tenuous issue that always seems to come down to political, emotional or product loyalty opinions, I only study the internal records to learn the facts of the matter, but the plain fact of the matter is the truth hurts at times....

I will be more than happy to send you a sampling of these records which was my initial intent in the discrete offer I previously have made in good faith that you chose to parade in open forum but like Hot Core declined to accept, let me know, at the moment the offer is still on the table?

I once made this same offer to Hot Core, but he denied my offer also to discuss the relevant facts of the matter off line and so here we are again airing Remington's dirty deeds and laundry in the public domain....


Sincerely, Augustis ><>

quote:

P.S.: You think calling folks Remington WHORES is respectful???

P.P.S.: I am awaiting your SPECIFIC answers to my specific inquiries or your retraction!

No, I do not think the term someone else adopted for Hot Core is respectful.... That is the point of this excersize, Like I ALREADY explained once we have history together, bad blood if you will that has no bearing on you or anyone else for that matter....

If it offends you that much sir you could choose not to read my specific posts addressed to Hot Core, Right????

To your PPS:

I could write volumes on the subject, in fact much more pointed and detailed than my post to date, a retraction would be an impossibility for me other than to water down the facts more than I already have to be disseminated publicly....

Regards, Aug ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Oldmodel70:
Allan, you make some good points.......That prove my points about the unsafe state of the average Remington. You talk about "gun plumbers". You mention 30 years of "sticky gunk". I don't own a pre-64 model 70 Winchester that is less than 43 years old.........I also don't know how many "gun plumbers" plied their craft on any of them.........They don't go off when releasing the safety, like two of my average Remingtons did when I got them. (I've since adjusted them so they are kinda trustworthy. Still don't trust them like Hot Bore does.) I'm not too articulate, and am just wildly unreasonable, when someone starts making excuses for a poorly designed Remington trigger..........When I acquire my next pre-64 model 70, (which will be number 14,) I will perform neither Allan Test #1, nor Allan Test #2 on it. I will mount a good scope on it, and go hunting.......... When I acquire another Remington Model 700, (it will be in .204 Ruger,) I will very carefully perform lots of Tests on it, after I get it back from a good triggersmith........Let your breath out......This is as good as it gets with me... Grant.

My POINT was that if you want a 14oz trigger
BUY a trigger that can be adjusted that light.

Frankly for a HUNTING rifle I don't see the point.

THE problem is the remington can be "meddled with" to make it work that light, though not predictably or reliably.

suggesting that things should be designed so that they are more tamper proof?
that's the SECOND most amazingly stupid suggestion I've ever heard.
It ranks right up there with: "Guns are dangerous so they should be outlawed"

As for Safety tests? you should see what I do when handling a 1911 (or clone), either new or used.....

My (four) Remington 700's all wear FACTORY triggers, that have been adjusted to a SAFE
breaking weight.

If I want something lighter I'll give Shilen or Timney a call.

the remington haters out there can scream all they want, but big green sells many more Centerfire bolt action rifles than most of the other(if not all of the others)
combined.

And if the incidence of "failures" were as common as the more passionate remington haters claim then that wouldn't be true.

Hey, of my bolt action rifles I have ONE currently that isn't a remington.
and that's a 1942 Husqvarna Swede mauser.

To my thinking "bolt action rifle" equals "Remington 700" a
about as much as "four wheel drive truck" equals a late 80's
or early 90's "Ford F-150." (Though I personally drive a Ford Ranger)

And many of the anti-remington arguements sound way too much like people
who have made a less popular choice and are trying to convince themselves
that they made the right choice, because their "arguements"
(and included name calling) sure as hell don't seem to be structured to
actually convince anyone of anything except believing them to be ill-manered
obnoxious and rude. Mostly because of the unwarranted nature of those attacks.

Hey you never see posts that start off "Mausers suck" or "Winchesters suck".

the people out there that hate remingtons are simply a very vocal (and loud) minority.

AllanD

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:
Varmintguy

I have been tracking historical accounts of problems associated to this design, and base my comments off of documented internal records

Hey VG, I wish you the very best of luck in getting ANYTHING at all "Logical" from augy. To interpret what he views as "internal records" could mean about anything from something that belk posted(which is worthless), some irrelevant document off the net that has nothing to do with anything on the subject but allows augy to bog-down the discussion with blather, to an actual Remington document which augy will mis-quote as if it were straight from the Remington archives as being a HUGE discovery.

quote:

I have collected and or reviewed to confirm the accounts of malfunction through Remington's records generated over a span of 62 years, starting with the experiment notebook of the founding engineer Merle H Walker in September of 1943....

quote:

blather,blather... Remington engineering memoranda concerning the scope of the problems AND programs that were DIRECTLY developed to correct major concerns of safety related malfunctions...blah,blah, blah...As early as 1946 records exist with regard to concerns Remington engineers expressed to the company, specifically with regard to the M/721 safety, and low and behold by August of 1948 these same engineers made recommendations to the effect suggesting a change to be made to the M/721 safety design "as an added element to the safety" by adding a trigger block to the system that would have mitigated the possibility/potential of "an Inadvertent Operation of the trigger while the rifle was in the "On" safe position" which could ultimately result in a safety induced discharge which much later Remington termed "FSR" (Fires On Safety Release).

Oh yes, nearly forgot, he also likes to intermix various "Design Models" as much as possible to keep the confusion level high. As you try to visualize what in the world he is blathering about, it will dawn on you it has nothing to do with what you were actually talking about, but a completely different "design model" all together.

Then if you say it makes no sense(which it won't on the design you are trying to discuss), out will come some irrelevant document which he mis-quotes. I realize now it is because he really hasn't got a clue as to what he is trying to talk about, nor does he have the proper mental discipline to keep the discussion focused on one point at a time. If he did, it would be easy to explain to ANYONE with even a modicum of design understanding how augy and his close personal buddy belk really don't have any idea at all about the subject.

quote:

...the truth hurts at times....

And that is why augy tries to step around it as much as possible - he just can't grasp what is happening with his educational background and actual first-hand experience.

quote:

I will be more than happy to send you a sampling of these records which was my initial intent in the discrete offer I previously have made in good faith that you chose to parade in open forum but like Hot Core declined to accept, let me know, at the moment the offer is still on the table?

Good for you VG, he is correct that I(like you) had no desire to communicate with him in private. The more he posts in the open, the more of a fool he turns out to be.

quote:

I once made this same offer to Hot Core, but he denied my offer also to discuss the relevant facts of the matter off line and so here we are again airing Remington's dirty deeds and laundry in the public domain....

This is a bit of an example of how he "skews" irrelevant-foolishness into "dirty deeds". You will see how pitiful it gets if you continue to pursue the matter with augy.

If you do, best of luck to trying to follow along with his irrelevant, nonsensical ignorance and out of context mis-quotes. As long as you remember, "Anything augy posts is misleading ignorance.", you will get along fine. Try to make sense of anything he says and it is very frustrating when you realize he knows - nothing!

quote:

Oh yes, nearly forgot, he also likes to intermix various "Design Models" as much as possible to keep the confusion level high. As you try to visualize what in the world he is blathering about, it will dawn on you it has nothing to do with what you were actually talking about, but a completely different "design model" all together.

quote:

The safety development for the M/725 was the DIRECT product of the investigation I briefly described above as Remington engineers concluded the M/721 safety to be "Inadequate" in internal memoranda.

I know enough to know why the M/725 had a three position safety with an intermediate position to defeat the bolt lock which allowed the shooter to unload a chambered round with the safety cam still blocking the striker during the unloading process.

If you think about it in the context I describe this fact it is actually very relevant to this discussion, as this was one means to protect the system from firing off safe during the unloading process!

So you do not remain confused the "Trigger Block" concept never made it to design status because it never went into production, as an engineer you should know that?

More to follow soon....


Aug ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:

I know enough to know why the M/725 had a three position safety with an intermediate position to defeat the bolt lock which allowed the shooter to unload a chambered round with the safety cam still blocking the striker during the unloading process.

If you think about it in the context I describe this fact it is actually very relevant to this discussion, as this was one means to protect the system from firing off safe during the unloading process!

So you do not remain confused the "Trigger Block" concept never made it to design status because it never went into production, as an engineer you should know that?

More to follow soon....


Aug ><>

With all due respect, and out of curiousity, do you have any actual working knowledge of Remington rifles and the various component pieces, or, is the basis of your knowledge derived mainly from what others have written about these guns? You seem to be a little fixated on Remington and their internal memo's and reports and so I'm merely curious as to what it is about Remington that bugs you. Are you a former, possibly disgruntled employee? Perhaps a wistle blower who was let go prematurely?

The original question of this thread was "why are these guns so popular" not "what is it you hate about Remington". I would like a straight answer from you as to what it is about the Remington rifle that you find objectionable and why? If and when you reply, please don't type "more to follow soon", it makes me think you are having to research an answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by Paul from nz:
...im using a leupold VX3....

Hey Paul, What power scope?

its a vx-3 4.5-14X40 LR B&C

could someone out there list the good points of a remington 700 action. without complaining about someone else and generally trying 2 annoy others, ive seen a few good things been posted but its hard to find with all the argueing.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul from nz:
could someone out there list the good points of a remington 700 action. without complaining about someone else and generally trying 2 annoy others, ive seen a few good things been posted but its hard to find with all the argueing.

They are American built
The company is still in business and going strong
They come in a huge variety of chamberings
They come in a wide variety of finishes
They are offered with a variety of options
There are more aftermarket accessories offered for them than all the others combined
They are of simple design
They are accurate
They are strong
They are dependable
They are simple to maintain
They are affordable
Parts are readily available
They are easily adaptable for competition and specialized work

Thanks for the no BS answer Malm!

hey paul are you serious? you don't know anything about the m700.what the hell are you guys shooting in new zealand?

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
hey paul are you serious? you don't know anything about the m700.what the hell are you guys shooting in new zealand?

I asure you that a lot of people know a lot about them, but me im new to shooting, only been shooting for a couple of years and hunting deer for about 4 or so years! by the way im only 18.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul from nz:
...its a vx-3 4.5-14X40 LR B&C

Hey Paul, That is an excellent scope. The reason I'd asked is because of the "size" groups you are getting with the Kimber.

A lot of folks think it is possible to shoot tiny groups with a 3x or 4x scope. And on occasion, a small group might randomly happen, but that just isn't enough power to know when the rifle is steady for consistent small groups.

One other thing, if you are shooting at "Circles" for Targets, I'd encourage you to change over to "Black Squares" and shoot at the corners. As you bring the crosshairs up to the Black Square, you only have to align a Horizontal and a Vertical line with the edge. When shooting Circles, your eye has to constantly be shifting around to make sure you still have the Circle "quartered".
---

I'll add this to Malm's Remington design feature list:
They are very rugged.
They have the fastest Lock Time of any factory rifle.
Their Bores are smooth and less prone to fouling.
The 3-rings of steel Bolt Design is perhaps the SAFEST design in the World.
----------

NOTE: There was a recent thread on this Board about intentionally Blowing-up rifles by plugging the Bore. It was the contention of some that since the Remington design "held the Pressure" for a longer time that it was "more dangerous". Their belief being it allowed to Pressure to get higher than a regular lower pressure exploding CRF design.

I didn't enter that thread simply because I respect the opinion of the guy that started it. However, the results of the Test are not typical of what a person would see with normal Factory Ammo or routine Reloads. In those situations, I'll take the major SAFETY improvement of the 3-rings of steel any day over the pitiful gas handling design of CRFs.
----------

They have a very SAFE Trigger mechanism. Only four things can cause it to be Un-Safe:
1. Improper adjustment.
2. Worn or broken parts.
3. Trash or dirt within the mechanism.
4. Careless Trigger Yanker.

As you look at those four things, the interesting thing is they are the EXACT same four things that will cause ANY TRIGGER made to become unreliable.

They have an excellent 2-position SAFETY. Nice and quiet, which you operste by pinching it between your finger and thumb, and then silently easing it On or Off.

Stock design is a person issue, so I really don't see it entering the discussion. Well..., of course you ALWAYS want the inherent warmth and beauty of a good old home-grown "Synthetic". People using Termite Food stocks may have "pretty" rifles(like the ones dj posted), but of course "pretty" doesn't kill. And anyone who actually believes Termite Food is not constantly changing due to the temperature, humidity and moisture, either doesn't understand Termite Food, or he is trying to PT Barnum you into buying it.

They have an excellent Warranty, if it is ever needed.

And of course, all my opinions on the excellent, time-proven Remington design - are completely objective!

To HOT CORE

I didnt make any conklutiond about the remmington acording making it a bomb, by containing extrem caspresure, until the lockingsystem let go. I only described it as one of the factors to take in concideration, when evaluating passive safety.

About the EXELENT AND BEAUTIFUL "termite food"
You are by misfortune right that it sometime can cause problems depending on moisture. But that is only a problem, when using a "rubberband" action, without propper bedding

Using a stif action, combined with a bedshaped pillar, both front and rear, glued firmly to the wood, There is no problems with shifting POI .
The rear screw should always be positioned betwen the trigger and the magazine, to prevent bending of the action.

Personaly i prefer the beauty of a black barrel and action, combined with fancy Wood, ower an born ugly SS rifle in a Tubberware stock.
To be honnest i would rather piss on a sparkplug, than hawe to carry around with a SS Tubberware rifle, in broad daylight

Scratches on a wooden stock just brings back memories af an exciting huntingtrip. Also for me mutch of the pleasure of working with rifles is conected to the joy of looking, and finding new pictures in the wood, acording to the angel of lighe, Also the undescribable feeling when cyckeling a smooth and tight fitting boltaction.
This feeling might be unknown to Remmington and winchester and m98 users

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Also the undescribable feeling when cyckeling a smooth and tight fitting boltaction.

That begs the question, just what exactly are you cycling that action with???

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Also the undescribable feeling when cyckeling a smooth and tight fitting boltaction.

That begs the question, just what exactly are you cycling that action with???

Loading rounds, and ejecting

Hey jørgen, I stayed out of that thread simply because "I respect" your opinion. I did understand what you were getting at.
---

And I won't even give "you" a hard time about your prefering constantly rusting Blue Steel and constantly shifting Termite Food. Lots of folks seem to like that inferior stuff.

I just prefer to use mine "outside" in the elements where the Stainless and Synthetic create less problems for me.

Had to use Rusting Blue and Termite Food for many years simply because that is all that was available.

Best of luck to you.

quote:

prefering constantly rusting Blue Steel and constantly shifting Termite Food

Strange as I've never had rust on any of my blued steel chrome moly barrels or actions and I've never seen a termite on any of my wood stocks.

Make no mistake here folks, I go hunting when the season is open and if it rains or snows my gun gets wet.

For those that like (rustable 400 series) stainless and tupperware, have at it. I'll stick to the walnut and traditional bluing.

I was just sent a reminded by a friend, which I have mistakenly over looked, and will now drop and give 25 to the Corps for my bad judgement. Sorry Chesty, won't happen again!

Referring to the Remington 700, "It has been proven in combat for over 40 years by the Corps, and 30 or so by the US Army. Other than the M16, the Remington 700 is the longest serving small arm in the military inventory. You don’t get that by being unsafe, unreliable, or poorly designed...and you don’t get any more "dangerous" than "game" that shoots back at you!". Amen to that brother!

quote:

Referring to the Remington 700, "It has been proven in combat for over 40 years by the Corps, and 30 or so by the US Army. Other than the M16, the Remington 700 is the longest serving small arm in the military inventory. You don’t get that by being unsafe, unreliable, or poorly designed...and you don’t get any more "dangerous" than "game" that shoots back at you!". Amen to that brother!

I'm not a fan of the Remington 700 but it's simply an errored statement to say that it's anything but as described above by Malm's post.

My hunting guns are M-70 and '98 Mauser and my varmint rifles are Sako.

The 700 Remmy just don't trip my trigger but I've worked on a few and have great respect for them. They're a very fine action.

quote:

Originally posted by duikerman:
The 700 Remmy just don't trip my trigger

Perhaps a slight adjustment is all you need.

chrome moly barrels only rust if the bluing job is had it like the old 303 i use! just keep sticking the oil on it and its alright, ive seen finnlights rust and so does my kimber montana. I'd put oil on any barrel just to make sure it doesnt think about rusting!

I myself prefer the stainless steel just for the look of it and because its a little lighter. but everyone has there own opinions.

Paul

First off I will apologize for high jacking your thread!

quote:

They are American built
The company is still in business and going strong
They come in a huge variety of chamberings
They come in a wide variety of finishes
They are offered with a variety of options
There are more aftermarket accessories offered for them than all the others combined
They are of simple design
They are accurate
They are strong
They are affordable
Parts are readily available
They are easily adaptable for competition and specialized work

I agree with the statements Malm listed above that I copied with the omission of only two and at that only because of certain issue that I will not go into at this time or discuss in this post.

quote:

I'll add this to Malm's Remington design feature list:
******
******
******
The 3-rings of steel Bolt Design is perhaps the SAFEST design in the World.
----------

NOTE: There was a recent thread on this Board about intentionally Blowing-up rifles by plugging the Bore. It was the contention of some that since the Remington design "held the Pressure" for a longer time that it was "more dangerous". Their belief being it allowed to Pressure to get higher than a regular lower pressure exploding CRF design.

I didn't enter that thread simply because I respect the opinion of the guy that started it. However, the results of the Test are not typical of what a person would see with normal Factory Ammo or routine Reloads. In those situations, I'll take the major SAFETY improvement of the 3-rings of steel any day.
----------

I have no argument what so ever with any of these comments and would have to say HC is on the money IMO, except I would consider the design to be THE strongest based of the destructive test photo's I have seen first hand with regard to how the M/700 receiver stacked up against competitors designs. The M/700 stood up to firing a proof round with 4 220gr bullets in the throat and it still did not come apart, but rather "bird caged"...

Some of the other rifle designs tested shattered like glass with ONLY one bullet in the throat.

I put stars where I made omissions, not because I necessarily strongly disagree but because I do not know these to be a fact first hand or I am attempting to honor your request.

If you purchase a new rifle Remington has recently changed the design of their "fire control" of which I have referenced a few of the design features of this new design in an earlier post I made in this thread, in case you missed my reference to the "SPL" (safety pivoted link) fire control, that may or may not be of any interest to you. I have had one of these SPL units since this spring to evaluate and like the new features, construction and feel of the trigger.The new SPL design appears to be very promising.

Go for it!!

Aug ><>

quote:

Hey you never see posts that start off "Mausers suck" or "Winchesters suck".

That's because that would be a lie!

Good to see yet another post discussing issues rather than personalities...

Reminds me too much of my ex...

Hot Core......"Stainless steel" rusts. Tupperware stocks flex. Yeah, I know you can spend a real lot of money on a synthetic stock that works.....But my pre-64 wood stocks don't need to be replaced. (By the way, termites don't like varnish.)
"Only four things cause it to be unsafe". No, five....The fifth being a poor design since 1948.
Let's see........Mausers don't go off when you release the safety.
Winchesters don't go off when you release the safety.
Sakos don't " " " " " " "
Umm, Brownings don't.........
Springfields don't.........
Old Marlins don't.......
Savages don't......
Sauers don't.....
M16s don't....
(Runnings out of toes, and fingers.)
Greek Mannlichers don't.......
Remington model 81s don't.....
Browning HPs don't....
1911s don't....
Remingtons built on Enfields don't......
Funny.........only Remington 721-700 types DO!!
Wonder why only newer Rems get adjusted too light?
Wonder why only newer Rem triggers get grungy, and cause inadvertant discharges.
Wonder why only Remington 700 rifles have safeties that become Winchester model 1904 thumb trigger models?
And "careless trigger yankers" ?????? Yeah, like only Remington suffers from those types...
Hot Bore......See that little red "X" up there in the right hand corner of your monitor?? Just Klick on it, and fade away. Huh?? Grant.

quote:

Originally posted by Oldmodel70:
Funny.........only Remington 721-700 types DO!!
Wonder why only newer Rems get adjusted too light?
Wonder why only newer Rem triggers get grungy, and cause inadvertant discharges.
Wonder why only Remington 700 rifles have safeties that become Winchester model 1904 thumb trigger models?
And "careless trigger yankers" ?????? Yeah, like only Remington suffers from those types...

Why are so many of you 'anti-Remington' all you have come up with is that the safety needs a little work, so what? It’s probably easily fixed.

Just weigh the good against the bad, and the good exceeds by a long shot.

I myself have never used a Remington before, but I know some people who recommend them and use them almost exclusively. Yet only on these forums do I read of safeties not working properly. For everything else they have to offer I'd rather not use the safety, I rarely use a safety anyway, just have it on half cock or uncocked completely.

and if all you are going to do is bash other people like this then maybe you should be clicking the little red "X' up in the top right hand corner. do us all a favour.

I thought Oldmodel70 had some good points.
Did you only want to hear nothing but good about the 700?
Read up here then make your own decision, but I think a good trigger design is one that if fiddled with either works safely or doesn't work at all. IE, no matter what, if you only take the safety off that is all that should happen.

quote:

Yet only on these forums do I read of safeties not working properly.

Paul

After your most recent post I respectfully submit this material to your attention sir...

This issue is not limited to this forum alone, with all the positive features that make this rifle more than suitable for a custom rifle to be built by a qualified smith does not however discount the fact that the fire control may allow inadvertent discharges as a direct result of releasing the safety, jar-off or operating the bolt...

All within the boundaries of being within factory adjustment and well within the scope of normal foreseeable usage of the product by management (DuPont pre Dec.1993), the designers and engineers of Remington Arms Company.



Aug ><>

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?C...88632&page=0&fpart=1


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/17/eveningnews/main301947.shtml

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/tortlaw/articles.cfm?ID=919

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/digitaldiscovery/library/spoliation/lewy.html


http://www.monttla.com/KUFM/2000/2000_11-7_comm.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1738...hesubsection=general

And the list goes on.....

quote:

Why are so many of you 'anti-Remington' all you have come up with is that the safety needs a little work, so what? It’s probably easily fixed.

1) I do not as a matter of fact consider myself to be anti-Remington because I support them with my consumer dollars.

"All I can come up with" is the rife may discharge in the normal operation of the safety or bolt in the field... Wholly Crap, are you serious???!!!! As if this topic alone is not worthy of discusion, in and of itself???

2) The safety is basically a sound design as I HAVE already stated, the malfunctions are related to the trigger itself...

quote:

Just weigh the good against the bad, and the good exceeds by a long shot.

I agree the receiver strength has no-doubt protected hand loaders and hunters from injury since the day of conception of the design.

BUT the "good" out-weighs the "bad", really, could you quantify that for me, please????

The down side of the "bad" is countless numbers of people missing limbs blown away from their bodies or worse... a slow lingering death for the unlucky individuals who was unfortunate enough to receive a lethal injury but NOT a humane end to their life.

Think about it for a minute of two before you answer.....

If the decision makers at Remington could have adopted a design change for under 8 cents (1948), 15 cents (1970s), 32 cents (1980s) or $3.00 (1990s) per rifle to protect the system and the public from a malfunction that would result in the rifle firing without the shooter intending it to do so, would that have been a sound investment to the company to protect their customers from severe injury or death, not to mention to "put the company in a more "Secure Position" with respect to product liability"?

Speaking of "Minor Repairs", what would it be worth to you to ensure your rifle will not fire unless you intend for it to do so by pulling the trigger?

Paul the public should have a reasonable expectation that the "Most Popular" bolt action rifle in America WILL NOT, SHOULD NOT fire without intentional trigger contact being made, and the shooter intending it to do so simply because of the rifles popularity, IF for no other reason on earth!

Do you disagree with the proposition with approaching nearly 4.5 million units manufactured and in the field today that IF Remington's decision makers knew of these dangerous propensities they should have done something to correct them OR at the very leased warned the public???


Aug ><>

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:


3 B: The belted is stopped by the mutch more precice headspacing Belt, then you have the intire wall length to absorb the stredging, before the shoulder reaches the front of the chamber. leaving very little stretching to the critical area, ahead of the buttom.

When resizing Belted magnums it is advisable not to set the shoulders unnesecary back

Me and Mike Bellm set out one day to check, in your words, "mutch more precice headspacing Belt" and discovered that the "mutch more precice headspacing Belt" on the factory new brass we had sitting in front of us varied as much as .013 in distance from the case head to the forward portion of the belt. Not very precise to me and potentially disastrous if ones barrel tennon is too short.

My very favorite round is the 375 H&H Ackley Improved cartridge and while the belt/casehead distance on factory stuff can be sloppy, I don't have any problem chambering for them and instruct all my customers who are handloading for belted chambers, to neck size whenever possible to minimize stretching which is fairly common with belted cases. Those who do, get exceptional results from their belted stuff.

Malm,

I wish to comment on Jurgens incorrect post and on the 375 AI.

First of all though I must thank you for your contributions here with real genuine and valuable gunsmithing advice so don't take my opinion on AI'd belted bottlenecked rounds as anymore than gunfun talk.

First the belt dimensions. John Ricks made a gage and measured them as you did and the belts are all over the place but way on the small side headspace wise as you found. Ricks said that he would cut a chamber to fit the supply of brass.

I wonder, say if the round were not an AI but a 300 WM for instance, would a smith cut the chamber a little short as to take up on the headspace to the belt and for that matter the built in excessive headspace to the shoulder?

Second. I really find that the belted AI bottlenecked chambers are not a good design. Unlike the rimless versions the belted ones blow the shoulder forward and take metal from the expansion web.

I happen to have a 375 AI on a Sako L61 with a Douglas barrel and chamber. The only way I can get decent case life is to use pre made 375 Weatherby brass or make them from 416 Remmys.

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
The only way I can get decent case life is to use pre made 375 Weatherby brass or make them from 416 Remmys.

That's one way around the problem.

The chamber on my own "Remington 700", is cut short allowing the case to rest against the shoulder in the traditional manner. It requires a little extra effort sifting through new brass using a belt gauge, but when I flip the safety off my stock (well, kind of) and well maintained, factory Remington trigger, the results are well worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
Did you only want to hear nothing but good about the 700?

Referring to the 700, I believe his original question was, "so i really want to know is why are they so popular?" which sounds to me like he was soliciting the good stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
I think a good trigger design is one that if fiddled with either works safely or doesn't work at all.

No trigger can withstand an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by malm:

No trigger can withstand an idiot.

And as soon as they make something foolproof, they just come up with better fools!........DJ

quote:

Referring to the 700, I believe his original question was, "so i really want to know is why are they so popular?" which sounds to me like he was soliciting the good stuff.

Malm
I complied with Pauls request the first time you reminded me of my manners, then IMHO Paul re-opened the discussion on further dialog by saying:

quote:

Why are so many of you 'anti-Remington' all you have come up with is that the safety needs a little work, so what? It’s probably easily fixed.

Just weigh the good against the bad, and the good exceeds by a long shot.

I myself have never used a Remington before, but I know some people who recommend them and use them almost exclusively. Yet only on these forums do I read of safeties not working properly. For everything else they have to offer I'd rather not use the safety, I rarely use a safety anyway, just have it on half cock or uncocked completely.

Which I have begun to discuss with HIM in a civil manner after his most recent endorsement of his position and mind you "without ever using a Remington before".

Dont worry I will be gentle with him he seems like a nice young man....

Best Regards, Aug ><>

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DESIGN of the Remington 700 bolt and receiver. Even in the case of the trigger/safety, the FSR problems I have seen- and I've seen a bunch- have been more a quality control rather than a design issue. Though the existence of the sear connector may be considered by many to be a design flaw, those cases where the rifle did fire on safety release were always related to dimensional problems with the safety cam rather than a malfunction of the sear connector. Quality control.
Other instances where quality control, or the lack thereof, has reared it's ugly head include such problems as extractor and ejector function. When the ejector hole is shaving brass, it's usually because the edges of the hole are burred ore the bolt face is not square to the bore or both. When the extravtor is shaving brass or not engaging the rim of the case properlu, it's usually because of an error in machining the extractor undercut in the bolt head or deformation of the extractor itself on installation. It's not a design flaw but again, a quality control issue. When the extractor cam fails to function as it should, it is because the bolt handle has been positioned incorrectly.
Remington 700s handle a severe overload or catstrophic case failure better than almost any other action. In this regard, they are very safe. 700's feature a generous and simple bedding surface. This makes them easy to bed properly. The design is such that good bolt alignment is easily attained and therefor, firing stresses are transferred to the receiver evenly. It is difficult to dispute the 700 action's reputation as a foundation for an accurate rifle.
When the design has been ececuted properly by the factory, Remington 700s work very well.
From a gunsmith's viewpoint, 700's are easy to work on. When a job is easily accomplished, the results are often better. I've built some pretty good shooting model 70's and Mausers but I've always found the Remingtons easier to work with. Many accuracy oriented 'smiths are practically unable to work with anything else! As with any and all actions though, good gunsmithing wi;; result in a great rifle while poor work will result in a dog. Regards, Bill

Bill, so once again we are back to the simple truths about Remingtons:

They are relatively easy for a gunsmith to make into a accurate rifle.

They are often made poorly enough so that a gunsmith is needed to make them into an accurate rifle.

So is it any wonder gunsmiths like them? Job security comes to mind..... ........DJ

quote:

They are often made poorly enough so that a gunsmith is needed to make them into an accurate rifle.

DJ
I do not really buy into this as the rule, I have owned some very accurate Remington rifles through the years, and in this regard I have not had any complaints personally, also keeping in mind I am talking about a factory original stick. I would have to say overall I have had good results in the accuracy dept although I realize someone else's mileage may vary from my own.


Aug ><>

quote:

Originally posted by Augustis:

quote:

Referring to the 700, I believe his original question was, "so i really want to know is why are they so popular?" which sounds to me like he was soliciting the good stuff.

Malm
I complied with Pauls request the first time you reminded me of my manners, then IMHO Paul re-opened the discussion on further dialog by saying:

quote:

Why are so many of you 'anti-Remington' all you have come up with is that the safety needs a little work, so what? It’s probably easily fixed.

Just weigh the good against the bad, and the good exceeds by a long shot.

I myself have never used a Remington before, but I know some people who recommend them and use them almost exclusively. Yet only on these forums do I read of safeties not working properly. For everything else they have to offer I'd rather not use the safety, I rarely use a safety anyway, just have it on half cock or uncocked completely.

Which I have begun to discuss with HIM in a civil manner after his most recent endorsement of his position and mind you "without ever using a Remington before".

Dont worry I will be gentle with him he seems like a nice young man....

Best Regards, Aug ><>

Okay then...