quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
Duckear- You're right. "Circle of liability" does sound too legalese. It sounded good when I made it up.
Call it the circle of responsibility because if you cause damage you are responsible for it.

So-far the furthest injury from an AD that I know of is less than a hundred yards, but near misses are legend. Several injuries were the result of ricochets or deflections so the 'point of safety' is wider than just the bore line. It's the nature of the energy expended.

The guy in Texas that shot the woman with a 50BMG ricochet last month is an example. That was over a mile away from his 'range'.

What we must guard against is the perception of not caring about the public. Next week the public will know about a bunch of guns that act like fireworks instead of firearms and the concern level is bound to go up.

My goal is to block legislation with education. It seems no one has yet taken the challenge of seeing for themselves the unvarnished truth, so maybe it wasn't such a good idea.

The 6 mile circle is bullshit and for a simple reason. if someone is letting the safety off then they are ready to shoot. If the gun is pointed at a horse trailer with a kid behind it while they let the safety off the person is a fuckwit.

quote:

Several injuries were the result of ricochets or deflections so the 'point of safety' is wider than just the bore line. It's the nature of the energy expended.

So in this case you are saying a rifle can't be fired safely and in this case the safety is not part of the equation.

You can probably get a paid position with Gun Control Australia, they would love you.

[QUOTE]

On Oct. 20th CNBC will start a special called "Remington Under Fire". It's likely to cause a national, if not world-wide, discussion of a subject I've been very well acquainted with for the last 17 years.

[QUOTE]

Unfortunately, Jack, I think many of us here are concerned about the ripple effects of ANY attack on the firearms industry, especially given CNBC's history of slanting news to fit their agendas. Your explanation of how the RW trigger was designed/works was very informative. But if that information is to be used by the anti-gun people to harm Remington or Remington owners, then I'd just as soon it not see the light of day. How will you feel if the CNBC "documentary" leads to more restrictions on gun owners?

I'm STILL glad you're back. You have a wealth of knowledge. I just wish you'd be more, ah, selective, with who you share it with... ;-)

MKane160

Jack,

I have not bothered to read all the posts here because I simply don't have time.

But let me see if I got this straight...

You know of six deaths that involved remington rifles and the reported AD has a statement from the shooter that the AD relates to a malfunctioning safety.

"Mike- I don't know the answer. I know of six, but I've heard it said it could be dozens. Many accident reports say "30-06", but the circumstances are all too familiar. I don't think anyone can say for sure."

and that in addition to the the six you are aware of there are many other accidental gun deaths which seem to have similar circumstances so somebody is assuming they involve Remington rifles and they involve defective safeties?

Do you know who this person making this assumption is?

or did I misunderstand your comment?

Mike- Its best to just wait on the special. Any questions after that maybe I can answer more completely.
It would really help to read the first post. That's what the discussion is supposed to be about. So-far nobody has, though.

Will correct that on the chart Jack.

You chambered a 22" barrel in 9.3x64 a while back. It shoots just fine still. Thanks.

LD

Jack,

I asked the question because I have zero faith in the media to clearly articulate the difference between facts and supposition.

Also, I rarely watch TV.

I am reminded of the model rocket motors that were used to explode the side gas tanks on chevy (i think it was) pick ups to demonstrate a supposedly faulty design

or the medical doctor who created "positional asphyxia."

It's a serious issue to me if someone who is knowledgeable of the data such as yourself makes a statement that some of incidents being included in the counts cannot be validated to have occurred with Remington rifles.

Mike-- I'll stick with my answer. I know of six and I've heard it said it could be dozens. I don't know.

For many years in many states makes, models and condition of subject guns in hunting accidents were not recorded. No such thing is allowed as evidence in any way, of course.

I get many calls from PIs, cops, lawyers, insurance people and people that know how to use google telling of various events, accidents, ADs, careless discharges, malfunctions and misfires. Some are Remington some are something else. There is no exclusivity to firearms malfunctions. Some have the ring of truth and some don't. Most consist of one call. I freely give information to those that ask for it.

As a gunsmith (instead of engineer), I take the sworn testimony of the witnesses and determine if mechanical facts fit their accounts in a clear and explainable way. It's a long and involved process that demands the cycle of operation be known down to the microscopic level. ...and be able to explain it to a jury, devise exhibits and demonstrations...and deal with lawyers. Some parts are harder than others.

Jack,

I have no animosity towards you at all and you seem to want the truth to come out whatever the truth may be.

But you have been asked 3 or 4 times, how you were "forced" into silence and you won't answer that question.

I think it is fairly clear that you have supported plaintiff's attorney in the suits. Nothing wrong with that.

But I doubt you were forced into silence. You agreed to sign a NDA as part of your contract.

So folks are going to be naturally suspicious of your motives when you "return" in the manner in which you have which is..."I have the inside scoop on these terrible things" and then when asked questions you choose to answer some but not others because you have been "forced into silence."

Many people probably find it disingenuous.

Maybe 'urged' to stay quiet is more accurate. I worked a case in 2001 that the lawyer had me agree there would be NO internet postings having to do with firearms. Those type things are on-going and as seen here are seldom productive.
My wish here, against attorney's advice, was to give a heads-up to the GUNSMITHING community so the information about to be released wouldn't be a total surprise and bring on a knee jerk reaction.
In 1993, when I was first hired to work a Remington case, I was given three banker's boxes of 'catch up materials'. Those were serveral thousand pages that changed my life forever. The same could happen tomorrow night with a generation of gunsmiths. I felt it an obligation to give some warning of what's coming and how to gather the truth through looking at the mechanism.

When there has been a cover-up for many years the first thing to do is get information out. Since there are no definitive answers in any book or article, I decided to explain the mechanism so that any average mechanic can understand it IF he looks at it and makes an effort to see what can go wrong with an overly complicated trigger. So-far, I've had private email from ONE non-poster that he has done such a study and found what I found in 1970. It's a real shame more don't try it.

This whole thing is just weird.

Safety not withstanding as I understand the guns can fire when you release the saftey. That means when I release it as I am about to shoot at game it could go off when I am not ready meaning I will miss or wound game. Even if it were not potentially unsafe that makes it a pretty ineffective hunting rifle.

A Mauser that is not well cared for can do the same thing. I have seen any number of other rifles that would have the trigger remain pulled and would fire when the safety is released. How a lawyer could make a case for this with Remington more that other is a mystery.

SR--You still don't understand that the M700 'trigger' is NOT what's hanging out the bottom of the action. Please READ the description, look at the trigger and the patent and understand that while all rifles can fire if the safety is released while the trigger is in the pulled position, with ALL other triggers the shooter can tell the trigger is out of position. Not so with a Remington.
With other rifles, if the trigger binds in the inletting, on the trigger guard, or by rust, dust, or debris you can tell it and you can manually reset the trigger into the proper position before releasing the safety. Not so with a Remington. The actual 'trigger' is out of sight and out of the shooter's control. It's inside the housing with the gum and dirt and debris you can't see, either.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
How a lawyer could make a case for this with Remington more that other is a mystery.

Who cares. Who do you sue for a poor design? Peter Paul Mauser? Some no longer in existence company? Remington is the big boy with the name recognition and the deep pockets.

Has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the debate here. Jack Belk's contentions could be slam dunk, open and shut, absolutely indisputable; and if it was a small, struggling, on the verge of bankruptcy company then no lawyer would give a victim the time of day.

Has nothing to do with trigger design. It has to do with what can reasonably be shown in a court room and what damages the defendant can pony up for.

Howard, very true.

Jack, I don’t know you from apples or hand grenades but you sound like a double edged speaker.
Why get on here and post this and then come back and say you did it for the good of the gun community so it would not have a knee-jerk reaction.
That sounds like back pedaling to me.

In the end this whole debacle with Remington getting called out on this is ONE THING...a ripe apple someone is wanting to pluck. Big money equals big lawsuits.
Tell your attorney to eat shit and die. They are the biggest fucking problem, next to politicians, the good working people of our fair country have to deal with.
And if your in bed with them...same advice to you.

Now then, who the fuck points a gun at people and tests the triggers and safeties?

It is not the guns fault, it is not Remington’s fault. It is the idiot running the gun. Then when overburdening guilt takes control of them, their fragile ego/personality can no longer deal with it all and they look for an escape goat...lead by the chivalrous attorneys at large.

UnfuckingREAL!

Where is my common sense gone....OH, there it is, under my loaded gun in the fridge, next to the kids juice box!

Pissed off.

quote:

Originally posted by Gun toter:
In the end this whole debacle with Remington getting called out on this is ONE THING...a ripe apple someone is wanting to pluck. Big money equals big lawsuits.
Tell your attorney to eat shit and die. They are the biggest fucking problem, next to politicians, the good working people of our fair country have to deal with.

Actually all the attorney's do is their client's bidding within the framework of the law. Real issue is the stupid laws, followed by do nothing have nothing people who think that corporate America are all crooks and the rich only got rich by stealing from the poor. Then those people get on juries and hand out ridiculous settlements.

Back to the laws.............they are all written and passed by people with law degrees so maybe it really is all the lawyers fault. LOL

Then I left out the clients who are more then willing to use the law and their attorneys to get something they know good and well isn't theirs.

true again.
And you know them damn politicians are lawyers too.

i found some C-4 and a detonator in the butter drawer of the fridge too!

This topic sure got quiet after all the pre debut hype. This was sent to me by a friend. I thought It would make interesting reading for those who are interested in all things related to our industry.

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

OCTOBER 29, 2010
Recently CNBC produced an “expose” claiming that the trigger mechanism of the Model 700 rifle has a deadly design flaw. This claim is demonstrably false. Remington stands fully behind the safety and reliability of the Model 700 rifle. Whether by our hunters, target shooters, law enforcement officers, or military forces, the Model 700 has been put to the test billions of times under the most grueling and challenging conditions. The rifle’s performance over the last five decades has led to its well-deserved reputation as the finest and most-trusted bolt action rifle in the world.
Supported by trial lawyers and a hired expert, CNBC sensationalizes tragic shooting accidents and takes decades-old documents out of context to smear Remington, its employees, and the iconic Model 700. Clearly, CNBC had no interest in providing a fair and accurate history of the Model 700. Rather, CNBC turned a blind eye to the multitude of facts – both provided by Remington and otherwise readily available – in order to demonize another member of the firearms industry.
Set forth below are Remington’s itemized responses to many of the allegations made by CNBC. Remington provides these responses, with facts, as a service to its valued customers, its loyal employees, and the shooting public.
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
The Model 700 rifle is prone to firing without the trigger being pulled because of a design defect in the Walker trigger mechanism.
Both Remington and experts hired by plaintiff attorneys have conducted testing on guns returned from the field, which were alleged to have fired without a trigger pull, and neither has ever been able to duplicate such an event on guns which had been properly maintained and which had not been altered after sale.
Mr. Belk, a paid plaintiffs’ expert, was given extensive air time by CNBC to espouse his theory that the Remington 700 is defective because the trigger “connector” supposedly allows debris to interfere with the trigger mechanism (the “debris theory”). In statements made under oath, however, Mr. Belk has demonstrated the implausibility of the theory upon which he and CNBC rely.
• He admitted he has never found debris or contaminants to be interfering with the trigger and connector in a Model 700 rifle he had examined.
• He admitted that he has never attempted to duplicate his “debris theory” because the possibility of producing such an inadvertent firing is simply too remote.
• He admitted that accidental discharges can and do occur as a result of unknowing inadvertent trigger pulls, and that many use these excuses to avoid embarrassment or blame.
(1)
OCTOBER 29, 2010
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
The shooting accidents featured in the CNBC program involved circumstances where the Remington Model 700 rifle
fired without a trigger pull.
Whenever a firearm is not handled properly, tragic accidents can occur. Each of the tragic and emotional personal injury and death cases cited by CNBC involved a breach of one or more important gun safety rules.
• Failure to keep the rifle pointed in a safe direction
• Failure to properly maintain the rifle
• Altering the rifle’s trigger mechanism
• Failure to have the safety engaged when not actively engaged in firing the rifle
BARBER ACCIDENT
The Barber rifle had been modified in multiple ways and poorly maintained (rusted action). Even so, in testing by experts for both Remington and the Barber family, the Barber rifle would fire only by pulling the trigger while the safety was in the fire position.
JORDAN ACCIDENT
Mr. Jordan’s Model 700 rifle, which CNBC alleged fired without a trigger pull, resulting in the accidental shooting of his wife, had a modified trigger. According to police reports, Mr. Jordan was carrying the rifle on a sling, and as it slipped off his shoulder, the gun discharged, striking Mrs. Jordan nearby. Mr. Jordan acknowledged that the gun’s safety was in the “fire” position and also asked investigators, “do you think it could be possibly [sic] that I hit the trigger with my thumb or finger when I was reaching for the rifle?”
ANDERSON ACCIDENT
Serious gun handling errors led to the tragic death of Kathy Anderson, another case featured on the program. The account provided by CNBC and the Andersons’ attorney, Robert Chaffin – that the rifle fired when the owner was unloading his rifle
in another room, and the bullet went through the wall – is unambiguously contradicted by police reports. Those reports clearly state that the shooting occurred when the owner was showing the loaded rifle to a 14-year-old boy in a room of people, including Mrs. Anderson. Testing by Remington and plaintiffs’ experts verified that the firearm would only discharge when the trigger was pulled with the safety in
the “fire” position.
RAMBO ACCIDENT
Mr. Jay Rambo has a lawsuit pending against Remington. According to the allegations of the complaint, his father, Dale Rambo, was in the process of loading his rifle when the rifle fired. Because there is pending litigation in this matter Remington will not comment other than to note that its formal response to the lawsuit includes the allegation that the senior Mr. Rambo’s careless and negligent handling of the rifle
“was a direct and proximate cause” of his son’s injuries.
(2)
OCTOBER 29, 2010
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
Military and police agencies have had issues with Model 700s.
A multitude of historical documents show that a defect in the design of the Model 700 trigger mechanism causes accidental discharges.
U.S. MARINE CORPS
CNBC extracted portions of Marine Corps incident reports in an attempt to support its allegation that rifles were experiencing firing without trigger pulls. CNBC left out the facts that the Marine Corps found that the firearms in question had been improperly altered and that Marines had coded both of their incident reports “U” for “Misuse of Item” as opposed to finding the gun at fault. After its investigation, the Marine Corps revised its training and maintenance manual to limit alteration of the fire control.
PORTLAND, MAINE POLICE DEPARTMENT
CNBC showed a five second video of a rifle discharging when the bolt is touched by a man dressed in camouflage fatigues with his identity blocked. CNBC did not provide any information as to where the video was taken, who the shooter was, and most importantly, the condition of the gun. Remington has initiated contact with the Portland police department to inquire about the alleged problems and gain access to the guns and the officers.
U.S. BORDER PATROL
Remington representatives spoke with a Border Patrol official familiar with the CNBC allegation that Border Patrol officers had experienced misfires. The Border Control official advised Remington that the rifles had been improperly altered. The Border Patrol continues to utilize Walker fire controls in their Remington sniper rifles.
U.S. MILITARY
The Model 700 continues to be the firearm of choice for elite shooters from America’s military and law enforcement communities, and has been the platform for the United States Marine Corps and U.S. Army sniper weapon systems for over two decades.
During CNBC’s program, portions of some isolated internal documents, going back as far as 1946, on a variety of topics, were mixed-and-matched by CNBC with other documents on unrelated topics to lead the viewer to false impressions.
As the documents clearly demonstrate, both “tricking” and the “screwdriver” test refer to contrived, intentional manipulations of the trigger, not an unintended discharge as alleged in the CNBC program.
As explained in a 1979 Remington document, “tricking” required the user to first intentionally place the safety between the “safe” and the “fire” positions, then pull the
(3)
OCTOBER 29, 2010
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
Jack Belk – Presented as the “Plaintiff Expert”
trigger, then push the safety the remainder of the way forward to the “fire” position. If the firing pin released, the rifle was said to have failed the trick test. None of the events alleged to be involved in any of the shooting accidents featured in the CNBC program involved tricking. In addition, even the contrived “tricking” condition only applied to the estimated 1 percent of Model 700 rifles manufactured before 1975, not to any rifles made thereafter as was put forth by CNBC.
CNBC also inappropriately relied upon 60-year-old documents created during the developmental and pilot testing phase for its proposition that the Remington 700 Walker trigger mechanism is unsafe. To the contrary, these documents underscore Remington’s long-standing commitment to safety through its program of pre-production testing of its products.
Mr. Belk, a paid plaintiffs’ expert, has made numerous statements under oath that demonstrate the implausibility of the allegations made throughout the CNBC program:
• Mr. Belk testified under oath that he has never been able to duplicate an accidental discharge of a Model 700 without a trigger pull in any of the accident guns he has examined.
• Mr. Belk has testified that he has never found debris or contaminants to be interfering with the trigger and connector in a Model 700 rifle he had examined.
• Despite his reliance on this theory as being the cause for accidental fires, Mr. Belk has testified that he has never attempted to duplicate his debris theory because the possibility of producing such an inadvertent firing is simply too remote.
• Mr. Belk has testified that he has no criticism of the design of the Model 700’s manual safety mechanism.
• Mr. Belk has testified that accidental discharges can and do occur as a result of unknowing inadvertent trigger pulls, and that many use these excuses to avoid embarrassment or blame.
• Mr. Belk’s focus has been in attempting to advance his “debris theory,” a focus that he has not limited to the Walker trigger mechanism. Mr. Belk, as a paid plaintiff’s expert, has also advanced this theory against other gun manufacturers.
(4)
OCTOBER 29, 2010
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
Roger James – Presented as the “Remington Insider”
As the alleged “Remington Insider” Roger James has testified in open court, he last worked for Remington in 1993.
Mr. James never worked in the manufacturing or production of firearms; rather, he was employed in Remington’s ammunition plant. In 1997, Mr. James was hired by plaintiffs’ attorneys to testify in two cases involving Remington shotguns and one involving a semi-automatic rifle.
Testifying in those cases under oath, he was specifically asked whether he had “any recollection of ever hearing anyone at Remington discuss alleged accidental discharges involving bolt-action rifles.” His answer was, “No, sir.”
“The complaints stack up in the The trigger mechanism of the Model 600 rifle at the time
1970s after Remington recalls a similar rifle, the 600, over inadvertent discharges. But the company decides not to recall the more popular 700.”
The 2007 X-Mark Pro is “exactly the same mechanism” that Mike Walker proposed in 1948.
of the recall was different than the Model 700 rifle’s trigger mechanism. In fact, when Remington recalled the Model 600 rifle, it replaced Model 600 trigger mechanisms with Model 700 trigger mechanisms.
Remington has an extensive and ongoing research and development program across all of its product lines, and continuously introduces new and updated products. Remington introduced the X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism in 2007. The X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism has a one- piece trigger without a connector. Like the Walker trigger mechanism, the X-Mark Pro is a safe and reliable high performance system. Remington continues to utilize the Walker trigger mechanism in rifles sold to the U.S. military and for use in certain custom rifles as requested by our customers.
The 1948 design shown by CNBC is very dissimilar to the X-Mark Pro and, in fact, was not even Mr. Walker’s, but that of another Remington engineer.
CNBC also did not note that Mr. Walker’s 1948 proposal would have left the connector in place, or that when Mr. Walker designed the Model 700 in the early 1960s, he maintained the connector and incorporated a sear blocking safety mechanism, consistent with prior designs.
(5)
OCTOBER 29, 2010
REMINGTON FACT
CNBC ALLEGATION
Instead of changing its guns, Remington changed its message to the public and developed the Ten Commandments of Firearms Safety with giant public relations firm Hill & Knowlton.
“Every case is settled with a confidentiality agreement that prevents you from talking about it.”
Remington firmly stands behind the importance of gun safety and has actively supported and promoted safe gun handling practices and other safety initiatives for decades. Remington did not, however, develop the Ten Commandments of Firearms Safety. According to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), the Ten Commandments of Firearms Safety have been in existence since the 1920s.
Confidentiality agreements are a very common practice in civil litigation, and it is often the plaintiffs who want such a provision. In fact, when the Barber case was “satisfactorily resolved” in 2002, a confidentiality provision was included in the agreement at Mr. Barber’s request.
(6)

A point by point rebuttal is in order, but it's not my place to do it. Some research will show the lie to most of Remington's statements to one interested in the history. It will become public knowledge sooner or later, but for now I don't know for sure which of my facts are still protected or not.
Cases are pending and I'm under subpoena.

Jack,
Really? WHATEVER!

Again....why the hell are loaded guns pointed at people?

Where is safe gun handling in all this?????

ITS A FUCKING LOADED GUN!
USE CAUTION, BE CAREFUL, IT CAN KILL PEOPLE!

quote:

Originally posted by Gun toter:
Jack,
Really? WHATEVER!

Again....why the hell are loaded guns pointed at people?

Where is safe gun handling in all this?????

ITS A FUCKING LOADED GUN!
USE CAUTION, BE CAREFUL, IT CAN KILL PEOPLE!

Ok be that way---just wait because it is all going to come out in time---not an internet chat forum. There is a lot more to all of this so be patient it will take years to play out.

Thanks Westpac, Semper Fi!

The only part I see wrong in the Response is where belk is refered to as an "expert".

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
A point by point rebuttal is in order, but it's not my place to do it. Some research will show the lie to most of Remington's statements to one interested in the history. It will become public knowledge sooner or later, but for now I don't know for sure which of my facts are still protected or not.
Cases are pending and I'm under subpoena.

And waiting to get paid? Or did CNBC pay you up front?

Not one thin dime!

welcome back Mr. Belk, I enjoy our web postings on Gunsmithing and Lister engine's.

well Jack I don't really care about which of your facts are protected. I saw video tape of you answering a question under oath that refutes all your previous posts.

And don't come back and say that it "was taken out of context" or some BS.

CNBC is about as trust worthy as any politician we have. they are only out to get one thing, ratings and there by MONEY. These are the same jokers that soaked trucks in kerosine to make the video more dramatic. A video that was portrayed as being FACT. How far do you think they will go to slander the firearms industry??
How far will you go???


Get the Discovery Channel or the History channel to do your Public service advisory...... But they won't as they have people with integrity. And when they screw up they admit it and issue a correction. CNBC never issues corrections that I've seen.

This whole issue is once again putting our gun makers in a very bad position in a very tough economy. Remember S&W People say they sold out. They settled as to avoid a very lengthy and costly fight. They were singled out and picked on by our own friggin government.

Jack sell off all your guns as you should not be allowed to own one when you will not support our industry. You are an insult to the second amendment.

You may be trying to "solve this problem" but hanging around with the sleaze of CNBC is a friggin joke. You may as well join up with Handgun control Inc, and those other idiots something prevention of gun violence.

You sicken me to know there are people like you so misguided in their views and so contradictory

kcscott-- Let me ask a couple questions of you--

Is it right or wrong for a gun to shoot without the holder pulling the trigger? How often does it have to do that to become considered 'dangerous'?

I can't reproduce it, but I can certainly explain how it occasionally happens. Anyone with a degree of mechanical knowledge can see it and understand how it happens.

If you throw a nail on the highway will it cause a flat tire on the first car that runs over it...or the second? OR the thousandth car? Will every nail cause a flat? Just because a nail might on average cause one flat in a million tires, is it a good idea to have them in the road?

Here is the mechanical description of the Remington-Walker trigger. If anyone can refute ANY of it, speak up! You tell ME how it works.
Remington-Walker Explanation

Where is the proof?? I've yet to see documented proof that a M700 trigger failed due to it's design. I've seen proof that lack of maintenance will cause it to fail. I've seen that lack of care in properly adjusting it will cause it to fail.

But I've yet to see documented proof that an unmodified properly adjusted M700 trigger will fail. So me a documented case of an M700 firing with the rifle on safe and the trigger not being pulled with out some one monkying with the trigger or rifle???

I do agree that no firearm "should" fire without the trigger being pulled manually or by other means. But there's that word "should" If you've ever been involved in anything resembling a OSHA case you "should" know the definition of "should, Shall, And May,

Should: is a recommendation.
Shall: is a requirement.
May: is a possibility of a situation.

I can guaranty that any firearms user's manual states something like the following.

You "should" always point your weapon in a safe direction. Great bodily injury or death "may" occur if the above rule is not followed.

Also the patent you describe is not the trigger used on M700's It may be close but it has under gone a few updates since 1948

I saw the aftermath of an accident a week ago today. There was blood literally running in the street. The motorcycle did what it was designed to do - except that it failed to stop as quickly as the driver would have wished. It resulted in a fatality.
Was the motorcyle design flawed?

Jack,

No dog in this fight...I just try to be a diligent consumer of information.

Can you expand/explain why the patent you reference is not the the trigger that is actually in the Remington 700 or the trigger that you have used in your write up.

The patent distinctly shows an L shaped connector with no return piece on the bottom side of the connector.

Yet, the trigger in the model 700 distinctly has an C shaped connector preventing upward movement of the connector?

Now, I am not a gunsmith and have not thoroughly reviewed the material. But I seem to recall one of your concerns is the movement of the connector and it appears that the C versus L shaped connector is major distinction and would prevent movement.

Again, I could be completely wrong but I am always concerned when an analysis references a deign document that I as a layman can identify what appears to be a big discrepancy.

Are there other differences in the actual Remington 700 trigger which was put into service 14 years after that patent for a different trigger was filed?

What is the proper patent reference for the Remington 700 trigger?

With respect to being under subpoena, please tell me what rule of law as a private citizen you are prohibited from discussing this issue.

I can understand you may not want to talk about it and the attorney you may be supporting does not want you to talk about it...but I can think of no law that prohibits you from talking about it.

It just doesn't "feel right" when a person says "hey here is a bunch of detailed information that proves X is bad" and when others say "hey here is a bunch of information that says X may not be bad" and the first person says...

"Sorry, I can't talk about it"

Didn't realize my post was similar to KC Scott"s

Sighting you own work is not supporting your case. You should know that you need to sight independent sources.

Have you tried to talk with Remington about how the trigger is designed to function..... Oh I'm sorry you're sworn to secrecy due to the law suit How convenient

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Didn't realize my post was similar to KC Scott"s

Typing at the same time probably

And he may be under court order not to discuss the case he is currently apart off, expert whiteness to or what ever. But if that were the case he would not be able to post anything at all, not just specifics about the case

The Remington-Walker trigger is described in DETAIL and the variations in the parts are also explained in the document. WHAT is so hard about reading it while looking at the patent and figuring out HOW IT WORKS? I don't understand the aversion to knowledge!

The connector was changed, the double sear was changed, the stamped housing was discontinued, the safety cam lift was increased, the sear overlap was increased and the return spring was made stronger but the DEFECT is still there and the document and the patent fully explains it. Each change DID improve the trigger but the heart of the problem was retained for NO gain. That's the point of the entire exercise.

quote:

The patent drawings are probably different than the trigger you see in your rifle. Over the decades many changes have been made to the various parts. I'll explain the differences and what effect they have on operation and safety, later, but here's a rough test to see which 'generation' trigger is in your rifle.

Can it be any plainer? That's the beginning of the second page.

Tell you what-- Is anyone interested in a paragraph by paragraph explanation? I'll start a new thread, if there's interest in learning this.

Please understand that over 17 years I've been exposed to many hundreds of thousands of pages of information. Most of it is not yet part of a public record. BUT, I've certainly used that information in forming my opinions and in explaining the facts of the mechanism. The truth will come out, eventually. Maybe not even in my life time, but I'm on the right side of the argument and I'm trying to explain why that is so.

MECHANICS are pretty simple to figure out and the facts DON'T change depending on who's looking. The facts are there in hard steel for anyone to see. It's not a matter of my opinion that the parts move as they do. It's a matter of certain record and can be seen by anyone wanting to look. Some of the kinetic reactions from camming actions and recoil may take some deeper thought, but as long as Newton's Second is understood, it's pretty easy.

I'm going to remain active in the education of a subject some are really closed-minded about because it IS important to our gun rights. That is the bottom line. It makes NO difference who tells the truth as long as it gets out to the people that need it the most.

Jack, since your years of forced silence are over, does this mean you will start returning calls from all the folks to whom you owe money?

http://m.remington700.tv/# Reporter Joie Chen does an incredible job narrating Remingtons response titled "A Report on the Facts" to Jack, his team of attorneys and their story. This video is about 14 minutes long and tells the rest of the story that CNBC failed to tell.

At about 10:04 minutes into the video Jack makes his appearance and continues until about 13:00 Minutes. At 11:09 it begins to become clear what motivates some expert witnesses to tell their tales. Statements made like "I'm doing it as a public service" are laughable. If I made about 50 percent of my income suing various gun manufacturers, I sure as hell would be doing and saying anything I could to keep the checks coming.

As an observation, it is something to make half your living working on guns produced by various manufacturers, and then turning around and making the other half of your income, suing those who manufacture the guns. There's just something slimy feeling about that.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
Jack, since your years of forced silence are over, does this mean you will start returning calls from all the folks to whom you owe money?

-----

Rethought this last night, I guess belk is indeed an "expert(being paid to be a) witness. Darn shame he is not an expert in Trigger Design, or even a nimrod at knowing how they function.

Since that is all cnbc could find(witness wise), it sure doesn't speak well for their credibility.

By the way, that Gas Tank fiasco that KC is refering to was under jane pauley's nbc news(?) and they had to use small Rocket Motors(solid fuel toy rocket motors similar to Estes) with an electrical ignitor to get the Fuel Tanks to light.

I always wondered just how many Chevy trucks they crashed, two at a time, before they decided to add the Rocket Motors? Can you imagine those discussions?
-----

Had to be similar to cnbc and belk. "So you are an expert witness?" "belk - Sure am, I can trash Remington better than anyone - just ask cbs!!!" "cnbc - Just what we are looking for. Oh, how much will it cost cnbc." "belk - I'll claim it is a secret!" "cnbc - OK???"

Then on the stand, "belk, tell us all about the problem." (Gulllllp!!!)"Welllll, when you put it like that I don't know nuthin'."

"But, belk you have been able to duplicate this HUGE MASSIVE PROBLEM ON EVERY Remington Trigger ever made." (Gulllllp Gulllllp!!!!!!) "Wellllllllll, no not really, but...."

"belk, how many times have you actually duplicated this HUGE MASSIVE DESIGN FLAW ON EVERY Remington Trigger ever made?" "belk - never "

"Could you SPEAK UP, people will think you are not answering?" " haven't made it happen yet, but..." "That is all. Next witness."
-----

Interesting reading about the proceedings from Remington.

And that's what I'm getting at. Everything he states here is contradicted by his own words under oath. Can't duplicate the "problem" Unless you modify the trigger, monkey with it or just plain ignore common sense and never clean you rifle for twenty years.

The real issue here is the parties in the cases need to take responsibility for their own actions. It's much easier to blame something or someone then to face the fact that maybe you fucked up and killed your son (or other family member)

I'm a father too as many here are and I know I speak for everyone when I say that to loose a child would be the worst thing ever to happen to me. I couldn't imagine it and don't wish it on anyone. But to fail to take responsibility for my actions and blame someone or something else is just flat out wrong.

Jack I'm a toolmaker I fully understand how a trigger works. What you don't understand is people here see right through you.

The only issue with the Trigger is and this applies to any trigger is that is is sensitive to dirt, dust crud whatever and may not function as it was intended to. Now on any mechanism that relies on close tolerances it is required that it be kept clean with just enough oil to do the job. And it should also be removed from service every so often and completely cleaned.

I can't go in my garage and set up gage blocks on a dirty surface plate and expect the indicator to read correctly so how can you expect a trigger to function properly if not properly maintained????

The other thing is. It wouldn't be too difficult to find out just how many cases Jack has been called upon to be an expert witness. Everything in court eventually become public record.

So jack If you aren't getting a dime from this Why all the motivation and passion behind this issue???? Ego inflation. Power trip??? It's also maybe why you became a cop???? Power trip????

Any publicity is GOOD publicity

Have you Hired an agent yet?????

Ks-- In 1969 I saw a man with the top of his left knee blown off by a 222 Rem. I figured out how that rifle failed AND duplicated it on several occasions. I reported that to a Remington rep at the NRA show. To me it was an oddity, but one that needed addressed and I gave him my repair for the problem I found (old L connector with an oblong OT hole allowed it to ride up and in front of the sear ASSURING an FSR). I really didn't think any more about it until 1993 when I found out MANY failures had occurred and people had died as a result of FSR, FBO and FBC, but the company still hadn't warned people of it. I was asked if I could explain the trigger and how FSR happens under oath and I said 'yes'. I have done that several times.

I'll go back to the flat tire analogy--Can you duplicate a puncture flat by driving over a nail laying flat on the road? You know it happens, but anyone that's walked down a stretch of highway sees nails and screws worn down to foil thickness and they never did flatten a tire. The nail is the road is a definite risk to tires, but not all tires. You can drive a lot of miles back and forth across that nail and still not get a flat...or maybe you do. Would you spend the rest of your life testing or figure out how it happened and explain it and go on to something else.

Your example of the gage block on the surface plate is PERFECT. The Remington Walker trigger relies on the connector returning to lay flat on the face of the trigger after each shot. Do you wipe those surfaces between shots? You can't. Those surfaces DO become dirty. I've seen that, but I can't swear I've seen ENOUGH dirt to make the trigger-sear engagement unsafe. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. For one thing the connector and trigger separate on each shot...several times. In the presence of debris. How much evidence is needed to put two and two together? Is the fact that other over-ride triggers used by the millions in other rifles NOT showing the same failures further evidence. Yes, to most thinking people, once they learn ONLY the triggers with the extra part have a long history of failure, its a simple matter of looking at the mechanics of it to see two parts clapping together can NOT be as reliable in repositioning as one part in direct control of the shooter. The stacks of company documents describing the problem and how to fix it becomes even more evidence.

I do this because guns are my life's passion and I think its best if people are aware of the truth behind the scenes. Only in that way can guns be brought up to the standards they were at prior to WW-II.
To lose the inherent safety devices and methods developed by the gun pioneers is a shame. Especially when its done on a massive scale without warning to the customers.

FWIW-- I turn down an average of eight cases in ten...two just yesterday because the triggers were not sealed.