I have not seen the show but have no reason to doubt your take. It is how the media behaves on a daily basis. Its how public relations types behave too.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

[QUOTE]I hate to sound like a broken record but that is how OSHA would look at it.
They would come in preform their investigation and then ask was the proper safety protocol followed. Answer = NO! then regardless of design it was the operators fault.

Disagree..........it would be the employers fault. Always is.

Agree But let me be clear. The incident would be the fault of the operator, but the responsibility would go to the employer

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I have not seen the show but have no reason to doubt your take. It is how the media behaves on a daily basis. Its how public relations types behave too.

100% correct

You bet either side will have a bias to protect themselves it's human nature.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:

Agree But let me be clear. The incident would be the fault of the operator, but the responsibility would go to the employer

Yes I agree.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
You bet either side will have a bias to protect themselves it's human nature.

Yes that is what I was trying to say. IMO to be fair and open minded you need to view information coming from both sides with the same degree of skepticism.

quote:

Originally posted by M 98:
JACK
why dont you spend some time on finishing projects for which you took money for, from your then customers, why dont you return the money you took from people and not done any work, that would be time better spent.Your a cheat a crook and a thief!!!!

He might not have any money because he has received "not one thin dime" for his work "exposing" the design faults of the Walker trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

Seems to be a significant lack of belk supporters. For those that still support him, when belk was asked what he got paid. he said, "Not one thin dime!"

Soooo, how many of you actually believe belk paid out of his own pocket for the Transportation to the Court, paid out of his own pocket for the Lodging, paid out of his own pocket for Meals, and paid out of his own pocket for Transportation back to whereever he exists - without being PAID?

Being reimbursed for expenses or receiving per Diem does not count as "getting paid" and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by J_Zola:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...11043/m/54110415/p/1
This get resolved?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I did get my project back. It was missing a part worth about $150. There was about $150 worth of work done. I was not billed for this work, so in the grand scheme of things it was a wash.

I do wish I had the missing part as they are no longer made. I have always wondered if it ended up on the raffle rifle.

Regardless I hold no ill will towards Jack and I hope he is doing well.

Copied from my PM's As I though it was a good train of though

It still comes down to the fact that the trigger is not responsible for anyones death. The careless use of the firearm is the culprit. Design flaw or not. No one would be injured if the rifles are properly handled.

Your hell bent for leather attitude has blinded you to this fact.

Lets just say hypothetically there is a flaw in the triggers design that without modification or tampering could under certain circumstances create this condition of Firing upon safety release. Fine, but the trigger is not to be blamed for anyone's death nor should Remington be held responsible for anyones death. Misuse and mishandling of the firearm combined with this condition allowed an unwary user to accidentally kill someone.

What I'm getting at here is you are asking all of us to throw the users manual in the trash and RELY upon the manual safety device we were all told to use but never trust!! Asking Remington to pay for someone else's mistake!! It's a joke. That is why you are meeting so much resistance.

Remington whether they knew about this problem, attempted to ignore it, cover it up, or pay people off to shut them up Is under no obligation to pay for any damages. Remington is only liable for the cost of a replacement trigger system that is approved by them or ruled upon in a settlement.

Now if they built a rifle that had a bore in such poor condition that on occasion it would blow the barrel up with factory loads. Then if they ignored the issue then they would be liable for any damages as the shooter has no control over the condition of the barrel and the act of shooting the rifle as intended places the shooter in harms way. But since the trigger condition does not place the shooter in harms way nor anyone else but requires the shooter to have to take certain actions to be safe. It is the shooters responsibility to follow those precautions and therefore the shooter's responsibility if the precautions are not followed.

It is a felony to leave a firearm with in reach of a child. But the way you place blame it would be S&W's fault if the trigger pull was light enough for a child to pull it. The root cause of that one was a poorly stored firearm not the weight of the trigger pull

Do you understand direct cause and indirect cause???

Air clearing--

I did disappear for a pretty good reason, but anyone with google always has a current email addy.
I DO owe work and I might owe money, too. I'd appreciate being contacted so I can handle it. I know I have two barreled actions here, but I've lost the information on a stack of wrecked hard-drives. I'm building my last shop now, but have not even had a drill press plugged in in 3 years. I will be back in the gunmaking business late next year. I'll pay in work or some of that dirty lawyer money. Take your pick, but neither is present right now.

I got the cataract surgery at Rocky Mountain Eye in Grand Junction Colorado. I paid cash for the anesthetics and op room, motel, rental car, etc. thanks to the generous offerings of internet friends and customers. I traded custom gun work for the surgery...it done five weeks. The raffle action was raffled off and I haven't heard from it since, but the pictures are still on webshots.com/hotater/One Eyed Jack I and II. I'm very proud of that job.

Talk about out of context!! I was flamed about being paid by CNBC . I responded, 'Not one thin dime'. TRUE. CNBC paid nothing for me to go to Boise (400mi RT), and Boseman (800mi RT) or many hours on the phone and emailing. I did stay in a hotel room they had reserved in Boseman last March, but I bought every meal and all my fuel and talked my way out of a speeding ticket on the way back.

I DO charge the hell out of the lawyers!..and they pay all my expenses, too.
For the year 2002 that was $500 total. Eleven years has been less than $5K. This year is considerably different because several cases, some two and three years old, suddenly need me to go to Minnesota or Wisconsin or Oregon or Texas and I charge 'em for every minute I'm gone!

Thankfully, I'm building a house and shop so there's absolutely no danger of accumulating any of it.

Today I drove 400 miles and examined six firearms for three guys from two states. One had been badly modified, four were guns known to be safe to the point of believing the gun more than the circumstances. Two were obviously damn lies and I told them so. Monday I might examine two more. I know the make and models but I have formed NO opinion as the validity of the claims until I've seen the GUN. I'm a GUNSMITH and that is what I do.

I have absolutely NOTHING against Remington! I just bought a Model 700, for Pete's sake! I have a nice varmint rifle built on a M722 and the last full custom rifle I built was on a short action M700.
Webshots/hotater/6mm Remington project. To think I have anything against ANY gun company is simply ludicrous! I testify to mechanical designs called firearms and I make demonstrations, exhibits, cut-a-ways, and models and rent them to lawyers. I think it's a pretty good business model but for ONE SERIOUS thing--- For me to get paid, somebody has to get shot.

That is terrible.

Most of my consulting work is by phone and for no charge. I can tell a lawyer that most rifles that fire uncontrolled have been modified and how to tell if they're terminally dirty and give him a series of questions to ask his client about work done or maintenance issues. Most of the time the answers say it was NOT the gun's fault and he's saved a couple hundred grand without spending anything. Is that a service to the lawyer? Or the gun companies?

NOW- Why did I come forward, knowing it was going to stir up a storm? Good question.

The CNBC special was ten months in the making, but I was ask if I'd participate in such a project back in 2001.
Reporters have been following some of the cases for years. I was interviewed outside the courtroom in Wyoming after testimony in a murder trial. My name is in most of of the gun cases that are filed and I believe I must be consulted (free) on just about every AD resulting in death or injury that happens in the United States. I've always told them I could explain how the Remington-Walker trigger worked and how it failed. I did exactly the same when CNBC asked.

Were my statements taken out of context by CNBC? They were taken from maybe 40 minutes of tape, but the statements ARE true and are certainly well used in the presentation. A gun should not fire without the trigger being pulled, Mike Walker IS one of my gun guy heroes (and should be to every rifleman in the world.), there is no safe direction for an unsafe gun, and Remington's business model did change after WW-II. I think that's all they took of my interviews.

I didn't know what was to be shown, what angle they would take or how it was going to come out. It's just like testifying in court. Walk in, answer questions and walk out. I don't know what the lawyers are saying. I just tell the facts and leave. I didn't KNOW what CNBC was going to show. NO idea, but I trusted the producer because I know his story and I trust him to be fair.

SO-- When the release date was moved up and the advertising budget was increased and the re-show time was doubled and I got murmurs from people that had seen snippets of it that it was pro-gun and powerful, I decided I would preempt the people that was likely to not like me on this forum and others, with the FACTS of the trigger, so when the special was shown, you'd know the context of the problem. There is much more to the story. I had no idea what they were going to show of it. I did know that a LOT of shooters would be asking 'gun guys' for information after it was shown.

The Remington-Walker Explanation is actually the second such document. The first was by John T. Butters a Professional Engineer (mechanical and electrical). It's referred to as the 'Gospel According to Thomas.' but it's been 'protected' by Remington for about 20 years. It's technical and (I think) still protected, so I decided to write my own and publish it here and other places so its public and it's not secret and it's not protected except by copyright. I've been giving publication rights to all that ask. Free.

There's been a lot of PM s back and forth and I'll continue to respond, but I think I've been a pinata long enough to satisfy any masochistic craving I might have had. Let's talk gun and triggers or not at all.

I've been told I don't charge the lawyers enough....maybe they're right.

Thank you all for your attention. Those that say I owe, please let me know.

So, when you finally seen the program were you please at how it was treated?

Guns don't go off by merely touching the bolt knob unless someone tampered with the trigger. As an experienced trigger guy, did that incident raise your hackles? Did you know that Mr. James' part in the CNBC program was a fraud? I mean the guy was real, but his story wasn't. Did you know that it wasn't truthful? How about the Marine Corps memo? Did any of this crap CNBC presented look plausible to you? Unbelievable!

FBO-- If the trigger is sealed with factory goo and does that exact thing on video tape, would you believe it? I know how it does it and its EASY to do with a screwdriver. Do you think that's news?

Roger James testified to his part in the customer service area. I didn't know he was interviewed. I haven't seen the Remington rebuttal but I've seen some of the testimony. I know which of those were under oath, too.

I didn't and don't know about the Marine Corp Memo.

It is plausible because I know what wasn't shown, too. I really can't watch it without a certain prejudice. There is language that makes perfect sense to me because I know where it came from and my mind fills in the blanks automatically. I know CNBC has a very careful lawyer!....but the subject is much too big for a one hour program. I would imagine the class actions will mean another special sooner or later. CNBC is a business channel, not a sportsman's or MSM outlet. They report mostly on business subjects. When this much money is at stake, they're going to report on it.
Are you suggesting that I lie about my sworn testimony on TV??

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Jack,

Three simple questions and I would ask you not to respond unless you intend on answering the questions.

1) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a 700 that has not been modified?

2) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a properly maintained firearm?

3) Have you ever been able to replicate the claimed problem on the specific rifle of the lawsuit without modifying it?

Mike- the trigger is sealed. The only way into it is through the top on each side of the sear, the inspection port on the left and a small hole for the safety detent ball on the right side.

To set up a test for debris failure, the trigger's left side plate has to be cut away for access of slivers of feeler gauge stock that is forced between the trigger body and the connector in different orientations, locations and thicknesses and several trigger pulls measured to .xx lbs.
The reason it's done that way is because PLENTY of debris is found in most triggers of all makes. Any gunsmith can tell you his most common job is 'clean and oil'. I found a shirt button in a shotgun trigger! Goo, gunk, varnish, and residue is common in Remington triggers especially, as noted in the document. Remington says they're

quote:

Remington's patent says, "..which is absolutely safe i the hands of the hunter or target shooter and rugged enough to remain so in spite of the abuse and neglect which are often heaped upon sporting arms. emphasis mine.

Don't you think that draws trial lawyers like flies?

We know from common sense, test and other evidence that the connector separates from the trigger several times each shot and up to about .030 gap is formed. Now, LOGICALLY, one could add those things up and find out that all it takes is .0075 in any one of several places to displace a factory set trigger enough to have an insecure mechanical condition. It's easy to show a jury how it happens, but there's only been ONE instance of probable causation caught by picture...and it's posted here.

The testimony is that it wasn't found to be causing an unsafe condition . Not that it wasn't there! (I don't know what clip they used. I'm asked that a lot.)

Do brand new rifles fail even though they're perfectly, factory clean, in adjustment and sealed at the factory. YES THEY DO! Ask Remington.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I know how it does it and its EASY to do with a screwdriver.

Out of literally hundreds and hundreds of Remington triggers I've serviced over the past 30 years, I have never seen any failure due to anything accumulating between the connector and trigger lever. It has all been related to sear tampering, spring tampering and years of accumulated crap. So please spare me the screwdriver theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
Are you suggesting that I lie about my sworn testimony on TV??

You read things like my ex wife. No where do I suggest you should lie. To ANYONE!

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I haven't seen the Remington rebuttal...

You really should. You owe it to yourself.

.

The screwdriver turns the screws to MISS ADJUST it. I'm saying it's easy to do..just like you say people misadjust triggers!
The screwdriver TEST is something that test the fit of the connector on the trigger. Try it sometimes.
Tell me about the years of accumulated crap. Does it make any difference if its there or not were it not for the pacman-acting connector? NO.
What's wrong with the millions of self-
cleaning triggers on the market?

I'll see the rebuttal after I testify. Do you think I haven't seen it all before?

Jack, did you ever approach Remington with an idea as to how to fix the Walker Trigger? Assuming of course it was broke. If so, how did they respond?

I reported what I'd found in a 722 and told them how I fixed it but got no comment that I remember. I thought it was a much more rare occurrence until 24 years later.

I was asked in deposition to draw how I would fix it without deleting the connector. I did. It matched the drawing later found made by Walker-- pierce the right side plate and make an inward bent angle off the safety so that it presses against the front of the connector when applied. That's the XMark Pro but they finally got rid of the connector. Very good decision.

One there is no such thing as a self cleaning trigger. There are triggers less susceptible to debris but still not self cleaning.

Once again we are back to trigger modification.

A properly adjusted and maintained trigger is a safe one. A dim whit with a screw driver is an accident waiting to happen

Another thing i just thought of is that I can and have adjusted Timney's to the point of being completely unsafe. I obviously fixed this and set the sear engagement properly but you can dial it right down to next to nothing supporting the sear. And there is really no easy way to measure sear adjustment. I know that my trained eye can discern a difference of as little as .005" Good smiths that have work with close fits can do the same. Now Joe blow that buys a gun a the local sporting goods store thinks .010" is the thickness of a credit card.

It is up to the owner to have the trigger properly adjusted. Now if the rifle comes out of the box Misadjusted then yes there is a liability there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I know I have two barreled actions here, but I've lost the information on a stack of wrecked hard-drives. .

As an FFL you are supposed to keep "hard copies" of such things. Don't you maintain a "bound" book? How did this go over with the BATF?

If the M700 trigger is not designed to be adjusted after sold then why are the adjustment screws there?

I wonder in a courtroom just who Remington would acknowledge is qualified to adjust their trigger? I wonder if the trigger was adjusted but still in specs if they would still claim that the seal has been broken therefore its been modified so we are not liable?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Jack,

Three simple questions and I would ask you not to respond unless you intend on answering the questions.

1) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a 700 that has not been modified?

2) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a properly maintained firearm?

3) Have you ever been able to replicate the claimed problem on the specific rifle of the lawsuit without modifying it?

Jack,

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that your answer is:

1) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a 700 that has not been modified? NO

2) Have you ever been able to replicate the problem on a properly maintained firearm? NO

3) Have you ever been able to replicate the claimed problem on the specific rifle of the lawsuit without modifying it? NO

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
If the M700 trigger is not designed to be adjusted after sold then why are the adjustment screws there?

I wonder in a courtroom just who Remington would acknowledge is qualified to adjust their trigger? I wonder if the trigger was adjusted but still in specs if they would still claim that the seal has been broken therefore its been modified so we are not liable?

Remington has no control over who handles or maintains their firearms. Their only liability is in the state of condition the firearm was in when it left the plant. In an accident, Remington may be called to testify as to whether a firearm has been altered or not, but the ultimate liability rests with those handling and maintaining the weapon.

Cleaning and servicing triggers is part of a gunsmiths job description. If he elects to service a trigger, it is up to him to make certain the trigger functions properly. He should take the necessary precautions to document the trigger work to protect himself in the event the customer or someone else wishes to tamper with his settings. If an accident occurs and it winds up in court, then the gunsmith will present his side at trial.

Then Mike, you see where my testimony came from.

You're right about the tire analogy and I've given it a lot of thought. Judges don't like them but I do.

Hopefully you know what a 'Coffin Hoist' is. Encased, chain-type hoist with pawls to act as ratchets up and down. I have several and use them a good bit. The R-W trigger is very analogous to having a separate lever between the pawl and it's spring. Of course they're in a sealed case with almost no chance of contamination and the dual pawls wouldn't separate under acceleration to give a chance for debris between the parts, but it's roughly the same circumstances. Anybody that's operated a come-a-long knows how the ratchet works and can figure out an indirect spring action on the pawl is a bad idea.

The questions for any design engineer is: Given equal results, is it better to return one part with a spring, or two parts stacked together?

Is the first part in the line of force more likely to return to position or the second?

If you want to believe thousands of Remington customers shot something accidentally and tried to blame the gun but Winchester shooters only thought of doing it 41 times since 1937, go right ahead.

kcstott-- The Model 70 trigger is self-cleaning and you can demonstrate that to yourself by dirtying it up to see what happens. The Savage 99 is another one, so is the M94 Winchester, M63 and M61 and Remington Model 11, 30, 30s.... John M. was a big believer in trash trenches and they work great.

Jack,

I don't want to believe anything one way or another.

I do take analysis and data very seriously.

I have asked before and I don't think I got a clear answer.

Where is the information that supports "thousands" of Remington failures?

Last time I asked I think you said that is was not based on knowing it was a Remington but based on the circumstances it was assumed to be a Remington?

Where did the data on the Winchesters come from? 41 is a very specific number.

Is it the same data source for the Winchesters and the Remingtons?

How do we know if the data source on Winchesters is comprehensive?

Really interesting thread, for a number of reasons. My first Remington was a 722 in the early '60s and I've owned several since, plus smithing them for others. After almost 50 years' experience and after reading this thread, I've reached several conclusions:

If I keep my Remington clean then it won't give any problems.
If I follow basic safety procedures then I won't kill anyone.
If I don't do the above then I'm stupid and deserve no money.

And, last but not least, Jack Belk can't or won't answer 3 simple questions.
Regards, Joe

Those are written COMPLAINTS to the maker of the gun, not rumors of guns going off. These are people sitting in a deer stand or unloading at the truck or shooting on the range and get the crap scared out of them by the rifle. I commend them for writing the letters.
You asked once before about the reports of hunting accidents that looked familiar but the make and model weren't specified. Those are just rumors of figures. We're talking real letters of concern and sometimes anger, but all the time a certain awe that so much energy had been turned loose by surprise.

The CNBC program showed stacks of complaints and said 'thousands' at least once (I've heard five to seven thousand). I've seen them. They're real. CNBC tracked some of them down and interviewed them, too. Unaltered, not adjusted, clean and sometimes brand new triggers have failed.

Each company keeps customer service records to one degree or the other. As a gunsmith I depend heavily on what the customer says and equate that to the mecanism. Many of the complaints are detailed enough to figure out what happened. An AD is something people seem to have a 'flash bulb' memory of and details are usually plentiful.

In about 1996 I worked a Winchester M1200 case that killed a kid. (POS Nylon bushing had broken on the torsion hammer spring which cocked the hammer laterally until only a corner was caught by the sear...jar off every time.) During that case Similar Incidence were produced on all Winchester models. '41' refers to triggers not altered and springs not ground or replaced. I asked for permission to quote it at the time because I thought it a remarkable figure.
Comprehensive?? Have you ever had to read ten thousand pages of badly copied micr-fisch pages of hand written complaint records? I wish sometimes they weren't so danged comprehensive!

I have been a Remington M700 owner for over 20 years...I currently own a rifle with this "so called" problem...

It has yet to fire unexpected, it has yet to wound anyone, it has yet to kill any human beings. The only thing it has killed is some wild pigs and whitetails...

Now when I take specific actions to make this problem occur then it will happen. But unless I actually go out of my way to make the problem happen, then there is literally no problem. I owned this rifle for like I said over 20 years and just a few months ago is when I discovered my rifle is one of these with the so called problem.

Simple solution for the "problem"...dont take the safety half way off and pull the trigger...

I could find a problem with nearly every single automobile in the country if I hold the gas pedal to the floor board and drive it into a brick wall. Then argue my way into a law suit saying automobile makers should make something to prevent wide open acceleration so I will not kill myself.

No difference with these rifles...Dont point them at target you dont intend to detroy or kill. Also DONT PLAY WITH THE TRIGGER!!! let alone the safety device keeping it from firing...

Ok, my rant on my soap box is over...I just hate people who try and exploit a situation for financial improvement. Get off you butt and get an education and job and join the rest of the natural worl dand be productive. If more people who be productive our economy would not be so terrible right now. Instead we have too many people who want to try and find a way to sit on there lazy boy there whole life and take someone else's empire that has been built from nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Brando:
I could find a problem with nearly every single automobile in the country if I hold the gas pedal to the floor board and drive it into a brick wall. Then argue my way into a law suit saying automobile makers should make something to prevent wide open acceleration so I will not kill myself.

A better analogy would be an automobile that accelerates when you put it in PARK or when you apply the brake. Under any but extreme conditions, no automobile should accelerate unless you push the gas pedal. Under any but extreme conditions, no firearm should fire unless you pull the trigger.

Jack,

Thanks for the answer...are you saying that CNBC subpoenaed Remington in a lawsuit and Remington produced thousands of complaint letters to CNBC?

Or did CNBC somehow obtain other copies of thousands of complaint letters?

In one of your video taped depositions, you refer to a deputy sheriff and you say he lied about the gun failing and going off by itself or having an FSR or some other failure.

I assume you weren't at the incident when it happened so how did you determine the deputy was lying in his report/statement regarding the AD?

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Under any but extreme conditions, no firearm should fire unless you pull the trigger.

Precisely.

Mike-- I don't know where CNBC got the documents, but I've seen them in the course of my work several times.

The discharge in the radio room of the Sheriff's office was easy. It was a S&W M-66 in original condition.
A S&W can NOT fire without the trigger being pulled and held to the rear. I pulled the side plate and showed the deputy how that was a fact and nothing but a fact. It could not have happened the way he said it did. He DID pull the trigger.

That incident is a great illustration of safe gun design, too. Unless two out of three parts are permanently altered by removal of steel, the gun WILL NOT FIRE without the trigger being pulled. It takes less that five minutes to prove it. Think of that. If the gun fired some body fired it by pulling the trigger. No AD is possible, only purposeful or negligently fired, NOT accidentally fired without the shooter doing it. It makes investigations much easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I pulled the side plate and showed the deputy how that was a fact and nothing but a fact. It could not have happened the way he said it did. He DID pull the trigger.

Jack,

Have you ever investigated an AD case involving a Remington 700 where you determined that the shooter had actually pulled the trigger even though the shooter never admitted to it?

Westpac--- Now we're making progress!

It would be impossible for me to make that determination. I can't show that a trigger was pulled because that's the way its supposed to operate. I can only testify that the trigger is subject to firing as the shooter testified.

It is my stated opinion that no gun should fire unless as an act of sport, defense, or evil. When the fourth condition becomes 'the gun did it' me and lawyers get involved.
The gun should NOT fire unless directed by the shooter. Period. That IS the standard. The trigger fires the gun, the safety prevents it from firing. The verbiage of the Ten Commandments is designed to relieve manufacturers of liability. Read them literally and it's very apparent.

The totally 'Safe' guns ALWAYS have a part or parts that prevents firing. If that feature is still intact, the investigator knows the trigger was pulled. Without that feature, it becomes the word of the shooter is paramount.

I have enough experience with most guns to have the right questions asked of the shooter so the phonies are sorted out before they embarrass them selves under oath.
A lawyer spends about $100K out of his pocket before trial. (some go above $300K) THEY want to know the 'good' cases from the bad and that's what I try to do on the first couple of phone calls.

I've heard of three this morning...no injuries, just anger.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I can only testify that the trigger is subject to firing as the shooter testified.

So in light of all the recent publicity what to prevent all kinds of shysters from running down to the nearest gun store grabbing a 700 and claiming a AD?

They could, but the lawyers would eat him up and spit him out. Deposition could be called inquisition and not be far off.

I doubt very seriously anyone could be a convincing enough liar after the body language experts and voice stress analyzers got through with him. His own lawyer would be obligated to file perjury charges against him.

Jack,

Following up on Westpac's comment have you ever analyzed a case involving a Remington 700 where you said "Bullshit" the guy had the safety off and pulled the trigger or pulled the trigger while he was taking the safety off!

Of course. I've said it over and over again. The lawyers ask me about the case. I ask them questions to ask their potential client. If it's not right it's not a case. It happens a lot, not just on Remingtons. Altered, out of adjustment, trigger pulled, stupid moves, drunk, drugs, pure carelessness---it all plays a part and lawyers sure aren't going to throw away big money on losing cases.
Real cases that have a lot of damages are very rare. As I said in the CNBC deal, shooters ARE very safe. Hunter's education and the Ten Commandments have done the shooting world a lot of good. If we handled guns like Hollywood does it would be a bloodbath.

With the safety off and the trigger pulled, the gun is SUPPOSED to fire. That isn't news or unusual and my name is not associated with a case. As I've stated several times before, I don't keep track of the 'proper operation' consultings, but my sense is that about two out of ten contacts warrants further looking at the gun and the witness accounts. Even then, some are not 'right' and I decline to work on it further. It's happened several times within the past week.

One of the things I had to get used to was definitions. When a shooter says his rifle 'malfunctioned' it means to a gunsmith it didn't fire, extract, eject or feed. To a lawyer there's a different meaning for the same word. "Defective" is another such word. It's used very carefully.

Jack,

Here is where I have trouble with...I am not sure of whether I would call it your logic or your position or your opinion.

1. You have said you have never been able to replicate a failure without modifying the mechanism and you have never been able to replicate a failure on a subject rifle.

2. It is safe to say you weren't at the scene of the AD watching someones trigger finger.

3. Written reports or complaint letters aren't facts. Just because I say I didn't pull the trigger doesn't make it a fact. You have said yourself you have called bullshit several times.

So given 1, 2, and 3 above how do you scientifically determine if event A was a failure of the mechanism and Event B is a lie by the person handling the firearm.

I am looking for something other than its possible because if I manipulate the mechanism this way it could happen.

By the way, in the course of your work were you allowed to read the thousands of complaint letters and are these thousands of complaint letters all regarding Remington 700 triggers/safeties or just thousands of complaints to Remington in general.

Mike-- I'm having trouble with your logic and your observations. Maybe you don't read what I've written at all.

I replicated THE FSR on the first M722 I ever examined and I did it many times. That is on video taped testimony. I have seen M700 trigger SO dirty they would no longer work, but I did NOT see them fail. Logic tells anyone that between 'perfect' and 'inoperable' there is 'fail'.

I deal with the fact of a discharge and give the jury ALL the ways that can happen. One of those ways it CAN happen is to take the safety off and pull the trigger. The JURY decides how it happened, not me!

I have no business looking at complaints about zippers on gun cases breaking. I look at 'similar incidences'. SAME guns, SAME circumstances, SAME claims. To think otherwise is just ignorant.

By your continued questioning I believe 1) You have not read and certainly don't understand the functioning of the R-W trigger and 2) have not seen the CNBC special. Until you do your ignorance is showing too much to enjoy the conversation.