quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

WHY is the connector in Remington-Walker triggers? Anyone?

You should know this before post such a long thread hot air. If you don't know quit posting all of this junk.

Your arguments in your other posts seem legitimate. Your only mistake was to make the discussion personal by attacking the person on the other side. Personal ridicule doesn't win the argument.

This whole issue could really be interesting so long as everyone sticks to advancing their evidence. There are no fact finders here.

The question is a red herring.

Anyone that really wants to know will know that the connector makes the mechanism a "flexible" trigger. The connector is able to jump out from under the sear. I believe the M52 Winchester also has a flexible trigger.

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

I couldn't disagree more. I have always heard that 700s are accurate out of the box and I have always heard their safetys were crap. People don't put Remington 700s safetys on their high end custom rifles they use Winchesters.

For the finest triggers for the last 3 decades I can't count how many times I have read that about the model 70 trigger and I don't recall EVER reading that about the 700.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

WHY is the connector in Remington-Walker triggers? Anyone?

You should know this before post such a long thread hot air. If you don't know quit posting all of this junk.

Your arguments in your other posts seem legitimate. Your only mistake was to make the discussion personal by attacking the person on the other side. Personal ridicule doesn't win the argument.

This whole issue could really be interesting so long as everyone sticks to advancing their evidence. There are no fact finders here.

The question is a red herring.

Anyone that really wants to know will know that the connector makes the mechanism a "flexible" trigger. The connector is able to jump out from under the sear. I believe the M52 Winchester also has a flexible trigger.

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

MICE

Money
Ideology
Conscience
Ego

Take yor pick.

quote:

Originally posted by GeoffM24:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

WHY is the connector in Remington-Walker triggers? Anyone?

You should know this before post such a long thread hot air. If you don't know quit posting all of this junk.

Your arguments in your other posts seem legitimate. Your only mistake was to make the discussion personal by attacking the person on the other side. Personal ridicule doesn't win the argument.

This whole issue could really be interesting so long as everyone sticks to advancing their evidence. There are no fact finders here.

The question is a red herring.

Anyone that really wants to know will know that the connector makes the mechanism a "flexible" trigger. The connector is able to jump out from under the sear. I believe the M52 Winchester also has a flexible trigger.

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

I couldn't disagree more. I have always heard that 700s are accurate out of the box and I have always heard their safetys were crap. People don't put Remington 700s safetys on their high end custom rifles they use Winchesters.

For the finest triggers for the last 3 decades I can't count how many times I have read that about the model 70 trigger and I don't recall EVER reading that about the 700.

How did you get a safety and trigger confused?
Probably because you never ever tried to use one set up for benchrest. No one else does either.

I wish there were a way to post the Remington-Walker Explanation and the only way to post a comment would be after passing a quiz.
Maybe we need a blackboard to scribble on.

I can't help but laugh how hard it would be to explain a M-725 safety with the helical gears.

SR- Please! 'Jump out from under the sear'? The entire article completely and definitively explains why that's BS. That is the entire point of the post, to explain why the 'selling point' is a point of failure by complicating a simple two lever mechanism by adding an extraneous part for no useful purpose.
If you can 'get' pliers you can understand the Walker.
I hope the special has some nifty animations.

I believe that Remington settled lots of cases (all the while denying liability) concerning the trigger and required the plaintiffs to sign confidentiality agreements not to reveal the terms of settlement. In other words, not everyone (maybe even Remington) thought the trigger was the industry standard.

quote:

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

Perhaps it was Remington calculating that paying money here and there was cheaper than either recalling the firearms or redesigning the triggers (which eventually happened).

Anecdotaly, I saw a Remington/Walker equipted rifle just fire (on a rainy/sleety day) fire with the safety on while it was in a gun rack on an idling ATV. Not my rifle and no one was hurt, but unpon inspection of the rifle, I saw that the safety was ON when it fired. My guess was that some ice had formed internally and was jogged free by the vibration of the engine.

Sure, the answer is not to have a round in the chamber under such circumstances, but it I'm glad the rifle was pointed at an empty pick up and not me.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I think that Remington settled lots of cases concerning the trigger and required the plaintiffs to sign confidentiality agreements.

quote:

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

Perhaps it was Remington calculating that paying money here and there was cheaper than either recalling the firearms or redesigning the triggers (which eventually happened).

Everyone is an armchair designer even though they know little to nothing about it. Almost everything eventually gets redesigned.
Like I said. A local shooting blamed on that trigger happened to a lawyer. You know the breed better than I do.


I too have witnessed an accidental discharge of a M700 Remington.
The guy was once a year type trying to shoot prone at the range. When he closed the bolt the rifle fired because he had a finger sticking out and he hit the trigger. He was so daft that he turned and looked back to see who had fired. Then he resumed aiming and squeezed the trigger for a long time before opening the bolt and discovering the empty case in the chamber.
Shooters are just a cross section of the normal population distribution and some are too stupid to be allowed to use a firearm.

I modified my above post but didn't get it finished before you replied. I don't want you to think I'm trying to slip some stuff in the discussion.... but, among the "breed", Remington triggers have always been suspect... and I, for your information, have never been involved in a products liability suit.

Some suits are total b.s., some are quite necessary to insure that dangerous stuff isn't being sold to the public.

Remington triggers? Jack seems to think that they were so designed to avoid paying patent fees. I'd imagine that there has been developed a paper trail by discovery during lawsuits, but that trail is tied up in confidentially agreements.

I am a layman. Are Remington triggers less safe than others.... I haven't a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I think that Remington settled lots of cases concerning the trigger and required the plaintiffs to sign confidentiality agreements.

quote:

I have to ask again.
The Remington M700 trigger was considered the finest in a factory rifle for more than 3 decades. Why did that perception suddenly change? Opportunistic lawyers?

Perhaps it was Remington calculating that paying money here and there was cheaper than either recalling the firearms or redesigning the triggers (which eventually happened).

Everyone is an armchair designer even though they know little to nothing about it. Almost everything eventually gets redesigned.
Like I said. A local shooting blamed on that trigger happened to a lawyer. You know the breed better than I do.

Judge G,
I think we were both editing. No, I didn't think you were sneaking anything in. I often edit my own stuff because I don't like what it says after further thought.
From my reading I think that Stuart Otteson provided the best information about triggers that I have read and it agrees with my own observations.

quote:

The entire article completely and definitively explains why that's BS.

Jack
I can't help it if you do not understand how it works. You demonstrated that by asking the question about why the connector is there.
Go get one of Stuart Otteson's books and read it.

Sorry to get ahead of you, SR. It's called a rhetorical question that you answer because you've studied the trigger and come to the obvious and clear conclusion that such a study brings.

I have Otteson's books and he has some great information. I don't remember what he had to say about the Rem-Walker and I don't rely on a study by somebody else as a basis for my testimony. I look at actual, mechanical devices and testify as to how they work, how they can fail and how they can be improved. It's fascinating work.
I figured out the fault in the Walker in 1970 when a customer got shot with a M-722. That's when I started repairing them as described above.

<clarity edit> The connector does 'jump' but it's away from the trigger body. That's why its subject to contamination. It happens during sear fall and again several times during recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

By your Definition(and howard's agreement) - ALL Trigger Designs - should be removed from the market. Needless to say, I disagree.
-----


Would any of you care to say why that was a Red Flag. In fact, I'd love to hear the explaination from howard.[/QUOTE]

Did you masters at Remington let approve the above. Sure hope so for your sake. LOL

quote:

WHY is the connector in Remington-Walker triggers? Anyone?

Here is an extract from the chapter on the Remington 700 in the book 'The Bolt Action' by Stuart Otteson. You couldn't get a much clearer explanation of what the trigger connector is there for, and what it does.

Our sample rifle had a 3lb and 0.012in letoff, with .017in. over-travel, exceptional performance for an out-of-the-box standard grade rifle.

The secret to this level of performance in a reasonable-cost assembly primarily involves a unique connector piece resiliently mounted on the trigger. Normally, unless the trigger ledge is perfectly sharp and true – an almost impossible thing to both produce and retain in service – the sear begins breaking before the edges are fully clear, resulting in a spongy and imprecise release. The Remington trigger connector, a hardened steel strip sandwiched between the trigger and sear, allows precise trigger function without perfect surfaces and a sharp clean release without perceptible over-travel.

The connector is held against the trigger piece by a small spring and is thus capable of moving forward separately. Trigger pull displaces the connector until the sear begins breaking downward. The overtravel-stop pin then blocks the trigger, while the connector, which has a small clearance hole, continues forward until completely out of the sear’s path.

This resilient-trigger concept was first developed for Remington back in 1939 by John Sweeny (U.S. Patent 2,341,299 issued Feb. 8 1944) and employed in the Model 37 rimfire target rifle. (Series 1939) The same resilient action was achieved in this original version, although the arrangement and shape of the parts were very much different.

The resilient-mounted connector has added purpose in this particular Remington trigger. Unlike most more recent swing-down designs, the Model 700 sear pivots at the front. It thus swings forward as it drops, requiring an increasing clearance. Were it not for the connector piece, added trigger movement would be required on that account for a clean release.

I'm looking forward to seeing the report. I would like to see what both sides of the issue are. I am also interested in what Walker has to say about the trigger he designed.

quote:

The most intriguing fact is Cohn's having "tracked down" 98-year-old Mike Walker, the Remington engineer who designed the trigger for the Remington 700. The report purports to have an interview - and internal memorandums from Walker- that indicate he had repeated safety concerns about the trigger system - even after he left the company.

Redrover-- Thanks for that. Now, using the document above, please LOOK at the design and see if Otteson got it right.

Of course it is demonstrably wrong as pointed out above in some detail. That's what this is all about, but it takes an analysis of the mechanism instead of the writings of others to see it.

Let actual mechanics be the 'authority' instead of advertising hype and the opinion of others. It is enlightening to be sure. It is also the very heart of this whole deal.

Sir Issac Newton defined the physical actions and reactions of solid objects and how they behave and what results will be attained. Just like his laws govern exterior ballistics that shooters constantly try to stretch and wish away, the levers of the trigger just go on following the path of basic physics without a worry. All it takes is to follow the forces and understand what results to expect from them. There are no hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, chemical reaction or thermal displacements to worry about and add into the mix. Just pure mechanical motion as simple as a wheelbarrow and pliers.

Poor howard, nothing to contribute but Trash Talking. Of course, that is all I ever expect from howard's infinite Firearm wisdom.

Obviously no one got the "Cyclic" comment from belk. I did at the time and realized he was reading a Military Maching Gun Manual and trying to make out that he had great knowledge about Hunting Triggers. That is not a "personal attack", just facts. And it is quite apparent nothing has changed.

ALL Trigger Mechanisms and ALL Safetys can fail due to the things I previously listed - and only those things. If a part is "Out-of-Specification", then the Trigger would never work correctly - or - then one or more items on the Problem List applies.

There is no Inherent Design Problem with the Walker Trigger, but there are a lot of people that make $$$HUGE$$$ claiming there is. One for sure is in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
Sorry to get ahead of you, SR. It's called a rhetorical question that you answer because you've studied the trigger and come to the obvious and clear conclusion that such a study brings.

I have Otteson's books and he has some great information. I don't remember what he had to say about the Rem-Walker and I don't rely on a study by somebody else as a basis for my testimony. I look at actual, mechanical devices and testify as to how they work, how they can fail and how they can be improved. It's fascinating work.
I figured out the fault in the Walker in 1970 when a customer got shot with a M-722. That's when I started repairing them as described above.

<clarity edit> The connector does 'jump' but it's away from the trigger body. That's why its subject to contamination. It happens during sear fall and again several times during recoil.

So you are just a hot air generator.
Anyone can do what you do. So can I.
I can also refute a lot of what you claim.
You never did provide the so called PEs report.

Several times during recoil?
You have to explain that one.

The PE report is available but not in electronic form. It's being mailed today. I'll scan and send it or maybe even post it for your study.

If you can't apply Newton's Third Law to the actions of the trigger and connector you'll certainly have trouble with the rest of it, but I await your analysis of the Remington-Walker that in any way refutes mine. If you can do it you'd make somebody a good employee.

quote:

… LOOK at the design and see if Otteson got it right.

… Of course it is demonstrably wrong

OK, please explain exactly where Otteson got it wrong. And do it so PLAIN, SIMPLE, ENGINEERING TERMS, not snips out of the Walker and Haskell patent followed by ‘It’s a lie. It’s a lie’

redrover-- I'll be happy to but first let me know where you are on the learning curve by answering a couple questions--

Have you tried my experiment in trigger control on you own (unloaded- Don't ya hate 'em sometimes) rifle? It is the basis of further discussion because the Walker trigger claims reduction in trigger 'slap' or overtravel.

Does anyone have the copyright date on that Otteson chapter. It's obviously pre 'lawyer trigger' era if it had .012 sear engagement out of the box.

Did you know that Stuart Otteson is a mechanical engineer?

I figured Otteson is an engineer. I've never met him.
But so is Mike Walker and Lexie Ray Crittenden and Steve Haskell and all the experts on the other side. They're usually engineers. I'm not. I'm a gunsmith and a gunmaker that can look at a simple lever and figure out what it does and explain it to the jury.
My real question is why don't YOU look at the trigger and the patent and figure it out for yourself? Why depend on others when the directions are right there to read and I'm here to answer your questions on the mechanism. Not on who has a degree and what an engineer thinks about it. Look at it and see for yourself.

quote:

I'll be happy to but first let me know where you are on the learning curve

A number of my own rifles - and a few of my friends’ – are fitted with two, three, and four lever triggers of my own designs and making. Several professional gunsmiths who have examined them in some detail have complimented me on the designs and the workmanship that has gone into them, and on their real-world performance. I believe that I can, in all modesty, claim to have a fair understanding of how trigger mechanisms work.

quote:

Have you tried my experiment in trigger control on you own (unloaded- Don't ya hate 'em sometimes) rifle?

Yes, though I don’t worry TOO much about the actual measurements. I can live with a little bit of over-travel, but I can’t stand any perceptible amount of creep, pre-release movement, or whatever else you want to call it.

I don’t presently own any rifles fitted with the Walker triggers, but I’ve had a few of them in the past. Never had any trouble adjusting them to a crisp, creep-free let-off with no objectionable amount of over-travel, which is more than I can say for some other brands of two lever, over-ride jobs that I have encountered over some decades of rifle shooting.

In your first post in this thread, you stated:

Nobody says that an absolutely sharp square corner is needed to make a good trigger, and everybody but Remington has done so.

Frankly, I find this statement quite astounding. Practically all of the triggers I have worked with that could NOT be adjusted to a crisp, creep-free let-off suffered from this very fault! I have been able to bring some of them up to an acceptable level of performance by mounting the levers in special jigs and re-stoning the engagement ledges, but with others, even this didn’t work – just too many things out of kilter. With sufficient engagement to ensure reliable cocking, there was an objectionable amount of creep. Reduce the amount of engagement and over-riding would occur with normal bolt closure.

This is all getting a long way from my original question – what, exactly, do you claim is wrong with Otteson’s description of the Walker trigger?

quote:

Does anyone have the copyright date on that Otteson chapter. It's obviously pre 'lawyer trigger' era if it had .012 sear engagement out of the box.

I thought you said you had Otteson’s books?

My copy, which I have quoted from, was published in 1976. AFAIK, it was never re-printed, at least in hard-copy. I heard a rumour somewhere that it is now available on DVD.

Redrover--

Thank you. Now I know where you are and it's much easier to jump in with some more information.

Let's talk first about what you're doing and how better to accomplish it.

Congratulations on building your own triggers. It's an undertaking that's difficult to do without a surface grinder and fixtures to assure a FLAT surface, or interlocking radiused surfaces if you fit like a Canjar. Hand honed or polished surfaces are usually dangerous due to uneven contact, or at least not as crisp as can be done with grinding and lapping fixtures. A trigger or sear that's been anyhere around a buffer should be destroyed and replaced. FLAT to each other is the secret to building stress.

You are having trouble with 'creep'. The movement before release. This is a geometry and weight problem that all triggers have to one degree or other. You can usually get away from it with a very slight hook angle so that the surfaces bind together before failing 'all at once in a bunch'. The less weight the cocking piece puts on the sear the easier it is to have a slight hook angle that builds stress like an earthquake until it fails instead of creeping off the 'ledge'. The location of the sear support point in reference to the pivot point of the trigger is MOST important. If the trigger moves through the support point it'll almost always have creep in it. The best a 'break' comes if the support point is on the overlap or slightly or slightly forward of it. The further forward the crisper the trigger, but the less secure it is. Multi-lever triggers are very sensitive to the squareness of the pivot holes to the bore-line.

Now to Otteson. I'm building a house and shop and all my reference work but a Machinery Handbook has been packed away for nearly five years. 1975 sounds exactly right, judging by the very thin (by factory standards) sear engagement. .012 would be called unsafe today.

“ Normally, unless the trigger ledge is perfectly sharp and true – an almost impossible thing to both produce and retain in service.”

This is language from the patent and has been demonstrated false by just about every rifle manufacturer in the world. Corners and ledges are no problem at all to accomplish and maintain. All it takes is precise parts and good heat-treating. I think the M-70 is sufficient proof of that. Your assertion that squareness and sharp edges are creepy is the result of improper geometry in the trigger and is not a function of how the parts separate. It's easy to get apples and oranges in the same pile, but don't confuse performance with design unless every aspect of the design is included.

“The connector is held against the trigger piece by a small spring and is thus capable of moving forward separately. Trigger pull displaces the connector until the sear begins breaking downward. The overtravel-stop pin then blocks the trigger, while the connector, which has a small clearance hole, continues forward until completely out of the sear’s path.”

This is where the process breaks down some. In the Walker system the sear remains in contact with the connector and is pushing it forward as the sear falls. That action is detrimental to accuracy (in an infinitesimal amount) and it's totally unnecessary. The trigger is moving to it's stop in any case. The camming action of the sear to the connector creates a debris trap SEVERAL times on each firing. Otteson accurately describes the action of the connector being pushed by the sear, but why not just have the sear fall clear instead?

Otteson's point is said very well that this is a cheap way to build a trigger because they have made parts usually held in very close alignment and orientation (inspect a Canjar or old Kenyon with bronze bushings and needle pivots to see the best in triggers) that instead float around and try to find their proper place. The fact remains that the trigger actually MOVES the exact same amount. The Walker patent does not actually perform any different than others on the market and uses an extra part to do it.

The last paragraph that says the connector has to be there to account for a .001 movement to the front by the sear is just ludicrous but it's part of the hype. Do the math on the swing of the sear and you'll see that whole paragraph is better just left out of the article. Somebody with the math skills can figure the versine of an arc having a radius of about an inch (somebody measure it) and a length of about .100. It might be as much as half the slop in the sear pivot, so it makes absolutely no difference. If it did the angle on the connector is exacerbating it.

Otteson makes the claim that the flexibly mounted connector compensates for parts out of alignment so somehow it now works OK to have imperfect corners acting against each other.

I make the claim that the sure fire way to have parts out of alignment is to have them wandering around in the trigger housing depending on nothing but a spring to re-seat a STAMPED part on a FORMED trigger and somehow expect them to align themselves. The fact that they separate in a dirty environment under severe acceleration from recoil assures that contamination is a factor in proper alignment and orientation.

The Walker patent assures parts out of alignment and orientation but holds them close enough to have fairly good results. But, it can't be argued that parts that must be precisely aligned should be allowed to become SO displaced that the mechanism fails.

Do you see the double-speak of Otteson that reflects the assertions in the patent? It's bad to have corners that don't align but OK to have an slope that's not aligned? How can that be? How can it possibly be good to have a trigger designed to be sloppy so it can be made cheaper than the competition?

quote:

Originally posted by Jack Belk:
I've just received permission to use photos from a case this year.


This is slice of CT scan done at North Star Imaging in Rogers, Minnesota. Their website has video samples of what they do. it's near magic.

In this view the muzzle is down and the bolt handle is to the right. The circle at top right is the safety detent ball. My reference lines terminate in the body of the trigger. Just below that is the connector with the nose of the over-travel screw leaning into the hole, off-center.
This is a Model 660 Mohawk (gold trigger) that used a folded metal housing but a one-piece sear. The OT screw was tapped through two tabs bent from portions of the side plates. It's obvious the tap was run into a crooked hole which resulted in an FSR and a fatality.
The gun would not repeat the failure and two visual inspections failed to see the fault.

The gun was clean, rust free, wear from maybe 50 rounds, and had never been out of the stock.

WHY is the connector in Remington-Walker triggers? Anyone?

This is the bit that amazes me from the above post, "The gun would not repeat the failure and two visual inspections failed to see the fault."

So even with this fault how can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is what caused the fatality??

In my experience "humans" even when they are at fault will never admit it and blame the inanimate object instead of taking responsibility for there actions. (I think this reasoning is spreading through the rest of the world from the US)

The US has laws that make lawyers rich and everyone with some form of "knowledge" able to give evidence on what "they" believe happened and at the end of the trial it is the side that pulls the heartstrings of the jury the most able to win..........does this mean the evidence/explanation given was correct?? It might be and then again it might not be.

If you can't get something that is pointed too as the fault to repeat then most likely it wasn't the fault...........just my thoughts.

If you look at most things mechanical someone will come up with a reason why it will fail through it's design.......Kiwi

Kiwi-- I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be one and might have this wrong, but in the US, 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard for criminal trials. Civil suits vary from state to state, but it's usually 'the preponderance of evidence' or the blame is pro-rated in percentages. So a jury in some places can say the person was careless 40% but the fault in the gun accounts for 60%. In other jurisdictions for the plaintiff to win the gun must have been more than 50% to blame. The actions of the shooter is ALWAYS a very large factor.
"Unintended discharge" is different than 'uncontrolled discharge'. I don't usually work the former but did testify in a murder trial on behalf the defendant.

Most internal firearms evidence is either 'causative' or 'the causation'. The CT above is very strong causative evidence. Any reasonable juror can see that by a part (OT screw) interfering with the free motion of the connector which MUST have free motion in order to be safe, is a big, glaring, obvious, and important causative factor and very possibly also the causation of a discharge that took a man's life. Whether it repeats or not is up to the lubricity of the two parts and microscopic re-positioning that may 'catch' and may not. Sometimes a dime will land in the street and roll ten feet to the storm drain and sometimes it'll fall flat and you can retrieve it. Do you think the jury would pay attention after the hundredth test? No. It is explained so that they see the rarity of the event, but the certainty it happened.

The jury looks at the evidence and listens to experts explain what they're seeing in a mechanism as strange to most as the far side of the moon. It's up to them to figure out what is important and what's just somebody filling space and time.

Unfortunately for the gun owners of the world, that evidence has not (until next Wednesday) been seen outside a Courtroom. NONE of that evidence has been shown to this 'jury', yet we see knee-jerk reactions and denial of easy to understand mechanical actions and reactions without even examining what is available.
At what point does a gun buying customer demand a GUN for his money? Will you wait until a new rifle has to go to the gunsmith to be repaired to the point it'll go off? (That happened in the '80s with the Browning M-92).

Right now, a brand new M-700 needs about $300 worth of work be done on it to bring the rifle up to full potential. That seems so wrong on so many counts. You might change wheels and tires and put on some accessories for a new truck, but you shouldn't have to take it to the frame shop to be re-aligned before you can drive it!

Well, that really is quite a response you have given me. Some parts of it I agree with, others not.

Quote:

“ Normally, unless the trigger ledge is perfectly sharp and true – an almost impossible thing to both produce and retain in service.”

This is language from the patent and has been demonstrated false by just about every rifle manufacturer in the world.

??? If the products of nearly every rifle manufacturer in the world (except Remington) really DO have perfect triggers then after-market trigger manufacturers simply wouldn’t exist. Nobody would be interested in buying their products.

I suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse here. You must know – way better than me, because you must have looked inside vastly more triggers than I have – that even if the engagement ledges ARE perfectly square to the edges of the levers, there is still no absolute guarantee that they will mate perfectly when they are assembled in the trigger housing. And haven’t you EVER dismantled a trigger that has seen a considerable amount of use and found engagement ledges that were burred or roughened up?

Quote:

Your assertion that squareness and sharp edges are creepy is the result of improper geometry in the trigger and is not a function of how the parts separate. It's easy to get apples and oranges in the same pile, but don't confuse performance with design unless every aspect of the design is included.

Then how is it that different triggers of the same make and model can differ quite considerably in performance? I have a Parker Hale trigger fitted to a rifle built on a VZ33 small ring Mauser action which performs unbelievably well. I’m not going into exact details because I’d probably get accused of lying! I also have a complete P H rifle fitted with the identical trigger, and I can’t describe its let-off as being any better than mediocre, despite my efforts to improve it. I have two rifles built on Enfield actions and fitted with Timney triggers. One trigger is pretty good, but I have never been able to get all the creep out of the other. A friend has – among a lot of other rifles - three left-handed Savage 110 rifles. He is quite knowledgeable about rifle smithing and has put a lot of effort into tuning up their triggers. He describes the end results as one good, one so-so, and one pretty poor. I could go on and on with further examples, but I think I have made my point.

Quote:

The fact remains that the trigger actually MOVES the exact same amount. The Walker patent does not actually perform any different than others on the market and uses an extra part to do it.

Hmmm.

Though I cannot prove it beyond all possible doubt, I believe that part way through the action of the sear and trigger (or trigger connector) separating, there is a position which, for want of a better term, I will call the Point-Of-No-Return. It can be demonstrated as follows.

Take any bolt action rifle fitted with a two lever, over-ride type trigger that has an over-travel adjustment screw, and which is functioning correctly. (but NOT a Remington rifle fitted with a Walker trigger) Put it in a vise, check that the chamber is EMPTY, turn the o-t screw IN a tiny amount, cock the rifle and pull the trigger. If the striker drops normally, turn the o-t screw in a fraction further and try again. Eventually, the point will be reached where you can see, hear, and generally sense that although the striker is dropping when the trigger is pulled, it is NOT releasing cleanly.

Turn the o-t screw in a fraction further and try again. Then - or after further iterations - the point will be reached where the striker will move very slightly but not drop, though you will probably see, hear and sense that the system is TRYING to release, but cannot because the trigger piece can’t move back far enough to allow the sear to drop. That is the Point-of-No-Return. Without touching anything else, carefully back the o-t screw out – and watch the striker drop.

For all normal uses, the o-t screw MUST be backed out far enough to provide sufficient clearance for the sear to drop freely. (which is not exactly hot news!)

Now, what happens with a Remington rifle fitted with a Walker trigger when pulling the trigger moves the CONNECTOR as far as the Point-of-No-Return? Well, it doesn’t matter if the trigger piece does stop dead right there, because the connector will swing forward and thereby provide the clearance necessary for the sear to drop.

So, Mr Belk, I cannot see for the life of me how the Walker system does NOT permit less trigger movement than is necessary with a ‘solid’ trigger lever. I have little doubt that you will continue to say that Walker is wrong, the patent is wrong, Otteson is wrong, and I am wrong, but for the moment, anyway, I remain unconvinced.

Quote:

The last paragraph that says the connector has to be there to account for a .001 movement to the front by the sear is just ludicrous but it's part of the hype. Do the math on the swing of the sear and you'll see that whole paragraph is better just left out of the article. Somebody with the math skills can figure the versine of an arc having a radius of about an inch (somebody measure it) and a length of about .100. It might be as much as half the slop in the sear pivot, so it makes absolutely no difference. If it did the angle on the connector is exacerbating it.

Nowhere does Otteson say that the front of the sear ledge moves 0.001” forward – he doesn’t state any measurement at all.

On page 130 of his book there is a diagram of the M 700 trigger which I recall verifying (when I did own a 700 myself) is accurately drawn to full scale. From this, I scaled and protracted the following data:

The line from the trigger pivot pin to the front of the sear ledge is perpendicular to the line between the two mounting pins, which is in turn, parallel to the centreline of the action.

The length of the line from the centre of the sear pivot pin to the front of the sear ledge is 0.90” and the angle between this line and the centreline of the action is 13 degrees.

The sear rotates 2 degrees when going from the cocked position to the fired position.

From this data, and by applying some basic trigonometry (merely solving a couple of right-angled triangles) I calculate that the front of the sear ledge moves forward 0.008” on firing. Whether this is considered significant or trivial depends, I suppose, on which side of the argument one is on!

Mr Belk, there are some other matters relating to points you have made that I would quite like to discuss further with you, but I doubt that this is the right time and place to be doing it. If you are in the throes of building a new house, you probably don’t have much spare time available, and if I don’t get some carpentry and decorating work on my house completed fairly soon, my domestic situation could get a bit tense. On top of all this, I suspect that quite a few people on this forum may already be completely turned off by the level of technicality we are getting into – and we have really only scratched the surface.

One final question: What are you hoping for as a result of this upcoming TV exposee where you are going to be the star performer?

That it will shame Remington into offering to fit free replacement triggers to every Model 721, 722, 700 etc. etc. rifle ever sold. (the cost of which, when added to the cost of all the necessary advertising, might well bankrupt the company)

That it will result in a court case in which Remington is ORDERED to take the above action. (with the same possible outcome)

That it will cause about 4.5 million Rem 700 owners to rush out and buy aftermarket triggers.

That it will cause about 4.5 million Rem 700 owners to rush to their nearest gunsmiths and ask them to glue their connectors to the triggers.

That it will result in an avalanche of litigation, and claims for damages running into billions. (and probably cause Remington to file for bankruptcy)

Or something else?

Redrover-- I appreciate the reply.

A trick of the mind that helps some people understand mechanics is to blow the part up so that instead of looking into the trigger, you 'walk' through it.

For a trigger to be creep free it has to build forces instead of release them as applied. To do that the surfaces have to be flat to each other, but slightly 'hooked' in relation to the direction of forces. That cannot be done by hand (exceptions are there but rare).

The first thing to do is to disassemble and analyze a truly GOOD trigger. The 'test' you cited with the OT screw is a good example. If you sense the sear was released by the trigger but the sear 'pinches' on the OT and won't fall, it means the trigger either doesn't have accurate clearances ground into it or the pivots are bad. When you see nubbed, deformed, chipped, or worn corners and edges it means the heat-treat was bad or the alignment was bad or both. It's NOT a good trigger.

First assumption-- the mounting method and points on the receiver are accurate to the bore line.
Then the two parts of the trigger have to be mounted square to the housing. You can't do that by drilling the holes to final size. They're reamed or jig ground. The trigger and sear are ground so that the mounting holes are square with the sides. Then, they're mounted so that only a small patch of moving part contacts the housing or a friction reducing bushing is used.
When the engaging surfaces are ground and lapped and adjusted, a Canjar has .002 OT and .012 of engagement with a two pound pull that is creep-free.

As those machining steps get faster and more prone to small variations and tolorences, precision goes down and small things start to 'stack' to create creep, binding and bad triggers.

The point is that simple is better because it's easier to attain that high degree of perfection on simple parts. The M-70 is the king of that demonstration.

I admire what you're doing, but you need to start with 'perfect' and do your comparisons from there instead of by example in a cheap trigger.

What I hope happens Wednesday night is for the shooting public to get a wake up call on gun SAFETY. Hollywood has had a terrible effect on peoples perception of firearms. We preach gun safety and we know gun safety and we think we have gun safety corralled, understood and assigned correctly, but the vast majority of the shooting public is unaware of just how much we rely on the internal workings of a mysterious machine to keep a lot of deadly power from being unleashed.

Gun writers have done us a vast disservice by being totally occupied with gloss, glitter, velocity and accuracy and have totally left the innards to somebody else. There has been no critical critique of the purposeful deletion of many traditional 'passive' safety features that kept guns very safe for a very long time. Deletion or alterations of those passive safety features in search of cheaper production will sooner or later catch up with any manufacturer.

The three rules of liability are design, workmanship, and warning the customer when he's in danger from a product he otherwise trust to operate as designed.

To be safe a gun should ONLY shoot when the trigger is pulled.
To be safe, a gun CANNOT fire with the manual safety engaged.
That is the reasonable expectation of the customer and that is the basis of law suits.

Redrover- I wish you were closer. I have an extra 14" cast-iron lap loaded with 600 diamond paste. It'll gang lap a LOT of trigger parts.

I dont understand the details. What I do know from reading this is that my remington has the potential to fire when I dont want it to. J. Belk what is your recommended fix or replacement trigger which will eliminate this potential problem. Bill Leeper I would appreciate your comments also. By the way I followed both of your posts for a long time and am glad to see J Belk back, and Bill Leeper I wish you would post more always extremely will thought out. Thanks rbell

If the front of your trigger is grooved, as most are accustomed to seeing, it's a Walker trigger and has a connector.
My recommendation is to contact Remington for an XMark Pro trigger. I have no idea what their replacement program is or the availability of the new triggers, but its a good trigger and any price under a hundred bucks is a fair price, in my opinion.

Replacement, as many have pointed out, is not the cure-all. There is no really safe trigger on the market right now but the Savage with the unlock leaf.
Any trigger can be made as safe as a S&W revolver if it has a two stage pull. Think about it.

Thank-you Jack for taking some of the mystery out of the Remington trigger issue ....I now see & understand where contamination can be a concern on this type of trigger assembly....

I own a Rem 700(Sendero) as alot of hunters in my area (Vt) think highly of Remington firearms...(I also own other rifles manufactured by different companies)....

I see this issue in the fact that these triggers (New or old)are adjustable,and they also come at excessive trigger pull weight (9 lbs to 12 lbs)(lawyers) ..

So the general public buys a medium priced rifle and wether he be mechanically inclined or not they try to adjust the trigger pull to the best of their ability/knowledge,unknowingly putting other people in danger ,down the road .
Because they do not understand the "mechanics" of the trigger "assembly" and most can't or don't want to have to pay for this "simple adjustment" of course the other option is a new trigger ....which brings us back to mechanically inclined ??? or Not ????
And I know some very intelligent people,that just don't have a mechanical bone in their body,but love to hunt/shoot ,and don't realize that the action needs to be removed from the stock to be cleaned after hunting/shooting season....and if they do remove the wood from the steel they don't know what the proper way is to clean the trigger assembly.....

The bottom line here is ....

Muzzle control,and I still have to remind my friends that sweep barrels past me about muzzle control .
Empty the gun,be sure to check it throughly,and keep the bolt OPEN....and clip out of the gun.
When you load or unload any gun,point the barrel away from the people that are around you ...
And if you have a round go off without you touching the trigger ,bring it to a competent gunsmith for proper repair .

Thank you for the educational information regarding the Rem/Walker trigger,I will print this ,and keep it handy ,as I know of at least one accidental death in Vt regarding a Rem 700 and a trigger that was adjusted by the rifles owner ...

My 2 cents Jim

Thanks, BB-- I understand the old M700 instruction manuals with the trigger adjustment directions are now a collector's item.

Most don't realize that a trigger adjust from 'a bunch to nothing' and there is a point where impact will shoot the gun or the trigger will not recapture the sear.

The rule of thumb to try to follow is: Nothing below two pounds in a single lever trigger (three is my bottom unless it's a custom trigger with tight specs), and half the pull weight should be friction and half the weight should be the return spring force.
A Walker can't be set that way without resetting the return spring after each try. Other triggers can be reset to position by hand.
<edit> The amount of sear overlap depends on steel, its heat-treatment, its accuracy in mating with the other part and its finish. Unless it's a premium trigger, don't go below .015 and I'd check with the maker before I did it then. A credit card is nominally .0312"

Y'all can talk until you are blue in the face, present superior credentials, superior data, evidence of divine guidance, whatever. Jack Belk will never agree with you, admit anything he is saying is wrong, or even acknowledge that you could possibly have a point of argument that is even equal to his. Otherwise, all of the lawyers paying him would cut his nuts off for not sticking to the plaintiffs' party line. His income from the attorneys would be gone, along with the media attention. No news organization would give a damn what he said. No attorney from either side of the argument would give a damn about hiring him as an expert witness. All of the money and attention he is currently getting, not to mention the possible future earnings and he may get, would dry up the instant he hit “enter” to a post agreeing with you.

He has a vested interest in sticking to the letter of what he wrote in the first post where he re-graced us with his presence in this forum. He could be in line for a cut of a settlement, have more attorneys in line to hire him, or whatever. And by the way, I am in no way, shape, or form implying that he should disclose to us his past, current, and potential future financial gains if his opinion is taken as gospel by a judge or jury. That is his personal business. We know he makes money by sticking to the party line, and that is sufficient. Logic, reason, whatever, will be met by a rebuttal from Belk that in his opinion “proves” the plaintiffs' cases and that you are wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
Y'all can talk until you are blue in the face, present superior credentials, superior data, evidence of divine guidance, whatever. Jack Belk will never agree with you, admit anything he is saying is wrong, or even acknowledge that you could possibly have a point of argument that is even equal to his. Otherwise, all of the lawyers paying him would cut his nuts off for not sticking to the plaintiffs' party line. His income from the attorneys would be gone, along with the media attention. No news organization would give a damn what he said. No attorney from either side of the argument would give a damn about hiring him as an expert witness. All of the money and attention he is currently getting, not to mention the possible future earnings and he may get, would dry up the instant he hit “enter” to a post agreeing with you.

He has a vested interest in sticking to the letter of what he wrote in the first post where he re-graced us with his presence in this forum. He could be in line for a cut of a settlement, have more attorneys in line to hire him, or whatever. And by the way, I am in no way, shape, or form implying that he should disclose to us his past, current, and potential future financial gains if his opinion is taken as gospel by a judge or jury. That is his personal business. We know he makes money by sticking to the party line, and that is sufficient. Logic, reason, whatever, will be met by a rebuttal from Belk that in his opinion “proves” the plaintiffs' cases and that you are wrong.

Thanks Marc. Couldn't have said it better myself. We are definately on the same page.

Kinda cut through the old there Marc.

quote:

Originally posted by bbell:
I dont understand the details. What I do know from reading this is that my remington has the potential to fire when I dont want it to. ...

As does ALL other Trigger Designs. If you think otherwise, then you still do not understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:
As does ALL other Trigger Designs. If you think otherwise, then you still do not understand.

Isn't that one of the reasons for having a safety in the first place?

Once again the opposing position comes out. Can it for crise sake.

Just thought I had better jump in here. I was one of the guys he phuqued out of some cash and service. Are we going to forgive and forget this incident that drug on for how many monts. The bull $hit that he spread and all of the people left behind when he headed to the desert to get his $hit together.

I concede one point, he is a talented individual and has a good line. If he ever applise to the ACGG for reinstatement, I am one guy who wil immediately drop out. He was the subject of an ethics complaint.

Let us not empower this jerk, he is a shyster in the worst sense of the meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
The statement that Mr. Belk earns money by sticking to a party line also seems a bit bold.

Really???

If you have paid a person to testify on a potentially very lucrative matter and he then admits that there could be a legitimate point or challenge from the other side, how far do you think that would get him? Financially or otherwise? If that happened, I think Jacks friend and mentor, Richard C. Miller http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Custom/Richard-Miller.asp would be rolling over in his grave.

So Marc is correct to say that Jack is stuck. If Jack were to do otherwise, then he would have to go into the "Expert Witness" protection program.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Jack Belk will never agree with you, admit anything he is saying is wrong, or even acknowledge that you could possibly have a point of argument that is even equal to his. Otherwise, all of the lawyers paying him would cut his nuts off for not sticking to the plaintiffs' party line. His income from the attorneys would be gone, along with the media attention. No news organization would give a damn what he said. No attorney from either side of the argument would give a damn about hiring him as an expert witness. All of the money and attention he is currently getting, not to mention the possible future earnings and he may get, would dry up the instant he hit “enter” to a post agreeing with you.

He has a vested interest in sticking to the letter of what he wrote in the first post where he re-graced us with his presence in this forum. He could be in line for a cut of a settlement, have more attorneys in line to hire him, or whatever.

With all due respect, the above post and many before it, are classic Ad Hominem arguments in that they appear to shift the argument from the point being discussed to the personality of one of the persons in the discussion. Instead of dealing with the thesis on its merits the Ad Hominem argument (as I most commonly see it) attacks reputation, moral character, refers to low intelligence or inferior low social position, lack of education or other personal shortcomings. All of which of course neither prove or disprove anything concerning the original thesis.

Ad Hominem arguments are often coupled with Ad Populum arguments, which are appeals to the feelings and prejudices of many people, but of course feelings and prejudices have nothing to do with the thesis being discussed.

The statement that Mr. Belk earns money by sticking to a party line also seems a bit bold. Unless proven otherwise, I would think Mr. Belk earns money by testifying to what he undertsands to be the truth based upon his expertise, knowledge and belief.

I am saying outright that I am 100% not trying to guess why Mr. Belk chose to suddenly re-grace us with his presence at this point in time, one week before the debut of a television special investigation that claims the opinion held by Mr. Belk and others on his side of the argument is correct. His intentions are known to him, and to him alone. I am no way even trying to guess his intentions. Just as with the amount of money he has made, is currently making, and stands to make from lawsuits against Remington regarding the M700 trigger, that his strictly his business and none of mine. I honestly don't care.

Expert witnesses ideally have an inside-and-out knowledge of the subject, as well as the ability to speak in a manner that makes them easy to understand and believe by jurors who know absolutely nothing about which they are hearing. When you delve into patent language and engineering jargon, you can quickly go over everyone's head, yet it is necessary to prove that Mr. Belk's opinion is correct. The other side has experts who will testify with an opposing opinion on the matter. Both sides' experts will try to make the jurors think that it is in no way something that is an opinion, but rather an absolute “truth.” Look at how quickly and firmly Kubleway was swayed to Mr. Belk's opinion, without even hearing the other side's equivalent expert's opinion of the matter. And he is a hunter and firearms enthusiast, not some potential juror who already has an anti-gun bias.

There are some great legal minds on this board. I sure am not one of them. I have paid some great legal minds (none who are members of this board) a significant amount of money over the years for various matters. I have close relatives and friends who are great legal minds. They know far more about the law and legal proceedings that I will in 10 lifetimes. But that does not mean I know nothing about the subject of expert witnesses and their potential usefulness to each side of a legal argument.

I have absolutely no idea how many “experts” I know who have been retained by attorneys to investigate some aspect of a legal issue. I have done some of the grunt work for expert witnesses and yes, I received some trivial remuneration for my services and knowledge. I have had hours of of discussions with various engineers regarding various legal proceedings. Sometimes it was just my curiosity about the case, and at other times they wanted to ask my opinion on the matter. These people were all paid to give their opinion to the attorney who contacted them. If their opinion supported the thesis of that attorney, then they may be asked to provide further services. The larger the court case, or the more potential future court cases along the lines of that thesis, the more potential gain to the expert.

However, if their opinion ran counter to the thesis of the attorney who contacted them, then their testimony is not used. Furthermore, the retention by the first side's attorney (usually/always? A great legal mind would need to say if ever it was possible) prevents the expert from being used by the opposing counsel. Their opinion on the matter would never be admitted into the legal proceedings after they gave opinions not supporting the case. They would be silenced and unable to give their opinion in court. Their income for being an expert on this particular legal proceeding would cease. Period. That is just a fact. If the attorney still feels they have a case, they look for another expert to see if they will testify in favor of their side's thesis. Someone making public statements agreeing with the opposition ceases to be useful to the attorney and their revenue stream from testimony on the matter will dry up. That is just the way the system works. Period. Fact. Happens every day.

I have had many hours of discussion with my attorney/relatives about legal proceedings involving engineering/manufacturing/design/materials issues. I have seen what goes on behind the scenes and what is done to carefully sculpt a legal argument supported by expert witnesses, and I know how many expert witnesses were deemed useless to the case and their services were no longer needed. They could not speak about the other side of the argument after the initial retention, so they made no more money off of the issue. I have seen the attorneys from each side of an argument get together behind the scenes and discuss all sorts of things about the various witnesses and their opinions. Witnesses not reliably holding to the thesis of the attorney are not used. Period. Fact. Happens every day.

That is all I said in my initial post. It was much more condensed, as I thought anyone reading the post would be able to understand I was just commenting on the reason why an expert could not agree with the opposing counsel in a public internet forum.

I tell you what Hoss, I will be driving through the Cities tomorrow on one of my frequent trips to the Mayo Clinic. If you want to accuse me of things and sling mud on me, then we can have this discussion face to face. It is one thing for you to throw out accusations behind your keyboard, but it is quite another to do it to my face. I will have this discussion with you eyeball to eyeball if you want to stick to the idea that I in ANY manner attacked or tried to denigrate Mr. Belk. I just stated facts about how the legal system and expert witnesses works. I am dead serious about this. If you want to insult me, then we are going to do this eyeball to eyeball. If all goes well I will be riving back through the Cities tomorrow afternoon. Other wise it will be on Wednesday. If you insist on attacking me then PM or email me and we will arrange a meeting time and place. I am 100% dead serious about this. Put up or shut up.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Jack Belk will never agree with you, admit anything he is saying is wrong, or even acknowledge that you could possibly have a point of argument that is even equal to his. Otherwise, all of the lawyers paying him would cut his nuts off for not sticking to the plaintiffs' party line. His income from the attorneys would be gone, along with the media attention. No news organization would give a damn what he said. No attorney from either side of the argument would give a damn about hiring him as an expert witness. All of the money and attention he is currently getting, not to mention the possible future earnings and he may get, would dry up the instant he hit “enter” to a post agreeing with you.

He has a vested interest in sticking to the letter of what he wrote in the first post where he re-graced us with his presence in this forum. He could be in line for a cut of a settlement, have more attorneys in line to hire him, or whatever.

With all due respect, the above post and many before it, are classic Ad Hominem arguments in that they appear to shift the argument from the point being discussed to the personality of one of the persons in the discussion. Instead of dealing with the thesis on its merits the Ad Hominem argument (as I most commonly see it) attacks reputation, moral character, refers to low intelligence or inferior low social position, lack of education or other personal shortcomings. All of which of course neither prove or disprove anything concerning the original thesis.

Ad Hominem arguments are often coupled with Ad Populum arguments, which are appeals to the feelings and prejudices of many people, but of course feelings and prejudices have nothing to do with the thesis being discussed.

The statement that Mr. Belk earns money by sticking to a party line also seems a bit bold. Unless proven otherwise, I would think Mr. Belk earns money by testifying to what he undertsands to be the truth based upon his expertise, knowledge and belief.

Personal attacks really have no place here or in a court room but I have seen enough to know that some Lawyers will resort to using them in furtherance of their objectives.

Certainly, a persons business background, dealings, and other aspects of their behavior may be called into question, as it can bear on their credibility, etc...

I have also seen my fair share of "Experts", in and out of court, most of them are just hired guns...and will make the argument on either side of the issue depending upon who pays them! Granted some have a high level of integrity but their are many who are just in it for the money...to think otherwise is just plain foolishness.

I find it interesting that a guy with past business issues comes back from hibernation to post about a legal subject here on AR, makes you wonder about what the motives are...

Is he working for the law firm now or just informing?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

You stated your opinion, which you are entitled to. But my point was that this thread is not about the legal system. Its about a trigger.

Interesting. I thought it started about a trigger but actually its much more about the law and the legal system then the trigger. My opinion.