Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

#151
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

well, im not taking sides here, but i will say that i carried an m-24 in the field, and fired many rounds through it, and never had an accidental discharge of any kind.
 
#152
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

Like said above, welcome to 20 years ago.

Am I the only one who remembers some breathless TV newsie thing about the Walker fire control group YEARS ago???

Old news.

BUT becomes new news if Remington was still selling those 0.5% failure rate triggers long after a) knowing about the problem; and b) finding a solution.

Present company excepted, but you gotta realize that a sizeable percentage of shooters in general are guaranteed to not just fiddle with the mechanisms and adjust them, badly or well or in between, but even more frequently fiddle with pulling triggers while the safety is on, and pulling the trigger while pushing the safety off and all possible variations of such "mishandling".

That means "tricking" the trigger is foreseeable--a guaranteed to happen at some small percentage event, just like some numbnut spilling coffee in the lap and swerving into your lane. If the car cannot handle a certain COMMON level of swervo without rolling over, then the pedestrian who gets flattened could have a viable design defect case. The point is that the liability gets shared between the driver/gunner and the designer who *could* have done better. This example depends on the difference in performance being extreme, not "salted" like Consumer Reports did with the Suzuki Samurai or whatever years ago. I'm talking not just the "easiest" to get to fail, but so easy that ordinary events are likely to bring the failure.

Worse for Remington is the idea of the "burden of adequate precautions". Those of us who advocate replacing the trigger instead of the entire rifle understand that.

QQ virtually took the words out of my mouth with his citation to how Ruger, long before the magazine ban sell-out (grrrr!!!!) reacted to each and every safety concern with its products. The Remington fix need not have been a full-blown "recall" or anything, but the percentage of units affected sounds suspiciously similar to the incidence of recoil plate/firing pin lockups on Smith & Wesson 586 revolvers way back when. That fix cost a few dollars for what, two parts, plus a lot more dollars per gunsmith to swap out the parts.

I really don't think that the dishonest reporter and assignment editor and everyone else in the friggin INTOLERANT fake news business would have gone very far if they would have found a regular campaign of ads and $5 replacement triggers offered by Remington, especially if that effort began in 1982.

How many firearms safety problem ads do YOU remember? Your safety is important enough to all those other gun makers for them to try to warn the world. Why not Remington? I'll tell you--it's because they are fat and complacent and arrogant and content to put out a "good enough" product, just like those morons at Microsoft. Don't get me started.

There's a lot of blame to go around here. Yeah, if we had our way and if everyone were as smart as us, every one of those ADs would have been true ADs without any element of ND because of muzzle awareness and control, and there would be no graves occupied early because every bullet would have hit a safe backstop.

But since I know better than to expect every other human in this world to be as perfect as I am (note sarcasm, for the dense or emotionally-invested safety Nazis), it would seem outright STUPID and irresponsible to continue selling a product that makes people's lives depend even MORE on some idiots' muzzle control. We know better than to trust a safety, but it remains completely and almost criminally unacceptable to sell a product with a safety that *can* fire the rifle the way the Walker trigger *sometimes* DOES.

That story should have died decades ago, before anyone else died from operator stupidity PLUS mechanical failure.
 
#154
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

Grump,

I think you pretty much summed it up. Well said.

That video really did nothing to convince me that Remington has no problem. It was a typical legal department response to discredit the prosecution's case.

One of the pieces of data nobody seems to want to discuss, but Jack Belk alluded to in that interview is:

If 1% of your rifles accidently discharge, you have a 1% failure rate, as Remington admitted to.

If 100% of your rifles accidently goes off 1 time in 1 million cycles, <span style="font-weight: bold">you have a 100% failure rate</span>.

I'm sure that neither case is truly representative, but you get the point. This problem is largely unknown in scope, due to the highly intermittent nature. Does it bother me that they cannot reproduce it? Not really. But one AD in the life of a rifle is one too many.

What bothers me, is that there *is* compelling anecdotal evidence that there may be a larger issue and instead of being forthright and doing public due diligence to show us, the customer that a) there is no problem and b). they're still going to do something because they don't want to see ONE of they're customers hurt, they deny and deflect, thus putting themselves and their customers at further potential risk.


John
 
#155
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

couldn't one just install a new trigger and the mauser type safety and fix the whole darn deal. I can't remember where I saw it maybe midway or cabelas someone sold a three position safety that looks like the one on my mauser. I like that type of safety better and was thinking of doing the mod anyhow. jmo it's a simple solution that gives piece of mind to those who need it for about $100.
 
#156
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like said above, welcome to 20 years ago.

Am I the only one who remembers some breathless TV newsie thing about the Walker fire control group YEARS ago???

Old news.

BUT becomes new news if Remington was still selling those 0.5% failure rate triggers long after a) knowing about the problem; and b) finding a solution.

Present company excepted, but you gotta realize that a sizeable percentage of shooters in general are guaranteed to not just fiddle with the mechanisms and adjust them, badly or well or in between, but even more frequently fiddle with pulling triggers while the safety is on, and pulling the trigger while pushing the safety off and all possible variations of such "mishandling".

That means "tricking" the trigger is foreseeable--a guaranteed to happen at some small percentage event, just like some numbnut spilling coffee in the lap and swerving into your lane. If the car cannot handle a certain COMMON level of swervo without rolling over, then the pedestrian who gets flattened could have a viable design defect case. The point is that the liability gets shared between the driver/gunner and the designer who *could* have done better. This example depends on the difference in performance being extreme, not "salted" like Consumer Reports did with the Suzuki Samurai or whatever years ago. I'm talking not just the "easiest" to get to fail, but so easy that ordinary events are likely to bring the failure.

Worse for Remington is the idea of the "burden of adequate precautions". Those of us who advocate replacing the trigger instead of the entire rifle understand that.

QQ virtually took the words out of my mouth with his citation to how Ruger, long before the magazine ban sell-out (grrrr!!!!) reacted to each and every safety concern with its products. The Remington fix need not have been a full-blown "recall" or anything, but the percentage of units affected sounds suspiciously similar to the incidence of recoil plate/firing pin lockups on Smith & Wesson 586 revolvers way back when. That fix cost a few dollars for what, two parts, plus a lot more dollars per gunsmith to swap out the parts.

I really don't think that the dishonest reporter and assignment editor and everyone else in the friggin INTOLERANT fake news business would have gone very far if they would have found a regular campaign of ads and $5 replacement triggers offered by Remington, especially if that effort began in 1982.

How many firearms safety problem ads do YOU remember? Your safety is important enough to all those other gun makers for them to try to warn the world. Why not Remington? I'll tell you--it's because they are fat and complacent and arrogant and content to put out a "good enough" product, just like those morons at Microsoft. Don't get me started.

There's a lot of blame to go around here. Yeah, if we had our way and if everyone were as smart as us, every one of those ADs would have been true ADs without any element of ND because of muzzle awareness and control, and there would be no graves occupied early because every bullet would have hit a safe backstop.

But since I know better than to expect every other human in this world to be as perfect as I am (note sarcasm, for the dense or emotionally-invested safety Nazis), it would seem outright STUPID and irresponsible to continue selling a product that makes people's lives depend even MORE on some idiots' muzzle control. We know better than to trust a safety, but it remains completely and almost criminally unacceptable to sell a product with a safety that *can* fire the rifle the way the Walker trigger *sometimes* DOES.

That story should have died decades ago, before anyone else died from operator stupidity PLUS mechanical failure. </div></div>

I see what you're saying here but it seems that if you take that stance, you're condemning ALL firearms. They are ALL inherently dangerous mechanical devices and in the hands of an "Idiot" can cause great accidental destruction and death. I'd be willing to bet that if you took ANY Firearms Manufacturer that has made as many of a particular firearm as Remington has made 700's, you would find the same number of accidents that are blamed on the Firearm. It's not unlike the "Bermuda Triangle revelation"... It was discovered that if you took any portion of the ocean the same size and dimensions as the Bermuda Triangle you would find the same number of unexplained "Missing" vessels. SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY, Regardless of the condition of the rifle.
 
#157
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

I can use the same logic to say that United States Marines are dangerous and have killed people, therefore they cannont be trusted in public. I work in the auto industry. The vehicles I sell are very reliable and safe. They must also be maintained. Personal responsibility. Lets keep beating up firearm manufacturers untill there are none left in the United States. What happens to our shooting sports then?
 
#158
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

In both of the above cases you're overlooking the fact that Remington has basically been accused of knowing about this for a very long time and not responding publicly with a fix (other than 1982 bolt lift fix and the X-Mark Pro, the older rifles have not been addressed). This becomes more like the Toyota accelerator pedal issue at that point, where they knew but did not respond. NOT a maintenance or natural random occurrence over time issue.

John
 
#159
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

I believe you are correct, jrob300. I get a little "hasty" when I think of "ambulance chasers". I am sure cooler heads will examine all of the points of the issue and reach a reasonable coclusion.
 
#160
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: isaactc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets keep beating up firearm manufacturers untill there are none left in the United States. What happens to our shooting sports then? </div></div>

then we buy European
 
#161
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

I like the idea that you're happy to let firearms manufacturers get away with possible negligence just because they're AMERICAN DAMMIT
 
#162
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pure_mahem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">couldn't one just install a new trigger and the mauser type safety and fix the whole darn deal. I can't remember where I saw it maybe midway or cabelas someone sold a three position safety that looks like the one on my mauser. I like that type of safety better and was thinking of doing the mod anyhow. jmo it's a simple solution that gives piece of mind to those who need it for about $100. </div></div>

There are inexpensive solutions for the individual that will greatly decrease the risk of something untoward happening.

For LEO's, there are probably less options due to liability, legal departments and insurance.

John
 
#163
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wildnv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing I did not like a bout the safety on my Remington Model 700 Etronix the owners manual said "do not test the safety". So I sold my Etronix (a great shooting gun)

This is Remington side of it. New video released today

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2YFIwoZsWHk"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2YFIwoZsWHk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

this is all i had to see. fuck cnbc and the other idiots who idiots like my gun smith in albert lea mn (hart brothers). they keep pushing there savage agenda, im gonna keep buying my remy's
</div></div>
 
#164
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

What ever happened to the good old "Treat every gun as if it were loaded, and don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot/kill." When it comes down to it the thing is designed to kill plain and simple, treat it as such and you will never go wrong. Misuse it or treating it in any other sense can have dire consequences.
 
#165
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

With all this stuff about the Remington trigger, I did the following:
-Hammered on the bolt trying to make it fire similar to what the guy was doing in Remington's video response.
-Tried the different ways to make the failure happen.
-Continue to do cleaning/maintenance as needed on all firearms.
I remain confident in my 700's.
ALWAYS KEEP THE GUN POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION.
 
#166
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

A little thread revival...I read the article and it's very interesting. http://www.gunsmiths.com/articledetail.php?id=87

If you keep the trigger clean, is any of this an issue? For example, under typical range conditions, flush it out with Zippo every few hundred rounds, or after each hunting trip in dusty winds...etc. Particularly re: the writer's points, such as (a) the connector "should" be connected to the trigger and (b) when you drop the rifle [even to seat the stock or scope mounts?] it can introduce excess wear, movement, or space between trigger and connector. For discussion's sake, can this be compared at all to an AR-15's trigger and disconnector relationship, which I have seen and played with plenty? If that's the case, I don't understand why the Walker trigger should be a problem. Thanks!

ETA: the article says old and new 700 triggers, including the X-Marks, have the floating connector, right?
 
#167
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

I am curious where the instructions for cleaning these triggers are? If this is truly the reason for these things being dangerous where is the public service announcement on how to clean and maintain them???

If you ever take apart one of these triggers, I would like to know how flushing with lighter fluid would clean the area between the connector and the trigger body? The connector wraps around it, and is pressed against the body with the reset/pull weight spring. The only way to clean between the connector and trigger body is to pull the entire thing apart, which then will lead to a requirement of re-adjusting the trigger, which is what supposedly makes them dangerous?? HAHAHAH LMFAO, where's the logic here?
 
#168
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

"The fact that the plane you're flying in has not crashed is no evidence that crashes don't occur.
That pretty well sums up anecdotal evidence. Just because your rifle's trigger has never, ever done anything but what you directed it to do is no evidence of the lack of a defect. The defect is there and it's unpredictable and many times it won't repeat no matter what you do. The scientific method depends on masses of information when the occurrence is rare and non-repeatable. There are thousands of people that have written letters of complaints that describe the exact same failures time after time. The defect is in the trigger and just because it works now does not mean it won't fail in the future."

REMINGTON-WALKER TRIGGER EXPLANATION
©copyright 2010, H.J. Belk
 
#169
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaw

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


I demand proof damn it.

Until then, Bullshit!

</div></div>

queequeg

Demand "proof", good for you, that is a good place to start! You are correct, that is where the tires hit the pavement - on the other side of the coin, you may not like what you find, or find the truth somehow distasteful?

What kind of "proof" are you looking for/would it take? I do not believe it is worth the investment of my time to commit to such an undertaking to sway the opinion of one individual, but I have grown weary of all the lip service this issue has generated personally... I, in fact, know a little bit about this issue, maybe a little more than most - I feel at leased enough to engage in this discussion &, to at leased substantiate my claims, or support my opinions, other than that, I see nothing valuable regarding the purpose of this thread, other than the typical stalemate thread, which ultimately serves no purpose because at the end, we are no closer to the truth, or the facts, that when the discussion began - maybe I can be the tie breaker in this instance?

It disappoints me terribly that people engage in such debates without the investment of their time to determine certain material facts through the systematic collection of said evidence, to determine potential fact from fiction. As I sit here now, I will have one main stipulation re: - the disclosure of such evidence, or "proof" - you will bear the ultimate responsibility to post the proof you requested to a public domain that will be available to members of the hide to review as this debate continues forward. Time to nut up or shut up - you game? This is a limited time offer!

Sincerest Regards, Aug ><>

PS - Watch what you wish for, it may come true!
 
#170
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: treebasher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The defect is there and it's unpredictable and many times it won't repeat no matter what you do.</div></div>

For being "unpredictable" and non-repeatable, it sure seemed pretty "repeatable" in CNBC's story.

Which leads me to believe those rifles were manipulated to do what they did, in which case, give me a leatherman and ten seconds, and I can do to ANY 700, ANY Model 70, and many many more firearms.

This "issue", which really is a "non-issue", just sums up peoples pass the blame, sue happy nature in this country. And that CNBC sad excuse of "reporting" was just a not so hidden jab at firearms in general and pretty much solidifies my low opinion of mainstream new sources in this country.

Any weapon utilizes MECHANICAL devices, which DO fail. They fail in guns, they fail in powertools, they fail in consumer applicances, they fail in planes, trains and automobiles.

If your one of those firearm handlers that belives the safety (a mechanical device) is a substitute for safe, responsible firearms handling and should/can be relied upon 100% of the time, than stay the hell away from me because YOU are an accident waiting to happen!
 
#171
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: treebasher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The fact that the plane you're flying in has not crashed is no evidence that crashes don't occur.
That pretty well sums up anecdotal evidence. Just because your rifle's trigger has never, ever done anything but what you directed it to do is no evidence of the lack of a defect. The defect is there and it's unpredictable and many times it won't repeat no matter what you do. The scientific method depends on masses of information when the occurrence is rare and non-repeatable. There are thousands of people that have written letters of complaints that describe the exact same failures time after time. The defect is in the trigger and just because it works now does not mean it won't fail in the future."

REMINGTON-WALKER TRIGGER EXPLANATION
©copyright 2010, H.J. Belk </div></div>

can we find the number of complaints against other manufactures that have a similar number of rifles sold?
 
#172
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For being "unpredictable" and non-repeatable, it sure seemed pretty "repeatable" in CNBC's story.

Which leads me to believe those rifles were manipulated to do what they did, in which case, give me a leatherman and ten seconds, and I can do to ANY 700, ANY Model 70, and many many more firearms.</div></div>

“However, Craig said his department's Remington 700 that misfired had not been altered.”

It would appear you have raised a smoke screen regarding your above belief, unless you have intel the rest of dont?

More Info:

PORTLAND - The Portland Police Department's special reaction team has stopped using its Remington 700 sniper rifles, because one of them started firing unpredictably and a network news report said similar problems elsewhere have caused injuries and prompted lawsuits.


The program's findings were bolstered by a video taken at a Portland police training exercise. One of the rifles was shown firing when the trigger was not being pulled.
"I don't want to run the risk of having an accidental discharge like this where it puts an officer's or community member's life in danger," Police Chief James Craig said Wednesday.

After the first incident, in 2008 during a training exercise at a firing range, the weapon was taken to an armorer. The armorer found nothing wrong with it and could not re-create the misfire, so the gun was put back in service.

During another special reaction team training session, the gun misfired again, and the officers captured video of it on a cell phone. The video, which CNBC obtained, shows an officer prone, the rifle barrel supported by a bipod. The officer removes his finger from the trigger, then reaches forward to touch the bolt. The rifle fires.The sequence was repeated with the same results.

After the training episode, the gun was again taken out of service. Craig said the department contacted Remington and was told the weapon was not under warranty.

That was in 2009. Only later did Portland officials become aware of the controversy over the weapon.
Craig said his department will no longer use its five Remington 700s, and has grant money to buy a new weapons system, at a cost of $1,000 to $1,500.
"We have no evidence that there's other weapons malfunctioning but we don't want to run that risk," he said.
For the time being, the department will use the officers' standard issue M-16 with a scope, he said.

Source:
http://www.pressherald.com/news/craig-faulty-rif-les-taken-out-of-police-service_2010-10-28.html


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Any weapon utilizes MECHANICAL devices, which DO fail. They fail in guns, they fail in powertools, they fail in consumer applicances, they fail in planes, trains and automobiles.</div></div>

Remington developed this very argument, (and you are buying into it) instead of recalling a given number of rifles in the field that would “trick”, or fire off safe. The estimate indicated that 1% of 2 million rifles in the field were defective - and/or the recall would have to gather 2 million rifles, “JUST to find 20,000 rifles" susceptible to the “trick condition” - you do the math, but I believe that would indicate 1 out of every 100 rifles in the hands of the public at that time, IF Remington’s OWN estimate is/were correct? As basically (not word for word) stated in the Jan. 2, 1979 Product Safety Sub Committee Record:

A recall would undercut the message Remington planned to communicate to the public concerning “Safety Gun Handling”….They hired a PR group to assist with the safe gun handling propaganda campaign - Hill & Knowlton

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If your one of those firearm handlers that belives the safety (a mechanical device) is a substitute for safe, responsible firearms handling and should/can be relied upon 100% of the time, than stay the hell away from me because YOU are an accident waiting to happen! </div></div>

Same could be said of an individual that has the false sense of security that they can absolutely maintain muzzle control at all times, in every instance, or circumstance! Further, an individual that does not mind making the executive decision to own, operate, or employ a high powered rifle that can intermittently discharge absent an intentional, or deliberate trigger pull.

While I agree that muzzle control is paramount in the “ideal world“, it would seem to me that we would be at a distinct disadvantage IF we do not have actual control the instant, time and /or place a high powered rifle might inadvertently discharge - especially in light that the fire control can be replaced with safer alternatives. It behooves me to believe that someone would intentionally not want to own a safer, more secure & reliable fire control design if one existed???

Where do urban "Snipers" point there Sniper rifle platforms??

Aug ><>
 
#173
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

since you seem to be able to dig up information pretty easily, maybe you can find out how many similar complaints there have been with another rifle manufacture. then maybe we can take the number of them sold to figure out the percentage of alleged unintentional firings and see if the remington is really more prone to this than any other popular rife.
 
#174
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

Remington Response:

"Remington denies the allegations and, supported by gun rights advocates, criticizes the network's reporting of the story."

I guess you fall into this category - Its a Holy War seems to be your only real argument you have raised.
(Works for the Taliban)

"CNBC ignored facts and information provided by Remington and instead relied on allegations, misleading anecdotes, and false claims," said a statement on the company's website. "Over 5 million Model 700s have been safely and reliably used by millions of shooters, military personnel and law enforcement officers for almost fifty years. The Model 700 is the most popular bolt-action rifle in the world."
Remington said that if standard safety rules are followed, such as always pointing the barrel of a gun so that a discharge would not injure anyone, the alleged injuries could not have happened."

Primarily, CNBC Relied on Remington's OWN Internal Documents generated by their engineering staff - Including an interview with the founding engineer of the M/721 - 722 & M/700, Merle H. (Mike) Walker!!!

OBSERVE, Remington does not state it CANNOT happen in its response, what they say is the incident is your fault if an injury/or death should occur involving a defective rifle malfunction!

My hats off to those guys, brilliant legal argument involving injuries or deaths - but what about the 10,000 +/- customers that had serious concerns regarding the safety, reliability or security of their rifles & reported a "safety related complaint" to Remington. It would appear from the interviews I saw in the expose', the customers that contacted Remington re: malfuctions were led to believe their incidences were isolated... - Once Remington believed customer complaint was one of their principal yard sticks re: the quality of Remington products - today the consensus would suggest as it relates to safety related complaints, everyone is mistaken...

Remington acknowledges in 1944:

"A common source of accidents with firearms is accidental discharge - A safety mechanism is provided to insure against accidental discharge."

Revised 1/9/69

So what has changed over the course of time, in your opinion?

Aug ><>

 
#175
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since you seem to be able to dig up information pretty easily, maybe you can find out how many similar complaints there have been with another rifle manufacture. then maybe we can take the number of them sold to figure out the percentage of alleged unintentional firings and see if the remington is really more prone to this than any other popular rife. </div></div>

300sniper,

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

If you read Augustis' post, I think you'll find that the implication is that Remington knew about this potential and rather than implement a fix, decided to take the low road and deny culpability.

So, to make your request more accurate, we would have to find the numbers of failures linked to manufacturers who not only knew of a flaw in their design, but then conspired to cover it up. I think that might slant the numbers quite heavily against Remington. But hey, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

John
 
#176
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since you seem to be able to dig up information pretty easily, maybe you can find out how many similar complaints there have been with another rifle manufacture. then maybe we can take the number of them sold to figure out the percentage of alleged unintentional firings and see if the remington is really more prone to this than any other popular rife. </div></div>

300sniper,

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

If you read Augustis' post, I think you'll find that the implication is that Remington knew about this potential and rather than implement a fix, decided to take the low road and deny culpability.

So, to make your request more accurate, we would have to find the numbers of failures linked to manufacturers who not only knew of a flaw in their design, but then conspired to cover it up. I think that might slant the numbers quite heavily against Remington. But hey, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

John </div></div>

did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field or only that they were able to trick the trigger into failing by sticking a screwdriver into it?
 
#177
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field or only that they were able to trick the trigger into failing by sticking a screwdriver into it? </div></div>

...and *THAT* my friend is the 64 million dollar question. There is overwhelming evidence that is publicly available (search these threads if you would like to learn)that points to that fact. The designer of the trigger told them over 40 years ago there was a problem and designed a replacement that he felt was safer, but it was not implemented until outside pressure brought us the X-Mark. Decide for yourself...

John
 
#178
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field or only that they were able to trick the trigger into failing by sticking a screwdriver into it? </div></div>

...and *THAT* my friend is the 64 million dollar question. There is overwhelming evidence that is publicly available (search these threads if you would like to learn)that points to that fact. The designer of the trigger told them over 40 years ago there was a problem and designed a replacement that he felt was safer, but it was not implemented until outside pressure brought us the X-Mark. Decide for yourself...

John </div></div>

just because he came up with a trigger that he felt was safer, doesn't necessarily mean that the original one is dangerous. if that is true, not recalling the triggers does not necessarily mean that they covered up anything.

now there very well may be information that i have not seen that proves that remington had proof that there were unintentional discharges in the field without the trigger being pressed and still refused to do anything about it. with that information missing, that is why i would like to see the percentages of reported problems with other major rifle manufactures to see if remington is really the demon they are being made out to be in this issue.
 
#179
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since you seem to be able to dig up information pretty easily, maybe you can find out how many similar complaints there have been with another rifle manufacture. then maybe we can take the number of them sold to figure out the percentage of alleged unintentional firings and see if the remington is really more prone to this than any other popular rife. </div></div>

300sniper,

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

If you read Augustis' post, I think you'll find that the implication is that Remington knew about this potential and rather than implement a fix, decided to take the low road and deny culpability.

So, to make your request more accurate, we would have to find the numbers of failures linked to manufacturers who not only knew of a flaw in their design, but then conspired to cover it up. I think that might slant the numbers quite heavily against Remington. But hey, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

John </div></div>

did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field or only that they were able to trick the trigger into failing by sticking a screwdriver into it? </div></div>

300Sniper

The "Screwdriver Test" is another question for another day - but I will tell you this in the briefest terms possible - this test is a tolerance test, exclusively to determine the "slip fit" of the trigger connector on the trigger body. The purpose of this test was to determine if the connector has enough vertical rise on the trigger body to interfere, or become trapped in the firing notch of the sear, if the vertical rise of the connector exceeds the sear lift with the safety in the on safe position - Remington termed a failure "FOS", or Fires Off Safe, if the fire control failed this specific manipulation test.

If a rifle failed the "Trick" test, the term Remington applied would be "FSR", or Fire On Safety Release. While both malfunction result in the safety firing the rifle, Remington raised a distinction (unsuccessfully) that the test addressed 2 (two) distinctly different defects in Walkers fire control design.

To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf

You do the math!

Aug ><>

 
#180
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

sigh...... why cant people give it a rest. it doesnt matter what you say to some people, they will NEVER agree with you. All of the facts in the world wont sink in through a thick head.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B_KVS1hIbQg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B_KVS1hIbQg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

(if video doesn't show, here's a direct link)
Remington's response to CNBC's "under fire"
 
#181
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf

You do the math!

Aug ><>

</div></div>
what were the test rifles in this report? i didn't see it labeled in that document. were they rifles that were in the field being inspected after a problem? were they rifles that were being inspected before they left the factory? what i got from that document was the triggers wer out of spec, not that there was a design flaw. maybe i missed something. it wasn't very clear and i got taco neck syndrome trying to read it.
 
#182
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: okrebel92</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sigh...... why cant people give it a rest. it doesnt matter what you say to some people, they will NEVER agree with you. All of the facts in the world wont sink in through a thick head.
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B_KVS1hIbQg"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B_KVS1hIbQg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

(if video doesn't show, here's a direct link)
Remington's response to CNBC's "under fire" </div></div>

Let me guess... your a shill for Remington.

Read the documents and quit taking the word of a corporation that is trying to cover their ass because they have know about a design flaw and refuse to do anything about it because that would admit fault.
 
#183
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: treebasher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let me guess... your a shill for Remington.

Read the documents and quit taking the word of a corporation that is trying to cover their ass because they have know about a design flaw and refuse to do anything about it because that would admit fault. </div></div>

can you link the documents that show remington covering up a design flaw so i can read them. thanks.
 
#184
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Augustis said:
To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf

You do the math!

Aug ><>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what were the test rifles in this report? i didn't see it labeled in that document. </div></div>

The Model designation is at the top, along with the date, or in this instance along the left margin. M/721

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
were they rifles that were in the field being inspected after a problem? were they rifles that were being inspected before they left the factory? </div></div>

“Pilot Line Inspection” rifles - Are NEW rifles, still under development to prove the design, still inside the plant. In this instance 11 months prior to release of the M/721 rifle to the public. The release date for this model rifle was March 1948.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what i got from that document was the triggers wer out of spec, not that there was a design flaw. </div></div>

What gives you that impression? For you to draw that conclusion, you have to correctly define the term “Design Limit” - which might imply, or suggest an out of tolerance condition to exist in the pilot line rifles granted - however, IF you are correct, in the last paragraph, why would the engineer have concerns that:

“From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the most dangerous in that the malfunction might not occur during the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection”

This statement suggests that the engineer had concerns that production rifles could ultimately pass through the inspection process to the public for the rifles, or malfunction to be “dangerous” to anyone & that:

1 - “Firing Pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”
2 - “Possible to fire the gun by pushing the Safety to the “off” safe position”
3 - “Occasionally the firing pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”,

#1 & #3 reference “follow down malfunctions”. There are 2 (two) forms of follow down, hard & soft follow downs. For this condition to be dangerous, I believe we would be talking a hard follow down, which will allow tension to build up on the main spring as the bolt is closed - at the instant the connector fails to support the sear, would release the striker to impact the primer with enough force to initiate the firing process - WITHOUT TRIGGER CONTACT. Later, Remington termed this condition “FBC” (Firing on bolt closure).

Further - “Occasionally” implies an intermittent condition to exist. If you are correct in your assertion, answer this question for me - IF the condition were the result of specification, or tolerance conditions, why the concern that these forms of malfunctions could slip through the inspection process undetected, AFTER tolerance, or specification correction(s) to meet specification of the design were met in the production of these rifles that were to be distributed to the public?

Under your assertion, IF tolerance conditions existed & was ultimately corrected, no safety concerns would, or should be raised, regarding inspections to catch rifles exhibiting these forms of malfunctions that was at that time considered “very dangerous from a safety and functional point of view“.

One last thing of notable interest regarding this single document, dated April 9, 1947 - The malfunctions identified in this 1947 document ARE in fact EXACTLY the same forms of malfunctions we are discussing in this thread, are they not, in fact 64 years AFTER this document was in fact generated?




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maybe i missed something. it wasn't very clear and i got taco neck syndrome trying to read it. </div></div>

Apparently you missed a lot small details:
The most obvious - You missed the date of the document, the model designation of rifle discussed in the document, as well as the status of the rifles themselves - which is fair I suspect, unless you know what the term “Pilot Line Inspection” implies, or the release date of this product line to the public - so I will give you that one….

Probably should not apply as an investigative analyst!

Aug ><>
Click to expand...
 
#187
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For being "unpredictable" and non-repeatable, it sure seemed pretty "repeatable" in CNBC's story.

Which leads me to believe those rifles were manipulated to do what they did, in which case, give me a leatherman and ten seconds, and I can do to ANY 700, ANY Model 70, and many many more firearms.</div></div>

“However, Craig said his department's Remington 700 that misfired had not been altered.”

</div></div>

Do you believe everything you hear on our "unbiased", "non-agenda seeking" media???

I for one would take every statement in that sad excuse of a "story" with several pounds of salt.
 
#188
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Augustis said:
To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf

You do the math!

Aug ><>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what were the test rifles in this report? i didn't see it labeled in that document. </div></div>

The Model designation is at the top, along with the date, or in this instance along the left margin. M/721

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
were they rifles that were in the field being inspected after a problem? were they rifles that were being inspected before they left the factory? </div></div>

“Pilot Line Inspection” rifles - Are NEW rifles, still under development to prove the design, still inside the plant. In this instance 11 months prior to release of the M/721 rifle to the public. The release date for this model rifle was March 1948.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what i got from that document was the triggers wer out of spec, not that there was a design flaw. </div></div>

What gives you that impression? For you to draw that conclusion, you have to correctly define the term “Design Limit” - which might imply, or suggest an out of tolerance condition to exist in the pilot line rifles granted - however, IF you are correct, in the last paragraph, why would the engineer have concerns that:

“From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the most dangerous in that the malfunction might not occur during the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection”

This statement suggests that the engineer had concerns that production rifles could ultimately pass through the inspection process to the public for the rifles, or malfunction to be “dangerous” to anyone & that:

1 - “Firing Pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”
2 - “Possible to fire the gun by pushing the Safety to the “off” safe position”
3 - “Occasionally the firing pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle”,

#1 & #3 reference “follow down malfunctions”. There are 2 (two) forms of follow down, hard & soft follow downs. For this condition to be dangerous, I believe we would be talking a hard follow down, which will allow tension to build up on the main spring as the bolt is closed - at the instant the connector fails to support the sear, would release the striker to impact the primer with enough force to initiate the firing process - WITHOUT TRIGGER CONTACT. Later, Remington termed this condition “FBC” (Firing on bolt closure).

Further - “Occasionally” implies an intermittent condition to exist. If you are correct in your assertion, answer this question for me - IF the condition were the result of specification, or tolerance conditions, why the concern that these forms of malfunctions could slip through the inspection process undetected, AFTER tolerance, or specification correction(s) to meet specification of the design were met in the production of these rifles that were to be distributed to the public?

Under your assertion, IF tolerance conditions existed & was ultimately corrected, no safety concerns would, or should be raised, regarding inspections to catch rifles exhibiting these forms of malfunctions that was at that time considered “very dangerous from a safety and functional point of view“.

One last thing of notable interest regarding this single document, dated April 9, 1947 - The malfunctions identified in this 1947 document ARE in fact EXACTLY the same forms of malfunctions we are discussing in this thread, are they not, in fact 64 years AFTER this document was in fact generated?




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maybe i missed something. it wasn't very clear and i got taco neck syndrome trying to read it. </div></div>

Apparently you missed a lot small details:
The most obvious - You missed the date of the document, the model designation of rifle discussed in the document, as well as the status of the rifles themselves - which is fair I suspect, unless you know what the term “Pilot Line Inspection” implies, or the release date of this product line to the public - so I will give you that one….

Probably should not apply as an investigative analyst!

Aug ><> </div></div>

ok, so i couldn't read the date sideways on my computer and i honestly didn't know what a pilot line inspection meant. since you cleared that up, so what if the pilot line was out of spec and the engineer acknowledged that it was a dangerous condition. how exactly does this prove that models sold in the future were out of spec? this document you posted proves absolutely nothing other than some test rifles were made out of spec and never made it into public hands.

i mentioned that the document lead me to believe that the triggers were out of spec, not a design flaw. you attack me for saying that. an out of spec part is just that. it was not made to the tolerances allowed. that is not a design flaw. more of a manufacturing flaw. no where in this article does it mention that out of spec triggers were released to the public. i had some prototype parts come off the mill today that were out of spec. that doesn't mean that i have a design flaw. it means that i have not got the machine set up perfect yet. those parts will get tossed in the scrap bin and considered part of the development process.

let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda.
Click to expand...
 
#189
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda. </div></div>

OK. Now <span style="font-weight: bold">that </span>is an accusation. You want proof? I want proof. I would like to see you *prove* that Augustis is twisting data to push his agenda. I know Augustis and have nothing but the utmost respect for him. He is a thoroughly professional person and lives his life to a very high moral standard.

I realize that you may not take lightly someone taking a perceived shot at your beloved Remington, but making slanderous remarks about him on a public forum will not fix it and does nothing to build your credibility. If you end up on the wrong end of this conversation when all is said and done, that statement will make you look the fool.

I understand you have questions and concerns, but let’s keep it professional, if not polite, huh?

John
 
#190
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jrob300</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda. </div></div>

OK. Now <span style="font-weight: bold">that </span>is an accusation. You want proof? I want proof. I would like to see you *prove* that Augustis is twisting data to push his agenda. I know Augustis and have nothing but the utmost respect for him. He is a thoroughly professional person and lives his life to a very high moral standard.

I realize that you may not take lightly someone taking a perceived shot at your beloved Remington, but making slanderous remarks about him on a public forum will not fix it and does nothing to build your credibility. If you end up on the wrong end of this conversation when all is said and done, that statement will make you look the fool.

I understand you have questions and concerns, but let’s keep it professional, if not polite, huh?

John
</div></div>

a perceived shot at my beloved remington? i am not sure how you got the idea that i love remington. i am not in love with remington but i do think it is unfair to make serious claims against them (or any manufacture) without some sort of proof to back it up. i do consider it twisting things when someone posts an unrelated document in an attempt to prove something.

my agenda is to find proof that remington indeed did have a design flaw that caused unaltered rifles to fire without the trigger being pulled, and they knew about it but refused to do anything about it. without that proof, it sounds to me like augustis has an agenda to destroy remington's reputation.
 
#191
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">a perceived shot at my beloved remington? i am not sure how you got the idea that i love remington. </div></div>

You're right...that was an assumption. My bad. But you do own Remington's right? My experience with most people is that they mix their ego with ownership and have a *VERY* difficult time remaining objective with regard to anything pertaining to their purchase. If I was wrong in this case, my apologies and you are indeed a rare person.

Your opinion with regard to Augustis' actions is duly noted. But opinions are inconsequential in court and don't hold water here either. If you are going to malign someone's character, you'd better be prepared to provide something substantial.

John

ETA:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my agenda is to find proof that remington indeed did have a design flaw that caused unaltered rifles to fire without the trigger being pulled, and they knew about it but refused to do anything about it. without that proof, it sounds to me like augustis has an agenda to destroy remington's reputation. </div></div>

You edited while I was typing. I can see your perspective. I've read the evidence online and it seems compelling to me... but I'm not invested.
 
#192
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: treebasher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let me guess... your a shill for Remington.

Read the documents and quit taking the word of a corporation that is trying to cover their ass because they have know about a design flaw and refuse to do anything about it because that would admit fault. </div></div>

can you link the documents that show remington covering up a design flaw so i can read them. thanks. </div></div>

Remington Internal memo's


To summarize these documents written by Remington:

1) They determined that about 1% of 2,000,000 of pre 1975 Rem 7xx series(721,722,725,700) will fire when taking the rifle off of safe. That's about 20,000 rifles. They did not recall all 2,000,000 to find the 20,000.

2) Remington instituted additional quality checks post-1975 in an effort to "catch" these defective triggers.

3) From 1978-1980 they found that in spite of the additional quality checks somewhere around .55% of the post 1975 triggers would still fire off-safe.

4) Any trigger that was adjusted after leaving the Remington factory, by either a gunsmith or by the owner was removed from those percentages because they had been "altered" or "damaged" in the field.

5) To address this condition Remington again did not recall all rifles, instead in 1980, they removed the bolt detent, which allowed the rifle to be unloaded with out taking it off safe.

6) Another 4-6 million Rem 700 were made until Remington changed the trigger to the Mark X in 2002. If .55% of those are also defective, then that's another 22-32 thousand floating around, in addition to the original 20,000.

7) So there are some 42-52 thousand rifles with defective triggers, that will fire off safe. Plus, another x thousand that have had there triggers adjusted, either by the owner or a gunsmith, that may also show this condition.


Draw your own conclusions.

Bob
 
#193
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobinNC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: treebasher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Let me guess... your a shill for Remington.

Read the documents and quit taking the word of a corporation that is trying to cover their ass because they have know about a design flaw and refuse to do anything about it because that would admit fault. </div></div>

can you link the documents that show remington covering up a design flaw so i can read them. thanks. </div></div>

Remington Internal memo's


To summarize these documents written by Remington:

1) They determined that about 1% of 2,000,000 of pre 1975 Rem 7xx series(721,722,725,700) will fire when taking the rifle off of safe. That's about 20,000 rifles. They did not recall all 2,000,000 to find the 20,000.

2) Remington instituted additional quality checks post-1975 in an effort to "catch" these defective triggers.

3) From 1978-1980 they found that in spite of the additional quality checks somewhere around .55% of the post 1975 triggers would still fire off-safe.

4) Any trigger that was adjusted after leaving the Remington factory, by either a gunsmith or by the owner was removed from those percentages because they had been "altered" or "damaged" in the field.

5) To address this condition Remington again did not recall all rifles, instead in 1980, they removed the bolt detent, which allowed the rifle to be unloaded with out taking it off safe.

6) Another 4-6 million Rem 700 were made until Remington changed the trigger to the Mark X in 2002. If .55% of those are also defective, then that's another 22-32 thousand floating around, in addition to the original 20,000.

7) So there are some 42-52 thousand rifles with defective triggers, that will fire off safe. Plus, another x thousand that have had there triggers adjusted, either by the owner or a gunsmith, that may also show this condition.


Draw your own conclusions.

Bob
</div></div>

now we're getting somewhere.
 
#194
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

I am going to need a white board and a hand full of markers to keep up with who believes what on this one.

From my own experiences of 35 years of shooting a 700 I have never had or witnessed an "accidental discharge" only the rare "negligent discharge" incident to shooter error. In the Marine Corps, LE, and civilian shooting experience I have never talked to anyone who had a slam fire unless it was on the rare gun that the trigger had been grossly jacked with. There are too many of these rifles in service without any incident of spontaneous fire to believe that a few vague, unsubstantiated, and isolated incidents constitute a valid claim of defective design and or manufacture. The question to be asked is why this report was generated? I am rather surprised that this topic is still being discussed. In the words of Joe Friday “just the facts” is what I am interested in not the personal opinions or conspiracy theories wrought in misinformation. If concrete evidence exists to legitimize the claim that the Remington 700 is a dangerous or unsafe firearm, I would love to see it.
 
#196
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

wow this is still going on... I was sitting at home one night and my sister called in kinda a panic... she was wanting to know if i had any of them remington 700 rifles... i said yea i have the ones dad had and grandpa and those that i had bought, so yea i got 16 of them (nothing wrong with having one in every caliber right? well couple 722 and 721's.) So she told me bout the show on tv... yea i can make one go off like that with a little trigger work but one can also fix that to.... think most forget about the golden rule. Treat every gun as though it is loaded... no joke... I dont care if it is company x or y but u better have that fucker unloaded unless an animal or target in down range... people are careless and lazy by nature, these are man made things that are not perfect and can fail at any time no matter what brand... just be safe everytime you go a field and that will help everytime... everything fails, guns and steel just dont forgive.....
 
#197
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kill_goose</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
For being "unpredictable" and non-repeatable, it sure seemed pretty "repeatable" in CNBC's story.

Which leads me to believe those rifles were manipulated to do what they did, in which case, give me a leatherman and ten seconds, and I can do to ANY 700, ANY Model 70, and many many more firearms.</div></div>

“However, Craig said his department's Remington 700 that misfired had not been altered.”

</div></div>

Do you believe everything you hear on our "unbiased", "non-agenda seeking" media???

I for one would take every statement in that sad excuse of a "story" with several pounds of salt. </div></div>

kill_goose, not wanting to argue with you or anyone else and I am a REAL die hard Remington 700 fan, have owned 70+ 700's and only 1 incident and that was MY fault. Mine happened while calling coyotes with a 700 that happened to discharge when I took the safety off. It however was adjusted by me earlier and had several hundred rounds on it until that point. After a serious laundry session and getting the shit scared out of me I readjusted and have had no troubles with that same receiver in over 2k rounds.

Did Remington know? Hell, I don't have a clue but would wager they knew more than they are admitting to. However I do know that argueing with Augustis with the knowledge you and I have vs. his experience with the entire ordeal is a serious waste of your time! That dude has far more experience/information on this then 99.9%+ of the rest of us on this forum. Again I am a DIE HARD REMINGTON 700 fan but I believe every word the man says, I don't believe the media but Augustis IS NOT the main stream media. He has provided this forum with much intelligent info over the years!!!!

Just my worthless opinion and worth no more than .02 cents.

Respectfully,
Dennis
 
#198
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

300Sniper - First off, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, lets start with that!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ok, so i couldn't read the date sideways on my computer and i honestly didn't know what a pilot line inspection meant. since you cleared that up, </div></div>

Second: Yes, I did give you the benefit of the doubt on your potential limited understanding of terms & what they might suggest, or imply - re: “pilot line inspection", as well as the product line release date - BUT you “couldn’t read the date sideways”, OR find the model designation for yourself either??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i mentioned that the document lead me to believe that the triggers were out of spec, not a design flaw. you attack me for saying that. an out of spec part is just that. it was not made to the tolerances allowed. that is not a design flaw.</div></div>

Third:
I ALREADY asked you what leads you to that conclusion? No Response... Here again you are assuming something that may not be FACT - By defining a "Design Limit" as a specification, or tolerance variable!

Let me ask you this to see if this gets you closer - As an aspiring custom gun builder yourself - what is your primary ethical objective & responsibility to the public you serve, first & foremost, when designing a product such as a high powered rifle, for its intended use by the public?

Forth:
Sir, you HAVE apparently failed to take the time, or personal initiative, to thoroughly read, digest & absorb the content of a single page document (or my response for that matter) & then respond with a post seething with emotion, claiming I have made some kind of personal “attack” on you because I do not happen to agree with your conclusive personal analysis of the document (OK, no problem I can take it) - because of YOUR failure to take ample time to carefully study the content of the document??? OK - I can see this IS going to be a HUGE waste of my time… if you are going to cry wolf because you don’t like, or care for the rational response I provided in my previous post.

You also appear to be starting the process with a predetermined perception of the “facts” (as many here are) at the beginning of your journey(s), in your personal quest(s) for knowledge - funny thing about that, IF you start with a given perception of the given "facts", or circumstances in a matter such as this, at the beginning of an investigation, USUALLY that is where you will end up at the end… no closer to the truth than when you started!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda..</div></div>

Oh boy, you have no idea what I know, where I have been, & what you are asking for ;o)

Chill out Bro!

Later(???), Aug ><>
 
#199
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

Bob - Thank you!! That was going to be one of the documents I would put up for 300Sniper & the rest of the forum to review (Please review my previous post concerning this documents findings). I believe the problem is, this Jan. 2, 1979 PSSC document leaves too large a time line gap between the first one I discussed. So I will offer these also for further insight to the forum:

December 3, 1946 - MH Walker
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_02.pdf

The Key term in the document below (I Believe) is incorporating a "trigger block" into the current production (at that time) fire control system, to prevent the trigger from moving with the safety in the on safe position.

August 16, 1948 - MH Walker
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_09.pdf

Everyone, please take your time reading & digesting the content, its not a race to make the next post, but hopefully a rational, & informative discussion of a potentially serious issue!


Regards, Aug ><>
 
#200
Re: Remington accused of 700 series dangerous flaws

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body">300Sniper - First off, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, lets start with that!

<span style="color: #FF0000"> you didn't hurt my feelings. you just failed to answer the question i was asking.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ok, so i couldn't read the date sideways on my computer and i honestly didn't know what a pilot line inspection meant. since you cleared that up, </div></div>

Second: Yes, I did give you the benefit of the doubt on your potential limited understanding of terms & what they might suggest, or imply - re: “pilot line inspection", as well as the product line release date - BUT you “couldn’t read the date sideways”, OR find the model designation for yourself either??

<span style="color: #FF0000">my question about what the rifles were was not asking what model numbers they were. i was asking if they had been in the field or not. if you didn't pull my post apart sentence by sentence you would have noticed that.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i mentioned that the document lead me to believe that the triggers were out of spec, not a design flaw. you attack me for saying that. an out of spec part is just that. it was not made to the tolerances allowed. that is not a design flaw.</div></div>

Third:
I ALREADY asked you what leads you to that conclusion? No Response... Here again you are assuming something that may not be FACT - By defining a "Design Limit" as a specification, or tollerance variable.

<span style="color: #FF0000">since i can't find it, where exactly in that document does it show that remington knew there were dangerous rifles in the field? what leads me to that conclusion that the document says the triggers were out of spec, not a design flaw? that is what the document said. i didn't see anywhere mentioned that the triggers were a design flaw. i didn't see anywhere on the document that stated triggers made it into the field with design flaws or even made it to the field with triggers that were out of tolerance. if i missed it, please point it out. </span>

Let me ask you this to see if this gets you closer - As an aspiring custom gun builder yourself - what is your primary & ethical objective (first & foremost) when designing a product such as a high powered rifle, for its intended use by the public?

<span style="color: #FF0000">i would of course want to make a product that is safe. if i were designing a product for public use, i would also do a pilot line inspection. products that failed the pilot line inspection would be rejected. again, i still missed in that document where it said that remington fielded the rifles that were out of spec.</span>

Forth:
Sir, you HAVE apparently failed to take the time, or personal initiative, to thoroughly read, digest & absorb the content of a single page document (or my response for that matter) & then respond with a post seething with emotion, claiming I have made some kind of personal “attack” on you because I do not happen to agree with your conclusive personal analysis of the document (OK, no problem I can take it) - because of YOUR failure to take ample time to carefully study the content of the document??? OK - I can see this IS going to be a HUGE waste of my time… if you are going to cry wolf because you don’t like, or care for the rational response I provided in my previous post.

<span style="color: #FF0000">i think i have read the single page document and see nowhere where it says what you claimed it did by posting it as a response to my question: "did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field".</span>

You also appear to be starting the process with a developed perception of the “facts” (as many here are) at the beginning of your journey(s), in your personal quest(s) for knowledge - funny thing about that, IF you start with a given perception of the given "facts", or circumstances in a matter such as this, at the beginning of an investigation, USUALLY that is where you will end up at the end… no closer to the truth than when you started!!

<span style="color: #FF0000">if people are making accusations, i feel it would be appropriate to have the facts to back them up. i don't feel it should be so hard to come up with them if this is indeed an issue.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
let me know when you have some proof or just keep trying to twist things to push your agenda..</div></div>

Oh boy, you have no idea what I know, where I have been, & what you are asking for ;o)

<span style="color: #FF0000">you are right. i have no idea what you know, where you've been. i do know what i am asking for though. some sort of proof that remington willfully allowed flawed/dangerous rifles to be fielded.</span>

Chill out Bro!

Later(???), Aug ><> </div></div>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="color: #FF0000">since you like to pull my posts apart sentence by sentence, lets go back and look at what started this:</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustis</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
did they actually know there were failures that had or could actually happen in the field </div></div>


To answer your other question about what they actually knew & when they knew it:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Section.../Rem_Doc_03.pdf

You do the math!

Aug ><>

</div></div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JG26_Irish
Prepping a pair of Safari Rifles SH-style
Replies
7
Views
406
JG26_Irish
JG26_Irish
PatMiles
Gorsuch Accuses Sonia Sotomayor of Getting Lost in Her Own Web of Lies in Blistering Opinion in Christian Web Designer Case
Replies
4
Views
766
M4orturnate
M4orturnate
notacos4u
Remington 700 issue?? Questions
Replies
25
Views
805
notacos4u
notacos4u
carbonbased
Flare / Glare / Backlit notes on 4 scopes (NX8 4-32, Razor Gen II 4.5-27, Razor LHT 4.5-22, S&B 5-25)
Replies
10
Views
454
carbonbased
carbonbased
T
Firearms Funding a build, WTS: Remington 700 & 1100, Win. 12, Kimber 1911, M91/30 Mosin Nagant
Replies
2
Views
985
TheyCallMe64
T
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts