Rem 700 Rifle Question & Some Comments

Discussion in 'Gadgets & Gear' started by Old CW4, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. LMT66

    LMT66 Gold Member Gold Member

    Jun 18, 2008
    I see no logic in this. Hide a known problem from the public just to keep them from going belly-up?
    Most folks that have 700's, that have been "tricked" into firing, had no knowledge of any of the allegations against Remington until after they had it happen to them.
    As gun buyers, we aren't machinists nor are most experts on gun maintenance and repair. We expect to buy a reasonably safe product for use and expect that the manufacturer has our safety as it's #1 concern. We also expect the product instructions to be accurate. It seems all Remington needed to do was include a warning that the gun may be "tricked" into firing when disengaging the safety to open the bolt. :confused:

    I'm no fan on MSNBC or the anti-gun folks but they didn't have to do a whole lot of leg work to get ratings. Remington has been a sitting duck over this trigger assembly issue since they introduced this model.
    I'll also say that the unfortunate incident that was in their special was in-part, operator error. She stated that she did not point the gun anywhere but the ground when she went to disengage the safety. Then she stated it fired on it's own and struck her child. Somewhere in between being pointed at the ground and disengaging the safety, the barrel had a bead on her son. That flew right past watchers of the show. A trick of hand by MSNBC.

    Remington determined only 1% of the 2 million sold had issues so no recall was made, instead a firearm safety campaign. That left about 20,000 (1%) defective rifles in the publics hands. 20,000!
    Remington should have stepped up long ago to protect it's customers.
  2. UffDa

    UffDa Gold Member Gold Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    Guilty until proven innocent. Cool.:rolleyes:

    BTW, I made an error. The program was on CNBC not MSNBC.
  3. Old CW4

    Old CW4 Banned BANNED

    Sep 8, 2006
    If I had ever owned a Rem 700 I would not have discovered this. Why? Because I do not use the safety on a bolt action! I open the bolt by raising the handle part way. This 'safes' the rifle by disengaging the sear and firing pin release notch. When I want to fire I noiselessly close the bolt and I'm ready to go. I've spooked game because of the 'click' of the safety and closing the bolt is silent and positive.

    This also works with many lever actions by letting the lever hang down a half inch or so. The rifle can't fire with the lever disengaged and it closes silently without a safety 'click' by merely squeezing your hand.
  4. Zero_Time


    Dec 28, 2006
    All I have to say is, sometimes, I just really don't understand the firearms community, or at least the vocal minority in it. I've been working in a job that has put me in contact with people who get into auto accidents. Notice, first, that they are auto ACCIDENTS, even though every time there is an "accident", short of trees falling, vandals, or other incidents, it is human error. In fact, it is NEGLIGENT driving; but people don't take as much responsibility here. That's fine; most people don't, and I actually respect the gun community for taking responsibility so seriously.

    However, what I DO NOT get is the blaming of victims with such viciousness. There's a lot of people involved in auto accidents/negligent vehicular incidents every year, as you probably know. Do you interrogate every person who mentions being in an accident IF IT WAS THEIR FAULT? Were they POSSIBLY doing ANYTHING wrong? If you do not apply this same vigorous standard to people driving, then there is a double standard. Most people drive over the speed limit, talk on a cell phone, and engage in other forms of distracted, negligent driving. If you're in an auto accident, honestly, most of the time you've done SOMETHING wrong. Except for a few incidents like being rear-ended at a light, you're SOMEWHAT negligent, even if it reads as "fault-free" on your part. There are drivers I've seen with 4 or 5 incidents in the past 5 years in which every accident was "fault-free" on their part- but I bet you dollars to donuts, there was something they could have done to prevent the accident. The people in the Toyota incidents, including a California Highway Patrol officer could have avoided the crash by shifting the car to neutral or park. Does that mean these dead people are stupid, and should have their names sullied by insults in the grave?

    The world is imperfect; things don't always go right. That's why there is redundancies: the world isn't perfect, so you need to overshoot to achieve "safe" levels. I've also worked in the food and restaurant industry- I will tell you, every single last inspection, regulation, and code is not adhered to 100% of the time anywhere outside extremely finicky, low-volume places (I've worked at A-rated places). The point I'm making here is that yes, the people possibly were at fault. As to the question is it OK to point a gun at a trailer, unsure of what is on the other side, even if the rifle is mechanically safe? The answer is no, but that's because you never know if it IS safe. Maybe lint fell into the gun on YOUR part. Maybe the cartridge is defective in some way that can make it unsafe. Maybe you are in a highly electrically charged environment that will set off the gun with no mechanical error anywhere. The point is, everything on the mechanical side should prevent tragedy AND everything on the human side should prevent tragedy. Reality will intervene at some point so that 100% of standards and regulations on both sides will not be achieved. When <100% comes, will that be sufficient to be safe?

    Another point I don't understand. Please, elaborate here. Do people not gain if a defective product, or product that is made in a sub-standard way, is taken off the market or adjusted to be safe? Did all hikers lose when Nalgene withdrew their BPA bottles? I've actually been looking at acquiring a gun in .308, and of course the venerable 700 has been on the list. I'm new to the rifle market, so call me a newb or whatever, I really don't care. However, what I don't get is when defending organizations that may (or may not) be guilty of informed negligence (knowing of their negligence). I don't know enough about the problem to say I have an opinion- but I say my opinion rests on whether Remington did know there was a way to make a better, safer product without adversely impacting the rifle or not, and chose the other option. Intent, to me, is what truly matters. If a company acts in such a shady way, they don't deserve my dollars, and I can't trust what they make. Again, I say I do not have an opinion as of yet, as I need to do more research.

    No offense intended anywhere, but sometimes I really don't get the ideology/philosophy that some have, and so desire to learn more.

  5. UffDa

    UffDa Gold Member Gold Member

    Sep 11, 1999
    What you say may be true to some extent, but there are things going on here somewhat below the surface.

    Most of you may not remember the suit against Ruger. Basically, a moron shot himself with a Ruger single action revolver. He loaded all 6 chambers. It has been almost universally known for over 100 years that you only load 5 chambers and leave an empty chamber under the hammer. It was spelled out in big red letters in the manual. I don't remember if the man won the suit or if Ruger just settled, but as a result, Ruger redesigned their single actions and stamped a warning label on all their firearms. All this because of one idiot.

    RE: Remington. There is an old saying. "Follow the money" The TV show was produced by people who are obviously anti-gun and they bring in lawyers who want a class action lawsuit. Who will gain by this lawsuit? It definitely will not be the public. The lawyers will make millions and the average Joe will get 10 bucks or a coupon for a box of ammo. :rolleyes: Oh, the price of firearms and ammo will go up.

    IMHO, the few people who have been shot by these alleged defective firearms were negligent in handling the rifles and or tinkered with the trigger. As hard as the firearms industry tries, they can't make a fool proof firearm.

    This is just my opinion. Yours may be different.
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2011

Share This Page