Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Remington 700's under fire! Linked to Multiple deaths......

That's my point with this and all the blithering idiots on here, the FINAL BLAME FOR SHOOTING ANOTHER PERSON IS WITH THE PERSON HOLDING THE GUN, PERIOD.

The issue isn't the trigger, the issue is the stupid [bleep] people and the JO types afraid of eating tag soup.

Plausible deny ability...it's a disease.

Jim, while it's true for many triggers I don't think it's true in all cases. I tried adjusting a Sako M-75 trigger to where it wasn't safe but couldn't.

Steelhead, a point you are missing is that not all deadly accidents come from when a gun in someone's hands is pointed at another person. You need to consider someone stumbling and perhaps dropping a gun or even someones own gun falling and going off. It's not always someone holding a gun and pointing it at you - which you are right SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN! My absolute #1 pet peeve is when another hunter uses his scope to look at me! They need to realize that I'm going to shoot back!................................DJ

Exactly. And as you said earlier, letting it get dirty. It's not exactly a coincidence that all of the aftermarket triggers like Shilen and Rifle Basix do away with the sear connector.

But at the end of the day, it does all come down to muzzle control and carrying a rifle chamber hot.

Edited to add: there are some types of hunting, like calling in coyotes, that pretty much demand a round in the chamber and depending on the safety. But it doesn't excuse pointing the rifle at your buddy's head.

Hate to bust your bubble on the better design, but they are still a mechanical device.

I've got one of the 'better' here right now waiting for new parts for the safety. It locked up everything with a hot chamnber. That can get a little uncomfortable.

By the way I don't recall telling anyone to keep their chamber cold all the time. And, I don't either. Just trying to remind people safety is paramount. That takes judgement. All that safety is good for is a fail safe, for a brain asleep.

By the way, I'm glad you are happy with your truth about Remington's but I don't need it. And I suspect there are quite a few here who have or shot many other rifles. I also occasionally like to drink Kool-Aid too.

DJ ... just in case you're unaware ... you DO realize, don't you, that if the chamber is cold, you can trip/fall all day long w/ your rifle, and the only way it's going to harm you is by donking you on the head or something ...

again, it pretty much ALL comes back to "firearms safety" - cold chamber being one of those little things, ya know?

Yes it is always the responsibility of the person holding the gun. Why the [bleep] do you think I roam the woods without one in the chamber? If you can't say 100% of the time where the muzzle will be, which in the case of someone falling as you point out, then you shouldn't have a friggin round in the chamber.

You are still ultimately the one responsible, because you are the one with the firearm, PERIOD.

You could if you replaced the Sako m75 factory trigger return spring with a lighter one or clipped coils from the factory spring. It does not take much effort.

Schit like that has been going on with Remington m700 triggers by supposed "trigger tuners" for 60 years.

SAKOs have NEVER come with striker blocking safeties, either..

Anti Remington bias aside, I don't see were ANY SAKO ever made has any more safe trigger mechanism that a Remington m700, IF both are adjusted to the pull weights they were DESIGNED FOR.

Like I said, all anti-Remington bias aside...

I think the fact that early literature by Mike Walker stating that HIS trigger had this issue may set the Remington trigger apart from others here.

I think the easiest, most clear way to say it is this ...

If you're someone that wants a rifle to have a trigger/safety mechanism that truly ensures that the rifle will not fire unless you are 100% ready for it to, you should head over to the wishing well and start tossing pennies in, because that's about as far as you're going to get.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of all else ... once a live round goes into the chamber of a firearm, the ONLY safety that truly exists, is the person handling the firearm.

The other 'issue' is all those that will change the trigger and suddenly think ALL is golden. As I stated earlier, I had a Rifle Basix the would snap a cap when you took the safety off.

This is not directed at WGM, but I pulled this quote because I have seen this statement from a lot of people here on this Board;

Most of the posters on this forum are not typical of the average guy (let's call him "Bubba") that buys a Remington 700.

Bubba goes down to "Price Mart" and buys a rifle and a couple of boxes of "shells" to deer hunt with. Bubba probably never takes the action out of the stock the entire time he owns it.

He may (or may not) spray it down with gun oil if he sees surface rust somewhere. He may not take great pains to keep oil from running into the trigger mechanism. Hell, he may even intentionally spray oil in the trigger. He is not particularly mechanically adept and has no idea of how the internal parts of his trigger work. This is the typical buyer of mass produced rifles.

Remington put into the stream of commerce a trigger mechanism that can, and has, in some instances, failed because it is susceptible to contamination.

In order to properly clean this contamination from the trigger group, it must be completely disassembled, something that Bubba is clearly not qualified to do.

So, Bubba has to know that there is a potential for his trigger to fail, try to prevent contamination of the trigger (remember, one poster already mentioned an incident where a single grass seed caused a failure), and take his rifle to a gunsmith every time he suspects that contamination has occurred.

Does this seem like a reasonable thing to ask from an average "Bubba" big box rifle consumer? I'm betting not very many juries will think so.

Seems asking Bubba to not point a [bleep] rifle at another person isn't an unreasonable expectation. Though it would appear as though it is an unreasonable expectation, else we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Gadfly ...

I realize the point you're trying to make ... which is, a product put out in the open market should be designed in such a way that the vast majority of the users of said product can use it w/out special care, so to speak.

My response to that is, that's crap.

There are TONS of things out there - vehicles for instance - that require more maintenance and/or skill to work on than your average "bubba" who need only be of age, licensed to DRIVE (not maintain) and have enough money to make the purchase. Yet, just about any "bubba" can go buy one ...

but by your logic, people should be suing the auto MFG's for not making their transmissions self-replenishing with their fluids ... or not including compressed air tanks that fill the tires automatically if/when they get low on air ... etc.

that's just ridiculous.

If "bubba" is gonna buy/use the rifle, then "bubba" is responsible for learning enough about it to maintain it properly ... end of story.

Not so. I have adjusted the triggers of my Sako's to 2lbs and they easily passed the drop on the buttstock test. I've had Remington's fail the same exact test at 3lbs.

I've told this story before but a few years ago I went to a local store and functioned checked several brand new un-modified M-700's, before the new trigger came out. Half or more of them failed a simple sear reset test. No Sako I've ever tried has failed the same test.

Sako M-75 and M-85 triggers have in my actual tests and experiences been far superior to Remington triggers.

I still own several 700 Remingtons, I shot one of mine this week in fact. I'm not totally against Remington by any means but I am straightforward and honest about the good and bad points of Remington 700 rifles. It's VERY difficult to safely adjust a OTB older model 700 trigger to a decent pull weight without any creep where it won't disengange if dropped on the butt from waist height. To get the best accuracy out of one they often need to be blueprinted - I just paid our machinist to do one of my own and it made a HUGE difference. So like I said before 700's are good overall rifles but with flaws............................DJ

DJ ... Remington is NOT responsible for supplying you a trigger with a pull weight of your satisfaction ... they are, however, responsible for having the rifle set up in such a manner that, w/out any adjustment out of the box, should function as it was designed to ...

Granted, that might mean a 7# trigger, but if that's what it takes to pass the function tests - and that's how it's set from the factory - then Remington has done their job. Whether or not you consider the trigger to be a "good trigger" is a completely different story, and has nothing to do with Remington's culpability.

That said, you mention above that the triggers were set to 3# ... Is this something you verified with a pull weight gauge on the triggers as they were set by Remington, straight out of the box? And they were ALL exactly set to 3#? Or did you (or someone else) adjust the triggers to 3# and THEN perform your function tests?

Why don't we just sacrifice Remington to the hoplophobes, product liability lawyers, nancy boys and the media?

Hell, we'd still have the rest of the firearms industry and perhaps the aforementioned goons will let us be, once they get to feast on Remington's carcass?

Unless mebbe it's just the camel's nose under the tent and they figure to get 'em all in the long run, as we fall upon ourselves, defending our particular favorites?

WTH was the German minister's name who coined that "When they came for the Jews" thing?

No, but auto manufacturers should be held responsible if they have, for instance, a brake system that will fail if gravel, road grime, etc. gets in it.

The test is "typical use". If a product fails under typical use, in typical conditions, then the manufacturer of the product has a problem.

A trigger that has to be kept surgically clean in order not to fail is not designed for typical use in a hunting rifle.

I don't think anyone is saying that. But it's as far extreme the other way when shooters on here who know better maintain that there's no issue with that trigger.

There's such a thing as due diligence to protect oneself during litigation. The question is...did Remington do that?