Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Evolution of the Remington Trigger and Safety.

Yes, info on the introduction and design of the XMark Pro trigger is included in the link from the previous post. The XMark Pro, which eliminates the problematic floating connector, sounds like an excellent trigger. Will the XMark Pro drop-in to replace the older Walker triggers?

The new X-Mark Pro trigger is a simple drop-in replacement in both aspects of the trigger AND safety mechanism ... though the safety mechanism on the X-Mark Pro has more 'stuff' on the outside of the trigger housing, and may require some minor relief of the stock inletting to ensure that nothing on the trigger rubs on the side of the stock.

One thing of note, is that the design of the new X-Mark Pro trigger not only removed the floating connector, but the safety was also redesigned so that it actually blocks the trigger itself from moving out of battery when it's engaged.

I have a few of the new X-Mark Pro triggers installed on older Remington 700 actions, and they all dropped-in just fine, piece of cake ... they all also have adjusted very easily, and I really like the feel of them, including the smooth, contoured trigger shoe.

A couple of questions:

In the course of normal operation, does the trigger connector separate from full contact with the trigger? What happens when the sear drops and the trigger is released? (I own a 700, but don't have access to it at the moment.)

Is there any reason one couldn't / shouldn't epoxy the trigger connector to the trigger?

From Otteson�s book:

The trigger is a single-stage override type, but a somewhat sophisticated
variation which results in one of the best performing triggers made. The
entire firing unit, comprising the trigger and safety assemblies, is covered
under U.S. Patent 2,514,981 issued July 11, 1950 (M. H. Walker and P. R.
Haskell). It is fully adjustable, although the action must be taken out of the
stock . Our sample rifle had a 3 lb. and .012 in. letoff, with .017 in. over-
travel, exceptional performance for an out-of-the-box standard grade rifle.

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

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

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

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

Two cross pins fix the trigger assembly to the receiver. The forward pin is
also the sear pivot, and the rear pin the bolt-stop pivot and sear stop. A
housing encloses and supports the remaining parts, with an opening to show
sear engagement.

The Model 700 and 721/722 triggers differ in detail. Shape of the trigger
shoe improved in the 700 version. The 721/722 shoe was thicker and
ungrooved. The shoe (and trigger guard) were also set back for the sweep of
the Model 700 bolt handle. Housing construction also improved. The
721/722 housing was folded sheet metal, with the adjusting screws working
in partial threads cut into the opposing walls. This structure was dropped in
1962 (although reintroduced a couple of years later in the Model 600 series).
The Model 700 uses the 40-X housing, a very precise and solid affair with
the side plates riveted to three support blocks, each block housing an ad-
justing screw.

In 1968, the sear also changed. It previously comprised two side-by-side
pieces. The left piece was called the safety cam and was controlled by the
safety. With the safety off, it moved free and so wasn't part of the trigger
function. The right-hand piece was actually the sear, engaging the trigger
connector but not the safety.

Except for using inexpensive blanked parts, this split setup segregating
the safety and trigger functions into two independently moving pieces
served no purpose, and in fact the narrow parts allowed greater wear. In
1968, Mike Walker substituted the present one-piece version which com-
bines the functions of the previous two parts. It is a chrome-plated sintered-
metal part, precision formed to eliminate the machining needed on the
working surfaces of the previous blanked parts, and giving full-width
contact between the sear and trigger connector.

It may seem suspiciously obvious that the two-piece system never had
much functional purpose. This was, in fact, known at the time. As
originally designed by Mike Walker, the sear was a one-piece blanking.
During the final review of the design by Remington�s patent attorneys,
however, a possible infringement of the sear-safety design of Winchester�s
Model 52 (U.S. Patent 2,191,521 issued Feb. 27,1940 [H. L.Crockett]) was
discovered. This occurred after considerable quantities of pilot-lot rifles
were already in the warehouse awaiting shipment, and thus understandably
caused some consternation. Phillip Haskell, who had recently joined
Remington from the Aberdeen Proving Ground, was given the unenviable
task of quickly finding a solution which not only avoided infringement, but
equally important, caused the least possible disruption to the design and
manufacture of the rifles. After several weeks of studying the drawings and
the patent claims, he came up with the two-piece idea. While it may not
appear a brilliant solution on the surface, it required modification of only
the sear itself, and thus accomplished the intended purpose extremely well.
The production line was modified quickly and easily, and all the ware-
housed rifles were uncartoned and returned to the factory for rework at
minimum cost.




The safety is a two-position sear type. It is a U-shaped stamping pivoted
to the trigger housing. On one side is formed a bolt-lock blade and
thumbpiece (integral in the 721/722 and a more solid looking welded-on
part in the 700) and on the other a camming radius. A spring-loaded ball
sandwiched between the safety and trigger housing detents in each position.

Rocked rearward, the bolt-lock blade rises to lock the bolt from turning
while simultaneously the sear is cammed upward. The sear is cammed
completely off the trigger connector, so that the trigger is free to reset if
necessary. This situation is analogous to that in a direct safety. If the sear
were only blocked, and the trigger pulled, it might drop enough to prevent
trigger reset, particularly if tolerances or wear had created extra play in the
system. Safety release could then accidently discharge the rifle.

Operating on the sear, while in theory possibly slightly less positive than
directly on the firing pin assembly, is nonetheless totally effective and far
superior to merely blocking the trigger. This is because engagement between
the sear and cocking piece far exceeds that between the sear and trigger,
often by a factor of 10 or more. Operation of the Remington safety is also
exceptionally easy, and in fact this is perhaps the best combination of
positive action and convenient and silent operation yet devised.

A subtle design advantage helps account for this performance. The
Remington safety operates with relatively little cam displacement and thus a
high effective leverage. Less force is needed and it is smoother and easier to
operate than a Mauser bolt-sleeve mounted safety.

This is possible due to a more precise working location, which can be
analyzed as follows: With the action cocked, the receiver-mounted trigger
unit locates the cocking piece. Required safety-cam displacement largely
depends on how precisely the safety is located relative to this set cocking
piece. Any uncertainty requires adding extra length to the cam angle, thus
diminishing its effective leverage.

A bolt-sleeve mounted safety lacks a precise relationship with the cocking
piece. While physically adjacent, relative positioning between the two
depends on too many intermediate parts and dimensions (safety/bolt sleeve,
bolt sleeve/bolt, bolt/receiver, receiver/trigger, and finally trigger/cocking
piece). Thus, though only a few thousandths cam-back is actually required,
many times that is used to assure functioning with all tolerances. Because
the Remington safety, on the other hand, pivots directly on the trigger
housing and operates on the sear, all critical locating holes are drilled on the
same part, virtually eliminating tolerance errors.

The Model 725 had its own safety, with a third position to allow opening
the bolt with the sear locked. Great pains were taken to simulate the ap-
pearance and feel of the Enfield/Model30/Model720 safety. Not only was
a cast thumbpiece used, but it was pivoted to the receiver and given almost a
full half-turn operating arc. It continued to cam the sear as in the 721/722,
however, and thus the extra pivot point on the receiver required a small
compound gear system to simultaneously control movement of a separate
cam piece and bolt-lock blade. Because of the reversed rotation which
results, the cam sector is essentially a mirror image of that in the 721/722.
The whole layout, which is shown in the drawings, is really quite simple.
But it did require numerous detail and machining modifications, not only to
the safety and trigger assemblies, but to the tang area of the receiver itself.
Thus it fit in poorly with Remington�s post-war emphasis on design stan-
dardization.

Here's the most simple way I can explain it to you ...

First, the trigger shoe (not the connector) is what contact's the over-travel screw. This leaves the connector room to travel further forward than the portion of the trigger that you pull with your finger.

What happens is that the connector is held against the trigger shoe via a spring ... and when the trigger shoe is in full battery, the connector is pressed against it, and in turn gets 'sandwiched' between the trigger shoe and the sear.

When you pull the trigger shoe, it moves the connector forward, out from under the sear. But here's the unique part ... because the connector is free to continue moving forward despite the trigger shoe and over-travel screw setting, the pressure of the sear is able to 'kick' the connector forward as soon as the trigger shoe is moved far enough forward to push the connector to the 'point of no return' ...

What this allows is for a very minimal amount of trigger pull in order to get the sear to drop, as well as a very limited over-travel of the trigger shoe. THIS is how the design of the Rem-Walker trigger was patented, and is what gives it a better than normal break compared to most all 2-piece over-ride trigger designs.

IF you were to epoxy the connector to the shoe, you eliminate the ability of it to kick forward - and what you end up with is a trigger where you 'manually' have to pull the shoe forward far enough to have it completely clear all sear engagement - which means you'll have to pull it further, and will likely feel more creep and over-travel. Basically, while you may be theoretically making the trigger more safe, you have drastically decreased the quality of the trigger in terms of it's clean break, minimal creep, and minimal over-travel.

Another thing that would have to be done to the connector is to change the angle of the rear of the connector. As designed, the end of the connector that is under the sear has a slope on it, so that as the sear drops down behind the connector, it's pressing against the connector's angled edge and helps to kick it out of the way. If you epoxy the connector to the trigger shoe, you'll have to flat-grind the back of the connector to remove the angle so that when the sear drops, it does not touch the connector at all any more ... this will keep the sear from trying to push the connector forward, possibly pressing it away from the shoe and breaking the epoxy bond ... which would basically return your trigger to the original design, but with "epoxy residue" left between the connector and shoe, which will keep the connector from being able to firmly re-seat itself against the shoe for the next shot. This could/will create a condition where you've now decreased sear engagement and may very well make the trigger much more unsafe than it could ever have been - even as originally designed.

My personal opinion - even though I do see and understand the POTENTIAL for issues with the design of the Rem-Walker triggers - is that a properly adjusted and reasonably well maintained Rem-Walker trigger is plenty safe, and very good.

The only way you're going to run into a problem with the Rem-Walker trigger as originally designed, is as follows:

Because the safety system in a Rem-Walker trigger uses a separate lever to support the sear when in the 'safe' position, the trigger shoe and connector are free to move within the parameters set by the sear engagement screw and over-travel screw. So, if you pull on the trigger while the safety is set to the "safe" position, you can't know if the connector has returned to where it should be, even if you manually push the trigger shoe forward prior to putting the safety back in the "fire" position.

However rare this instance may be, it's one of the reasons the original (and possibly most recent) manuals that came with the rifles fitted with a Rem-Walker trigger system have a note in the manual that says (to paraphrase) do not pull the trigger while the safety is set to the 'safe' position because this could result in the rifle firing when the safety is moved to the "fire" position.

hope that helps ...

Sandlapper and WGM, thanks for the excellent responses.


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

So it sounds like the trigger connector and trigger shoe separate in normal operation and that once the sear drops, the connector is prevented from moving backward by the sear until the bolt is cocked again.

So the theory behind the "safety discharges" would be that while the connector is forward a piece of debris could fall between the rear of the connector and the front of the shoe. This could result in decreased sear engagement, which in turn could result a failure of the connector to stop the sear from falling when released by the safety.

Does this sound right?

That is correct ...

Stuart Otteson. Does anyone know what has become of him. I have his books (The Bolt Action Rifle - 2 volumes) and they are great references.

Disclaimer: This is not pointed at any particular individual, but is for everyone.
_________________________________

I can also depend on bolt travel forwards and backwards. Factory machining tolerances involved, as with all mechanisms.

You can debate what is safe or not safe all day long and it still comes down to one thing. Your choice!


If you can not understand what is involved, have someone you know and trust do it. And, do not be suprised if the factory warranty is voided in the end. Should you be worried about that, check with Remington and/or their factory warranted gunsmiths........first. I would not be surprised if this point and time only the new trigger adjustment would qualify for warranty to remain in effect, or not.

It's really that simple, not 100% perfect, but simple. If that doesn't make your boat float, buy a different product or design your own.


This country was civil suit disadvantaged before this episode, and Remington was the go-to manufacturer because the bank money was there, with precedent set. Other manufacturers have also been targets.

Just go with the best informed decision you can make, or don't do anything, or don't do firearms if you think they are too dangerous. That is how capitalism works, your decision or not.

edit: cut/paste typo

Government and court regs/law/decisions are not perfect, and usually more onerous for obtaining justice.

Either you use a dangerous tool to the safest of your ability, or you don't. I guess you could call that common sense, but there is a lot of that lacking among the populace these days.

As an expert witness for Remington's insurer in Morales v Remington � the last witness to testify � I was able to show the jury convincing proof that the burst REM-UMC .30-06 case that had cost young Morales his eye had been fired before, in at least two rifles. (Obviously not a Remington factory load.)

Until then, the jury (they said later) had been about to award young Morales the six million dollars that his lawyer was suing for.

I've always been glad that it wasn't a trigger issue.

Also, some of the two-ounce gunsmith conversions were epoxied, e.g., Shilen�s and Burns�s:

Two-Ounce Conversions . . . Stuart Otteson