Have you guys seen this yet?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39762676/ns/business-cnbc_tv/


CNBC reporting on deaths linked to safety problems with Remington 700 rifles.


Should be something interesting to discuss.

For me they aren't my favorite rifle, I've seen a lot of them with Bubba'd up triggers and other issues. On the other hand they are easy to make into a very accurate rifle and with the millions of them sold they are bound to be issues with some of them.................I'm going to go and swap scopes tonight on a couple of mine ..........................DJ

It's CNBC.......nuff said

Already covered. Thread here.

When I saw msnbc I couldn't even click on it!!!!

The Remington 700, in the dress of an M24 or M40, has been responsible for thousands of human fatalities. Dumbass Jarheads and Grunts can't even screw up a simple trigger.

The Marine Corps provided video of malfunctions with their M40s for this program.

Yes them remington have more problems then you can shake a stick .Wait till the barrel came flyiny off them 710s and the shoot guns its not over yet I think the Icone should have taking care of the guns when the problem happend there mistake live with it

WTF?

Over?

The CEO of Remington stepped down just about 1 month ago! I wonder why?. He was aware of the ongoing investigation, the lawsuits, the potential recall...it was his job to know. He left. He hasn't been replaced...maybe it's hard to find a captain of a sinking ship!?

And it seems that they are cost cutting; typical when a large corporation is bought out...it sems like they could have solved this problem for 5 cents per gun way back!!!

5 cents of common sense goes a long way... milking the cow dry then beefing it seems to be a better way to manage a business these days....

i wonder why gm is not linked to multiple deaths involving DUI cases. seems there might be a great story there.. what??!! no device to keep a raging drunk from driving the wrong way up the interstate and killing a family of 5!!!! eeegggaaddsss.... pin heads....

woofer

This news is over 20 years old. You guys took the bait though.

You mean people knew remington 700's were junk for 20 years but they still keep buying them ?

what news?

woofer

It's an old story and frankly one that might very well have been fixed with the new design trigger. *NBC doesn't have enough journalistic integrity to mention that they have finally changed the original Walker trigger and mention whether or not any of the problems have occurred with the new trigger or not.

The original trigger was very easy to adjust into an unsafe condition. There are still millions of older 700's out there and untold thousands of them have Bubba'd up unsafe triggers.........................DJ

I had a rifle brought in last year which had fired when the safety was released. It had the new trigger. It was, apparently, also easy to adjust into an unsafe condition since the owner had obviously done so.
The elimination of the trigger connector is NOT a cure-all just as it's existence was usually NOT the root cause of the problem. GD

The original trigger was very easy to adjust into an unsafe condition. There are still millions of older 700's out there and untold thousands of them have Bubba'd up unsafe triggers.........................DJ


Exactly my experience, also. When guys have their action out of the stock and see those screws on the trigger they can't resist messing with them. Then they tell their buddies that they did their own trigger job. Look out! Ask these guys what they consider the minimum safe sear engagement is on a 700 trigger, and watch the blank look on their faces.

1- all triggers can be adjusted to unsafe conditions, not just Rems, and once the factory setting is changed, it no longer is the factory's responsibility.

2- everyone who has ever been paid to do a trigger also started with their first one, usually as a "bubba". further, every instruction I have ever seen about adjusting comes with the tests to do to make sure the trigger is safe.

3- Question for nifty-two-fifty, want to tell me what the minimum safe sear engagement is on a 700?

A friend of mine had his 700 go off when he released the safety a few years ago. I don't know how old the rifle was , but I don't think it was over 10 years or so. He got rid of it.

The CNBC story DID state that the trigger was changed, although the US Army and USMC are still experiencing the same problems in their sniper rifles.

Swampy...I'm a little disappointed that you didn't share your knowledge of the weak design of the trigger on the best gun in the world...next you're gonna tell us that the Banner line of Bushnell has a flaw.... ....say it ain't so swampy...

Colo Wolf:

Ten thousanths (.010") is what my retired gunsmith friend considers the minimum safe sear engagement on a hunting trigger on a 700 (classic trigger). He did several of my triggers over the years. I also had several done by Jim Pigg in Wyoming. I've never had any problems.

My point was that people who don't know what they are doing should leave them alone. I remember watching college buddies mess with theirs (before there was any help from the internet). Sometimes the results were very unsafe. They were playing with all three screws. Most of the internet instructions today tell folks not to touch the sear engagement screw. And they point out which one that is.

When it comes to important safety issues I seek out an experienced professional, whether it involves a trigger, car, airplane, home electrical system, or a surgeon. There are many areas where money can be saved by doing my own work. There are some areas where I feel good money is well spent.

Remington: Making a POS product for over forty years that morons like Swampdick keep buying.

Thanks for the answer nifty, was just asking to see.

Jorge- you calling me a moron for buying a rem 20 years ago and still have and shoot?

They ain't a popular choice for those that only pay to hunt.

Hey, any gun you want is fine, I just resent being called a moron.. my parents raised an idiot... I have a letter from my father telling me that they raised an idiot!

Always amazing how something that sells in the millions has a few failures.

Personally, I have shot at least 100,000 rounds through Remington 700's, and maybe twice that. I've also watched other people shoot at least 100,000 rounds through 700's. Never have seen a discharge other than when I pulled the trigger--though I did see somebody else's 700 "cook off" a round when the barrel got extremely hot during a prairie dog hunt.

Did see somebody else's 700 go off prematurely. They claimed their finger wasn't on the trigger, but the rifle was on shoting sticks and the shooter wasn't experienced. I couldn't tell from my angle.

Have never had a 700 extractor break, or a bolt handle come off--or seen either happen. No doubt it does, though.

I've even hunted dangerous game with a 700--and lived!

I watched the show and it was more journalistically balanced than I expected. But the producers/writers/etc. were also typically ignorant of firearms, and obviously so.

As a Remington warranty 'smith, I saw quite a few of these rifles which would fire when the safety was released if the trigger was pulled and released while the safety was on. So, it did happen. I am convinced it was a quality control issue rather than a design issue. In some cases, it was the result of unusually excessive wear on the safety and/or sear. GD

Does that include the Marine Corp and Army?

There's always the first time a person like yourself has no clue as to what they are talking about.

Only a moron would buy into a NBC report.

I've always hated safeties that lock the bolt as well as the pin. It is difficult to adjust a trigger for short sear engagement and proper safety function, lots of people can't do it right. Sometimes you have to give up crispy for safe.
Once the sear is allowed to move over the hump, or is booted off the hump by that wayward trigger finger....but I think these people suing Remington -- shouldn't. Guns are an operator-responsibility-dependent system.

I've seen the problem a few times. I would say the problem is caused by mixture of oil and solvents in the trigger assembly, I've often wondered what concoction of chemicals caused this condition but the consistancy reminds me of the topping on a carmel roll.

I would recommend any rifle over 25 years old should have the trigger completely disassembled and cleaned.

Any other rifles should be inspected. Remove the bolt and look to see if there is any "gummieness" present around the trigger assembly. Leave the rifle in the cold overnight, double check to make sure the rifle is unloaded, put the safety in the safe position, pull the trigger and release it slowly, now flip the safety to fire. If it fires you got a problem.

Make sure your gunsmith has the experience to completely disassemble a trigger.

I was able to repeat my failure doing exactly that.

Simple solution, IMHO, is a Shilen or Timney. Done.

Of course not, if that were the case, I'd be calling myself that when I bought mine in 22-250. Sorry you misunderstood my obvious attempt at trolling.. jorge

Did you SEE the report? This issue has been around for years and I don't need NBC to tell me what I need to know. Obviously there have been MILLIONS of 700s sold and from a statistical perspective this is insignificant, but it DOES happen. As far as the Armed Forces is concerned(BTW it's Marine CORPS) Remington came in with the lowest bid and the rifles are completely rebuilt. Bottom line is there is an entire cottage industry centered around trigger, extractor and bolt handle strenghtening products. Don't recall ever seeing that about Model 70s. Yep, very few incidents indeed, but somebody's paid a price and so has Remington in many settlements. Sorry I struck a nerve on your rifle predilections... jorge

My 2cents. Remington triggers can be adjusted with new springs and not messing with the sear.Lay the deaths at the feet of the nimrod who adjusted the trigger.If you are not capable of pulling the trigger assembly apart to do it correctly,pay a good Gunsmith to do it for you.

Hey, no problem! LOL

]

Why hasn't Remington issued a total recall?! Maybe b/c of $$$$ - their company wants them to go public IPO in the next year- that's probably why! It would cost them too much to recall their products and it would risk their initial public offering and drastically reduce potential investors!

How do you know what was done to these triggers to make them do that? Suggesting Remington fix every trigger AFTER Bubba been there be BS!

So far, every claim of accidental misfires that caused injury has been unrepeatable at Remington. Jack Belk was unable to duplicate any of the complaint 700s... And testified to the effect.

What meds did you skip at breakfast?

Methinks there is a hidden meaning to this but that's ok I understand.

The reason why I did not buy a Remington 700 decades ago was because of a similar problem with the Remington 600:
http://www.remington.com/pages/news...program/remington-model-600-and-660.aspx

I was trying to decide on a hunting rifle back in the 1980's. I eliminated the Remington after seeing the Remington 600 recall notice and reading about a park ranger who accidently shot his friend after releasing the safety on his Remington 600. It's been over 20 years but I still remember the anguish I felt after reading about this incident.

If everyone was forced to hunt with one of the older, in the 50s, Mannlicher rifles with double set triggers, they would soon learn to ALWAYS keep that muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

You should always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, firearms 101. A firearm shouldn't just fire at will either though. Im not saying Remington 700's do. none of my have, but if they are and Remington new that it was a poor design then they were wrong, I only heard NBC's side of the story but until I hear Remington's. It seemed convincing.

The Remington trigger issue is real.

Mike Walker, the engineer behind the original Rem trigger, urged Remington to change the trigger quite early on.

Remington's own studies show 100% muzzle control is not possible.

An internal Remington document showed, in one batch of 600's, a 50% FOSR at the factory.

I've leafed through reams of depositions and documents relating to the Remington Trigger Issue. It's quite depressing really.

At the end of the day, the current ownership of Remington grew a pair and changed the design. A move I applaud them for and they won me back as a customer.

And the desin change eliminated to connector to mollify those who had siezed upon it as the root cause. It was not. A trigger block was added to the safety to prevent the trigger being pulled when the safety was engaged. As evidenced by rifles I have had in the shop, the new trigger can be messed up as well by an inept owner. If due, to quality control issues, as before,Remington was to produce some safetys which had a little too much clearance, we would again see some failures.
The connector was not the problem; trigger geometry which exacerbated quality control isses were.
The new trigger is compromised by being made so that retro-fitting is possible. GD

It reportedly would have cost Remington $0.055 (five and one-half cents each) to have installed a redesigned trigger originally. Assuming 6,000,000 Model 700 (and family) rifles to have been produced, this would have cost a total of $330,000. Even assuming inflation, this would have been a much less expensive alternative to lawsuits and settlements. CEO�, accountants and lawyers often make the lousiest decisions.

Mike Walker recommeded a new trigger design in the 1950's (that's over 50 years ago!).

GD, that's interesting... thanks for the insight.

What aftermarket trigger do you recommend for the 700? The only one I've used is the Timney...

You too! WE must be brothers! Hi Bro.

If a manufacturer admits by making a replacement or a modification to an existing design perhaps markedly in the area of "safety" one has to wonder if the door would have opened to more even more lawsuits....your honor and members of the jury.....even Remington themselves admit that this was a dangerous product that killed Mr. Jones....they admit it not on paper but in a more substantial and convincing manner....by making a replacement trigger that has had the problem "fixed"...

..anyway I am waiting on the big 1/2 price "sale" on 700's so's I can pick up a few..

A mere change in product design is not admissible to show a defect in the original design.

I agree, a 5 1/2 cent change when recommended would probably have resolved the entire issue and it would now be long forgotten. Sometimes when you burry your head into the sand to any issues that arise after tooling up and pushing the go button for manufacturing, the small problems turn into bigger systemic problems. You end up spending more effort trying to burry the issues instead of resolving them. At some point you dig yourself into a hole too large to conceal and it becomes front page news. Remington definitely gave a ton of fuel for the liberal press bonfire.

Best:)

Boo-D-Hoo to the Remington crew! Bout time you got a serving of the same BS we've had to listen to from you every time we mention a different brand. Face it Sitka, you are ass, and now you're getting wiped.

Go milk a bull, bout all you're probably good at.

Older, Slower, not much wiser. All the downside of youth and none of the pluses.


That about says it all.

Let's see... I own Mausers of many flavors, Winchesters, Brownings, Kreighoff, Ithacas, Savages, Colts, S&Ws, Taurus, TC, and some I have likely forgotten... Yeah I am the ultimate single brand whore...

It takes a lot more than a MSM hack job on a decades-old issue to bother me.

And you use a Remington brand as your handle... a brand that signifies the cheapest bullet made? A bullet that has done worse on the Juenke machine of all the bullets I have ever tested? And I am the delusional one?

Have a nice day!
art

So is there some sort of "middle ground" to this discussion or is it all a manufactured tempest in a teapot with absolutely no factual basis? Full disclosure, I only own one Remington rifle, a 22-250 stainless Varminter that shoots dime sized holes all day long, but having said that, I've never cared for Remington's other featurers like a safety that won't lock the bolt, the extractor, bolt handle, etc. Then again I'm one of those who pays to hunt on occassion, thereby deeming me a rank amateur...

Maybe this will change the tone a bit, hard not to agree on a .30-06 Springfield:)

I agree

Jorge,

Unfortunately few seem to wish to discuss the (potential?) issue merely from an engineering perspective, and those that do get shouted down amid the BS that these threads seem to attract..

The problem as i see it is that any AD's could as easily be down to operator error or bubba gunsmithing as to a flaw in the Remington design and trying to sort one from the other based on secondhand reports is pretty much impossible.

So I guess it comes down to each Remington owner to decide what the odds are that one day when they take the safety off, the rifle will fire...If you are happpy with that being a million to one chance, and that because you practice safe gun handling, there is no risk anyway, forget it and hunt with your rifle as is..

If on the otherhand you think its an unacceptable risk, either send the rifle to Remington for them to fix, or get a replacement aftermarket trigger.

I don't own a Remington, but if I did, I'd look at fitting a Timney (or similar) and just be done with it...

Regards,

Peter

That's a reasonable approach Pete, but as I alluded, I just don't care for all the other issues that in my opinion make for an inferior product when compared to the likes of Winchester, Ruger, Weatherby, etc., hence the huge cottage industry focused solely on Remington triggers, bolts, extractors, etc. There are other brands I also don't care for, such as the new Brownings, Savages, etc. Cheers, jorge

Couple of points:

1) Walker recommended a re-design before (or just after) the initial design was released to the public, so no deaths would have occurred and damages would have to be paid.

2) If any bargains on Remington 700's appear, you'll be second in line - I'll be right ahead of you.

Ruger has made a number of re-designs and recalls and it does not seem to have hurt them too much.

As a fundamental design flaw a safety that blocks the sear simply is not as desirable as a safety that blocks the striker. Remington 700's safety's are inherantly inferior to Winchester Model 70's and Ruger Model 77's..............................DJ

I have been told the new X Mark Pro triggers do not have this problem. Can anybody verify that or link to some information that does?

If there is a trigger/sear failure on any of them, they will fire on safety release. Just fewer and more positive parts arrangement.

Bruce

444Matt,
The X-mark Pro triggers eliminated the connector and incorporated a trigger block safety to prevent the trigger from being pulled when the safety was engaged. I like the trigger just fine but these triggers can also be misadjusted and will malfunction as will virtually every other trigger on the market. If I was doing the redesign, I would have taken the opportunity to design a better trigger. Remington was hindered in this by the need to make a trigger which could be retro-fitted to older Remington rifles. When Winchester elected to change the model 70 trigger, they suffered from no such restraints. Whether or not their new trigger was an improvement is not germane to this discussion.
From the outset, I have disagreed with Jack Belk's contention that the connector was the root cause of all Remington trigger malfunction; or even a large portion of them. Eliminating the connector would not necessarily have prevented any of the accidents over the years. The connector is a red herring IMO.
For aftermarket triggers, I have used triggers from Timney, Shilen, Riflebasix, Jewel, and Canjar and all have been just fine. On my own rifles, I have Remington, Canjar, Hart, and my own three lever conversions. I'm not dissatisfied with any of them.
Jorge1,
The huge industry providing triggers, bolts, extractors etc., exists because there are huge numbers of Remingtons out there and they are popular as the basis of target/varmint rifles. It is not because they are fundementally flawed and need the parts in order to function. If poor design and poor quality control was the criteria for a healthy after market industry, we would be flooded with aftermarket A-Bolt parts.
In closing, I want to make some things perfectly clear. First, while I don't believe the connector was the root cause of Remington trigger malfunction, I do think it was a piece which should have been left out of the design. Second, there is no question that there have been accidents involving Remingtons and that many of these accidents were, inpart, due to manufacturing defects or poor quality control. It is sad that some had to learn such hard lessons from these accidents. Third, Remington was wrong in not letting the engineers and people on the shop floor to take care of the problem rather than allowing the legal department to handle it. Fourth, anytime you provide the consumer the opportunity to adjust a trigger, you are opening the door to problems. Ruger discovered this with the M77 and you will note, their triggers are no longer adjustable. As I said, I disagree with Jack Belk on this but respect his right to his opinion. He's just wrong, that's all. I disagree with the Barber's attack on Remington but I understand their reasoning and sympathize with them. I can't imagine the emotional trauma they must have suffered. I've made mistakes over the years too; I just got away with them. GD

Nicely said!

There would have been no deaths if IDIOTS hadn't pointed their guns at someone

Show me how, oh expert of all.

I personally have no beef with Remington. I like the 870 and the 760. I like their older rimfires. I don't dislike the 700 even.
I grew up and learned with a Targetmaster 22. I've owned 870's 760's, 788's, and currently a model 241. I sincerely hope Remington rides this out and continues to do well. The employees at Remington, and even the current owners are not to blame for this, I hope they do not pay with their jobs.
I do dislike the fact that the previous management(s) at Remington swept this issue under a carpet and let it continue to injure people. That is a blatant disregard for the safety and lives of good people.
As for the idiots here who have bashed anyone who dares have a differing opinion to theirs, I am glad they are on the receiving end. Do unto others, what they sowed, now they reap. Maybe, though I doubt it, they might even learn to be civil in the future. Being civil means having compassion and decency. All they have is big mouths and bile.

Oh you mean like you posted here:
"Boo-D-Hoo to the Remington crew! Bout time you got a serving of the same BS we've had to listen to from you every time we mention a different brand. Face it Sitka, you are ass, and now you're getting wiped."


Not sure what all your problems are, but talking out of at least two faces is one of them.
art

Ha! You guys are just mere idiots. My dad always told me that I was a PERFECT idiot! Guess I got y'all beat.

Never had the subject problem occur with my 700s. Haven't seen the program either. Any mention of Model Sevens doing this?

I did have a CZ side x side that would sometimes fire when closing the action. Key word here is "did" as in past tense.

Any mention of Model Sevens doing this?

Haven't seen a mention specifically, but yep, it can happen with them .

Not mentioning why, the internet you know. But will say a idiot problem.

And no! My Rems are not for sale.

I've got 2 Remington Model Sevens (260 and 308). Never had a problem, although I believe the triggers are identical and of the late design. BTW, I was so shaken by the CNBC show and the discussion on this forum, that I bought a Model 700 CDL in 35 Whelen last night.

Brad ,you are wrong,Mike Walker didn't design the trigger,McSweeny(sp) did. DuPont just bought the patent from him.The connector was added to give the patent a longer life.True,I have a quality 1980 rifle,but the factory trigger is a much better design for a hunting rifle than the Rifle Basic.

My 700's have been linked to multiple deaths ranging from 35 to 420 yards from the muzzle. All were intentional on critters from greydiggers to elk.

yeah, and due to a slight hemorrhoid problem, I lost my standing as a perfect as*****.

Haven't had a problem with the 700 or my 70's. Did with my savage, note the past tense there also.

We'll agree to disagree. I posit the reason for the aftermarket is because those three components continuosuly come up as weak design features of the marque. When Winchester was king of the hill there was never an after market for parts like with Remington.

I like the open design of the basic Mauser military trigger for a durable hunting rifle. I have no experience with the current Winchester version, but I really like the Winchester take on this design with the previous M70 trigger. The M77 can be worked over to some degree, but I always liked the previous generation of M70 triggers as being near ideal for shooting game afield. Boxed up triggers, and this floating connector never gave me the same level of confidence.

Best:)

This doesn't come up very often but IMO I feel that it would be very interesting to know how many of the trigger issues happened after some Back Yard Barney decided to do his own trigger! Seriously I think people would be amazed to know how often this happens and people naturally won't fess up to it either. Easier to blame the factory..

Dober

FWIW I have a John Browning designed gun that can and does go click, even when the mitts are off, even a few pistols that ceased to quit firing.

Everyone wants a crisp, clean trigger, but not everyone keeps rounds out of the chamber when rounds should be out of the chamber.

Let's forget any kind of sear that need be man made and go back to lighting 12 ft. of fuse; but I'm sure someone would [bleep] that up too....

I posit your posit is all wet... When Winchester was king there was little in the way of gun tinkering going on as there has been these last 25 years or so. Sure there were the POs and such, but there was never enough of them to support an industry of significance. Most of the tinkerers made their own upgrade parts.
art

Sweet Jesus, you sound just like one of those snot nosed kids that always get the [bleep] kicked out of him in school, and now in life. Guessing you've never had control over anything, quite funny really.

Now go buy a pre-64 and go on a guided hunt.

Open wide bitch

Does anyone know why FN scrapped the old trigger design for the new MOA design ?

Lee24?

I think he designed the entire FN facility.

All I know is that if you give a dude a transfer bar, its his green light to rock on with a full cylinder six until he has an "accident", of which he is a 100 percent victim.......

Its scary out there; stay inside scarecrow....you're playing with fire.

I am going to drop the whole thing. My point was never against Remington as now is, good trigger now, getting better QA. My issue is solely with persons here who give our sport a crude, offensive, face.

that is what my wife says about me...I have a crude and offensive face..so..

I know lets all sing Kumbaya My Lord it will help your hurt feelers.

I'm betting it's the IDIOTS that are the real problem.

Maybe, but those three components are still HIGH failure items with Remington if they worked people wouldn't be changing them in the numbers they do and still today Winchesters don't need any of that stuff. Forget the safety and the fact it doesn't even lock the bolt (that's downright cheesy), but have you ever looked at a Rem extractor? it's pretty thin.

Now Jorge, the fact I have more than a couple dozen examples of the 700 bolts and extractors on hand and have seen lots more should give me some idea how they work... Still waiting for the first dangling bolt handle...

And I have purchased 700 bolts with extractor issues I have not had one fail on me but expect pressure excursions were involved...

But I have seen 70 extractors fail more than once. Just saw one a couple days ago with a huge chip out of the working end.

Further, I posit the notion of need to replace 700 extractors with Sako style is a function of ridiculous hype generated by your style of angst!

I cannot imagine trusting any safety... When it is time to shoot it is time to load, not before...

Mirrors should be tough for you to look in for a while...

The same people who can't control the muzzle of their firearm are probably a menace when given car keys as well!
whelennut

I like what Dober said. Would like to know how many of those triggers had been monkeyed with.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would assume that in any case where there was pending litigation, the rifle involved would have been checked to see if the trigger had been altered.

I don't understand why Remington would be liable, much less pay settlements on rifles that had their trigger mechanisms altered after the rifle left the factory.

One possibility is that Rem. doesn't want to put their fate in the hands of judges and juries who do not possess a working knowledge of trigger mechanisms and safeties.

Seeing pics of Jr. layed out on the ground, coupled with a smooth talking attorney and a courtroom full of grieving family members is gonna tug at the heart strings....So out of court settlements may be the best option even if the rifle is not at fault.

If some of these rifles had unaltered triggers, then that's a different deal.

I think the one damnable issue in all this that poses the biggest problem for Remington, is the fact that the man who designed it is on record as saying a potentially unsafe condition existed. He created a fix and wrote multiple memos on the subject warning of AD's that were ignored.

That in itself will make it almost impossible for Remington to win in court cases where someone was killed by one of these rifles.

JM

That's kinda what I've been wondering about too, in regards to anyone saying that there is no problem. I have no doubt that most of the trigger issues are a result of "bubba" messing with the trigger, but from what I understand, Remington has internal docs showing that the trigger has a potential flaw, and that there are 'proven' cases of rifles right out of the box where the rifle could be made to fire w/out touching the trigger at the time the firing pin drops - i.e. put on the safety, mess w/ the trigger, resulting in the sear dropping when the safety was moved back to the 'fire' position.

Like I said before, I've had quite a few Rem-Walker triggers, unaltered (meaning they still had the factory seals over the adjustment screws) and I could never reproduce the 'problem' ... but that doesn't mean it didn't happen in some instances...

I have no angst Art. I only have one Remington and that's more than enough for me. Supply and demand is a beautiful thing and in that regard, the 700 keeps the parts manufacturers in business and no amount of economies od scale argument can negate that fact. Lastly "When it is time to shoot it is time to load, not before..." is purely subjective and a non-locking bolt safety is well "cheesy." I choose otherwise.

jorge1 ...

As far as I'm concerned, a safety that locks the bolt is a terrible idea ... at least in a two-position safety design ... because it means that if you have a round in the chamber, you MUST put the safety on "fire" before you can open the bolt to remove the round from the chamber.

If that's "cheesy", well ...

I agree, that is why I prefer three position safeties. jorge

Browning's A-Bolt is the same. Just had to make darn sure you had the bbl. in a safe direction when taking it off safe to unload.

The X-Bolt has a bolt unlock button so you can leave it on safe whilst unloading.

I imagine it's safer and a little more idiot proof, still need to keep the wand pointed in a safe direction.

well ... not to nit-pick, but stating that you dislike 2 position safeties makes more sense than stating that you don't like non-bolt-locking safeties ... (grin)

Quite frankly, I've never had my bolt open accidentally - mainly because I relax the striker when it's closed on an empty chamber - which keeps it down pretty tight ...

but even if it did open, it wouldn't matter to me because there's nothing in the chamber to begin with.

That said, I prefer the 2 position, non-bolt-locking safety mechanisms because I just don't like the big shroud safety thing on my rifles ...

but when it all comes down to it, I so rarely use a mechanical safety that it really makes no difference to me at all ... in fact, I've been very tempted to just remove the safeties from my remingtons just so I never have a brain fart where I think I might need to use it (depend on it) ... and so I never end up going to fire the rifle only to realize that the safety is on. That would suck ...

jorge, you don't really believe that the market for aftermarket parts is what it is because of design flaws do you ? I talking about triggers, replacement bolts, bottom metal, firing pin assemblies, recoil lugs, stocks etc..

To me the whole thing about this issue is how very unnecessary the connector is. Even if the occurrence is very rare and mostly theoretical, Remington could have completely removed the possibility of a failure involving the connector, by simply eliminating the connector from the design and using a solid trigger. It would have involved nothing more than a very slight redesign of the actual trigger with no other modifications whatsoever of the trigger mechanism design.

To be aware of the possibility of, or even confirmed cases, of a failure which could be very easily and cheaply ameliorated with no serious negative economic consequences, and do absolutely nothing is the very definition of negligence in these sorts of products liability cases.

Even if the failure only happened once in all the millions of rifles produced, the fact that that particular failure involving the connector could have been prevented by employing a fix that would have cost five cents per rifle is inexcusable.

Not completely no, but it is a factual statement those three specific parts in the 700 fail more often. Of course one can buy a different stocks, sights, etc, but those three parts are an issue. If other rifles had the same problems, I'm sure somebody would have made an issue of it. I guess in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree and in my opinion Remington rifles are not for me. jorge

Come on Jorge.......

Those "three parts" don't just "fail".

--Any trigger system can fail because it's just plain dirty.

--Any trigger system can fail if it's not adjusted correctly.

Indeed, it is one of the strengths of the Walker trigger that has probably created the problem at times--it is imminently adjustable--unlike most other factory bolt action triggers.

In the program, Mike Walker said it the trigger was safe, but also mentioned if the internal parts were not manufactured to specific tolerances, problems could occur. Hence his inspection program.

This debate kinda' reminds of driving 75 mph down the interstate with grossly underinflated tires, then blaming a certain manufacturer when the the tire blows out.........


Casey

Who's responsibility is it to manufacture the components to the correct tolerances?

That's little like saying, "It's a fine trigger when it works right."

According to Mr. Walker, Remington discontinued his inspection process as well.

I don't know if they have a problem or not, but when the designer of the component throws up a red flag and it's ignored, that is going to come back and haunt Remington in any litigation.

They fail and with enough frequency to merit myriad threads like this and an entire cottage industry for those three parts specifically. The brazed on bolt handle is a poor and cost cutting design, as it the thin, sheet metal extractor and the safety? even by Remington's own admission. Buy and shoot what you want, but the facts are there.

I will say that I can understand the cost cutting measures such as the cheap extractor clip, however, it wasn't like Remington had a lot of options when they decided to make the 700 one of the safest designs in the bolt face by having no extractor cuts in the bolt nose, the old "three rings of steel". I think very few would agrue that the uninteruped bolt face lends itself to one of the safest bolt designs ever. Heck, many argue that the Sako extractor design compromises this safety design, and I agree. Many feel, and so do I, that in the unlikely event of case rupture, due to guys hotroding loads, there are very few others that offer the level of safety offered by the Remington 700 design.

Regarding the brazed on bolt handles, I don't doubt that some have fallen off. But again, with something like over 5 million sold, and the relatively few reports we've heard of (largely impart of our .com friend's sounding boards, I think anyone could say this is a uncommon occurance. Heck, take the article written by John Barsness several years ago in Rifle magazine, and he all but stated that there was very very little concern for this and the same applied to the extractor reports. Heck, I had 2 700's that I converted to the Sako extracor design, and if I had to do it over, I quite simply would pass on that "upgrade" even though it does work better (when propely installed).

When I first started here, at the Campfire, I was starting to believe that Swarovski bino's did have a "reputation for fogging" but after seeing that fact that it appeared to have been reported by Barsness who was apparently repeating a story by his friend Phil Shoemaker, it became pretty clear that the "reputation" was little more than Eremicus repeating this incident many hundred's of times over and over. In fact, Mr. Shoemaker now uses Swaro EL's so what does that tell you and everyone else. I doubt Phil would have dropped the coin if it were if fact problematic. Add to that, Eremicus's distain for Swaro and we have another non-starter.

In closing, our good friend here, Matt William's has made quite a good living, by, making a more reliable extractor (to replace the cheap one), one piece trigger bottom metal units and there are companies that make replacement trigger assembly's as well. If I'm not mistaken, Williams also makes replacement magazine followers, but in fairness I'm not aware why that is done. If the Mod 70 were such a QC'ed feeding machine, they wouldn't need gentlemen like D'Arcy Echols, Mark Penrod and other talented metalsmith's performing 80+ plus separate machining operations to make them field ready.

RD: All very valid points, however, Weatherbys for example are every bit as strong as Remingtons yet their extractors are much more robust. As to the aftermarket for Winchester parts, a very valid point to be sure, but those in my view are upgrades to improve the product(steel for aluminum bottom metal, spring steel extractor replaces the cast one, etc) and not nessesarily to replace high failure parts and lastly, given the hatred the media has for our sport, one would think that even Winchester would have been in the cross-hairs of hit pieces like the one that started this whole thread, but the Model 70 trigger and safety, well they are in my view far superior to Remingtons and therein lies the difference. Cheers, jorge

Some good points. However to imply that it is necessary for Echols and Penrod to make 80 machining operations to make a Model 70 field ready is stretching things more than a little. They cater to a select group of customers who are far from representative of Model 70 users.

As far as Mr. Shoemaker goes as recently as 10-09 he made this statement.


Not sure what he is using today, but he has also commented favorably on Leica binos and Leupold spotting scopes.

Had a pair of Zwaros that an objective lens popped. When I told the representative they had been in the cargo hold of an airplane, she immediately said to send them in. Since the majority of Mr. Shoemakers hunters probably fly commercial to hunt, perhaps this was the problems source. This was in 2007 and I'm sure any problems they had back then have been addressed or evaluated.

A little off topic with regards to Remingtons current problems.

You're killin' me here Jorge.......

The Chevy small block motor easily has the most aftermarket parts available on the planet, but it's not because of design flaws. Instead, it is the most popular V-8 ever produced, and is emmintently rebuildable and hot-roddable.

There are more M700/721/722's sold than any other two bolt actions in North America, possibly the planet. Of course there are going to be more complaints--especially in our current culture.

The current Remington triggers debates seem to make no distinction between potential design flaws vs poor manufacturing tolerances--but I ain't saying either one is the case.

I use ladders a lot--I prefer Werners. Werners are also the most popular ladder sold in North America for the last 40 years.

There is an entire website devoted to those "dangerous" Werner ladders--primarily by people who were stupid enough to fall off of one................


Casey

Sitka,
My opinion of your and ilk's past BS treatment of others has not changed. We can dredge up past posts if you like and see who is the offensive one. As for my "feelers", I have always been rather sure I am not the one who has needed to put others down all the time. Also, BTW, I'm told that I'm not all that tough to look at, happily, by women folk, and for the last 20 years, my wife.
Quote:
"Browning's A-Bolt is the same. Just had to make darn sure you had the bbl. in a safe direction when taking it off safe to unload."
On mine, you can lift the bolt handle and decock the action before releasing the safety. I don't claim the A-bolt to be the finest "be all to end all" firearm, far from it. I haven't yet met such a thing. The trigger is a bit sketchy for rough and dirty harsh conditions. I accept that.

I still would likely buy a Model 7 if Remington would build one in a lefty version. A Winchester or Ruger compact, light weight would be better yet.

Wow, get a life, dude.

How many of these incidents that we are discussing do you think are related to improperly adjusted triggers and poor safety handling practices. As far as Mr. Shoemaker is concerned, I only bought this up to illustrate how the internet can magnify incidents. Not even a year ago, Shoemaker did a report on bino's and again it was only to illustrate my point about the internet. If he were in fact concerned about fogging, as Eremicus so childishly points out at every mention of the mere word Swarovski, I seriously doubt Mr. Shoemaker is a thrill seeker or needed yet one more chance to find out at 2 grand a pop.

You have to realize that for an injury to occur two things must happen, minimum... Safety rules have to be violated AND there must be a mechanical failure at the same time.

The safety issues on rifles involved in injuries have not been repeatable, so that adds a third dimension. Any trouble-shooting scheme will tell you critical error multiplication is unusual. When your scenario starts adding multiple levels of complexity it loses its probability rapidly.

Going back to the simple safety rule violation point... Somebody that has obviously broken one rule claiming they did/could/would not violate safety rules has a problem.

Yep. Can't think of a single AD incident, where anyone came out on the short end, when basic safety rules were followed.

And around me, they're either followed religiously, or someone needs to vacate the area, the sooner the better. Can still recall my father's first tutorial on gun safety and it was pronounced over 55 years ago:

"Don't ever point this sumbitch at anything ya don't want to kill." Still working well after all this time, passed it on to my son, when he was 4.

Mule Deer: My extensive experience duplicates yours - I have been Hunting Big Game and Varmints with and shooting at the range with Remington bolt action Rifles for ever!
Your quote - "Personally, I have shot at least 100,000 rounds through Remington 700's, and maybe twice that. I've also watched other people shoot at least 100,000 rounds through 700's. Never have seen a discharge other than when I pulled the trigger--though I did see somebody else's 700 "cook off" a round when the barrel got extremely hot during a prairie dog hunt".
I have been using Remington bolt action Rifles for more than 50 years now (started when I was 13!) and I am still awaiting my first "mystery" accidental discharge!
Puzzling to me as I use my Remingtons A LOT!
Do I care for my Rifles better than the average Joe?
Yes!
Do I handle my Rifles safer than the average Joe?
Yes!
Do I know exactly how to adjust a Remington trigger?
Yes?
Have I fired over 200,000 rounds through my various Remingtons?
Yes!
Do I currently own and shoot 43 Remington bolt action Rifles?
Yes!
Have I owned over 100 additional Remington bolt action Rifles in the past?
Yes! WAY over 100 additional Remington bolt action Rifles!
And have I still, as yet, to see a Remington bolt action trigger/safety fail?
Yes!
There was a highly publicized accidental death involving a Remington bolt action Rifle near my home here in SW Montana several years ago.
Tragically a mother was unloading her Remington bolt action Rifle when it "discharged" killing her son - the grieving parents then blamed Remington.
The lawyers for Remington, the lawyers for the parents, the parents and the County Sheriff all went to retrieve the Rifle from the evidence room and test it.
NONE of the people in attendance at that filmed event could make the Rifle discharge "accidentally" - this event was long of duration and again was filmed!
Again - NONE of the many particpants could make THAT Rifle "accidentally" discharge!!!
I feel that the many forms of Remington bolt action Rifles triggers/safeties are safe - otherwise "I" would not use them.
Someone else in this thread mentioned that a possible "motive" for this re-hash of this "situation" is simply an attack on firearms and firearms manufacurers - I would agree with that.
ANYONE that believes or trusts ANYTHING that messnbc burps up is a stark raving mad, idiot!
PERIOD!
I trust MY experiences both personal and professional regarding the Remington bolt action Rifle triggers/safeties 1,000,000 (one million) times more than any ambulance chaser, anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment propogandist from messnbc!
PERIOD!
For gawd sakes I have allowed all three of the VarmintSons to own and Hunt with Remington bolt action Rifles - what more sincere form of trustworthiness can I partake of???
This re-hash of baseless crap is just that - baseless crap.
Humans ARE prone to error and mistake - IF humans would simply keep their Rifle muzzles pointed in a safe direction then that would eradicate the tragic results that any other mistake they may commit could cause!
Long live Big Green!
Having said these things I must add - NO mechanical device is perfectly impervious to failure - keep your muzzle pointed in a safe direction!
Never point your muzzle at anything you do not intend to shoot.
And this, Mule Deer, the Remington Model 700 ALONE has sold more than 6,000,000 (six million) units!
That does not count all the other models with similar triggers/safeties like the Model 721's, Model 722's, Model 40X's, Model XR-100's etc etc etc.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

next thing you know all of you will be dumping on Kimbers again...damn this crowd is fickle.

Have an attractive 40 year old niece named Kimber. Same thing?

Since this has turned to safety rules, we enforce safety in layers: Redundancy is GOOD.

Always have the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
Have the action open when not shooting.
Do not load a round until you're ready to shoot.
Safety on until you're ready to pull the trigger.

Owing to the human condition, it's not too rare to see someone forget one rule. Occasionally two. Haven't seen three or four yet (thank God).

This is perhaps the best answer yet. None of us KNOW what circumstances actually occurred in these events; however there have been deaths and injuries involving experienced hunters and shooters. Experience may have little to do with the issue. If a mechanical failure accident is going to happen, it is going to happen regardless of experience.

there have been deaths and injuries involving experienced hunters and shooters who forgot never to cover anything you did not want to kill or destroy with the muzzle of a gun. This is a two part story, part one probably involves a penny pinching manufacturer, part two involves an experienced shooter or hunter that pointed a gun at his son or friend or someone else..

it can be no other way..

50/50 If there truly is a problem.

Would anyone have been injured or killed had the muzzle not been pointing at them?

No

Would anyone have been injured or killed had the rifle's safety mechanism worked properly?

No

Is there really a problem? Who knows?

But Remington has set themselves up on the losing side of this argument, whether there is a problem or not. The fact that they chose to ignore the designer's numerous warnings that an unsafe condition may exist will bury them in any litigation.

So in the end, the issue of whether or not the mechanism is at fault may well become irrelevent.
The damage is done.
JM

We can talk about the rules of safety until we are blue in the face ... But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or the Rem-Walker trigger is mechanically flawed - and capable of resulting in an accidental discharge ...

I bet "where" the gun was pointed comes up in the trial...

As soon as the reactionaries start dumping 700 actions here in GA I plan to buy one or two if possible. Personally have not had a problem with any of them since first exposure to a Remington 243 in 1966, 6 or 7 of them latter and not one AD.

Some of you guys are crazy to a degree. Suppose, a guy has his rifle pointed at the ground when it goes off unexpectedly. He is handling it safely and exercising muzzle control. However, when it goes off, the bullet strikes a rock on the ground and ricochets into his hunting buddy and kills him. Was he negligent? No, of course not.

The same thing could happen with it pointed in the air. The gun goes off and the bullet kills granny sitting in her rocker on her porch two miles away. Was the guy negligent. No, of course not.

The fact is, a rifle is supposed to go off only when the trigger is pulled. If Remington knew that there was a possibility that some of their rifles could go off occasionally with no pull of the trigger and did nothing to address it, then they deserve to be popped.

Suppose the guy was unloading an old M94 and accidently pulled the trigger just as he'd closed the lever, in that ricochet scenario?

Okay, add "Look out for rocks!" to the other common sense rules for safe firearms handling, if'n it'll let ya sleep better.

In the case where the lady killed her son, Momma obviously did not follow the rules inherent with handling/loading/unloading any firearm, as she had it pointed at the kid.

Dang Dube,

I hope Remington's lawyer doesn't use that in his opening statement..LOL

Then his "pulling the trigger" was the proximate cause of the discharge of the firearm. However, that is completely different than a case where the firearm discharges when the trigger is not pulled.

Seriously? Really?

And if every driver on he road was more attentive and cautious there would be less wrecks ... But what does that have to do with possible mfg's defects?

Specious and irrelevant (redundant?) argument. Like I said before with the Model 70s and now this silly Chevy comparison, those parts are made to make the engine better and not nessesarily to replace high failure rate parts. GO ahead and buy all the Rems you want. I don't claim to be an expert on rifles, but I know enough when I see an inferior product and glued on bolt handles, fail on fire safeties and cheap sheet metal extractors aren't for me.

Real damn serious. Ain't we all heard since we were about five years old, that ya gotta really pay attention when unloading a M94, 'cause ya might shoot someone?

I've unloaded mine a few thousand times with nary a problem. My son mastered it at the age of 11. No lawyer safeties on it, was made in the mid 1920s. Same for my other lever guns, most of which were made prior to 1951.

Someone oughta dig up the inventer and kick his ass for such a poor design, that lends itself to a high risk of peril. Unless we just accept that most of the "safeness" of any firearm, is dependent on us?

Accordin' to prevalent lore, handles fall off of their other "inferior" POS rifles, too: The M788s.

Been shooting both M700s and M788s since the 70s, still have several of each. Ain't lost a bolt handle yet, nor an extractor. To date, zero ADS either and one M788 no longer even has the safety installed (long story).

All this doubtless owes to the sack of bunny feets I tote at all times. Never leave home without one, (apologies to Karl Malden). ;O)

people worry about those handles coming off too much.

Permapoxy sets in 4 minutes and is better than the original silver solder joint! No clamping is required.

If the handle should ever fall off'n one of my M700s and I really need that second shot, will likely pull whatever revolver is handy and finish the chore? ;O)

Got me so skeert now, will probably never again hunt with a M700, without packing the M629 fer backup. Maybe some ace bandages and gauze pads, in case I lose a toe due to that other common problem?

Just carry a small pipe wrench.

Good thing Jorge doesn't know that the bolt head is silver soldered on also.

He'd REALLY go into vapor lock.......

No, I meant to question the thought process that equated accidentally pulling a trigger while unloading a weapon with a weapon firing spontaneously on its own when the safety was released.

Here's another question I have, just to be objective about this entire issue...

Belk is shown (on Remington's website) answering "no" when asked if he was able to get any of the rifles he inspected to "accidentally fire" ...

What I'm curious about is the chain of possession of these rifles prior to getting into Belk's hands. Did Remington get these "faulty" rifles, make any adjustments, and THEN let Belk inspect them? Were the rifles that Belk inspected fresh off the production line, or were they returned rifles? Were any/all the rifles Belk inspected adjusted by someone outside of the Remington factory? on and on and on ...

Again, I'm not taking a position on either side of this fence ... Just trying to figure out the what/who/how/why so that I can make my own informed opinion about it.

And I was equating the thought process that allows one to point a loaded firearm at someone and hoping it doesn't go off while unloading, to someone that is essentially clueless.

And when will you understand that it poses a danger even when one isn't pointing it at someone if it can and occasionally does go off unexpectedly?

None of the M700s owned by me, the dozens and dozens owned by friends, or the hundreds that I've encountered at assorted ranges over the past 35 years, have ever exhibited any of these anomalies.

Hence, I am somewhat skeptical.

Here's what I have encountered a few times: Firearms that people have futsed around with, that eventually caused them problems due to their ineptness, carelessness and their general aura of stupidity. (Include improperly-adjusted triggers and bad reloading karma in that mix).

Pointing any firearm at another person, especially one that happens to be loaded, is a bad practice and I do not endorse it.

Yes, mechanical things can and do fail for various reasons. All the more reason to rely on one's own common sense, rather than the nonexistant infallibility of mechanical objects.

I find it interesting that the ones who preach safety and muzzle control in one breath, say they are willing carry a firearm that may discharge unexpectedly in the next...

Don't have to look too far to see the irony in that.

I don't own any 700's, but if I did, I would be replacing the triggers in them just to be on the safe side.

That way, you can practice good muzzle control and not be worried about a malfunction causing an unexpected discharge.

That is what I would consider being responsible and safe.

YMMV

JM

Drove Chevy pickups back in the 70s and 80s, that NBC "proved" might explode from side impacts, due to how/where the fuel tanks were mounted. Makes me a reg'lar daredevil, I reckon?

I was just lucky, apparently, because A: No one ever broad-sided me; nor B: Did anyone ever afix a rocket engine/remote igniter to the tanks to set 'em on fire, if I did ever get broad-sided?

Been carrying M700s since the late 1970s. Had someone that knew how, adjust the trigger on the first one, to about 3lbs when I bought it. Still works fine all these years later. It's one of the "hairy" ones that'cha gotta disengage the safety to open the bolt. You know, like the ones everyone is all het-up about.

And like every other firearm I've owned over the past 45+ years, it is never pointed in an unsafe direction, even when I know it isn't loaded.

Got to thinking about this today and it occured to me that the only rifle I've ever monkeyed with that had problems with the bolt de-cocking, or similar problems, was a SS Browning A bolt lightweight Medallion that a friend bought new. He wound up sending it back for repairs. First or second year production on the A bolts.

PS: Also have a M700 that the previous owner had a Timney installed on. It is no better than the original trigger on my first M700, as far as reliability, pull weight, creep, etc. Must be safer, though?

There is a difference between a high speed impact causing an explosion and simply manipulating the safety on a rifle causing one...

Like I said earlier, who knows if there is a real problem??

But if you consider the fact that the gent who designed them says there is the potential for a problem, that's enough for me to swap triggers and eliminate that issue.

That's all I'm saying.

Best,

JM

This is ancient news being brought back up by the liberal media. It's amazing how uninformed gun owners are and what they will believe.

The post above about covers it. If THAT MORON likes them....

Yes, especially when the "dangers of high speed impacts" on Chevy trucks had to be manipulated by NBC's special affects wizards to produce their desired results. Perhaps you were not familiar with that one?

Now we have CNBC dredging up something that has been discussed and known about for many years, as if the problem appeared as a result of their "investigative journalism".

What do we know about Walker, the former Remington employee, that has exposed their negligence?

The most accurate and best selling production rifle in the world! I'm not the only one that likes them.

If they are the "most accurate" rifles in the world why don't they have an accuracy guarantee like several others do?.....................DJ

It's right on the barrel "Remington". If the others had built accurate rifles in the first place they wouldn't have to give you a piece of paper promising accuracy.

If I'm not mistaken, the CNBC report also stated that the 700 was the most popular hunting rifle ever made.

And that's why they are attacking it. This isn't about the Model 700. It's about hunting and guns.

Yeah, but you're the only one that keeps one in a rack over your bed to jerk off to each night.........

I think they should do a story warning the public about Ford Pinto's and exploding gas tanks.

If you've never slept with a rifle you're not a hunter nor a soldier.

Who said anything about sleepin'?????

Apparently only popular with us morons? ;O)

Don't sleep with a 700, you might shoot yer dick off Barney. LOL.

You should take a look at the Remington website. A gun "expert" who admitted in sworn testimony that he tried and tried to get the 700 to discharge without pulling the trigger and couldn't. An "employee" who said Remington covered up but subsequently admitted he only worked at the ammunition plant not the firearm plant. Last but not least the NBC reporter standing in a field talking about the 700 with the bolt closed and his finger on the trigger. NBC has always had an agenda to see the complete ban of firearms.

Years ago I adjusted my Rem 700 trigger down to where it would drop if I slammed the rifle butt on the ground. Easily fixed.

I can't say how bad this will be for Remington, but I suspect their using Brett Favre as an adman for their products will hurt them worse.

WHen ol' Brett talks about his well used gun, we'll all wonder which is his rifle and which is his gun...and which one was photo'd and e-mailed to his penpal.

Golly Gomer,

If there is a problem with 700's, the last place I'd look for the truth is on the website of the manufacturer who makes it.

Let's use your logic in another scenario:

Capone Trial:
Prosecution question to Al:

"Did you ever order the murder of anyone?"

Al's response:

"Nope, I posted that I am innocent on my website"

Judge Swampman:

"Ok, Case dismissed."

Bag of hammers...

The only problem with looking at the Remington website would be that.....well....they may be biased, therefore not as objective as they might could be. I'm not buying into either story until a disinterested third party does a credible investigation.

JM...ya beat me to it

He couldn't duplicate an accidental discharge in the specific rifle involved in the Williams v. Remington case.

The plaintiff's case revolved around the "defective design" theory of the connector/trigger arrangement and included high-speed video.

Extracted from the MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, SIDNEY A. FITZWATER, Chief Judge.

This defect theory is based on high-speed video footage that demonstrates the separation of the connector and trigger body, personal examination of the firearm, evidence that many other customers have experienced involuntary discharge of this rifle model, and tests performed for the purpose of confirming that debris between the connector and trigger can result in precipitous engagement.

There is certainly anecdotal evidence virtually everywhere on the Internet of Remington 700 AD's that never repeat. The theory presented by plaintiff's experts posits that contaminates interfere with the connector's repositioning on the trigger and cause AD. In this case, the very act of firing and the forced movement of the connector again could cause contaminates to be expelled........which would make the incident difficult to repeat.

In any event, I'd like to see this high speed video in public domain. And perhaps more of the same beyond just a firing cycle. Perhaps a "jarring" video to see how the connector moves under impact other than a firing cycle.

You sure are being mighty hard on Gomer....just sayin'...

Let's look at a few things here, in a factual kind of way ...

The Rem-Walker trigger uses a floating connector that allows itself to kick forward when pulling the trigger, which means that as soon as the sear 'cams over' the connector, it kicks the connector out of the way so that the 'break' of the trigger is clean and crisp, and more 'instantaneous' than if you had to physically move a one-piece trigger shoe fully out from under the sear. This also allows for less (or possibly no) trigger backlash because the trigger shoe is not in direct contact w/ the sear, and thus does not get kicked forward when the sear drops.

The PROBLEM with this design, as far as I can see, is only one small issue. IF the connector - for whatever reason - ever gets stuck in such a way that it does not fully return to it's position against the trigger shoe, the user of the rifle will be able to move the trigger (manually) back into 'full battery' prior to letting off the safety, while the connector (which is the part of the trigger mechanism that makes contact with the sear) is not actually in position under the sear. This can/will most likely result in the sear not being blocked, and thus the firing pin will fall forward when the safety is let off.

THAT seems to be the ONLY flaw in the design - at least by virtue of analysis.

What most people seem to forget though, is that ANY trigger (firing mechanism) that is similar in design - and also incorporates a safety system that ONLY blocks the sear or locks the firing pin in the cocked position CAN allow the firing pin to fall when the safety is released - that is, if whatever part of the trigger mechanism that contacts and supports the sear is not in full battery prior to releasing the safety.

Again, what CAN potentially happen with the Rem-Walker trigger design, is that the user might THINK that the trigger is returned to full battery, but there is really no way of knowing for sure since the connector might not be in full battery.

What I personally don't know is how the trigger can be adjusted and set at the factory in such a way that the connector is 'guaranteed' to not be able to clear itself out from under the sear - simply because no matter how you set it up, if it's set up to allow the trigger to be able to drop the sear, there MUST be room enough for the connector to fully move out from under the sear.

In the case of the law suits I've looked at - and by no means am I any expert in law, mechanical engineering, etc. - the issue that seems to be at the forefront is the RESULT of the AD - not the AD itself... which of course brings "poor firearms safety" into the equation. The act of using poor firearms safety MUST be considered when liability for the results of the AD are brought up.

IMHO, while nobody should EVER trust a mechanical safety to keep a firearm from discharging, there should be a "reasonable" amount of trust that one can put on the ability of the safety and firing mechanism to function properly. THAT seems to be at the heart of the law suits as well - not JUST the examination of whether or not the firearm can/will AD based on the Rem-Walker design.

Now, like I've said before ... I can see the POTENTIAL for an undue failure of the firing and safety mechanism re: the Rem-Walker design ... but I've also never seen it happen when the trigger is properly adjusted and maintained. Even after making post-factory setting adjustments myself, I've always been able to set the trigger system up to work as intended, and with better results (pull weight, over-travel and creep) than it came from the factory.

Do I consider the trigger to be "flawed"? Yah, I guess, in a round-about sort of way ... but do I see the trigger being reasonably safe and dependable? Sure, I do ... as much as I would consider just about any other standard trigger on a typical rifle... and that opinion is based on my own experiences, as well as the many experiences of others I know who have used Remington rifles with the Rem-Walker trigger design for years and years.

Not sure what else can really be said about the issue, outside of a court of law, simply because it's up to them each time the case is brought to bear, and the judge, jury and "experts" have to fight it out there, and it's for them to decide at the end of the day what happens to Remington.

Excellent synopsis, WGM.

WGM

I like and appreciate what you posted above especially when you use the words "can see the POTENTIAL" rather than "there is NO way". I have no axe to grind with Remington what-so-ever and surely don't wish to see them harmed over this situation. But, I doubt this whole thing is going to go away quietly. Right now I hope the ball is still in Remington's court and they act wisely.

I can see this whole mess turning into a situation, on a smaller scale, like the "Toyota sudden acceleration" theory. There have been few, if any, DOCUMENTED cases to substantiate what people claim happened yet look what happened when certain people got involved. I doubt Remington can afford to offer a recall on every rifle plus face a potential fine to boot.

Here is an excellent take on the CNBC "investigative report".

It is written by Field and Stream's Dave Petzal and appears on their blog. Just about the best summation I have seen.

QOUTE-

Petzal: CNBC�s Remington 700 Trigger Coverage A Clean Miss

Editor�s Note: In light of the recent controversial CNBC program that deemed Remington Model 700 rifles unsafe, we asked Rifles Editor and Gun Nut blogger David E. Petzal to view the broadcast and offer his thoughts in this extended post. Petzal, a 54-year shooter, NRA Certified Rifle Instructor, former Army Drill Sergeant, and one the country�s foremost gun authorities, had this to say:

On October 20, CNBC ran a program entitled �Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation.� Claimed to be the result of 10 months� of investigation by CNBC, it was narrated by a Senior Correspondent named Scott Cohn. The focus of the program was the trigger designed in the late 1940s for the Remington 721 (the predecessor to the 700) by Remington engineer Mike Walker. According to CNBC, the trigger was known to be defective almost from its inception; its design allegedly allows the rifle to be fired without the trigger being pulled. This has resulted, the program claimed, in thousands of complaints caused by accidental firings, as well as injuries and deaths.

Those are the bare bones. As I expected, �Remington Under Fire� was a hatchet job. The verdict is guilty from the get-go. No one from Remington would come on the program, nor would anyone from Cerberus, Remington�s parent company. This is not because they have something to hide, but because they know that if they appear on a program like this they will be made to look like liars or fools or both. If you�d like an example, consult any of the �documentaries� made by the lovely and talented Michael Moore.

Scott Cohn�s program exhibits an unsubtle mix of ignorance of the subject as well as serious journalistic deficiencies. First is the attitude toward guns as a whole. There were references to �safe� guns. Memo to Mr. Cohn: There is no such thing as a safe gun. Guns are inherently dangerous, and unless you handle them with care the results can be tragic. Everyone shown on the program who was killed or wounded by a 700 suffered because either they themselves or someone else pointed a 700 at them.

This is poignantly illustrated by the death of Gus Barber, a Montana boy who was shot by his mother Barbara in 2000. Mrs. Barber was unloading a 700 whose muzzle was pointed at a horse trailer. On the far side of the trailer was her son. The rifle went off; the bullet passed through the trailer; Gus Barber died. This was a terrible tragedy, and I am very sorry for the unbearable pain the Barbers suffered.

Rich Barber, Gus� father, believes his son was killed because the rifle went off accidentally. In fact, Gus Barber died because a rifle was pointed at him. If the rifle had been pointed in a safe direction, all the Barbers would have gotten was a bad scare.
This kind of tragedy can happen to anyone, with any gun, if he or she ignores the prime directive of safe gun handling, put best by Jeff Cooper:
�Do not cover with the muzzle of a gun anything you do not wish to destroy.�

The CNBC program has a scene showing a Portland, Maine police sniper setting off a 700 by simply tapping the bolt. Incredibly, Mr. Cohn asks no questions at all about the rifle. Any journalist with even a modicum of gun knowledge would have dragged the department�s armorer on camera and asked this one simple question:
�Have you modified the trigger on this rifle?�

There is an interview with a West Coast range officer who states that 700s fire accidentally with such frequency that these incidents are called �Remington moments.� This is yet another example of more journalistic ignorance. If the rifles are so unreliable, why did Cohn not ask the gentlemen why they are allowed on the range?

In the course of the entire program, only one shooter is allowed camera time to say what a great gun the 700 is. One. There are 5 million Model 700s out there. Surely more than one person must like them. Could he possibly have found two people to say nice things?

It is mentioned that Remington has just been awarded a contract to build 3,000 more Model 700 sniper rifles, but that the Marines have had problems with accidental firing. I guess it was too much trouble to have someone explain that the 700 has been in continual service as a sniper rifle for more than 40 years, and that is has served with distinction under some of the most adverse conditions imaginable. Otherwise, why would the U.S. Government be buying 3,000 more? Are the Marines and the Army crazy?

Here�s what I can tell you about the Model 700 with the original, Walker-designed trigger (the new 700 trigger, the X-mark Pro, is a different design).

� I got my first 700, actually a Model 725, in .222, in 1960. There has never been a time since then when I have not owned at least one 700. I�ve never had an accidental firing with any of them, nor have I seen one, and we are talking hundreds of rifles and tens of thousands of rounds over 50 years.

� I�ve seen one 700 that should not have been handled. It was an ADL in 6mm that was made in the late 1960s. Its owner allowed a shooter who supposedly knew how to do so, to work on the trigger. He botched the job.

�And there we come to the crux of the matter. If the original 700 trigger has a fault, it is that it can be fooled with by anyone who has a small screwdriver. The adjustments are delicate, and if you don�t know how (or know enough) to keep sufficient engagement between the sear and the trigger connector, the rifle can slam fire, or fire when it�s dropped, or fire when the safety is flipped off. The same thing happens when you set the trigger pull lower than 3 pounds; it is not designed to function below that level, and there are some fools who love to take it down to 2 or 2 �.

Right now I have an old 700 with a Walker trigger that has had over 5,000 rounds put through it with never a problem. But give me 5 minutes and a jeweler�s screwdriver and I can make it dangerous.

Enough. I eagerly await Mr. Cohn�s next program. I�m hoping it will be on why the public has so little confidence in news reporting.

UNQUOTE

Petzal adds no information other than a denial that things happen. Of course you should watch where the rifle is pointing, on the other hand safe should be just that. I have a friend that
shot the transmission on his car. He is an idiot but the rifle
fired just the same.
Good luck!

Petzal does not deny that m700s have misfired or accidents happen with m700s.

He adresses the several instances of guns misfiring on the program.

He simply disagrees with the CNBC program's conclusions as to WHY they happen.

My latest varmint rifle and current love has a Remington trigger (modified with a Kepplinger finger piece) and no safety on either the trigger or the bolt, on a Nesika single-shot action.

The "safety" is an open bolt and an empty chamber.

No live round until I'm ready to shoot.

Yep. Some concepts are so simple and pure, that they defy any attempts at contamination. ;O)

Petzal does point out one critical mistake made by Cohn in his investigation.

He never once asked any of the folks who claimed to have experienced AD's if the triggers had been altered....

He knew the direction he wanted to take the story, this was a "career moment" for him.

The show did everyone a disservice by not asking that 1 question IMO, and by not demonstrating that a safe rifle could be made unsafe with a little tinkering.

The likely result will be that all the manufacturers will go back to 7 lb lawyer triggers.

And we are still no closer to the truth.



JM

When my Rem 700 chambers a round on its own and then fires it, THEN I will get rid of it. Anyone who assumes that a rifle with a round chambered and the safety on is 'safe' is making a (possibly deadly) mistake. The old maxim about always assuming a firearm is loaded (and handle it as such) is x2 when a round is already chambered. If anything the Rem trigger in question is lacking in 'idiot proofing', which might or might not be a 'bad thing'. I've not seen any convincing evidence that is as flawed as has been claimed.

You can talk about all the "safe" Remington rifles in the world, but the fact remains that the very design of the trigger makes this kind of incident possible. A rifle could be used for 50 years, and have one malfunction of the type, and then work as intended for another 50 without malfunction. But it happened once because the design was such that it COULD happen. And anytime you are looking at 5 million rifles fired, in some cases, hundreds or thousands of times, then there are lots and lots of chances for that one malfunction to happen.

Most of the time as has been demonstrated by the letters and complaints, no one was harmed. But in a few instances, people have been hurt. Do the people hurt or those holding the weapons bear responsibility as well as Remington? In most cases, undoubtedly yes. But that doesn't change the fact that Remington put a trigger out there that they KNEW could malfunction in this manner.

Gunowners and gunwriters look a little silly when they simply put their fingers in their ears and go "Safe gun handling...safe gun handling". Yeah, we all know that safe gun handling as far as muzzle control and the like will most of the time trump an otherwise careless mistake or a malfunction and prevent serious injury, but to mindlessly repeat it as if it makes up for a manufacturer KNOWINGLY making a weapon it knows can discharge on occasion without anyone touching the trigger...well that is just stupid.

While I have a safety, I don't close the bolt until I am ready to shoot... (Except for Levers)

Simi-autos I do not charge.

This doesn�t really affect my hunting cause I don�t see that many deer� or Hogs for that matter.

Many folks think I am too cautious� I may be.

I DO beleive that Remington needs to address this issue upfront. They need to definatively establish whether the affected rifles were "tinkered-with" or "adjusted" in any way. We do not know this at this time.

I just bought a Remington 700 in 35 Whelen and am looking forward to shooting it. I'm now necking up 30-06 cases and starting to develop loads.

I'd truly like to see the turkey hunter or eastern hardwoods deer hunter that uses a semi-auto and doesn't close the bolt until he's ready to shoot.

I see your point... I have only hunted with my BAR (So Far) and like I said I don't charge it till I an ready to shoot.

And yes I have killed hogs with the method.

Hogs.... no doubt. I've walked into field with hogs and kicked em in the ass. The wind is all you need to concern yourself to hunt hogs. Deer and turkey can see and hear at 100 yards better than a hog at 20 yards.

True...

For deer and such I use my 338WM... which is a MGA built on a Rem action.

I've owned and fired Remington center fire and rimfire rifles,and shotguns too.I have never had one of the guns discharge unless I intentionally fired it,and in all of these years,this is the first I have heard of this.I know folks that have used nothing but Remingtons in all calibers and configurations,and have never had these problems.This just sounds pretty fishy to me,maybe I'm just ill informed or something.

I haven't been exposed to the 24 Hour Campfire but a couple of years,I see members with thousands of posts on here.I know for a fact there are people on this site that are as knowledgeable as any you'll find anywhere,and extremely fine and good natured to boot.There's some occasional BS on here,no doubt,but it's usually seen as such and passed off as such in customary manner.I see"GUN BASHING",as ya'll call it sometimes,on here.I don't recall a single time on this 24HCF seeing a thread bashing the Remington 721,700 or any of the rest for being unsafe as this program suggests.About the only criticism I've read is that it doesn't have a three position safety as does the mod 70 Winchester.Most of the people on here have had more guns than Carter has pills,you'd think with all the true and real knowledge on here ,this would be one of the first places for a bad safety to be revealed and exposed.

CNBC and MSNBC are on 24/7.

If you dedicated several weeks to watching them, you'd learn lots of stuff. Much of it would be useless left-wing BS, but you would've learned it, regardless.

they are indeed on 24/7 which means that they have to find something to fill that time. i imagine every now and then that problem leads to pointless fluff news shows with no real value.

hmmm...

Tried it once Foxbat, on a turkey. Didn't work, !

Got caught in the multiflora rose (and tangled up) I mentioned on a post somewhere. Got the 870 off my back, shotshell out of my pocket, slid into the reciever, bolt moved to the 'snick' spot. Standing there with that red-headed eyeball staring at me five or six yards away in the rose, trying to make up mind to 'snick' or not. That, knowing a 99.99% probable this ain't going to work. Safe shot to a hillside right behind gobbler too.

Vine hooked into my neck and ear. The ear was beginning to hurt.........bad!

Did the 'snick, and lost the game, !

Next time Foxbat, the next time !

Whitetails are easier to 'snick' if you do it right, or their
very, very, very close!

Yes an empty chamber is safe but it won't shoot anything either. I don't chamber a round until I'm in a stand and situated etc. but there are sometimes when you need a round in the chamber and a working safety - like on a deer drive etc.

And once again there are 2 real issues with the Remington trigger.

1. Is it is inherantly a less desirable design than one that actually blocks the striker. The M-70, Ruger M-77 and others with safety's that physically block the striker simply have a superior design.

2. They are too easy to screw up. Remington triggers are made to where they can easily be screwed up. Other triggers are designed where they can be safely adjusted by the end user without being made unsafe, Savage and Sako come to mind here. Remington still hasn't gotten it right.


So in the end the truth about Remingtons is this, they are good overall rifles but with flaws. And sorry Kool-aid drinkers they are NOT the most accurate factory rifles in the world, if you think so you just haven't tried enough other rifles...............................DJ

Sweet Jesus, how about ALL those shotguns out there without a wing safety?

They aren't too easy to screw up, no matter how idiot proof something is there are better idiots being made everyday. Lots of examples of them on this thread.

There's two constants in this story.

Remington insists there is no problem with their trigger although it has been established for many years that is not the case. We have discussed that many times on here prior to this latest "news story".

And second, there are many posters who refuse to believe this fact. Remington has many thousands of satisfied users, but many on here refuse to think critically and blithely parrot that there's no problem with the 700 trigger/safety.

I own, and have owned many more, M600s and 700s. But I know that if the trigger is adjusted improperly or as bad allowed to have grit build up in the trigger the rifle can fire when the safety is pushed off. That's a long established fact.

They only thing one should do after years on this forum is golf. Barnes don't expand, Remington SUCKS, Kimber's don't shoot etc etc.


What I do know for certain is that a defective trigger isn't reason for people being shot.

That's not the point Scott. Of course muzzle control trumps.

But to deny that the Remington trigger is capable of discharging by pushing the safety off is incorrect.

Scott ... what you said there ... that is pure truth ... but doesn't address whether or not there's a potential issue with the Rem-Walker trigger/safety setup.

I can't say there is a real issue with it, at least not from my own experiences ... but I'm also not in denial that the issue can be real, based on the design.

I'm sure there are a few or more 700's that left the factory that were not adjusted at all by anyone, and still produced the 'problems' that these law suits keep attempting to address ... but I'd bet that the vast majority of all the ADs came from either ill-maintained rifles/triggers, or because "bubba" had his way with adjusting the trigger.

Not in my experience. The only time that has ever happened to me, it wasn't with a Remington trigger.

I know I can ADJUST the Remington trigger to do that, but I can also adjust a whole slew of other triggers to do that.

So is every other bolt action rifle trigger on the market, if it is improperly adjusted.

No matter what part of the rifle(sear or striker) that the safety may block, if the trigger/sear engagement is not firm enough to withstand handling, vibration etc they CAN go off when the safety is released.

Even a Model 70 trigger.

I don't know, seems the issue is about people shooting people. Also seems to me if the trigger is defective then fine, go after the trigger folks. That still doesn't take culpability away from the person pointing a rifle at another. But of course blame is something all want to put someplace else.

I'd still hammer the dumb [bleep] for pointing a rifle at another.

The final issue is SOMEONE POINTED A RIFLE AT ANOTHER PERSON. If one is so [bleep] stupid to do that then they should fell the FULL force of the law.

Scott ... again, you're spot-on about the liability issue ... and that's what gets under my skin with regards to the law suits. The plaintiff's attorneys are trying to lay all the blame (or as much as possible) on the trigger, and doing their best to avoid having their clients be held responsible for the RESULT of the AD - which would have been different in all cases had the firearms been handled properly.

I'm in the camp that says the trigger is not w/out flaw, and can potentially be dangerous ... but it's only as dangerous as one lets it be - i.e. pointing it where it shouldn't be pointed, while having a live round in the chamber, and screwing around with the safety and/or trigger while loading or unloading the weapon.

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?

The sear reset test I did were again with the old model triggers - I haven't tried it yet with the newer model, and they were with off the shelf unmodified in any way triggers. More than half of them failed the simple test straight from the factory, unmodified in any way and at whatever trigger weight they came at (I didn't test the weight).

As far as triggers with 2-3lb weight go I have a Lyman digital trigger guage and I usually use the average of 5-10 pulls to measure pull weight. I've worked with double digits of Old model remington triggers to base my opinions on i.e. more than 10 less than 100 - I forget the exact count.

The new trigger might fare better OTB, that's why I try and specifically mention that they were older model triggers, however since they still don't block the striker like M-70 r M-77 triggers I still consider the design inferior. I consider Sako M-75 and M-85 triggers far superior not only because they have much better quality control but also because they are more difficult to screw up by normal bubba's than the older model 700 triggers were. I always specify the older M-700 triggers because I haven't worked with one of the newer ones yet. I hope that I'm being fair and accurate......................................dj

DJ ... I think you are being fair and objective ... and what I'm about to say, well, I hope you don't consider it a knock on your credibility, as that's not what I'm trying to do ...

but simply said, I can't accept the fact that "more than half" of them failed the sear reset test - assuming the test was done properly. I say that only because I've messed with quite a few of the old-style (Rem-Walker) triggers and haven't had any of them fail that test unless I adjusted them down to a pull weight and/or a small enough sear engagement that they would fail.

I've got rifles in my safe wearing the old-style triggers that are set down "below" how they were issued from the factory, and I can't get them to fail in any way with any of the prescribed common "functionality tests" ... Obviously this is a simple matter of YMMV being different than mine.

As for the "inferior safety design", I don't argue with anyone that says a safety that locks the firing pin is better ... however, I never have put enough trust into any mechanical safety to care. As previously stated, I don't go hot until (practically speaking) it's time to fire ... therefore, I really don't need a safety at all, under any circumstances.

Lastly ... the new X-Mark Pro trigger has eliminated the floating connector AND has a safety that blocks the firing mechanism of the trigger assembly (unlike the older style safety) ... that's not the same as directly blocking the firing pin, but it does offer a much improved safety design, for those who are concerned about it.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niem�ller (14 January 1892 � 6 March 1984)

The test I did isn't hard to repeat although you might not find as many older models now that the new one is out.

Of course make sure that the gun is unloaded!...

Then pull the trigger to drop the striker.

with slight forward pressure work the bolt straight up and down to reset the sear.

You'll be surprise at how many brand-spankin new M-700's fail this test!

The primary extraction can is on the bolt handle and gets peened over due to the soft pot-metal used in the bolt handle.

Try it for yourself and see how it turns out for you. The trigger should reset EVERY time the bolt is worked whether it's pulled rearwards or not.....................................DJ

Most of mine fail that test too ... But I can't see how that is a relevant test in any way.

I think that if you think about it long enough you'll see why.

Look at the root of your bolt handles where the primary extraction cam works and see where they are starting to peen over.

Better quality materials and/or heat treatment would cure this.

Not an insurmountable issue, but should it really be there?...................DJ

[quote=djpaintless}

The primary extraction can is on the bolt handle and gets peened over due to the soft pot-metal used in the bolt handle.

[/quote]


Pot metal bolt handles?

WTF PLANET are you on?

Those bolt handles are made from steel.

Ask any 'smith who turns them for aftermarket tactical bolt knobs.

They damn sure are not "pot metal".

I'm from a planet where people know the difference between different grades of steel, MIM injection molded vs forged parts, welded vs brazed, splined vs press fit.

Have you actually checked a few M700 bolt handles before you made this post? Do you actually think that all steel is the same?........................................DJ

DJ,

Well, at least I know what "pot metal" actually is- you sure as hell don't seem to really have a clue, given how loosely you use the term.

I have owned Remington m700s for over 30 years. I have examined plenty of Remington m700 bolts.

I have both a m75 Sako and a 2007 made Remington m700 in the safe right now. No "peening" of the cocking cam on the bolt on either gun.

And both have been shot quite a bit.

Sorry.

And, I have NEVER heard of ONE topflight gunsmith in the US who works on m700s EVER bitch about "soft" M700 bolt handle cocking cams either.

DJ ... re: the sear-return test ...

While I know what you mean about "should it happen?", I still can't see how that is relevant in any way. First off, we're talking about the relationship of the cocking piece to the sear - which means we're not talking about the trigger's function - at least not internally.

Failing the sear-return test simply means that the cocking piece has not moved far back enough to clear the sear, which means the sear is still pressed down, which means that the trigger cannot return into full battery because it's being blocked by the dropped sear.

Further, since you are going to HAVE TO move the bolt back to either eject a spent case, and/or chamber a new round, the fact that the sear is blocked from popping back up unless you work the bolt is irrelevant, simply because this is something you're going to have to do. And, since the bolt, camming, cocking piece, sear, and trigger all work perfectly after the bolt is cycled, your assertion that the "sear return test" means something goes out the window.

Look, if you want to nit-pick the Rem700, go ahead ... I'm sure you can find some things that could be improved ... but quite frankly, I think that anyone can do that with just about any production rifle out there.


When it all comes down to it, with the exception of a very small potential for failure with the Rem-Walker trigger's connector, a properly adjusted and "built to spec" Remington rifle is as fine a production rifle as there is ... it's proven itself as well as any other production rifle out there. Whether you prefer CRF, Mauser style actions, 3-position safeties, etc. is a completely different story ... but if the Remington rifles didn't work so well - considering they have traditionally been priced with most other production rifles, they wouldn't be considered "the most popular", or at least near the top of the list for so long ...

I have seen two ND, one with a M700 and one with a M70, both occurred on the bench by someone who went to release the safety when their finger was slightly inside the trigger guard. When the thumb went forward to release the trigger, the motion caused the finger in the guard to also move and voila!, "it went off when I released the safety!" Not saying that explains the issue, but I bet some of these failures are more like ND than failures.

I'm assuming that "ND" means "Negligent Discharge", which would be EXACTLY what's happening if someone has their finger on the trigger when releasing the safety - which can happen on ANY rifle.

We talked about this at camp after not seeing anything but button bucks and does yesterday...today I am on granddaughter birthday duty...

None of us could imagine pointing a gun even in the general direction of anyone, especially if you were chambering a cartridge, fooling with the safety, or going any near the trigger. These things just don't make sense to me. We don't hunt with fools like this, nor fools that drink when hunting and/or shooting. Put a cartridge in the chamber when your sitting in your tree stand by yourself away from everyone. In this way if your Remington bolt gun shoots by itself, you just ruin your hunt, then maybe not deer are stupid.

My bet is that its easier to blame someone else for your personal fool mistake in which you just killed someone than take the responsibility for it...but this is 2010 America a land of puszies, no integrity and no honesty.

Wow!, My second post since I joined! I am just going to mention what I have and ain't going to change for the reason I explain. I have a 700 of 70's or 80's vintage in 375 H&H and it is fitted with a NULA two position 3 function safety. It has the old bolt lock, which I love, and you can open the bolt by pressing down on the safety which disengages the bolt lock and allows the bolt to be opened. I checked with NULA and they provide Timney triggers with their three function safety or Jewel triggers if requested. I looked at the timney triggers and they state you cannot use the old safety on any of their triggers so I am assuming (possibly wrong) that if I bought a Timney trigger I would no longer be able to use my NULA safety, which I want, and besides, I'm happy with my present trigger as is. I guess I won't change my trigger until someone offers a trigger with a NULA safety and that's that. Chris

Wow!, My second post since I joined! I am just going to mention what I have and ain't going to change for the reason I explain. I have a 700 of 70's or 80's vintage in 375 H&H and it is fitted with a NULA two position 3 function safety. It has the old bolt lock, which I love, and you can open the bolt by pressing down on the safety which disengages the bolt lock and allows the bolt to be opened. I checked with NULA and they provide Timney triggers with their three function safety or Jewel triggers if requested. I looked at the timney triggers and they state you cannot use the old safety on any of their triggers so I am assuming (possibly wrong) that if I bought a Timney trigger I would no longer be able to use my NULA safety, which I want, and besides, I'm happy with my present trigger as is. I guess I won't change my trigger until someone offers a trigger with a NULA safety and that's that. Also, I once had an old Mauser that would override the sear when jarred hard and it didn't matter whether the safety was on or not ( I replaced with a Timney trigger and new striker), so I guess any bolt action which is strker fired could theoretically fail given the right circumstances. Chris