!! Issues with the Remington Model 700-series rifle!!!

[cbush]

1. CNBC and NBC are the worst "news" organizations on the planet, and from my experience seeing the "investigations" they have done they cannot be trusted to EVER tell the whole truth. They are entertainment at best.

2. I have they type of firing mechanism in my Remington, and have never had any issues with them. Has anyone on this forum experienced what was described or known anyone who has on an unmodified weapon?

3. I am sorry that folks have died, but who would point a loaded rifle at someone anyway?

4. Whether it was .5 cents or $50, why would Remington make changes to a safe and reliable design?

5. Our legal system continues to run amuck, but that is a whole different topic

[porsche4life]

Chuck did you read any of the other posts.... At all?

[surflvr911sc]

Chuck summed it up beautifully IMO.

[Jagshund]

My 700 is over 40 years old and has never had any of these problems. And, as others have said before me, anything that CNBC has to say needs to be verified with actual news agencies.

[cbush]

Originally Posted by porsche4life

Chuck did you read any of the other posts.... At all?

Yeah- guess I was just agreeing with the previous comments. I have some bad experiences with NBC "news" that set me off.

[pwd72s]

I'm keeping my Remington in .257 Roberts...

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

I understand this. Is it possible that, despite the lofty goals of product liability litigation, the threat of legal repercussions actually inhibits corporations from acting in the best interests of their customers? Is it possible that the mechanical fix is affordable, but admitting the design could cause harm would be financially catastrophic for the company?

Probably both effects. In some cases, threat of liability for defective designs motivates companies to correct those designs and avoid those defects in the first place. In some cases, threat of liability motivates companies to coverup/deny the defect and never correct the design. Issue is, which effect is larger? Not for Remington specifically, but overall for all companies?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by jyl

Probably both effects. In some cases, threat of liability for defective designs motivates companies to correct those designs and avoid those defects in the first place. In some cases, threat of liability motivates companies to coverup/deny the defect and never correct the design. Issue is, which effect is larger? Not for Remington specifically, but overall for all companies?

I don't know, and it sure would be difficult to quantify. Possibly product liability suits are primarily motivated by an effort to make society safer and not profit, but I'm skeptical. Overall I suspect that threat of liability probably inspires safer design, but also results in the perpetuation of flaws. The same greed that motivates companies to cut corners at the peril of their customers drives litigators to create an environment that makes it in a company's best interests to ignore a flaw that endangers the public. While both manufacturing and our legal system provide significant benefits to our society, I think it is relevant to work to address the flaws in both entities that harm society.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

I don't know, and it sure would be difficult to quantify. Possibly product liability suits are primarily motivated by an effort to make society safer and not profit, but I'm skeptical. Overall I suspect that threat of liability probably inspires safer design, but also results in the perpetuation of flaws. The same greed that motivates companies to cut corners at the peril of their customers drives litigators to create an environment that makes it in a company's best interests to ignore a flaw that endangers the public. While both manufacturing and our legal system provide significant benefits to our society, I think it is relevant to work to address the flaws in both entities that harm society.

Product

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

I don't know, and it sure would be difficult to quantify. Possibly product liability suits are primarily motivated by an effort to make society safer and not profit, but I'm skeptical. Overall I suspect that threat of liability probably inspires safer design, but also results in the perpetuation of flaws. The same greed that motivates companies to cut corners at the peril of their customers drives litigators to create an environment that makes it in a company's best interests to ignore a flaw that endangers the public. While both manufacturing and our legal system provide significant benefits to our society, I think it is relevant to work to address the flaws in both entities that harm society.

Product liability cases are brought by injured persons who want compensation and lawyers who want fees. Obviously

[on2wheels52]

I haven't seen the show (no tv service) but a gun savy buddy was in to day and commented on it. He said the only guns on the show that AD'd had their triggers 'adjusted' (non-factory setting). He also commented that whoever put the show on seemed to have a hard on for Remington. Anyone else get that from the program?
Jim

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

I don't know, and it sure would be difficult to quantify. Possibly product liability suits are primarily motivated by an effort to make society safer and not profit, but I'm skeptical. Overall I suspect that threat of liability probably inspires safer design, but also results in the perpetuation of flaws. The same greed that motivates companies to cut corners at the peril of their customers drives litigators to create an environment that makes it in a company's best interests to ignore a flaw that endangers the public. While both manufacturing and our legal system provide significant benefits to our society, I think it is relevant to work to address the flaws in both entities that harm society.

Product liability cases are brought by injured persons who want compensation and lawyers who want fees. Obviously they're not acting from an altruistic motive. The idea is to harness that profit motive to create an economic incentive for companies to produce safer products. Kind of like the capitalist market.

The other issue is, if there's no legal liability for unsafe products, then what is the incentive for companies to sacrifice some profit to produce a safe product?

Government regulations don't and can't cover every detail of products' designs. The CPSC and similar agencies can't act on more than a tiny fraction of products, and often they have no power to force changes. Watchdog organizations are limited in scope. Negative publicity can be powerful, or it can be fleeting.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by jyl

The other issue is, if there's no legal liability for unsafe products, then what is the incentive for companies to sacrifice some profit to produce a safe product?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe people just want to buy safe and reliable products. Especially in the information age, anyone who builds a substandard product is going to get a bad rep. pretty fast. I know I couldn't care less about a company losing a lawsuit in our jackpot "justice" system. But if people I know whose opinions I value tell me something is unsafe and/or unreliable, I'll boycott at all costs.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

Government regulations don't and can't cover every detail of products' designs.

How about an emphatic should not?

Firearms design has been conspicuously free of government meddling. As such, the industry produces remarkably safe products, especially in light of what they are intended to do when they function properly. As a matter of fact, the gun industry as a whole enjoys one of the most, if not the most enviable safety records in our modern industrial world. They have accomplished this completely on their own, in the absence of any sort of big government meddling.

Maybe the gun industry is unique. Or, rather, maybe their customers are unique. Hopefully without sending this thread off to PARF-land, I think it bears mentioning that the vast majority of gun owners are quite conservative. As a population I think it can be said they are more likely to take responsibility for their actions. All those rednecks "clinging to their God and Guns", if you will, have expectations about both themselves and the manufacturers supplying their arms that are not found in any other customer relationship.

Their outlook on life tends to expect a fair deal on a quality product from the manufacturers, and full support of that product subsequent to purchase. "Here today, gone tomorrow" manufacturers looking to make a quick buck on a shabby product just won't cut it with this crowd. There is a level of integrity still expected in this industry that stands head and shoulders above that found in any other. Good names are hard won over a considerable period of time, and word gets around quickly about any newcomers that don't measure up. And about any old timers that start cutting corners. Memories are long - Winchester still takes heat over that infamous year, 1964, when they took steps to cheapen some of the most revered firearms in America.

Could Remington produce, what - some six million rifles over the course of 46 years that actually have some kind of dangerous defect? In the environment of the American firearms industry? Hardly. The industry as a whole, including the manufacturers, customers, and myriad of gun magazines covering the industry, just would not let anything like this slip by. Impossible, on many, many levels.

Remington is fighting back. I applaud them. They won't just roll over, like so many other manufacturers having weighed the bottom line and having made a pure dollars and cents "business decision" on the cost of fighting. They are standing on integrity, cost be damned. Word on the street is that they may very well bring the big guns (pardon the pun) of their legal department to bear upon the plaintiffs in these cases, filing countersuits against them, and certainly suits against MSNBC. Their integrity has been challenged by gold-digging plaintiffs, ambulance chasing lawyers, and sensationalist reporters. It sounds like they are going to fire back with everything they have.

[BRPORSCHE]

This is all very confusing to me. I thought you were NEVER supposed to point a firearm at something unless you intended to shoot it. Loaded or unloaded?

Isn't that rule number uno?

[jyl]

Well, Remington is owned by Cerebrus, the private equity company that was buying up firearms companies in the last couple years. Cerebrus has folded together Remington and those other companies, and hopes to IPO the company. Whatever Remington does will be calculated in that financial context. They'll make a business decision.

By the way, note that guns are a very old and simple technology that hasn't much changed for >100 years unless you count polymer about 50 years ago. I agree guns are extremely reliable but, really, they should be.

Given that, it surprises me that new guns are as troublesome as they are. S&W 380 Bodyguard was a mess for the first several months. Ruger LCP and SR9 were both recalled for safety issues within weeks of release, it seems. Very Disappointing.

[ODDJOB UNO]

Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE

This is all very confusing to me. I thought you were NEVER supposed to point a firearm at something unless you intended to shoot it. Loaded or unloaded?

Isn't that rule number uno?

DUH! double triple quadruple DUH!


i have had my rem 700 M-40A1 .308 McMILLIAN for 30 some years now. NEVER a problem.

[Taz's Master]

I thought you were NEVER supposed to point a firearm at something unless you intended to shoot it. Loaded or unloaded?

Isn't that rule number uno?

I agree with this, but the corollary is that the firearm is not supposed to discharge unless I pull the trigger. Rule 1A

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

Well, Remington is owned by Cerebrus, the private equity company that was buying up firearms companies in the last couple years. Cerebrus has folded together Remington and those other companies, and hopes to IPO the company. Whatever Remington does will be calculated in that financial context. They'll make a business decision.

You clearly do not understand the firearms industry. If Cerebrus and its newly formed "Leisure Group" (or whatever they call it) shares that lack of understanding and does, in fact, treat this as purely a dollar and cents driven "business decision", they will fail in that firearms industry.

If they pay out because it is cheaper than fighting, they will have effectively left the entire industry hanging out to dry in their wake. They will open the floodgates, particularly with regards to the smaller manufacturers that cannot afford constant product liability litigation. They will lose the support of the rest of the industry.

As one of the biggest players in that industry when it stood on its own, then under Dupont, and now under Cerebus, Remington (and other larger manufacturers like them) have a responsibility to the rest of the industry. Remington understands that, and Cerebrus had better. Like I mentioned earlier, the firearms industry is unlike any other - it is built upon a foundation of integrity like no other industry. If Cerebrus jumps in and overrules Remington management, they do so at grave risk to their future in this business. No company in this close-knit world can survive for long if it ever becomes known as the one that caved in to this kind of litigation first, setting a precedent in such matters.

The firearms world is alive with talk about this. It's hard to pick up a gun rag without some form of commentary, or to log onto a gun related site like this without seeing plenty of commentary. Remington has stated, through those channels of communication, that it will fight this tooth and nail. They have stated quite clearly that they will not back down, and will likely turn into the aggressor over this, going after those who have falsly accused them. Certainly MSNBC, and likely the rest as well. That's straight from the horse's mouth. If you have other sources that state "they'll make a business decision", please share them. Remington is not saying that, and no one else in the industry is saying that. Quite the opposite, actually.

[jyl]

I think your concern should be whether Cerebrus understands the firearms industry.

A little more info. Cerebrus owns Remington, Marlin, LC Smith, Bushmaster, Panther, and some other brands. They folded this all together in their "Freedom Group" or "FGI" Freedom Group Family of Companies They filed an S-1 registration for an IPO in Oct 2009. You can view the S-1 and additional financial reports from the website. The IPO hasn't happened yet, not sure why - maybe Cerebrus doesn't want to do the IPO in a year when FGI's revenue is falling. FGI's profitability prior to 2009 was pathetic, operating margin about 2%. In late 2008 and early 2009 it was much better, thanks to the surge in gun sales and perhaps to restructuring. I'm not sure how profitability is doing now that sales are falling again.

Anyway, I think FGI and Cerebrus will make a business decision - whatever is economically best for the company. That's simply based on my experience with lots of publicly traded companies including a couple of firearms ones - I have covered the industry and owned stock in one gun company. It'd be nice to see FGI come public, then there'd be more of an "industry" from a stockmarket perspective (right now there is just SWHC and RGR). I don't have any contact with FGI, and won't unless they ever do come public. FGI's public statements about the matter are meaningless - every company always says the claims are baseless and will be fought to the death on principle blah blah blah, whether they make guns, cars, cribs, or packaged spinach. You can't possibly imagine FGI is going to tell a gun rag or gun blog what the actual facts are or what they actually intend to do, if they even know themselves yet.