You are evidently so proud of your knowledge of the financial workings of Cerebrus that you haven't heard a word I've said.

I would say that the answer to this:

Is this:
No matter what the cost of litigation.

I have heard you Jeff, and my point is that you have to hope that Cerebrus' understanding of the industry is the same as yours. They are not gun enthusiasts. They are financial investors, tasked to earn an economic return on their investment, hence my view that they will make a financially-driven decision.

If any of you have a Remmington 700 in 50/06 or .308 and you fear it, I'll help lower your fears!

I have a safe that will keep it safe from you!

I wanted to note something that maybe was overlooked by some posters to this thread.

In the case of the lady whose son was shot, she was unloading her rifle which, with that design, required her to disengage the safety. She had pointed the rifle toward a horse trailer, not at her son. But, unknown to her, her son had gone behind the trailer. When the safety was disengaged, the rifle fired. The bullet went through the trailer and killed the boy.

Anyway, it appears that Remington's engineers and management acknowledged the original trigger design had problems as early as 1948, and at least three times (1948, 1968, 1994) considered changing the design or recalling the rifles, but each time decided against it due to cost. May I point out to Jeff that the memos in which Remington management discuss the financial cost of redesigning or recalling the trigger - X many cents per unit, Y units in the field, Z % of units in the field with problems, etc - make it pretty clear that this gun company's management did, indeed, make financially-driven decisions.

If you want to read more, here is the prosecution's case against Remington, as it were, is reproduced here with links:

Texas – UPDATE – Remington to pay $17 million – due to TRIGGER issues on existing weapons « Politics, Religion, and Family

At one point, Remington's management estimated, based on examining 3,000 rifles, that 1% of model 700 rifles in the field were "trickable" (their term for in a condition such that the rifle could fire without the trigger being pulled) but they seemed to think it was important that only about 1/2 of those were so due to manufacturing error, and the rest were so due to wear, tear, maintenance, or abuse.

I also found this part interesting - thought I haven't looked at the actual document, so can't say if the quote below is misleading:

"The U.S. Marine Corps furnished reports from the elite sniper training school at Camp Lejeune, NC in 2003, where officials found multiple rifles to be “deficient.” According to one report, some rifles were “slam firing”—firing without a trigger pull—“once every 20 rounds.” "

It would be interesting to see the defense that Remington presented in one case that has gone to trial (Collins vs Remington, man shot his foot off, $17MM verdict against Remington). It would also be interesting to know what cases Remington has resolved by settlement.

According to Remington:
(emphasis mine)

Was the alteration in question the marine (or gunsmith) adjusting the trigger mechanism to achieve a lighter or crisper release?

So, in your world, this represents "safe gun handling", the woman did nothing wrong, and her son's death is Remington's fault? All you have succeeded in doing here is further highlighting your ignorance of firearms and their safe handling.

A horse trailer is anything but a "safe backstop" at which to point any firearm, much less a bolt action, centerfire hunting rifle. This woman's ignorant and tragic actions demonstrate that rather profoundly. Notably, no one has been able to make her rifle repeat this fault. She had her finger on the trigger, with the rifle pointed at her son. End of story. There is nothing Remington can, or should do to help people like that.

John, you are only presenting the plaintiffs' side of it. Remington has addressed and debunked every issue raised, including the cherry-picked excerpts from memos written decades apart and presented entirely out of context. And yes, the official Marine records of those rifles lay the blame squarely at the feet of the armorer who dicked with those rifles. You need to read Remington's website set up specifically to address this. It's already been linked in this thread.

Pretty sure "know your target and what's beyond it" is one of those gun safety things. So far, I've only ever shot my Rem. 700 at an outdoor range, where it's always pointed downrange with a mountain as a backstop. If I were near vehicles or buildings, I'd not even think of letting my muzzle go in those directions.

I do realize the link I gave was the "prosecution's case", as I said in the post.

A horse trailer is anything but a "safe backstop" at which to point any firearm, much less a bolt action, centerfire hunting rifle. This woman's ignorant and tragic actions demonstrate that rather profoundly. Notably, no one has been able to make her rifle repeat this fault. She had her finger on the trigger, with the rifle pointed at her son. End of story. There is nothing Remington can, or should do to help people like that.

Did she have her finger on the trigger? My understanding is that the rifles that have the problem can fire when the safety is disengaged, without any pressure on the trigger.

Yes, I understand, her gun handling was not correct. I was noting the situation in response to someone above who asked something like "why would you ever point a rifle at your child". Personally, I usually choose the ground when looking for a "safe direction" to point.

But - just because party A (mother) was negligent doesn't mean that party B (Remington) cannot be at fault too. An accident can be - indeed, often is - the combination of carelessness/fault by two parties.

Was Remington at fault? A rifle should not fire when the safety is disengaged. I think it's pretty hard to disagree that that is not acceptable behaviour for a rifle. As you said at the beginning of this thread.

Now, whether this only happens to rifles that have been modified or abused or mis-adjusted or neglected or heavily used, or also happens to rifles that are in new condition, etc, is a question. And whether a good design should be resistant to some degree of heavy usage or lack of maintenance, is another question.

Jeff said:

"Unfortunately, most modern bolt action rifles' safeties do not block the firing pin. The old M98 Mauser, '03 Springfield, M70 Winchester, and other such classic designs all employ a safety that does. I'm not sure when it became acceptable for a bolt action safety to do no more than block the sear, but it seems the norm today.

I simply will not accept that on a hunting rifle. It's fine on a target or varmint rifle, but not on one I'll be stumbling off through the woods in pursuit of big game with."

I'm no lawyer, but I have to wonder if anyone would bother with a lawsuit after an AD that didn't result in any kind of damage or injury. People would likely think they had caused it unless it had happened more than once. But throw in some piss poor muzzle discipline and now we have a class action suit. Only in America.

Of course no one would bother filing a lawsuit if he had no damages. The tort system, as with much of our economy, operates on economic incentive. That's the capitalist system, baby!

Okay, I know there are nutballs like the guy who sued a drycleaner for ruining a pair of pants. Those are very unusual cases.

Not a Rem. 700, but this guy got 10 yrs. for a cop's death caused by a rifle he stole, but wasn't even touching when it discharged. Wonder why that lady who shot her son wasn't prosecuted.

Trooper’s death nets 10 years......

I'm not and wasn't a criminal lawyer, but the fact that the defendant was committing a crime by possessing a rifle (he was a felon, thus was barred from firearm possession) as well a a crime in possessing this rifle (as he'd stolen it) probably had something to do with it.

Typically if you commit a criminal act, your criminal responsibility extends to injuries or deaths caused during or as a result of the criminal act, even if you didn't have specific intent to cause those particular injuries/deaths. E.g. the felony-murder doctrine - guy intends to rob a bank, "accidentally" causes a death in the process, his crime is now murder not merely robbery. I may well have the details of the criminal doctrine wrong, but that would be the general idea.

Again, no one - including the plaintiffs' "experts" - have been able to make her specific rifle do this. Nor any others in good repair. And an awful lot of them in pretty poor repair. This condition has never been reproduced under controled conditions. Ever. By anyone.

Yes, I said that, and I stand by that. Assuming your line of reasoning is correct, and there are two parties at fault, one party's responsibility stops with the mechanical malfunction of the device. That would be the manufacturer. The other party assumes responsibility for where it was pointed when it did. That would be the mother. Remington has no control over where she points it.

Uh, no, it's not. See above.

Her rifle was not ill-maintained, nor was it heavily used. She was careless. Those who have used these rifles the most heavily, under the worst possible conditions, are our armed forces. Other than the report from the Marines (in which they took the blame), I'm not aware of any malfunctions.

Yes, that is a very strong personal preference of mine. I do see it as an important matter regarding my personal safety, and the safety of those around me. Apparently, not everyone does. I personally don't like the M700 as a hunting rifle in the least. I do, however, own several in target and vamint configurations.

Then again, I'm perfectly comfortable toting firearms off through the woods that are not equiped with any sort of safety at all - vintage single shots, lever guns, muzzle loaders, single actions, etc.

I too, share Jeff dislike for the Remington M700 safety design. It does have a fundamental flaw of not locking/blocking the firing pin. I demand that feature with all of the hunting weapons I have.

Safeties are for the most part the last possible link in the chain of errors that cause firearm accidental discharges (AD). They are also the least likely to cause a problem due to an AD.

Properly trained operators do not allow the muzzle to point at anything they are not willing to shoot. Ever. Period.

So an AD from any cause, is harmless. It is as simple as that.

Relying on a device to protect you from stupidity is seldom very effective.

My Dad used to load his cased shotguns and rifles into our station wagon from one of the passenger doors. He would unload them the same way. The muzzles were never allowed to point toward the occupants, only towards the back of the vehicle. Yes, we double checked they were unloaded, yes they were transported in protective cases and yes, muzzle control was drilled into me.

I thought in the late 1970s Remington examined 200 returned model 700 rifles and found that 2 would fire if the safety were engaged, the trigger pulled, and then the safety disengaged? That 1% rate was deemed not enough to warrant a recall. (From a company memo.)

So I don't think that saying "This condition has never been reproduced under controled conditions. Ever. By anyone." is accurate.

And in 1968 when Consumer Reports tested rifles, their model 700 repeatedly fired when the safety was disengaged, if the trigger had been previously pulled with the safety engaged? And did this 100 times? (1968 CU report.)

And that Remington was found liable in at least two trials in and prior to 1994, the 1994 case being a $17MM verdict, after which Remington stopped trying these model 700 cases and started settling them, paying $20MM to date?

One might say that "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." but perhaps Remington is the exception - since it appears to still be here.

Please don't give us this "I thought..." b.s. John. Credit your sources. You have obviously been scouring the web for your information. No one walks around with this data, ready to recall at a moment's notice in a conversation like this. Is it that important to you to appear the authority?

The rifle mentioned in the Consumer Reports incident had the bottom of the trigger itself dragging on the trigger guard. This condition is entirely unrelated to the Walker trigger "design flaw" on which these lawsuits are based.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/CNBC_TV/CNBC_US/Shows/_Documentaries_Specials/Remington_Under_Fire/Documents/Rem_Doc_13.pdf

The rifles mentioned in the Hooten memo failed the "trick test" in various ways. This "trick test" is covered in detail on Remington's site; it involves the intentional miss-application of the safety, which takes a contorted two-handed effort to accomplish. Many of their rifles fail this "trick test". Then again, a shooter has to go a long ways out of their way in an unlikely, contrived effort to "trick" the safety. This is hardly a design flaw.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/CNBC_TV/CNBC_US/Shows/_Documentaries_Specials/Remington_Under_Fire/Documents/Rem_Doc_08.pdf

And yes, the statement This condition has never been reproduced under controled conditions. Ever. By anyone. Is entirely accurate, according to plaintiffs' lawyers, their hired "firearms experts" such as Jack Belk, and Remington.

Mr. Belk has personally tested most, if not all of the rifles involved in these alleged safety issues. He has testified under oath that he has never been able to duplicate the problem on those specific rifles, nor any other Model 700s. He has also testified, under oath, that he has never bothered to test his "debris theory", the very cornerstone of his argument.

Remington has most certainly not stopped trying these cases. They lost a $17m verdict. The statement that Remington has subsequently "quietly paid out over $20m in settlements" has been oft repeated without any supporting documentation whatsoever. As I'm sure you are well aware, no one is in the habit of announcing the values of such out-of-court settlements. The insinuation is, of course, that these were all related to M700 accidental discharges due to the faulty Walker trigger. That is completely unverified by any source of which I'm aware.

The sites you are perusing when you "think" of these things have proven to be rife with insinuation and half-truths, with mixing and matching unrelated problems and often unrelated firearms (hoping the unwary think a Remington is a Remington is a Remington).

Anyway, there are two "bottom lines" at play here:

1) No one has ever been able to reproduce the problem on a properly maintained, properly adjusted M700 with the Walker trigger.

2) The above is rendered irrelevant by the very basic notion that whoever is holding the firearm is responsible for anything it shoots. Period. Regardless of mechanical malfunction or any other "extenuating" circumstances. The muzzle is always under the direct control of whoever is handling the firearm. The muzzle must never be pointed at anything said handler does no wish to destroy. This is the single most inviolable rule of firearms safety. When it is followed, no one gets hurt, regardless of whatever else may go wrong. It really is that simple.