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

[M.D. Holloway]

Critical safety questions at Remington Arms
A ten-month investigation by CNBC has found that at least two dozen deaths and more than 100 injuries have been linked to the Remington Model 700-series rifle .

Critical safety questions at Remington Arms - Business - CNBC TV - msnbc.com



Read this article and then watch the video at the end. The video will show you how this can happen.

[vash]

i have two of them. no issues..but i also keep them pointed at a safe place.

there has to be a billion rem 700 out there.

[dhoward]

Why would you ever point the muzzle of a gun at your child?

[pwd72s]

CNBC is the source here...so I keep that in mind, like NBC and the "exploding" gas tanks on Chevrolet pickups.

Maybe I've been lucky with my model 721 in .257 Roberts caliber...It's been all over the upper South Santiam Canyon with never an accidental discharge.

But then, I never shoved a screwdriver into the trigger mechanism, purposely defeating the design.

(edit) My 721 was made in the early 1950's...

[RPKESQ]

Remington make a fine product. I have a couple of 700 myself. But regardless of nonexistent firearm safety behavior from some end users, it does not have the best safety design out there.

A proper safety physically blocks the firing pin from moving, as on a Winchester model 70.

The Remington safety only blocks the trigger and sear, not the firing pin. This has been a known design weakness for a long time. There are conversions of the M700 to the Winchester M70 safety design.

[Head416]

Remington says NOBODY has been able to reproduce the defect with an unmodified rifle.

People do stupid things, then they blame somebody else.

http://remington700.tv/pdf/Remington10-29-10.pdf

[Taz's Master]

Would a voluntary recall and design change make Remington vulnerable to litigation?

[HardDrive]

That story is ******* rubbish. Bullets only go in the direction you point them.

[Rick Lee]

There is a very long discussion on this subject on our local AZ gun bbs. Several folks there have had the problem, including one police armorer. But none have hurt anyone because, like any responsible gun owner, they don't point the gun at something they don't want to destroy. Any idiot hunter who pulls his rifle up to his deer stand with a round chambered and shoots himself sort of has it coming. Not Remington's fault.

[targa911S]

They have known about this since the first gun was made. The guy who designed it told them about it. At the time they didn't want a recall as it would cost .05 per gun to fix. there are 800,000 of them out there. They know it's F'ed up but because of cost and liability they won't go there. However the new trigger design they are boasting does not have the same weakness. There was a 1 hour program on this a while ago.

[jyl]

So, what causes the rifle to fire when the trigger is not pulled?

Do they all do it, or just some random ones, or just badly worn ones, or ones with a specific modification?

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by jyl

Do they all do it, or just some random ones, or just badly worn ones, or ones with a specific modification?

Well there you go. Its not a consistant reproducible problem. Which means that the most likely scenario is that you have a small collection of tragic accidents, that MFing lawyers and reporters have strung together to make it sound like a 'story'. Its BS, and pretty much shows you everything thats wrong with this bloody country.

[jyl]

I'm not saying that is the case, I'm asking what the situation is.

[legion]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Well there you go. Its not a consistant reproducible problem. Which means that the most likely scenario is that you have a small collection of tragic accidents, that MFing lawyers and reporters have strung together to make it sound like a 'story'. Its BS, and pretty much shows you everything thats wrong with this bloody country.

Sadly, this is the way most class actions in this country are built. It doesn't matter whether something bad actually happened or who is really at fault, all that matters is who you can pin it on to earn your legal fees.

[targa911S]

one could also argue that remington knew that they had a design flaw and were too cheap to do the right thing. just sayin'.

[Jeff Higgins]

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.

That said, the only real safety on any firearm is between the ears of the guy carrying it. While I feel for the couple who lost their nine year old son, it was entirely the mother's fault. It's tough, I know, but it was nothing other than her carelessness that killed her son. She violated the single most inviolable rule of gun handling, and they will pay for that the rest of their lives. Remington shouldn't have to.

[targa911S]

spot on jeff.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by targa911S

one could also argue that remington knew that they had a design flaw and were too cheap to do the right thing. just sayin'.

This is why I asked about a voluntary recall making them vulnerable to litigation. Is it possible that addressing the problem means admitting liability, and our legal system would make it too expensive to consider a repair at any cost?

[jyl]

Note that product liability is meant to be an incentive for a manufacturer to improve its products, as well as a means to assign blame for a specific incident.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by jyl

Note that product liability is meant to be an incentive for a manufacturer to improve its products, as well as a means to assign blame for a specific incident.

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?