Rem 700 Recall.. About time.

[J_dazzle23]

The road to Hades is paved with what-ifs. I do my function checks after reassembling my cleaned guns, after cleaning them, after making sure that they are not loaded. I'm pretty sure that there are no boolits hiding in any of those little crevaces that it takes a brush to clean.

I spen my career with safety systems that were regularly tested but that if actuated would demand an incident report hearing.

It just so happens s that this malfunction required a loaded firearm. Unless you know a way to shove a micrometer into a chambered empty gun and measure what the firing pin does.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Function checks are not done with a loaded firearm.

My point exactly. You aren't going to know this malfunction by an empty chamber function test.

 

[OC for ME]

If this issue is a trigger/safety mechanical issue why must a round be chambered? Not a expert by any means, but it certainly does not appear to me that a round needs to be chambered to actuate the firing pin. The safety must be disengaged to retract the bolt, round chambered or not. This is how my rifle works.

 

[The Truth]

If this issue is a trigger/safety mechanical issue why must a round be chambered? Not a expert by any means, but it certainly does not appear to me that a round needs to be chambered to actuate the firing pin. The safety must be disengaged to retract the bolt, round chambered or not. This is how my rifle works.

This is how pre-1982 Model 700s function. Mine is a 1995 (I think) and I can remove the bolt with the safety on.

 

[J_dazzle23]

If this issue is a trigger/safety mechanical issue why must a round be chambered? Not a expert by any means, but it certainly does not appear to me that a round needs to be chambered to actuate the firing pin. The safety must be disengaged to retract the bolt, round chambered or not. This is how my rifle works.

That's certainly a good point. Although I'm not sure if having a round chambered would affect the mechanics of a firearm, when you are dealing with something that could be as small a problem as a drop too much glue.

I'm not much for anecdote, but I've heard/seen this for SO many people, I find it hard to believe that all these gun owners all just have it out for remington.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It's damned easy to check the safety on any gun unloaded. Any smart firearm owner whose life depends on the functioning of their firearm are smart enough to make sure every thing works properly.

 

[J_dazzle23]

It's damned easy to check the safety on any gun unloaded. Any smart firearm owner whose life depends on the functioning of their firearm are smart enough to make sure every thing works properly.

And if it does NOT functioning properly, and it happens a to a bunch of units, they issue a recall.

 

[WalkingWolf]

And if it does NOT functioning properly, and it happens a to a bunch of units, they issue a recall.

Just like Red Bull...

 

[J_dazzle23]

The Remington recall was made due to the calculation of the cost of the recall versus the cost of the defense of the many nuisance suits. It seems that if the courts agreed with Remington's liability a class would have been certified.

That's your opinion, and I don't think it's a bad one. I just simply don't think it's without merit in this case to look at all the observations, not just one. Remington has already dished out millions (20 or so, I believe) in suits with this gun. If that were the case, you would think it's a bit late by now.

Remington didn't simply do a cost/Benefit analysis. They likely hired a statistician to take a sampling of remington owners, surveyed them, looked at the guns claimed to be faulty, and we're able to set up a proper confidence interval that the could interpolate thr statistics to the population of remington ' s sold from a certain time/place. I'd bet good money that's how they did it.

Do companies make concessions to get a thorn out of their side? Of course. But the extreme amount of people that have seen this points otherwise.

Additionally, I can have an adult conversation, but the entire logical fallicy of comparing a drink company who paid off a lawsuit over a marketing claim(with NO recall) to a gun company that may have a faulty trigger mechanism is asinine on absurd proportions. If this is not clear to anyone, I fear you may be batting out of your league every time you open your mouth here, or you are a very persistent troll.


faulty mechanics=/=red bull doesn't grow wings......

But hey, I'm sure the hundreds or thousands of people that have seen this problem, as well as any statisticians brought in to evaluate the recall are all lying.

What am I even thinking. Mechanical items with extremely small tolerances produced by the tens of millions never have quality control issues. And heaven forbid a company vauluntarily fix the problem by a recall if it were to actually happen.

 

[The Truth]

Dude, WW, why are you trolling this thread so hard? You have zero credibility on this issue. You don't even own a Model 700 to be able to say, "Mine functions perfectly." You've given no insight into how the trigger actually functions, and your attempts to discredit witness testimony and testimony from the man who invented the trigger are pathetic as are your insults.

Sorry, but despite my own skepticism and the fact that I have not had any problems with my Model 700, I'll take Merle Walker's word over yours. He probably knows a bit more about the design than you do seeing as how he invented the damn thing.

I'll also reiterate that most if not all of these problems seem to come from pre-1982 Model 700s.

In the CNBC special, the first feature was about a person who flipped the safety off on a pre-1982 and the gun discharged. Have you even watched this special? There are 2 videos of Model 700s towards the beginning, one by border patrol and one my USMC, where the gun discharges - one of them is fired when the safety is switched off and the other is fired by simply applying pressure to the bolt lever. This is irrefutable video evidence that you claim does not exist. You can search for others. A FOIA request revealed that the USMC thought the Model 700 to be a "safety hazard," after several random discharges. Consumer Reports even experienced this issue when they were reviewing the Model 700 way back in the day.

So everyone is lying and/or full of it and government agencies fabricated video evidence?

Some may argue that this is due to improper maintenance or not cleaning properly. Even if this were true, the design flaws still exist[ed]. Ever heard of Laura Watson?

FF to around 23:00 for the section with Mike Walker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS_GDpZM3ak

 

[WalkingWolf]

Safety rules are safety rules, people who cannot abide by them are too dangerous to handle a gun.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Safety rules are safety rules, people who cannot abide by them are too dangerous to handle a gun.

What does this have to do with a faulty trigger mechanism?

 

[WalkingWolf]

What does this have to do with a faulty trigger mechanism?

The claim from you is the gun is unsafe, it is only unsafe if a idiot points it disregarding safety. If the handler follows safety rules nobody can get hurt. Remington is not responsible for anybody getting shot.

At this point Remington is inspecting the returned guns for~~~Wait for it~~~the glue that they put on the screws to keep idiots from tampering with the triggers. They should have welded the screws to prevent them from tampering with them.

Some gun owners cannot be trusted with a sharp stick, let alone a gun.

 

[J_dazzle23]

The claim from you is the gun is unsafe, it is only unsafe if a idiot points it disregarding safety. If the handler follows safety rules nobody can get hurt. Remington is not responsible for anybody getting shot.

At this point Remington is inspecting the returned guns for~~~Wait for it~~~the glue that they put on the screws to keep idiots from tampering with the triggers. They should have welded the screws to prevent them from tampering with them.

Some gun owners cannot be trusted with a sharp stick, let alone a gun.

I'm claiming the trigger mechanism is faulty.

I didn't say anything about the behavior of the gun owner.

If the gun shoots when it's not supposed to, it's a faulty product. You can decide for yourself if that's unsafe or not.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'm claiming the trigger mechanism is faulty.

I didn't say anything about the behavior of the gun owner.

If the gun shoots when it's not supposed to, it's a faulty product. You can decide for yourself if that's unsafe or not.

I'm claiming the claims are unproven and false. Numpties with guns who will not admit they violated rules. Just like the one that came here to say his holster pulled the trigger of his Glock. :lol:

I have decided it is safe, because there is NO verifiable proof it is unsafe. There is no verifiable proof that drinking Red Bull grows wings, some people should not be allowed to breed.

 

[The Truth]

Safety rules are safety rules, people who cannot abide by them are too dangerous to handle a gun.

So it seems you concede the mechanical flaw issue argument and move onto the fact that in order to get shot one must break a safety rule.

You know my stance on safety and negligent discharges. You're still ignoring the fact that the gun goes off without touching the trigger. This isn't like some idiot pulling the trigger of a Glock to break it down and accidentally shooting himself. The Glock is made that way.

I'll explain this once again since you don't seem to grasp the concept. Pre-1982 Model 700s required the owner to switch off the safety BEFORE unloading the gun to remove the bolt. The gun has been proven to go off by simply switching off the safety. The gun is not designed this way, it is a DEFECT. Do you understand how ignorant you sound by stating that the owner is liable for the simple fact that he should have prepared for a discharge due to a mechanical DEFECT? Sorry, but it does not suffice for Remington to simply say, "We warned you not to trust the safety and not to point the gun at anything you don't wish to harm." That's asinine. They knew of the problem so they had "10 commandments of gun safety" drawn up to try and cover their a$$. It's not a contract though. It's just safety rules/suggestions.

I'm not sure why this is dragging on for multiple pages. You're not arguing anything except your personal opinion, which is so far out of touch with reality it's absurd at this point.

 

[J_dazzle23]

I'm claiming the claims are unproven and false. Numpties with guns who will not admit they violated rules. Just like the one that came here to say his holster pulled the trigger of his Glock. :lol:

I have decided it is safe, because there is NO verifiable proof it is unsafe. There is no verifiable proof that drinking Red Bull grows wings, some people should not be allowed to breed.

That many people all telling the same story with no incentive to lie? Because you know as well as I do for every time it discharged towards someone, it did 5 other times when all safety rules were followed.

Everyone is lying, including the the man that designed the trigger.

Sorry, not gonna gamble on those odds.

 

[J_dazzle23]

So it seems you concede the mechanical flaw issue argument and move onto the fact that in order to get shot one must break a safety rule.

You know my stance on safety and negligent discharges. You're still ignoring the fact that the gun goes off without touching the trigger. This isn't like some idiot pulling the trigger of a Glock to break it down and accidentally shooting himself. The Glock is made that way.

I'll explain this once again since you don't seem to grasp the concept. Pre-1982 Model 700s required the owner to switch off the safety BEFORE unloading the gun to remove the bolt. The gun has been proven to go off by simply switching off the safety. The gun is not designed this way, it is a DEFECT. Do you understand how ignorant you sound by stating that the owner is liable for the simple fact that he should have prepared for a discharge due to a mechanical DEFECT? Sorry, but it does not suffice for Remington to simply say, "We warned you not to trust the safety and not to point the gun at anything you don't wish to harm." That's asinine. They knew of the problem so they had "10 commandments of gun safety" drawn up to try and cover their a$$. It's not a contract though. It's just safety rules/suggestions.

I'm not sure why this is dragging on for multiple pages. You're not arguing anything except your personal opinion, which is so far out of touch with reality it's absurd at this point.

+1.

I can't possibly say it better than this, so I'm out of this thread.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That many people all telling the same story with no incentive to lie? Because you know as well as I do for every time it discharged towards someone, it did 5 other times when all safety rules were followed.

Everyone is lying, including the the man that designed the trigger.

Sorry, not gonna gamble on those odds.

NO a very small number are making a ridicules claim because THEY SHOT SOMEBODY. Millions of those guns were sold with absolutely no problem OVER FIVE million, if the trigger was faulty there would be a hell of a lot more cases. And most importantly the malfunction would be easy to duplicate in a laboratory, yet has not.

Every one of those guns was at some time new with a warranty, it was the responsibility of the buyer to do a function test and return the firearm for warranty. Yet they did not and only complained AFTER SHOOTING SOMEONE.

The obvious solution is don't be a idiot and follow the safety rules. And don't by a Remington, by a air soft rifle instead, or keep your dangerous mitts off of guns. The only people who are to blame for shooting someone is the person who shot someone. This goes against everything NRA and other organizations have done to turn the public to trust firearms, because "firearms do not kill people, people do".

Again if you are worried about shooting someone with a gun, keep your mitts off of guns.

 

[J_dazzle23]

NO a very small number are making a ridicules claim because THEY SHOT SOMEBODY. Millions of those guns were sold with absolutely no problem OVER FIVE million, if the trigger was faulty there would be a hell of a lot more cases. And most importantly the malfunction would be easy to duplicate in a laboratory, yet has not.

Every one of those guns was at some time new with a warranty, it was the responsibility of the buyer to do a function test and return the firearm for warranty. Yet they did not and only complained AFTER SHOOTING SOMEONE.

The obvious solution is don't be a idiot and follow the safety rules. And don't by a Remington, by a air soft rifle instead, or keep your dangerous mitts off of guns. The only people who are to blame for shooting someone is the person who shot someone. This goes against everything NRA and other organizations have done to turn the public to trust firearms, because "firearms do not kill people, people do".

Again if you are worried about shooting someone with a gun, keep your mitts off of guns.

Sorry, I'm getting sick of you making arguements that I'm not claiming. I'm not talking about user safety, I'm talking about a defective product. You don't seem to understand that a product is defective independent of the competence of the individual using it.

Tin foil hats too big for me. See ya.