CNBC Exposes Remington trigger coverup

abintx said:
There was no attempt at propaganda or as some would suggest a conspiracy by the anti-gun crowd to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. Our rights, as some easily forget, are repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court.

CNBC only talked about the Remington 700 trigger prior to the new X-Mark Pro, not the entire gun universe. It was made quite clear, throughout the entire program, what the subject was.

I don't feel the mother was at fault. The young boy, as the father mentioned, was sitting on a nearby horse with his sister. At some point, as his mother was unloading, he slid off the horse, in view of his sister, and made his way around the backside of the trailer where he was eventually hit with a bullet that initially passed through the wall of the trailer. He was completely out of view from his mother, father and sister.

One could argue, I suppose, that his sister was at fault because she let him slide off the horse and move to a position on the other side of the trailer in line with her mother's unloading. To accuse the daughter would be just as wrong as accusing the mother, when it was neither of their faults. Remington acknowledged that fact by settling the case in favor of the family.

Remington at some point in time, made the decision that they would pay off on wrongful death claims because, economically, it would be cheaper then fixing a problem they were well aware of. Many companies do the same thing everyday. It's a fact of life.
Click to expand...



Art, I wouldn't argue with you on the points you make. We all see things from our own perspective. Nothing we could say or do would change anything that has happened. In the case of the Montana mother whose son was killed, I wonder if the same thing would have happened if the rifle had been a Winchester Model 70 which has been known to fire inadvertently when the safety is disengaged?

What if you or I had been unloading that rifle; would we have done anything differently?

We could discuss this forever and never get everyone to agree on who was at fault. I'm sure the decision makers at Remington considered all their options and chose the best course of action based on the information they had at the time. It's not a perfect world.

Gene Beggs
 
Bill B said:
Gene,

Did you watch the show? Did you see the memos? Did you hear the statements of the Remington employees including Mr. Walker who recognized the problem early on and advocated a fix that literally cost pennies back then? They could have made it better and safer and knew it almost from the start. Remington decided not to make a safer product. Mr. Walker said that the problem was that the parts used in the triggers were not always according to the blueprint. Out of spec components. You are right. This was about greed, but it was Remington's greed and not the poor victims here. I guess for some, Remington is one of the sacred cows of the industry. I think your judgement is clouded on this. Not everything negative about the gun industry is made up to promote some conspiracy. This issue has been well documented and collaborated. I believe Mr. Walker and the former employees. Remington had their opportunity to defend their position and chose not to.
Click to expand...




Bill

Your views and comments are well taken and I thank you for sharing them.

Yes, I watched the show intently, saw the memos and listened carefully to that said by Mike Walker and the other Remington personnel. And yes, greed may have influenced Remington's decision to leave the early triggers as they were. We are all human and most humans will do whatever is convenient and advantageous for them at the time.

Hindsight is always 20-20 and I'm sure if Remington had known then what is known now, they would have done things differently. It's not a perfect world.

Should a manufacturer be held responsible for a product he made forty or fifty years ago? Certainly not. Technology advances over time and just because a manufacturer chooses to make something different today doesn't mean the product he made thirty years ago wasn't the best that could be done at the time.

Yes, to me, the name Remington is a respected American icon the same as Winchester, Colt, Marlin, Smith and Wesson, Ford, Chevrolet, Coca Cola etc. They have all provided jobs, fine products and services to the people of America for a long time but you and I may live to see them all destroyed. Whether or not my judgement is clouded on this remains to be seen. Sometimes there is no clear-cut, correct answer.

Respectfully yours

Gene Beggs
 
Bill,
If an idiot were to point a loaded firearm at you (even if you’re behind something they can’t see through) while flicking the safety on and off, pulling the trigger with the safety on, and cycling the bolt with live rounds,, all while pointing the loaded gun at you.
What firearm would you choose for them to use to keep you safe?

If you want to see scary things designed to kill and maim people, look at farm equipment made back when the 700 came out. Wonder how much a better seat that wouldn’t bounce someone off and under the plow would have added to the cost back then?
The farmer had no choice, all a firearm owner has to do is keep their loaded rifle pointed in a safe direction.
 
Any shooter that has been around guns for any length of time has had an accidental discharge. Most will not admit to it. Having been around guns for over fourty years, with 23 in the US Army, and currently at a Govt test range, I have seen a fair share of AD's. I have personally had two. All were without injurys becaus of the number one rule, "Keep your muzzle in a safe direction at all times''. In my investigating of weapons accidents for the military, 90% were caused by "Poor Operator Headspace", you can't legislate or fix stupid.
 
Gene, you made some good points. Safety is constantly evolving. What was once considered an acceptable risk in the past, may not pass muster now. For me it comes down to this, they knew early on there was a problem, which they identified, and they could have changed/fixed at any point in the production run, including now. They could have done this without a recall and just upgraded it as an improvement, and they didn't. I agree that for injury to occur, poor gun handling was involved. The shooter was certainly partially at fault. Many accidents are caused by the failure of multiple systems. If the shooter had been safer = no injury. If the rifle had not been defective = no injury. We can't fix stupid but they could have fixed the defect. I had on AD, with a TC Hawken muzzle loader and witnessed another with a Win 94 when cold numb thumbs slipped while decocking the hammers. In both cases it was operator error. I was one who applauded when most hammer guns went with safeties and transfer bars. If something can be made safer (within reason) it's best to do it.

JJ-IA, to answer your question. If some idiot was pointing a gun at me with the safety on and pulling the trigger - I would be terrified, but I would want him to use a gun where the safety worked. It would greatly improve my chances of going over to him and break his fn nose.
 
Concerning that kid that shot his......................

father, I was told that Remington initially wanted to contest that case, but corporate attorneys were afraid of the emotional factor on the part of juries. By the way, I believe there were three attorneys in that car at the time, one in the rear seat with the boy who fired the shot. There are laws concerning having loaded guns in the car during hunting season, and I believe this occurred in a state with such a law.

I wasn't able to see that show last night.
 
Gene Beggs said:
Lust for money is what drives most frivilous law suits. Gene Beggs
Click to expand...

The greed and lust for money in this case, and the many other law suits brought against them, resides with the Remington officials, who for a long period of time, chose to ignore the problem.
 
One thing I didn't see approached in the special was trigger adjustment. Hell, if we used this forum as a test sample I wonder how many "tampered" triggers we'd have in our gun safes. They never mentioned whether or not any of those triggers had been monkeyed with. I also didn't like the example of the armed forces and LEO officers having discharge issues. Again, do they just take their M700s out of the box and use them in war and LEO work? I doubt it. I would assume some work has been done at one time or another on those triggers. And if so, what effect does it have on the AD issue that they were centered on.

I thought there was some sensationalism in the piece and it was the tried and true, "People died so X company could save $.05 per blah blah..." At no time did they take a M700 and drop it, kick it, etc to show the millions of guns that DON'T AD.

To be clear, I'm not sold either way. I think maybe the design could be improved on. But then again, what product made in the 1940s hasn't been improved on.... I still think that some of the deaths could have been avoided and that some common firearm safety practice could have saved many of those lives.

I also look at their choice of manufacturer. One of the largest remaining firearm companies in the U.S. Why not the old Browning A5 with the suicide safeties? Or some of the cheaper junk Chicomm guns that get imported that you see videos of all over the web doing wacky things. Many times going to full auto and presenting a much bigger danger than a bolt action rifle.

As someone mentioned earlier, I think it is ALL about the $$$$... On both sides of the argument.
 
abintx said:
Crying wolf too often, and insinuating another conspiracy by the anti-gun crowd, isn't going to cut it anymore.

What hard core campaigns have the IBS and the NBRSA launch lately to change the minds of the citizenry that guns provide them with an advantageous tool vice an easy to acquire instrument for causing mass casualties as seen day-to-day on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and other major networks and print media?

Going on the offensive is the best defense.

I don't see anyone in the gun community, taking a strong case to the public as to why guns are less harmful than driving a car down the freeway at 70 to 80 MPH. This community needs to do a better job of beating the media at its own game. For every show or story "they" run, the gun community should be running one in lockstep with theirs. Better written, better delivered, better produced, and better directed ... and presented in prime time.

Suggestion:

A legally constituted GROUP, [disassociated from the NRA] comprised of, for instance, the gun writers association, in partnership with a wide variety of the shooting sports manufacturers, and other such organizations, should be created and should start making collective, offensive moves on behalf of all safe and conscientious shooters. It would protect their livelihoods, and continue to ensure our rights as ordinary citizens.
Click to expand...




Apparently abe, you fail to understand how the major networks "control" the information they disseminate. The anti-business crowd which runs major networks simply would not run pro-gun stories because it doesn't fit their agenda. The more ads purchased by gun rights groups, the more anti-gun stories they run.
 
abintx said:
CNBC only talked about the Remington 700 trigger prior to the new X-Mark Pro, not the entire gun universe. It was made quite clear, throughout the entire program, what the subject was.

I don't feel the mother was at fault. The young boy, as the father mentioned, was sitting on a nearby horse with his sister. At some point, as his mother was unloading, he slid off the horse, in view of his sister, and made his way around the backside of the trailer where he was eventually hit with a bullet that initially passed through the wall of the trailer. He was completely out of view from his mother, father and sister.
Click to expand...


WHY was the barrel not pointed to the GROUND while unloading? This is elementary gun safety. Furthermore, depending what's behind that wall, you may be endangering yourself from a ricochet. I ALWAYS proceed to an OPEN area....AWAY from others....and unload with the muzzle pointed to the GROUND ...in the opposite direction from others. Mothers fault, plain and simple. You are responsible for your own actions.....don't let feelings enter judgement.
 
1) Triggers are mechanical devices. Without proper maintenance and care they will FAIL (if your car brakes are spongey do you wait till you CRUISE through the stop light to fix'em ?). 2) It's the responsebility of the PERSON with the Firearm to control the SAFE direction of the muzzle. 3) It's sad that not everybody respects what a Firearm can do if your GREY matter isn't on HIGH ALERT. 4) With that being said our FAS group has a Huntmaster 33 (Tenite stocked )22 rf that since NEW (handed down thru the years)has never had a working safety (rt side of rec.). It's a VERY good teaching tool
 
In my mind, people who believe a safety replaces safe gun handling rules are either
arrogant or ignorant.
I know of no mechanical devise which cannot be brought to failure by poor maintanence
or mishandling.
Personally, I have witnessed more landing gear failures in aircraft, than trigger failures in the 700. This over a period of 45 years. Actually, I have never seen a 700 fail , but
I have seen many landing gear failures, and I shoot a lot.
For those impressionable souls who believe what the TV presents, I say this.
The people that put programs together have vast capabilities at their finger tips.
Manipulating the way you see it and the sequence does affect the impression. Handing you
what appears as indisputable facts nearly always out of context is common. Should
their expert seem flawed on a particular point, he can be presented by a different camera.
The program is viewed for effect many times, by professional people who are employed
to evaluate the effect. If the effect is not quite right, the program can and is modified
to the purpose. They succeed every time at drawing emotion. Thats the purpose.
 
Lh ...

LHSmith said:
Apparently ab, you fail to understand how the major networks "control" the information they disseminate. The anti-business crowd which runs major networks simply would not run pro-gun stories because it doesn't fit their agenda. The more ads purchased by gun rights groups, the more anti-gun stories they run.
Click to expand...

Tell me how the major networks "control" the information they disseminate. I've always been interested in the details. Educate me. Thanks. Art
 
abintx said:
Tell me how the major networks "control" the information they disseminate. I've always been interested in the details. Educate me. Thanks. Art
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about it too, but a couple examples I saw during the story.
When the military guy had an apparent dud round after he pulled the trigger, he waited a very short time and when he touched the bolt handle the round went off like magic.
Was the firing pin cocked, or down on a delayed fire round? We could have heard the click of the pin dropping and known for sure if they hadn’t edited that part out. After editing, it was great video for their story (agenda) and they showed it over and over.

And how about the guy demonstrating how it fires on safety release, notice that he pulled the trigger before releasing the safety?
Adjusted to that condition by the end user or dirt? Name one firearm that doesn’t depend on sear engagement when its put into a ready to fire state?
The Ruger 77 3-position safety has to be about as good as it gets, but it depends on sear engagement when put into a ready to fire position just like all the others.
Bet Ruger’s had their share of complaints and poor gun handling deaths too.

To me this story isn’t about Remington, I could care less about Remington.
Mike Walker stated the bottom line in the report, ”Poor handling of the rifles that’s all”
 
abintx said:
Tell me how the major networks "control" the information they disseminate. I've always been interested in the details. Educate me. Thanks. Art
Click to expand...


1/ They employ the overwhelming majority of reporters and journalists who were schooled in, and are entrenched in their thinking, in one political orientation.....you know which one.
2/ Those who have the editorial power ( those who decide what is newsworthy) are of the same mindset.
3/ NBC/ GE are owned by the same company. NBC never discloses that fact. NBC never reported GE was selling prohibited high-tech products to Iran. GE received big bailout $$$ and NBC has the lowest ratio of positive news stories where parties other than the controlling party is concerned.
4/ Why does Fox News air stories, (that ultimately turn out to be factual), that are not covered by network news sources.....until it becomes an embarrassment until they finally do.
5/ Why is cable news viewership,especially FNC, growing exponentially over network news..........could it be the truth is finally seeing the light of day?
 
HovisKM said:
All this talk about the old M700 triggers being safe is just a ploy to get the real cause of injuries out of the media and to suppress my voice.

The other day I bought a seemingly safe ice cold diet coke at the McDonalds drive thru. While traveling down the road eating my Big Mac, the coke turned over and spilt in my lap due to the negligent top heavy cup and the poor liquid restraining device (lid).

By God....I'm sueing McDonalds for Hypothermia

Stupid is as Stupid does....

Hovis
Click to expand...

Hi, Hovis,
I hate to side with McDonalds but in this case you are definitely at fault ! If you would have ordered the regular coke instead of the diet coke, this wouldn't have happened as the regular coke has sugar in it and would have stuck the lid to rim of the cup ! But keep up the good fight, McDonalds is making too much money anyway !


___________________
watch movies online
 
JJ-IA said:
Bill,
If an idiot were to point a loaded firearm at you (even if you’re behind something they can’t see through) while flicking the safety on and off, pulling the trigger with the safety on, and cycling the bolt with live rounds,, all while pointing the loaded gun at you.
What firearm would you choose for them to use to keep you safe?

If you want to see scary things designed to kill and maim people, look at farm equipment made back when the 700 came out. Wonder how much a better seat that wouldn’t bounce someone off and under the plow would have added to the cost back then?
The farmer had no choice, all a firearm owner has to do is keep their loaded rifle pointed in a safe direction.
Click to expand...

YES...YES....And......................YES..!

Yes to your Threads too Gene...!

cale
 
These reports of Model 700 trigger/safety malfunctions have be around for years and number in the hundreds. Remington has been able to bury and/or ignore or buy off these folks depending on how strong their case was. As Mike Walker pointed out, Remington chose to follow this path because of the cost, not because they thought their case was righteous. I will never buy another Remington not because they made an honest mistake, but because they have been able to cover it up in a weasel-like manner that I have come to expect from those in Washington. Shame on Remington and Cabelas (who should know better). You Kool Aid drinkers out there should be pleased…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top