CNBC Exposes Remington trigger coverup

So are you saying that a " fine unbiased media outlet (CNBC) and a thief are going to give us the lowdown on a big bad ole gun manufacturer that has produced millions of guns with a defect that allows an idiot to shoot someone with it, I'm shocked! Thank goodness for people like this that are looking out for our best interest, NOT!!! I would expect no less from the media.:) Steve
 
Last edited:
I predict big green will see a surge in 700 sales over the next few days.

I hope the media gives remmy some good non edited time on this show...we shall see.

pf
 
tiny68 said:
The number one rule I teach my kids with guns is never point a gun at something unless you plan to shot it. No. 2 is your finger is the primary safety. No. 3 is treat all guns as load until you verify they are not.
Click to expand...

That right there is the answer. Faulty trigger or not, follow these simple rules and I bet 90% of those "accidents" don't happen.
 
You folks with 700's would be nuts not to change out your factory triggers...What say you?
 
Why would anyone trust cnbc or any other major media outlet to be unbiased especially when firearms are concerned. On the Accurate reloader forum someone mentioned that Dan Rather did a piece on something like this a few years back. Now there's an unbiased jackass if I ever saw one.

I have owned several Rem.700's and I have never had any saftey issues with the triggers. That said I have known some people that could screw up an anvil given half a chance, witness our current pres...

The only pepple that need to be sued are the press and the tort lawyers.

cheers
 
If someone ever points a loaded rifle at me, takes the safety off and “accidentally” shoots me, I sure hope it’s a rifle from a big rich gun company so they can live it up from the settlement…..

Strange how a fluke ricochet gets someone thrown in jail for attempted murder.
 
Remington Under Fire

After watching the CNBC program about the Remington 700 trigger/safety issue, I'm very sad and upset. The anti-gun crowd and CNBC have put together a very well done and effective piece of propaganda. It plays on the heart strings of those who know little or nothing about the situation and will be mislead into believing ALL guns are evil.

Nothing could be more tragic than the case of the couple in Montana who lost their nine year old son when his mother's rifle discharged when she was unloading it. Yes, that was beyond tragic but was it the fault of the designer and manufacturer of the rifle? No, not in my opinion.

Then who, in the final analysis, was responsible for the accident? In my opinion, the boy's mother. It was her rifle and she was the one who was handling it. She was the one who had it pointed at her son when it discharged. Why it discharged is really not the issue; the real question is why was she so careless?

There are some who will say I'm a heartless monster for suggesting the mother was at fault but facts are facts. She violated the first rule of firearm safety by not having the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, which in my opinion should have been directly at the ground in front of her while unloading.

Gene Beggs
 
I watched it and thought it was a good and fair piece. This problem with Remington triggers has been known about for awhile. Remington knew about the problem and so did the triggers designer, by his own admissions, shortly after he designed it and now. I replaced the trigger and safety on my post '82 Model 700 years ago because of this issue. I didn't want to take the chance. I put in a Timney trigger and a ULA three-way safety that locks the bolt and with a release that allows the bolt to be operated with the safety on. All our personal accounts of "I've used them for years and never had a problem so this must be BS" are worthless. If the problem will occurr in 1% of the guns then 99% won't have or develop the problem. We can't assume that just because you've never experienced the problem that problem doesn't exist. I have known a couple shooter/hunters that have had this exact problem and they didn't monkey around with it or maintain a dirty rifle. Remington should not have accepted a 1% failure rate on a important component. Remington's internal memos on the topic are telling. They knew of the problem and yet decided for economic reasons not to retro fit it or change it's design. They were wrong when they decided that a 1% failure was acceptable. They are liable and responsible for their decisions.
 
Last edited:
Treat all guns as loaded. Accidental discharges occur only when guns are being handled by people. If you handle guns long enough you will have an accidental discharge. Never point a gun at something (or someone) that you are not willing to destroy. Keep the muzzle up or down.

My heart breaks for the loss young Gus' family endures.

Be safe.

Greg
 
Gene Beggs said:
After watching the CNBC program about the Remington 700 trigger/safety issue, I'm very sad and upset. The anti-gun crowd and CNBC have put together a very well done and effective piece of propaganda. It plays on the heart strings of those who know little or nothing about the situation and will be mislead into believing ALL guns are evil.

Nothing could be more tragic than the case of the couple in Montana who lost their nine year old son when his mother's rifle discharged when she was unloading it. Yes, that was beyond tragic but was it the fault of the designer and manufacturer of the rifle? No, not in my opinion.

Then who, in the final analysis, was responsible for the accident? In my opinion, the boy's mother. It was her rifle and she was the one who was handling it. She was the one who had it pointed at her son when it discharged. Why it discharged is really not the issue; the real question is why was she so careless?

There are some who will say I'm a heartless monster for suggesting the mother was at fault but facts are facts. She violated the first rule of firearm safety by not having the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, which in my opinion should have been directly at the ground in front of her while unloading.

Gene Beggs
Click to expand...

Thank You, Gene for a well thought out and truthful response
 
If the principal objective of product design is that an instrument be "idiot proof" there is a possibility that it is rendered useful mostly to idiots. Smarter people than me have tried and failed to find the tipping point for the best compromise. Which one of us is satisfied with contemporary Ruger triggers? There is a good reason that all ranges rely on "bolt open" or "bolt out" protocols for safety and not a mechanical safety on firearms.

BTW, the only "fire on safety release" incident of my own knowledge involved an unmodified 257 Wby Mag rifle, not a Remington.

Greg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Missed the program, but saw spot promotion earlier on the news showing discharge during bolt closing by trained personnel (mil. or police). The program expand on this? Were the rifles professionally maintained? Any info on trigger adjustment or pull measurement?

To general comment, people who don't practice basic gun safety rely too much on the gun to compensate for their misconduct. Manufacturers unfortunaterly have a record of attempted cover ups. The poisoned atmoshere in our country castes suspicion on almost everything, obscuring objection thinking, reasoning. and evaluation.
 
Bill ...

Bill B said:
I watched it and thought it was a good and fair piece. This problem with Remington triggers has been known about for awhile. Remington knew about the problem and so did the triggers designer, by his own admissions, shortly after he designed it and now. I replaced the trigger and safety on my post '82 Model 700 years ago because of this issue. I didn't want to take the chance. I put in a Timney trigger and a ULA three-way safety that locks the bolt and with a release that allows the bolt to be operated with the safety on. All our personal accounts of "I've used them for years and never had a problem so this must be BS" are worthless. If the problem will occurr in 1% of the guns then 99% won't have or develop the problem. We can't assume that just because you've never experienced the problem that problem doesn't exist. I have known a couple shooter/hunters that have had this exact problem and they didn't monkey around with it or maintain a dirty rifle. Remington should not have accepted a 1% failure rate on a important component. Remington's internal memos on the topic are telling. They knew of the problem and yet decided for economic reasons not to retro fit it or change it's design. They were wrong when they decided that a 1% failure was acceptable. They are liable and responsible for their decisions.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct.

CNBC did a fine job of impartial reporting. I believe it was a public service message directed at the 4,950,000 owners who might think that they're not one of the 50,000 who are at risk.

If Remington was to recall 5 Million Model 700's, the upper end of today's costs would be around $300 Million, which is more than their net worth. Thank gawd they came out with the newly designed X-Mark Pro trigger introduced in 2007 that incorporated a 60 year old suggestion, and the Adjustable X-Mark Pro in 2009.

The same story has been played out in the tire, auto, food, toy, child furniture, and other industries, where manufacturers make a conscious economic decision to pay off on wrongful death lawsuits because it is cheaper in the long run. They know they have a problem, but would rather pay the jury award then fix the problem.

It's all about MONEY!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remington safety

I watched the program and I thought some things were rather vague, like (if/when) was the trigger modified to correct the issue. Is the design predisposed to failure because of wear or fouling or other contributing factor since the failure (or accident rate) is about 1%. They mention it was a problem for forty years, but the 700 has been around longer than that. I got my first Remington 700 in the late 90's and now have four and wasn't aware of any problem.

When firearms are reviewed in shooting publications you rarely see anything negative about the product and usually the manufacturer of the reviewed product is also an advertiser in the publication. I hope that no one would knowingly ommit knowledge of a defect when they evaluate a product. - nhk
 
The ramifications of this will be felt for a long time. I have not bought Remington products for over 10 years and if they were already a publically traded company (IPO planned along with others) and I owned any of the stock would be in tears today. Cerbrus has Very Deep pockets so they will be able to fix the problem. This was a tough thing to watch esp on the premier Libatard :mad: Network!!
 
Gary O said:
You folks with 700's would be nuts not to change out your factory triggers...What say you?
Click to expand...

I love my 700 triggers and have been using them for 40 years and will continue to use them... some set as low a 1.5 pounds and working safely...

It's a money grab...
 
Gene ...

Gene Beggs said:
The anti-gun crowd and CNBC have put together a very well done and effective piece of propaganda. It plays on the heart strings of those who know little or nothing about the situation and will be mislead into believing ALL guns are evil.

Then who, in the final analysis, was responsible for the accident? In my opinion, the boy's mother. It was her rifle and she was the one who was handling it. She was the one who had it pointed at her son when it discharged. Why it discharged is really not the issue; the real question is why was she so careless?

Gene Beggs
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greed!

You may recall a movie released in 1967 starring George C. Scott. The name of the movie was, "The Flim Flam Man." The main character was an old rural con artist named Mordecai Jones, who took advantage of the dark side of human nature to slick people out of their money. His philosophy held that greed not love is what makes the world go round. Mordecai also believed that you could not con an honest man. Although I don't totally agree with this theory, I will admit, there is a lot of truth in it.

I still believe there is good in all men and that most would prefer to be fair and honest in dealing with others; however, sixty-seven years of life here on earth has taught me that not all men are just, not all men are true. There are those whose lives are indeed ruled by greed!

Art Bosco said in post 34, "It's all about money." And he's right. Lust for money is what drives most frivilous law suits. I believe most manufacturers in this country try their best to build good, safe products and sell them at reasonable prices but humans design and build those products and as such, they are not perfect. It is impossible to design and produce anything that is foolproof. Nature will always come up with a better fool.

We must accept the fact that some things are inherently DANGEROUS! Guns are dangerous, and nothing is more dangerous than the automobiles, trucks and motorcycles we take for granted everyday. When incompetent, irresponsible, poorly trained individuals are permitted to operate dangerous equipment, accidents will happen.

Since around 1963, we here in America have increasingly been too willing to excuse the actions of fools. Once it was discovered that carefully selected juries would sometimes award millions to those injured or killed by their own stupidity, the vultures have been circling. The cost of products and services skyrocketed and one by one, our manufacturers were forced to either close their doors or move their operations out of the country.

Maybe Mordecai Jones theory was closer to the truth than I once believed. :eek:

BTW,, have you voted?

Gene Beggs
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top