Potential Remington 700 Rifle Accidental Discharge

[dldeuce]

Remington is responding to CNBC's story at www.Remington700.tv.

They actually have a guy, Jim Land, stating that "I've never heard of it." They documented it in their internal memos. They patented the design fix in 1950. They're finally manufacturing essentially that same fix in some new rifles with the X-mark trigger. They're settling lawsuits, while they await new class actions. The second national TV news story in ten years has just aired, and their official response is that "I've never hear of it?"

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[atctimmy]

I have a 1999 Ford E-150 van that I use only a handful of occasions in a year. The rest of the time, it just sits in the driveway. I got a letter from Ford admitting they are aware of a design defect in the cruise control circuits that could cause a fire, even when the car is sitting in the driveway. Who knows how many of these cars are sold each year, and I would bet only a few ever caught fire. I guarantee the national recall never made the news at all. Recognizing the real risk, I waited perhaps even a year, yet, I still took my van in to get it fixed. I would have been willing to pay for the repair if I had to. I realize that the cost of this recall and any associated litigation will be added to the cost of my next Ford vehicle. I'm willing to pay that because this is a safety issue. I appreciate that our auto manufacturing industry and Ford in particular brought this to my attention. I can't understand why anyone would expect less from Remington because they are manufacturing high powered rifles as compared to cars.

You are missing my point. I'm a gun guy. I read about guns. I shoot guns. I come here to DC and we all talk about guns. Here on DC I read about a Taurus break and a Glock Kaboom every three days. YET the Remington 700 has been around since the 50's. I own one, my cousin owns one, half the people at my deer camp have one. Some have had them for more than twenty years and I have NEVER heard anything bad about them. That is until a HYPER liberal "news source" runs a story about how "dangerous" they are.

Is there a problem? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it is anything close to what CNBC is telling us. My concern isn't the gun itself, but rather the fact that I'm hearing about it for the first time from CNBC.

[HotGuns]

I think that the real issue here is not being talked about or even examined.

The "fooling the trigger" thing hasn't been explained very well.

When the trigger is depressed or squeezed and the safety is still engaged, it serves to "prep" the trigger, meaning that all available slack has been removed. Then, when the operator realizes the mistake, the safety is disengaged and it moves the trigger enough to allow it to fire. Even if the safety is not engaged, a sharp blow to the rifle, or perhaps even one that is fairly light can cause the rifle to fire.

I've have known of several rifles over the years doing exactly this thing, Savages and Winchesters included, so it isn't really a brand issue,its a mechanical issue. Could it be fixed? Sure it could but not without making the triggers have a crappy pull, which most of us have been whining about for years. As little as 25 years ago you could buy a rifle with a sweet trigger. Then people got stupider and as we became more urbanized, many of the safety rules were either forgotten or not adhered to and many lawsuits were put on the gun company's because the people using them were ignorant and decided to fault the gun companies for their actions. When the lawyers got involved in the gun business, the sweet triggers went away and we have to settle on what we have today, factory triggers that go anywhere from 6.5 pounds and up.

I don't really buy into the fact that the gun just goes "off". They are machines and they are no more dangerous than their owners. Because they are machines, they take some sort of outside influence to make them work. It could be that the trigger was inadvertently moved at some time previously and was semi prepped. It could be that most people keep their fingers off the trigger until they are ready to shoot, so this hasn't been a major problem. It could be that Americans have been dumbed down enough to not be able to master a simple tool. It could even be that out of the millions of rifles sold and used safely in the last half century that something as small as a burr, a tolerance that is a few thousandths out of spec, a faulty heatreat on a specific part that makes it too soft and it deforms to the point of being unsafe, it could be virtually anything.

Even so, looking at the sheer numbers of rifles that have been sucessfully used for generations would seem to indicate that it wasn't a design problem at fault but perhaps some other contributing factor.

[dldeuce]

I think that the real issue here is not being talked about or even examined.

The "fooling the trigger" thing hasn't been explained very well.

I don't understand it either. One thing I did see though, is that Remington seemed to look at the "tricking" issue separately from the fire on safety issue. In a 1980 memo, they looked at a sample of roughly 3000 guns finding some 70 or 80 that could be "tricked." They looked at a separate 3000 gun sample for the fire on safety issue finding 70 or 80 that possibly have that problem. If I remember the article correctly. In that second sample, there were 9 that they admitted the problem could be attributed to manufacture. The issue wasn't that it could be "tricked" into firing. The issue was that causes attributable to manufacture, possibly tolerances, could allow the gun to fire just releasing the safety.

Even so, looking at the sheer numbers of rifles that have been sucessfully used for generations would seem to indicate that it wasn't a design problem at fault but perhaps some other contributing factor.

One thing that Remington hasn't addressed in it's propaganda and smear campaign response is that the CNBC show interviewed Merle Walker, and he disagreed with you. He anticipated the failures, and he felt his design change would address these contributing factors that you mention. The word he used to describe Remington's response was stupidity.

[dldeuce]

You are missing my point. I'm a gun guy. I read about guns. I shoot guns. I come here to DC and we all talk about guns. Here on DC I read about a Taurus break and a Glock Kaboom every three days. YET the Remington 700 has been around since the 50's. I own one, my cousin owns one, half the people at my deer camp have one. Some have had them for more than twenty years and I have NEVER heard anything bad about them. That is until a HYPER liberal "news source" runs a story about how "dangerous" they are.

Well, now because of the CNBC report, you're hearing it from one guy on DC, not just from some HYPER liberal news source. If you look elsewhere for similar threads, you'll see other eyewitness as well as second and third hand accounts of the same thing. If you google further, you can read the eyewitness letters from others that have been streaming into Remington for years. If it weren't for CNBC and a CBS show in 2001, you might not have ever heard about it.

I was 13 or 14 when I reached to release the safety on an almost new, unmodified, undamaged 700. The gun fired without my finger being on the trigger. As a 6'3" man with very large hands, I don't see how it's even possible to reach the trigger with the index and simultaneously reaching the thumb all the way up to disengage the safety. I can barely do it, but it's an unnatural motion. I have to very intentionally keep my finger on the trigger, and strain at a bad position to pull it. I can't see it happening by accident. At 13, with smaller hands, it would be harder. Plus, for me, I have no doubt. I didn't pull the trigger. I didn't modify the trigger, and if maintenance caused the problem then, considering the few rounds that went through this gun, that's a design issue as well.

I have no doubt the CNBC show exaggerates the problem. One of the possible reasons for you never hearing of it though is that it's a pretty embarrassing thing to have happen. That plus the fact guns are used so safely, if no one got hurt, and no one was around to see it, all the more reason to maybe just keep that little incident to yourself. One of the reasons this story has garnered my interest is that 35 years later I finally feel vindicated. I wish my father and all the other men that came down on me so harshly were still around so I could show him this story. Given what I'm hearing now, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are a lot more people out there like me than anyone will ever be aware of.

Is there a problem? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it is anything close to what CNBC is telling us.

Don't you remember the news about the Toyota throttle problem? Out of all the people you know who drive Toyotas, ever hear of that problem before it hit the news? That there was problem isn't why it became such a big news story. Toyota knew about it and they were blaming people for stepping on the gas. They weren't developing a solution. They were denying it. They weren't issuing a recall. How would that story have gone if it came out that in 1950, they had the solution for it, but chose not to implement it? Had the news story came out, instead of on class action lawsuits, but rather just a quiet unpublicized recall, it wouldn't have made nearly the news.

It's typical. If sufficient numbers of people aren't dying, or bottom line, refusing to buy the product, there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along. The product is working as designed, to make money. That's one good reason why we have a free press.

[sid1]

Well, now because of the CNBC report, you're hearing it from one guy on DC, not just from some HYPER liberal news source. If you look elsewhere for similar threads, you'll see other eyewitness as well as second and third hand accounts of the same thing. If you google further, you can read the eyewitness letters from others that have been streaming into Remington for years. If it weren't for CNBC and a CBS show in 2001, you might not have ever heard about it.

I was 13 or 14 when I reached to release the safety on an almost new, unmodified, undamaged 700. The gun fired without my finger being on the trigger. As a 6'3" man with very large hands, I don't see how it's even possible to reach the trigger with the index and simultaneously reaching the thumb all the way up to disengage the safety. I can barely do it, but it's an unnatural motion. I have to very intentionally keep my finger on the trigger, and strain at a bad position to pull it. I can't see it happening by accident. At 13, with smaller hands, it would be harder. Plus, for me, I have no doubt. I didn't pull the trigger. I didn't modify the trigger, and if maintenance caused the problem then, considering the few rounds that went through this gun, that's a design issue as well.

I have no doubt the CNBC show exaggerates the problem. One of the possible reasons for you never hearing of it though is that it's a pretty embarrassing thing to have happen. That plus the fact guns are used so safely, if no one got hurt, and no one was around to see it, all the more reason to maybe just keep that little incident to yourself. One of the reasons this story has garnered my interest is that 35 years later I finally feel vindicated. I wish my father and all the other men that came down on me so harshly were still around so I could show him this story. Given what I'm hearing now, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are a lot more people out there like me than anyone will ever be aware of.


Don't you remember the news about the Toyota throttle problem? Out of all the people you know who drive Toyotas, ever hear of that problem before it hit the news? That there was problem isn't why it became such a big news story. Toyota knew about it and they were blaming people for stepping on the gas. They weren't developing a solution. They were denying it. They weren't issuing a recall. How would that story have gone if it came out that in 1950, they had the solution for it, but chose not to implement it? Had the news story came out, instead of on class action lawsuits, but rather just a quiet unpublicized recall, it wouldn't have made nearly the news.

It's typical. If sufficient numbers of people aren't dying, or bottom line, refusing to buy the product, there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing to see here folks. Move along. The product is working as designed, to make money. That's one good reason why we have a free press.

Well Said

[Ballyhu]

I was deer hunting last weekend with my 700 in 7mmsaum. It is a 5 year old gun that has never been modified in any way. I saw a good deer coming thru the brush and shouldered the gun. My trigger finger was not inside the guard and my thumb was on the safety. When the deer passed behind a bush I took the safety off, meaning to shoot him on the other side, and the gun fired. No damage was done, but of course I missed my taget, ruined my hunt, and now have completely lost confidence in that gun and will never use it again. I've contacted Remington and have not received any reply to date. This is a real problem and anybody who doubts it is mistaken.

[Stevew]

I have owned 700s for years without a problem. A couple of years ago I watched a show where a man who killed his wife in a hunting accident was found not guilty because they proved his 700 would discharge by itself in certian circumstances. I still own 700s and am still carefull with them. I have extra rules that I was raised with for hunting guns like: never put them in a vehicle loaded, never bring them in the house loaded. I could on with the hunting gun rules that I was raised with that did not apply to defensive guns. They still make since today. Some guns do double duty and then the defensive gun gun rules apply.

[aus71383]

This is quite an old thread - but I thought I'd just mention that "premature detonation" means something entirely different than "accidental discharge". Premature detonation implies that the gun was intended to explode, but it happened too soon. Inflammatory articles often use improper terminology - it's hard to tell if it is malicious or out of sheer ignorance. That said - I never knew this about Remington 700s. I would have guess that any gun with a modified trigger would be particularly sensitive to rough handling with the safety off - but the gun firing when the safety is removed? That's some crazy stuff.

Austin

[HotGuns]

I missed my taget, ruined my hunt, and now have completely lost confidence in that gun and will never use it again.

I'll give you 50 bucks for it and pay the shipping. You can send it directly to me. You might as well put the money down on something you can trust.

[dukalmighty]

I have owned 700s for years without a problem. A couple of years ago I watched a show where a man who killed his wife in a hunting accident was found not guilty because they proved his 700 would discharge by itself in certian circumstances. I still own 700s and am still carefull with them. I have extra rules that I was raised with for hunting guns like: never put them in a vehicle loaded, never bring them in the house loaded. I could on with the hunting gun rules that I was raised with that did not apply to defensive guns. They still make since today. Some guns do double duty and then the defensive gun gun rules apply.

I saw the same story,he had the gun slung upside down,when he squatted down the stock hit the ground and the gun discharged,he was about to be charged with murder when a Firearms expert couldn't get the gun to Accidently fire until he realized the gun was slung upside down,after he turned the gun upside down he could get the hammer to drop with the safety on.The guy was released and shooting was found to be accidental

[Ballyhu]

Thanks for the $50 offer. The gun is being shipped back to Remington for repair....although I'll never use it again. I simply don't trust it anymore, but at least I can sell it with a clear conscience...hopefully for a bit more than $50.