Cnbc remington hit job

I saw the CNBC program on the Remington 700. I owned this gun for several years in the 1970s in 30-06 and I never had an issue with it firing accidentally. I did think at the time that the trigger design was somewhat dangerous because of the safety off unloading.

I feel terrible about the lady and her son but I have to wonder why she would have pointed the gun muzzle at something she did not intend to shoot (e.g., a house trailer)? I never violate this rule even with guns I know (think) are unloaded. Doing this when loading and unloading any gun is particularly dangerous, maybe even reckless.

Was this a CNBC hachet job? Not really. I beleive there is enough evidence to clearly show that the design is a very bad one. Even the Rem. trigger engineer at age 98 says so. Remington was even warned in writting by this engineer while he was employed at the firm.

Why didn't Remington recall the gun and fix the design flaw before now?

This one is easy. The cost to Remington is not limited to the materials, labor and shipping needed to fix all of the thousands of guns made since the middle of the last century.

They likely realized that once a Remington recall is announced they will be flooded with lawsuits claiming they knew about the problem defect and covered it up since the beginning.

The CNBC report indictes Remington documents that prove they knew and did nothing are in the public domain now. I assume this will cause massive lawsuits and maybe a bankruptcy which could have been prevented.

When most of our factory jobs are going overseas, this is not something we need now.

Remington is owned by Cerbus Capital; is this the same private equity firm that owned the now bankrupt Chrysler Motors? -- UhG!

"All firearms should be properly maintained and adjusted only by a qualified gunsmith. If you have any concerns about your Remington firearm, have it inspected by a qualified gunsmith before use."
________________________________________________

"And there it is!

You should have your rifle 'inspected' from time to time anyway, problem is, the majority of folks do not know this, do not understand that the particular rifle they have 'could' develop unsafe characteristics due to worn parts or the accumulation of foreign material within the trigger group, and although it is mentioned in most owners operating manuals, it is not adequately communicated by the manufacturers! "
_________________________________________________

Neither one of these posts pertains to the discussion of the trigger/safety defect on the Model 700. The guns were defective when they were new and did not need to be "adjusted" to be dangerous.

The problem under discussion has NOTHING to do with wear or dirt or voodoo or bad luck. It's simply about a bad design that allows a gun to fire when the safety is released to the fire position.

I really thought everybody knew about this problem with the Model 700. Oops.

John

"jack belk"

I remember his posts. Was it from the old shooters forum a decade ago? I disremember.

So the program hinted that this will cost Remington about $300 million to fix. Any thoughts about that?

Robert J McElwain said:

So the program hinted that this will cost Remington about $300 million to fix. Any thoughts about that?

Click to expand...

Woulda been cheaper if they'd have fixed it when it first broke.

...not sure what components are included in the estimated $300 million "cost" of a recall. Since CNBC estimated the value of the company is about that amount, it is unlikely they will recall. ...they would probably keep going until the lawsuits overwhelm them, but that is a guess on my part....

...lawyers from the gun hating lobbies are going to love CNBC for this one.

You can believe anything you like but so far we have sent back three newer Remington 700 rifles back to the factory because they would fire when the safety was pushed off.

The third one was shipped this morning.

It is fact the the major media has an anti gun bias but this article is based on FACT.

Remington has some poor quality parts in their trigger groups.

Anybody notice a trend here??
Everything Cerebrus sticks their marketing fingers into seems to turn to sh**??
I mean the 770 Remington for example,,,,700s suddenly having safety/trigger interface issues, yet again,,,,

Their policy seems to be, buy a company, cheapen up the product, cut costs at every possible angle, sell at premium price.

I am beginning to think these guys went to business school in China!

The main problem is that today we are no longer a nation of riflemen. We are a nation of sandbaggers who can't shoot unless they have a 3,000lb concrete bench, sandbags and a trigger so light a slight gust of wind sets it off.

The gun companies design rifles for these people. Most are VERY DANGEROUS. I don't blame them. They build and sell what you people want.

The good old 4.5lb two stage trigger that is more than good enough for a rifleman using a sling to put 20 rounds into the X ring on a 600 yard target should be good enough for any hunter. Such a trigger and safety system is 100% SAFE and has served real riflemen well since day one.

I couldn't believe the accusations made by CNBC, until I saw it with my own eyes...Remington Model 700's going off without anyone touching the triggers...these were Law Enforcement Officers at the range with these guns showing the safety concerns and the unintended discharge of their weapons. The one guy's gun would go off if he even so much as touched the bolt on the gun; his hands were no where near the trigger. I happen to own a Remington Model 700 in .270 Win. I love that gun... the way it shoots, the way it handles...but now I'm wondering if the damn thing is even safe to use. My son shot his first deer with it, so it has significant sentimentality to it. I'd hate to think that I can't use that gun again. Is this problem easily solved by taking it to a gun smith?

I think you folks should hit some of the Blogs for a bit more insight before you jump to conclusions based on a T.V. show which gains revenue through advertising.
Start here.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/10/21/my-take-on-remington-under-fire/
This guy is straight up and will link you to some .Mil sites which also provide a bit more insight on "The Truth! You can't handle the TRUTH!"

If your rifle has a problem, I'd think you would already know that. I have a Rem 788. Only problem was it wouldn't fire because of build up of old oil. I will keep my gun and continue to "manipulate" it with the barrel in a safe direction as always.
ll

So the program hinted that this will cost Remington about $300 million to fix. Any thoughts about that?

Click to expand...

Yes... If they were forced to do a recall of the guns, it would bankrupt Remington... No ifs, ands or buts. Which is why the company is between a rock and a hard place.... There IS a problem... The evidence is overwhelming there is a problem. A jury would DEFINITELY agree the evidence is damning (you show a jury a video of a gun going off without the trigger being pulled, just back the brinks truck up to the Courthouse)... So Remington settles these suits ASAP. IF they dont, they may be forced to fix the problem which they cant afford to do. So they roll the dice.

Its a math equation- 1% of the guns are effected. Thats 20,000 guns. Only some of them will have unintentional discharges (some guns never get fired.... Some only get fired a few times a year etc... Most arent in HEAVY DUTY where they get used day in day out and the problem has a statistical chance to present itself). MOST of those unintentional discharges wont hurt anybody. When they do, Remington writes a check.

For everybody who are clamoring about "the Trial Lawyers." The trial lawyers are ALREADY GETTING PAID OFF BY REMINGTON. They get 40% of those "undisclosed settlements." (I read somewhere that the Barber Mother was told by the CEO to 'name her price'... ) They dont need or want a recall... A recall doesnt put money in their pocket (especially if it will Bankrupt the Company)... Remington NOT fixing the problem is the gift that keeps on giving to the Lawyers.... Its Employment Insurance.

Everything Cerebrus sticks their marketing fingers into seems to turn to sh**??

Click to expand...

There it is!

Everything Cerebrus sticks their marketing fingers into seems to turn to sh**?

Click to expand...

Google the meaning of their "mythical" name...that is exactly what they are, a poly-headed hell hound.

I hate to say it, but it wouldn't bother me if Remington goes bankrupt. This issue aside, Remington used to be a name you could associate with quality. These last few years, Remington has been a name you could associate with crap.

I have been in the army, new a few snipers and also some marine dudes this has happened to. Know some guys at the local range I go to , this has happened to. If you can picture how this trigger setup is built it is super easy to see how this trigger assy. can easily fail. one easy way to describe it, would be a see saw, with two people balancing on either side, with one side slightly higher than the other, to describe the trigger being in the cocked position. The balance or log in the middle, is the part in question, the trigger disconnector. Now imagine the above scenario, and say the Hulk comes along, and super fast, pulls the balancing log out from under the see saw.
the see saw, being the trigger mech on one side, and the sear on the other, is all gonna drop out of its open-lock position no matter how it falls.
Of course remmy could get away with this for so long; as long as you completely clean the trigger mech between usage, and as long as you allways point it in a safe direction--- it does not matter if the rifle preamy fires or not, it would not be dangerous and not hit anyone if it goes off, if you have it pointed in a safed direction. And since they tell you this in the owner's manual, this is how they get around not be held accountable.
It is interesting that the trigger fix they have come up with now, or the new trigger assy., is the same one they had on their table from the origional inventer of the old trigger pack, about 50 years ago, which would have cost them about 20,000 rifles, and 5 cents per rifle, to retrofit.

TO LLOVELESS.... I also have a remmy 788, and they are absolutely renouned for dropping the hammer, when moving the safety!!!! Or simply being able to pull the trigger, even after you have manipulated the safety. I have since dropped a replacement Timney trigger pac in mine, to get rid of the problem, but the 788 is downright famous for it. so if you have the origional trigger pac in yours, take it apart, keep it clean, dry, the moving parts very slightly lubed if at all, and all-
ways be damn careful when manipulating it, especially the safety, when loaded.
And if you are feeling froggy, go ahead and spend the 80 bucks or so , for a Timney drop in
replacement.

I missed the first five minutes, did cnbc mention safe handling rules at all?

That would be akin to covering the explorer/firestone situation and not mentioning that going 70mph on a turn on a 95* day with 15psi in your suvs tires is a bad idea.

Ok she pointed the loaded rifle at her son not aimed. I also will not point a loaded gun at my son or anyone else i dont intend to kill.

Click to expand...

You really were not paying attention to the show, were you? Barber did not point the rifle at her son. You keep stating that her actions were intentional in this regard and they were not. Once again, just before the gun discharged, Barber's son was on a horse with his sister and they were not behind the horse trailer that was some distance from Barber. In the intervening time, the son had dismounted and gone around behind the trailer. The gun discharged and the round struct the son that was unseen by Barber.

I missed the first five minutes, did cnbc mention safe handling rules at all?

Click to expand...

Amazing. You come in hard making claims about information on the show and come to find out you missed part of the show that partially covers the information you are discussing.

Did they list the 4 safety rules per se? Nope. Did they mention the aspect of unsafe gun handling on the part of the folks when there was injury or death, yes, including with the Barber case.

They also clearly noted that in a CYA effort on the part of Remington, Remington and a PR company developed the "10 Commandments" of gun handling, #3 of which says to not trust the gun's safety. How ironic that a company with countless complaints pertaining the safety on their guns would come up with such a rule.

CNBC did mention the 10 safety rules of gun handling that they say Remington helped to develop and that are packed with each new gun. During the interveiw with the trigger designer and former Remington employee, now age 98, he implied the mom/boy accident could have been caused by a trigger pull and that nearly all accidents result from poor handling habits of owners, which is fact.

I consider myself a very safe and knowledeable user, and I owned an early 700 for 10 years or so, I would not buy another 700 and would be reluctant to hunt with others who do.

Hey, "stuff" happens sometimes and I'd rather not take the risk.

The CNBC piece implied that non-trigger pull firings ocurr even on new 700 guns and new and old 700s that have been checked by experts, although I have no way to confirm that this is true.

Rule #3: Never rely on a safety

.....But gee whiz, safeties should at least be designed to be safe; right? Apparently, when unloading, the old 700 does not retract the firing pin or lock the trigger! That does not sound too safe to me.

Yeh, I beleive at least some of the non-trigger pull firing incidents are a result of incorrect trigger adjustments by non-gun smiths, which is unfortunate for Remington and their owners.

A friend of mine thought he did something to cause an AD with his Rem 270. He shot through the roof of the hunting cabin. The next day while in the blind, he spotted a good deer, moved the safety to fire position, and the gun fired.

did cnbc mention safe handling rules at all?

Click to expand...

So then you feel the ddefect is acceptable?

Everything Cerebrus sticks their marketing fingers into seems to turn to sh**?

Click to expand...

The condition existed long before they entered the picture.

Scalzo read the rest of my post not covering safety rules is like covering exploder/firestone without mentioning tire pressure/difference between a truck and corvette.

CNBC I can usually trust to deliver good news.

Click to expand...

You MUST be joking! NAH, CNBC wouldn't have an anti-gun agenda....!!!!! :O

a father searching for answers about the death of his nine-year-old son.

Click to expand...

I have the answer. Don't point loaded weapons at people. It's one of the main rules of gun handling.

What could she have done better?

Click to expand...

Point loaded weapons at the ground or in confirmed safe directions. Pointing them at the horse trailer is not a safe direction as she learned the hard way.

That would be akin to covering the explorer/firestone situation and not mentioning that going 70mph on a turn on a 95* day with 15psi in your suvs tires is a bad idea.

Click to expand...

Having two Explorers during that time frame, Ford never suggested 15psi. They suggested 28psi. Still, I don't see the correlation between the two. The Firestone's were not defective as far as I was aware. It was pr to obtain a better ride.

In the case of the 700, there is a problem an nothing was done about it. It probably was a combination of a poor design with owners attempting to lighten a poor trigger. More agree out of the box they are not the best. As far as not closing the bolt until just ready to fire...that's a bit unrealistic in some cases. In addition, pointing a rifle at the ground because the chance of a discharge is a distinct possibility is not acceptable nor does it eliminate the chance of a possible injury.

Other manufacturers have had similar problems and the recalls were almost immediately after discovery. S&W handled a similar situation without fanfare. Costly to the company but they did the right thing.