Cnbc remington hit job
- Thread starter Six
- Start date
- Status
General Lee
Member
Guns don't kill people. Stupid people with guns kill people. Edited for family friendliness.
Skylerbone
Member
Maybe the next CNBC special will be on Glock KBs. Maybe next month they'll talk about Ruger's huge recalls or Beretta slides breaking off and injuring shooters.
Is anyone surprised Remington is working on damage control? Just in the Rifle Country section here at THR there are 3 threads with a combined total of 11,802 views. Imagine what it is web-wide and that doesn't count those who aren't interested in forums who watched and accepted everything as fact. I imagine CNBC did just what they hoped to do, slingshot a giant in the firearms industry with a cheap shot.
I looked at Remington's response and found it truly interesting. My only affiliation with the company is as an owner of several Remington firearms. I also own Berettas, S&Ws, Knights, an RRA, Ruger and Stevens.
Sometimes cars don't work. Sometimes a child chokes on a toy and dies. Sometimes a new wonder drug adversely affects some people. I don't congratulate the trial lawyers and "news" outlets that sensationalize these stories and take products off the market because of fluke circumstances. Anyone remember the kid in grade school who stabbed himself with a pencil?
Is anyone surprised Remington is working on damage control? Just in the Rifle Country section here at THR there are 3 threads with a combined total of 11,802 views. Imagine what it is web-wide and that doesn't count those who aren't interested in forums who watched and accepted everything as fact. I imagine CNBC did just what they hoped to do, slingshot a giant in the firearms industry with a cheap shot.
I looked at Remington's response and found it truly interesting. My only affiliation with the company is as an owner of several Remington firearms. I also own Berettas, S&Ws, Knights, an RRA, Ruger and Stevens.
Sometimes cars don't work. Sometimes a child chokes on a toy and dies. Sometimes a new wonder drug adversely affects some people. I don't congratulate the trial lawyers and "news" outlets that sensationalize these stories and take products off the market because of fluke circumstances. Anyone remember the kid in grade school who stabbed himself with a pencil?
MTMilitiaman
Member
Something bad about Remington triggers?
Okay, here goes...
The trigger on the last three M700s we've bought in this family have been pretty bad. The trigger on the ADL .270 more than a little perceivable creep, was sluggish and sloppy, and a little heavy. The trigger on the .300 Win ADL was a little heavier but not as "creepy" or sluggish. The trigger on my 7mm Rem BDL had a little creep but not bad. It broke fine but was a little gritty and heavy. I think this was due to Remington attempting to lawyerize their rifles. They all cleaned up just fine with a little professional attention. The trigger on my BDL now breaks clean and crisp like fresh mountain air at 2.5 pounds.
But I don't think that is the kind of problems being discussed here. Without reading through six pages of material, I am guessing we are discussing the problem (alleged problem?) with the Remington M700 firing when the safety is disengaged, or the like? I know there have been documented cases of this occurring, and I know it was brought to Remington's attention and they attempted to remedy it. Sometime in the late 70s, I believe, is when they introduced the non-bolt lock safety that allowed the rifle to be loaded and unloaded without disengaging the safety. Regardless, I was under the impression that most of the cases where this had occurred, it had been proven that tampering with the trigger unit or lack of maintenance was to blame. Remington specifically recommends against unauthorized tampering with the trigger simply because it is possible to adjust the sear engagement to dangerous levels. And they also provide cleaning instructions with their rifles. I don't know what more you can ask for. Sometimes when a manufacture makes a recommendation to do or not to do something, it is for a legitimate reason. If you want to play gunsmith in your garage against this recommendation, fine. But if you insist on playing with fire and get burned, don't blame the company that just warned you about what could happen. Know what you're doing or send it to a professional. Keep gunk out of the trigger assembly--clean and dry as per usual--and for God's sake, when did we start blaming the manufacture for our lack of muzzle awareness?
My family has a several M700s ranging from earlier ones with the bolt lock to fairly new ones without the lock. I think I bought my BDL the year before they came out with the BDL cause I kicked myself for it--I wanted that two inches of barrel length they tacked on the CDL. They've been safe, accurate, and decently reliable rifles for us and have put a lot of meat on the table. That being said, I am replacing my BDL due to reliability problems I am experiencing with it, and it probably won't be replaced with a Remington. Never had a problem with them going off without the trigger being pulled, or not going off when the trigger was pulled. But we've always let others more competent than ourselves mess with the triggers.
And IIRC, the Remington M700 has only been out since the early 60s. So documents pertaining to it from 1945 are going to be a neat trick.
Okay, here goes...
The trigger on the last three M700s we've bought in this family have been pretty bad. The trigger on the ADL .270 more than a little perceivable creep, was sluggish and sloppy, and a little heavy. The trigger on the .300 Win ADL was a little heavier but not as "creepy" or sluggish. The trigger on my 7mm Rem BDL had a little creep but not bad. It broke fine but was a little gritty and heavy. I think this was due to Remington attempting to lawyerize their rifles. They all cleaned up just fine with a little professional attention. The trigger on my BDL now breaks clean and crisp like fresh mountain air at 2.5 pounds.
But I don't think that is the kind of problems being discussed here. Without reading through six pages of material, I am guessing we are discussing the problem (alleged problem?) with the Remington M700 firing when the safety is disengaged, or the like? I know there have been documented cases of this occurring, and I know it was brought to Remington's attention and they attempted to remedy it. Sometime in the late 70s, I believe, is when they introduced the non-bolt lock safety that allowed the rifle to be loaded and unloaded without disengaging the safety. Regardless, I was under the impression that most of the cases where this had occurred, it had been proven that tampering with the trigger unit or lack of maintenance was to blame. Remington specifically recommends against unauthorized tampering with the trigger simply because it is possible to adjust the sear engagement to dangerous levels. And they also provide cleaning instructions with their rifles. I don't know what more you can ask for. Sometimes when a manufacture makes a recommendation to do or not to do something, it is for a legitimate reason. If you want to play gunsmith in your garage against this recommendation, fine. But if you insist on playing with fire and get burned, don't blame the company that just warned you about what could happen. Know what you're doing or send it to a professional. Keep gunk out of the trigger assembly--clean and dry as per usual--and for God's sake, when did we start blaming the manufacture for our lack of muzzle awareness?
My family has a several M700s ranging from earlier ones with the bolt lock to fairly new ones without the lock. I think I bought my BDL the year before they came out with the BDL cause I kicked myself for it--I wanted that two inches of barrel length they tacked on the CDL. They've been safe, accurate, and decently reliable rifles for us and have put a lot of meat on the table. That being said, I am replacing my BDL due to reliability problems I am experiencing with it, and it probably won't be replaced with a Remington. Never had a problem with them going off without the trigger being pulled, or not going off when the trigger was pulled. But we've always let others more competent than ourselves mess with the triggers.
And IIRC, the Remington M700 has only been out since the early 60s. So documents pertaining to it from 1945 are going to be a neat trick.
Uncle Mike
Member
What's wrong with it, if you don't mind me asking?
Maverick223
Member
It was based on the 721 & 722, which date back to the '40s.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Since when is it a cheap shot to disclose a safety problem? The truth isn't always to our liking, but that does not make it a cheap shot.
You have some sort of evidence to back up the claim that the failures were flukes? CNBC presented quite a bit of evidence to show that these failures aren't flukes.
Nope, only that after decades of problems and paying out 10s of million in settlements before Remington undertook any sort of damage control.
Maverick223
Member
+1, in fact I believe it is our responsibility to notify other folks of potential safety concerns. What they do with such information is their own business.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Okay, I'm sorry. But if you're cleaning your rifle and you forget to clear it and it shoots through the floor and kills someone in the basement, that's your fault. Not the guns. And if you're clearing a malfunction on the range, and the gun goes off, and it hits the dude in the lane next to you, that is your fault. Not the guns. So if you're clearing your rifle in the field and it goes off and shoots through the horse trailer and hits your kid, it's tragic, I'm sorry, but guess what...it's your fault. We all know firearms are man made tools. They break, they malfunction, it happens. It shouldn't, but it does. We train to clear stoppages because this reflects the reality that stoppages do occur, usually when least convenient.
Now we also take measures to fix or replace gear we know to be broken or defective. So I am not excusing Remington from not fixing an issue they knew about decades ago. But flat out, blaming Remington for deaths that occur even as a result of defective products is bunk when these injuries would not have occurred if the operator would have complied with a few simple rules.
That is what this comes down to. These rules are simple, so people seem to take them for granted. Yes, simple, but important rules. These aren't circumstantial guidelines or polite suggestions. Know where your muzzle is pointed. Know what is beyond it. Because yes, your gun may be broken. It may have been made by the lowest bidder and/or assembled by monkeys. And if it goes off when the safety is taken off, you are still morally accountable for where that bullet ends up. No excuses. It's that simple.
So there's a father's answer. And it didn't even take 60 years and a 1 hr media special. Four simple rules.
I had a small town gunsmith install a Sako extractor on it. Even after two tries he's been unable to get it tensioned properly (or something), so it fails to eject if the bolt is worked fast. As a result you end up double feeding when you then push the bolt forward.
I realize the issue isn't Remington's. Just heard a lot of issues with Remington's quality lately and have become intrigued by other rifles. Right now I'd go with a Savage M116 Weather Warrior for a push feed or a Ruger M77 for a CRF. Those are the two models I am looking at now.
Still love my M870. But that is the only thing Remington makes worth much of a crap to me right now. Don't need a basic entry level 1911, can find plenty of alternatives to the M700 for bolt action rifles, and wouldn't take a another 597 unless they paid me to, and even then I'd still use my 10/22 more.
Now we also take measures to fix or replace gear we know to be broken or defective. So I am not excusing Remington from not fixing an issue they knew about decades ago. But flat out, blaming Remington for deaths that occur even as a result of defective products is bunk when these injuries would not have occurred if the operator would have complied with a few simple rules.
That is what this comes down to. These rules are simple, so people seem to take them for granted. Yes, simple, but important rules. These aren't circumstantial guidelines or polite suggestions. Know where your muzzle is pointed. Know what is beyond it. Because yes, your gun may be broken. It may have been made by the lowest bidder and/or assembled by monkeys. And if it goes off when the safety is taken off, you are still morally accountable for where that bullet ends up. No excuses. It's that simple.
So there's a father's answer. And it didn't even take 60 years and a 1 hr media special. Four simple rules.
I had a small town gunsmith install a Sako extractor on it. Even after two tries he's been unable to get it tensioned properly (or something), so it fails to eject if the bolt is worked fast. As a result you end up double feeding when you then push the bolt forward.
I realize the issue isn't Remington's. Just heard a lot of issues with Remington's quality lately and have become intrigued by other rifles. Right now I'd go with a Savage M116 Weather Warrior for a push feed or a Ruger M77 for a CRF. Those are the two models I am looking at now.
Still love my M870. But that is the only thing Remington makes worth much of a crap to me right now. Don't need a basic entry level 1911, can find plenty of alternatives to the M700 for bolt action rifles, and wouldn't take a another 597 unless they paid me to, and even then I'd still use my 10/22 more.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Actually, they are just that, "suggestions." They are "rules" with no means of enforcement. They are "rules" not specifically covered by law.
Fault is a whole other issue. When an injury or death occurs as a result of an equipment malfunction, the fault is not just with the operator.
robertbartsc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 87
During slow business news cycles, CNBC keeps re-playing old pieces, over and over, and over, and over..... they must have played the california pot growing piece 100 times now....
anyway, that means this story has legs.... unfortunately, safety was given just a little discussion which means it was not a very balanced piece...
I still think Rem's best option is a recall, however.
anyway, that means this story has legs.... unfortunately, safety was given just a little discussion which means it was not a very balanced piece...
I still think Rem's best option is a recall, however.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Some rules enforce themselves.
And yes, the fault is solely with the operator.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
You know, that doesn't even make sense, but it is creative. But if the rules do enforce themselves as you claim, how is it that people are able to break them so often without enforcement? Where does the power of auto-enforcement come from for the rules?
Yeah, I like the rule, err, commandment, that Remington came up with after the Barber incident. Commandment #3, never trust the safety. Ironic given than Remington's guns had been having problems with the safeties for decades.
As for the fault being with the operator. Numerous lawsuits and out of court settlements indicate the majority of the fault being with Remington.
MTMilitiaman
Member
It actually makes a lot of sense, when you think about it. All the good rules do a pretty good job of enforcing themselves. Rules that exist out of necessity tend to remind you why they are necessary on a regular basis when broken. Rules like "look both ways before crossing the street" or "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Thing is, you break these rules and you don't go to court. You cross the street without looking enough times, that rule will enforce itself. And if you treat people like crap, people are probably going to treat you like crap. Same with The Four Rules. There aren't Gun-Safety Police supervising you, but if you don't watch your muzzle and make a habit of poor trigger discipline, it will eventually nip you in the butt.
And don't get too caught up in enforcement as a means to validate rules. There is supposed to be enforcement for a bunch of rules that get broken on a regular basis without enforcement.
The fault for the broken guns was Remington's and they should have to pay. But not a single person would be injured as a result of these broken or defective guns if the operator's had followed a few simple rules. The blame for the injuries and deaths therefore lies fully on the operators. We all handle guns on a regular basis with the understanding that they were designed and made by man, and that they can and will break and malfunction. This does not excuse us from following the rules any more than the lack, or perceived lack, of adequate enforcement. Because I don't care how well you cry for a jury--you shoot through a horse trailer and kill my son, I am going to want to know why you were being careless and irresponsible.
"But the gun was broken, it just went off," isn't going to cut it. That is a BS cop-out excuse that may work for a room full of sheep in a jury booth but doesn't cut it with me as a responsible gun owner, and certainly wouldn't cut it for me as a father missing his son.
robertbartsc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 87
During the CNBC piece, I kept thinking how I would vote if I were a jury member and the Barber or other Remington cases were brought to trial.
* Yeh, your gun MAY or MAY not have fired without a trigger pull, but why was the muzzle pointed at the horse trailer when you were trying to safely (???) unload?
* Why did you point the gun at your leg when unloading?
* Why did you point a loaded high power rifle at a women's head when you were inside a house and handling your m700?
* Why did you point the gun at your hunting friends' wrist when unloading your gun?
* Why did you point the gun muzzle at your wife's tummy when unloading your gun?
Well, frankly, there is no excuse for poor (dumb?) but tragic gun handling. ...break the rules of safe gun handling and face the very serious and unfortunate consequences. CNBC gave the "short shift" to these safety lessons; Hey, the gun discharged so Remington and not the gun owners must be blamed. Booooo!
Yeh, the m700 guns probably should be recalled, but probably not all of the m700 accidents would have been prevented either......
* Yeh, your gun MAY or MAY not have fired without a trigger pull, but why was the muzzle pointed at the horse trailer when you were trying to safely (???) unload?
* Why did you point the gun at your leg when unloading?
* Why did you point a loaded high power rifle at a women's head when you were inside a house and handling your m700?
* Why did you point the gun at your hunting friends' wrist when unloading your gun?
* Why did you point the gun muzzle at your wife's tummy when unloading your gun?
Well, frankly, there is no excuse for poor (dumb?) but tragic gun handling. ...break the rules of safe gun handling and face the very serious and unfortunate consequences. CNBC gave the "short shift" to these safety lessons; Hey, the gun discharged so Remington and not the gun owners must be blamed. Booooo!
Yeh, the m700 guns probably should be recalled, but probably not all of the m700 accidents would have been prevented either......
I think the bottom line is this, and it isnt singling out remington or any other manufacturer of firearms.....the only casualty of a mechanical/operator weapons malfunction should be the operators underwear! We all know or SHOULD know where the muzzle is pointed at all times, and that rule is non-negotiable.
robertbartsc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 87
....Apparently, CNBC beleives a government mandated recall could not have been ordered by Uncle Sam as a result of the Second Amendment.
Is this true? Exactly why would that be true?
Is this true? Exactly why would that be true?
Maverick223
Member
Per my understanding that is correct. Due to the 2nd Amendment, firearms manufacturers (as well as ammunition manufacturers) are self regulating (some have standards institutions, like SAAMI, in place for safety and standardization purposes) and protected from government mandated standards. Which is as it should be, because it is likely that NO firearm would be considered safe per their arbitrary standards (effectively putting arms and ammunition manufacturers out of business, thereby destroying our personal liberties).
Uncle Mike
Member
Hehehe, you too, welcome to the club!
Skylerbone
Member
Actually that's not true. Amendment #2 does not preclude the feds stepping in to regulate the firearms industry it is a series of federal laws that do. Because of that, they too are in danger of being rewritten at any time forcing courts to decide the issue for all of us.
That is why all of us have a sacred duty to uphold next Tuesday. I commend Remington for responding so quickly to the allegations and don't blame them one bit for refusing to contribute to the CNBC "report". They, with their legal team understand too well what a recall would signal to those willing to twist words.
On a personal note, I took Remington's suggestion (ok, it's a warning in the manual saying the warranty will be voided and the firearm may be unsafe) to not further alter my 700 trigger (it went to the gs when new for some trigger "smoothing") and bought a Rifle Basix. It should be here in a few days and is capable of being lightened to my needs. They even let me specify the pull weight from the factory and shipped the same day.
That is why all of us have a sacred duty to uphold next Tuesday. I commend Remington for responding so quickly to the allegations and don't blame them one bit for refusing to contribute to the CNBC "report". They, with their legal team understand too well what a recall would signal to those willing to twist words.
On a personal note, I took Remington's suggestion (ok, it's a warning in the manual saying the warranty will be voided and the firearm may be unsafe) to not further alter my 700 trigger (it went to the gs when new for some trigger "smoothing") and bought a Rifle Basix. It should be here in a few days and is capable of being lightened to my needs. They even let me specify the pull weight from the factory and shipped the same day.
Last edited:
Skylerbone
Member
DNS, in response to your questions:
It's a cheap shot because it was a biased report that did not disclose much information at all. If I claim my car accellerates without touching the pedal but I've adjusted the throttle arm to do so, would you call it evidence? How about scientific proof? We should expect the truth (it wasn't) the whole truth (not even close) and nothing but the truth (Remington's responses show a major amount of made up "evidence").
How is it a fluke? 44 out of 5,000,000+ is statistically insignificant to promote the conclusion that there is a Major Flaw in anything. If anything, they show an ocasional lack of quality control, again insignificant. Surly it isn't insignificant if you were one of the 44 but believing ANY other brand, line up or model of firearm on the market is SO much safer is beyond naieve.
Damage control: where is your evidence of Remington paying out 10s of millions in claims? You're starting to sound like a CNBC reporter. There was no amount given as none exists beyond the walls of Remington. I'm sure they've paid to settle before, but how much is purly speculation.
Glocks blow up and they quietly alter chamber support without a recall. Why? Because the most credible number I could find was 2: the number of Glocks that KB'd and weren't altered or shooting reloaded ammo. They changed it anyway. Remington introduces a new trigger system and people cry foul.
The manual of any firearm tells you what you're not to do and theirs says don't modify, shoot factory fresh ammo only, clean, lubricate, etc. If people abuse or misuse a tool IT IS NOT THE MANUFACTURER'S FAULT!
It's a cheap shot because it was a biased report that did not disclose much information at all. If I claim my car accellerates without touching the pedal but I've adjusted the throttle arm to do so, would you call it evidence? How about scientific proof? We should expect the truth (it wasn't) the whole truth (not even close) and nothing but the truth (Remington's responses show a major amount of made up "evidence").
How is it a fluke? 44 out of 5,000,000+ is statistically insignificant to promote the conclusion that there is a Major Flaw in anything. If anything, they show an ocasional lack of quality control, again insignificant. Surly it isn't insignificant if you were one of the 44 but believing ANY other brand, line up or model of firearm on the market is SO much safer is beyond naieve.
Damage control: where is your evidence of Remington paying out 10s of millions in claims? You're starting to sound like a CNBC reporter. There was no amount given as none exists beyond the walls of Remington. I'm sure they've paid to settle before, but how much is purly speculation.
Glocks blow up and they quietly alter chamber support without a recall. Why? Because the most credible number I could find was 2: the number of Glocks that KB'd and weren't altered or shooting reloaded ammo. They changed it anyway. Remington introduces a new trigger system and people cry foul.
The manual of any firearm tells you what you're not to do and theirs says don't modify, shoot factory fresh ammo only, clean, lubricate, etc. If people abuse or misuse a tool IT IS NOT THE MANUFACTURER'S FAULT!
robertbartsc
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 87
On the issue of the Second Amendment prohibiting the Feds from forcing Reminton to recall the M700, it seems like a overeaching view based on my reading of the law.
I'm not an attorney but the Feds have banned the public from owning fully auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, armor-piercing bullets, cop-killing bullets, exploding bullets, etc. Why can't the Fed also regulate remedies to fix so-called defective guns?
I'm not an attorney but the Feds have banned the public from owning fully auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, armor-piercing bullets, cop-killing bullets, exploding bullets, etc. Why can't the Fed also regulate remedies to fix so-called defective guns?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Skylerbone, you didn't see the report did you? Remington has a huge stack of complaints about the guns discharging without the trigger being pulled.
Oh I get it now. You are operating with on "ostrich head in the sand" system. Because you don't have any knowledge of settlements, they don't exist. This is called a negative proof fallacy.
Where is my evidence that Remington has paid 10s of millions of dollars? Are you that naive? You think CNBC made up their facts? Here is the first $17 million paid to Glenn Collins. I hope you trust Business Week.
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/docs/Business-Week-Article-Remington.pdf
Here is $765,000
http://hightangel.com/pdf/Bledsoe-Award.pdf
Here is $775,000
I won't do all the work for you, but you get the idea.
Maybe you are upset that CNBC didn't show you all of the memos, only cherry picking the tasty parts and then failing to disclose the fact that Remington had no knowledge of these problems...along the lines of what Remington's response said? Here's your sign.
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/pdf/CNBC.Early 1940s Remington memos.pdf
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/docs/Remington-79-80-Memo.pdf
Maybe you think the Consumer Reports article was false also?
Drinnon Law did not reproduce all the complaints for their web page, but here are a sampling...
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/pdf/CNBC.Sample of Complaints of discharge without a trigger pull.pdf
Yes, and in the 1970s testing done by Remington, they found that 1% of their rifles could be tricked into firing without the trigger being pulled. Those were new rifles, not shipped to consumers, tested right off the assembly line and ready for consumer use. So even if you followed the manual precisely, you still had a 1% chance of getting a gun that did not function correctly according to Remington...through no fault of the consumer. Maybe you are suggesting that Remington does things to their rifles that are not in accord with the manuals?
I am not sure where you get the number 44. There have been at least 75 lawsuits filed against Remington for the fire control problem, but those aren't the only complaints, just the only ones filed in court.
Whether or not any other brand is "SO much safer" is not relevant. The issue is not with any other brand but with Remington, but that is a nice ignoratio elenchi (red herring). If you wish to debate the quality of Glock or any other company, you can start another thread. How those companies may or may not have performed has nothing to do with the Remington fire control problem.
Oh I get it now. You are operating with on "ostrich head in the sand" system. Because you don't have any knowledge of settlements, they don't exist. This is called a negative proof fallacy.
Where is my evidence that Remington has paid 10s of millions of dollars? Are you that naive? You think CNBC made up their facts? Here is the first $17 million paid to Glenn Collins. I hope you trust Business Week.
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/docs/Business-Week-Article-Remington.pdf
Here is $765,000
http://hightangel.com/pdf/Bledsoe-Award.pdf
Here is $775,000
I won't do all the work for you, but you get the idea.
Maybe you are upset that CNBC didn't show you all of the memos, only cherry picking the tasty parts and then failing to disclose the fact that Remington had no knowledge of these problems...along the lines of what Remington's response said? Here's your sign.
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/pdf/CNBC.Early 1940s Remington memos.pdf
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/docs/Remington-79-80-Memo.pdf
Maybe you think the Consumer Reports article was false also?
Drinnon Law did not reproduce all the complaints for their web page, but here are a sampling...
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/pdf/CNBC.Sample of Complaints of discharge without a trigger pull.pdf
Yes, and in the 1970s testing done by Remington, they found that 1% of their rifles could be tricked into firing without the trigger being pulled. Those were new rifles, not shipped to consumers, tested right off the assembly line and ready for consumer use. So even if you followed the manual precisely, you still had a 1% chance of getting a gun that did not function correctly according to Remington...through no fault of the consumer. Maybe you are suggesting that Remington does things to their rifles that are not in accord with the manuals?
I am not sure where you get the number 44. There have been at least 75 lawsuits filed against Remington for the fire control problem, but those aren't the only complaints, just the only ones filed in court.
Whether or not any other brand is "SO much safer" is not relevant. The issue is not with any other brand but with Remington, but that is a nice ignoratio elenchi (red herring). If you wish to debate the quality of Glock or any other company, you can start another thread. How those companies may or may not have performed has nothing to do with the Remington fire control problem.
Last edited:
Glocked-N-Loaded
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 119
Spot on! I tried explaining this very thing to my father using very similar examples and he could not grasp the concept, we went round and round and he was very adament that it was soley the rifles fault for being defective. Had the lady been pointing the rifle in a safe direction, the most that would have happened is she would have received quite a startle.
Well, before all these complainers and finger pointers start wrapping their 700's around the nearest tree, and considering that 1% of them have dangerous triggers, I'll take them off your hands for 1% of the value so they wont hurt nobody.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
