PDA

View Full Version : Remington 700 Poll


Palmetto-Pride
November 13, 2010, 04:58 PM
Out of all those people that had the Remington 700 accidentally fire, if they had followed the number one rule in gun safety and had the gun pointed in a safe direction would anybody or anything have gotten hurt or killed.

TMackey
November 13, 2010, 06:07 PM
And if the rifle didn't go off when it wasn't supposed to, no one would have been hurt or killed.

You can also say if Remington had implemented the 5.5 cent fix that the trigger designer came up with, we wouldn't be discussing this subject today. ;)

I don't believe Remington is TOTALLY to blame but they are certainly not innocent in all of this.

madmag
November 13, 2010, 06:12 PM
gun pointed in a safe direction

There is no real safe direction when a gun discharges unexpectedly. There is only what you hope is the safer direction.

LanceOregon
November 13, 2010, 06:13 PM
Out of all those people that had the Remington 700 accidentally fire, if they had followed the number one rule in gun safety and had the gun pointed in a safe direction would anybody or anything have gotten hurt or killed.

Your poll is totally irrelevant.

Safeties are supposed to work, and not malfunction.

.

FrankenMauser
November 13, 2010, 06:15 PM
You're asking a question, but wanting responses appropriate for a statement.

You may want to edit your post to clarify what the statement is (since the poll is not likely to be editable now).

Bamashooter
November 13, 2010, 06:16 PM
you should always be aware of where your muzzle is pointing. There is no excuse for shoddy gun handling. Even when you are taking it off safety.

madmag
November 13, 2010, 06:17 PM
Safeties are supposed to work, and not malfunction.

That's really the bottom line. Lots of different scenarios.

There is no excuse for shoddy gun handling. Even when you are taking it off safety.

A S.W.A.T. has a BG holding a hostage in his sights and he get ready to fire by moving his safety to off and the rifle fires.......what safe direction?? Not exactly shoody gun handling.:confused:

madmag
November 13, 2010, 06:21 PM
Safeties are suppose to render the firearm safe not cause it to fire.....end of story.

the blur
November 13, 2010, 06:32 PM
Is there a safe direction when a bullet travels 5 miles :mad:

Bamashooter
November 13, 2010, 06:55 PM
yes blur there is.. towards the target or towards the ground. not your buddy's head.

madmag
November 13, 2010, 06:55 PM
I am thinking how it would be to market a new rifle with a safety defect that causes it to fire when the safety is moved to off.

So you tell your distributors that this is a great rifle, it does have a safety, but make sure you tell your customers to keep it pointed in a safe direction when they take the safety off. Just to be real safe tell them to aim the rifle just as they would when they pull the trigger, then if the safety causes the rifle to fire...no harm. If it does not cause the rifle to fire then go ahead and pull the trigger.

Good luck with your sales numbers.:rolleyes:

Sometimes you know you have spent more time on a thread than you should.....that's me.:)

jmr40
November 13, 2010, 07:06 PM
No such thing as a safe direction to have an AD. Bullets ricochet or fragment when fired into the ground. What goes up will come down. Bystanders, as well as the shooter are still at risk.

Just design a gun that won't fire until the trigger is pulled.

bensdad
November 13, 2010, 07:14 PM
You assume that the people involved did not follow gun safety. As others have posted, this is an issue regarding the safety mechanism by Remington.

TXGunNut
November 13, 2010, 07:31 PM
It's not an accident, it's a mechanical failure. Safety is paramount and an unsafe firearm makes any situation it's used in a dangerous situation. Like it or not we trust our equipment to perform as designed.

TMackey
November 13, 2010, 08:23 PM
Just think of the posts if it was Hi Point having this problem. ;)

mpd61
November 13, 2010, 09:24 PM
Anything manufactured by man can/will fail. (Mechanical safety)

One rule is paramount to firearms safety=Muzzle control. 100% True

Most safety doctrine in print for the last half-century stresses to NEVER rely on ANY mechanical safety. It is not a substitute for "muzzle control" or "Never point at anything you do not want to shoot" rules.

Unless you guys were there at any of these Rem 700 incidents, or have been directly involved in an accidental shooting which caused a death, then perhaps you should stop and think before you assign the culpability to the manufacturer.
BTW...Check this out, after the CNBC "report"

http://www.remington700.tv/#/home

madmag
November 14, 2010, 10:09 AM
Unless you guys were there at any of these Rem 700 incidents, or have been directly involved in an accidental shooting which caused a death, then perhaps you should stop and think before you assign the culpability to the manufacturer.

Not necessary to be there for any accidental shootings. This is about a mechanical design flaw that can be viewed by looking at the design itself. And by the fact the original designer discovered the flaw in 1948 and recommend a design change that was later refused due to cost.

I have seen the Remington reasons several times. It is good PR but does not address the details of the design flaw and Walkers recommend blocking design.

There are two long threads you can find here that beat the subject to death. Also this technical document that gives good explanation of the design flaw.

http://www.flinthillsdiesel.com/Remington-Walker.pdf

Remington has lost and will probably continue to lose this one in court suits.

Slamfire
November 14, 2010, 10:37 AM
Given that you are not in control of when the trigger fails, are you always in control of who or what is there when the bullet lands.?

The answer is "No".

This account is from another forum .

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/8511049141/p/4

I can account for a death in El Paso Texas back in the 1960s when a friend of mine, who lived up on the side of Mount Franklin, attempted to unload a Mod 700 in his driveway! When he moved the safety forward so he could open the bolt the rifle went off, and his hand was not touching the trigger. He immediately called the police to tell them if they got a call about a gun shot it was an accidental discharge of his rifle in his driveway. Ten minutes later a police car arrived in his drive way. They had also gotten a call from the wife of a man who was shot in the head while mowing his lawn about three quarters of a mile away down hill from my friend's home. This is not hearsay I was there, and it is a matter of record.

madmag
November 14, 2010, 11:25 AM
Slamfire, no reason to not believe the El Paso story. There have been postings on these threads about first hand accounts of the safety failure. I have no reason to dis-believe those accounts.

An interesting aspect of this 700 issue.

Just think that if it was before this became a public issue and you asked on gun forums if it was acceptable to have a modern gun design that could cause a firearm to discharge when the safety is moved to the off position. My guess is the vote would have been 99% that it is not acceptable.

Added: It is extremely hard for me to believe that the same people arguing safe direction would go into a gun store and purchase a rifle that had a safety tag saying {danger, this rifle might discharge when the safety is moved to the off position}....at least I know I would not purchase any firearm with that warning.

L2R
November 14, 2010, 12:01 PM
I think it is reasonable to expect a gun and safety to work as the owner intends it to and as the maker claims. Here is the sticking point to me and the manufacturers obligation.

We as customers should not be put in an unexpected position of being put in a crisis situation and being unprepared to deal with it.

We have an obligation to use these in a safe manner but these peoples thought process and good habits didn't prepare them for this.

madmag
November 14, 2010, 12:50 PM
We have an obligation to use these in a safe manner

That's a good and reasonable point. I still have two basic problems.

First it was reasonable for Remington to make Walker's suggested change starting in 1948.

Second, the real truth is there are times when there is no 100% safe direction, there is only what we perceive as the safest direction. I prefer to only have a gun discharge when I pull the trigger.....period.

jmr40
November 14, 2010, 06:39 PM
According to court documents Remington has over 10,000 complaints from owners who claim their guns fired without pulling the trigger. There have only been a handful of injuries and deaths. It seems most Remington owners are pretty careful about muzzle control.

Remington would prefer us to believe all 10,000 of those people really pulled the trigger and just don't remember it.

the blur
November 14, 2010, 06:55 PM
I'd be hard pressed to buy another remington firearm.
I'm looking for a shotgun, and now it'll probably be Benelli.
If remington took responsibility, than maybe I'd change my tune.

Talking about muzzle control only goes so far.

let's say I'm walking in the woods, gun is on sling, muzzle up. Bang, bullet goes 5 miles up, and 5 miles down. hits someone on the way down...

Which has happened upstate NY.
Kid shoots .30 caliber up in the air. bullet stuck old lady coming down 2 towns over. They actually found the kid, and locked him up.

DoctorXring
November 14, 2010, 07:32 PM
.


I have had a long standing rule on the lease I'm manager
of. NO closed bolts on rifles on the property unless in the
blind. NO exceptions.

dxr

.

ethan95
November 14, 2010, 08:58 PM
Safeties are a mechanical device and mechanical devices can fail, the one in your brain works wonders. Those 10 basic rules of fire safety go a long way

user
November 14, 2010, 09:18 PM
Guns are made to be dangerous. That's why they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That's why rule one is, "always point the muzzle in a safe direction", and the second is like unto it: "always treat the gun as if it were loaded and might discharge". Anyone who pointed his gun at another human being and then chambered a round was doing something he knew or ought to have known was unreasonably dangerous. In legal terms, that's not just contributory negligence, that's a "supervening cause" which ought to cut off the liability of the gun manufacturer. I wonder why Remington has been settling all those wrongful death suits (at a rate of about six or seven a year)? I wish I could represent them and take the case to trial. I'd implead the shooter with the claim that Remington isn't liable, and if it is, then it was the shooter who caused the problem, and demand indemnification from him.

madmag
November 14, 2010, 11:22 PM
I wonder why Remington has been settling all those wrongful death suits (at a rate of about six or seven a year)?

Great question. Perhaps searching the details of the suing parties arguments might shed some light on why Remington continues to lose cases.

I wish I could represent them and take the case to trial. I'd implead the shooter with the claim that Remington isn't liable, and if it is, then it was the shooter who caused the problem, and demand indemnification from him.

I am an engineer not an attorney, so I don't know about such legal stuff. But if you are right then I am sure Remington would like to know your argument. It seems a shame that they have lost millions when all they had to do was to point out "it was the shooter who caused the problem".