Advertisement


Go Back   Utah Guns Forums > Firearm & Shooting Discussion > Rifles
LOGIN

Rifles Talk about Rifles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:54 PM
dieselcruiserhead dieselcruiserhead is offline
SKS Fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Park City
Posts: 216
Default Remington 700 Trigger Issue

I was talking with a friend about Remington 700s and forgot about this..

From some blood sucking Ambulance Chaser:

Quote:
http://www.drinnonlaw.com/Texas-Defe...mington700.php

Defective Remington 700 Bolt-Action Rifles

Remington’s Defective Trigger System
A Historical Summary

Extensive Claims and Litigation History

1. Remington has been aware that its bolt-action rifles will sometimes fire absent a trigger pull.

2. To date, Remington has received thousands of customer complaints of unintended discharge for the Model 700 and 710 alone. Over 100 injured individuals have sued Remington over the same defective design. Remington and its insurers have paid to settle most of the claims rather than admit the defect and pay the cost of a recall and refit thereby leaving millions of persons at risk of their lives and those of their family and friends. click on here to review Remington memo January 2, 1979 wherein Remington admits to its own defect and recognizes the danger to its customers)

3. Ignoring thousands of customer complaints, Remington refused to recall its rifles, install a new trigger, or warn its customers of the potential danger. (click on here to review Remington memo dated January 2, 1979 wherein Remington admits to its own defect and recognizes the danger to its customers)

4. Instead, Remington designed the new 710 (introduced in 2001) using the very same defective M700 fire control.

5. Not surprisingly, Remington has already received numerous complaints from its customers of unintended discharge, mirroring the complaint history of the 700.

The Defect

1. Remington’s trigger mechanism uses an internal component called a “connector” – a design component not used by any other rifle manufacturer. The connector floats on top of the trigger body inside of the gun, but is not physically bound to the trigger in any way other than tension from a spring. When the trigger is pulled, the connecter is pushed forward by the trigger, allowing the sear to fall and fire the rifle.

2. The proper position of the connector under the sear is an overlap of only 25/1000ths of an inch, but because the connector is not bound to the trigger, the connector separates from the trigger body when the rifle is fired and creates a gap between the two parts.

3. Any dirt, debris or manufacturing scrap can then become lodged in the space created between the connector and the trigger, preventing the connector from returning to its original position.

4. Remington’s defective fire control could have been redesigned to eliminate the harm or danger very inexpensively. There is no valid engineering reason why the successfully utilized connectorless designs could not have been used by Remington in its Model 700 and 710.

5. In fact, Remington has recently done just that for the Model 700 with a newly designed trigger, the X-Mark Pro. That design, which eliminates the connector, was completed in 2002. However, Remington chose to continue with its prior unsafe design for financial reasons, never warning the public. Even today, Remington installs the new fire control into some but not all of its bolt-action rifles, leaving many users at risk with the old and defective design.

Jury Verdicts and Appellate Court Opinions of Remington’s Defective Fire Control

1. In Lewy v. Remington, 836 F.2d 1104, 1106-07 (8th Cir. 1988); the Eighth Circuit upheld a finding of punitive damages against Remington in 1985.

2. In Campbell v. Remington Arms Co., 1992 WL 54928 (9th Cir. 1992)(unpublished opinion); affirmed a jury verdict of $724,000 based on a fire on bolt closure, finding no error.

3. Later in 1992, the Texas Supreme Court, in Chapa v. Garcia, specifically describes Remington’s fire control as “defective.”

4. In 1994, a Texas jury rendered a verdict in Collins v. Remington after Glenn Collins lost this foot to a Model 700 accidental discharge. The jury found that the fire control was defective and awarded a $15 million in exemplary damages. The total verdict was in excess of $17 million. (click on here to review Business Week article entitled “Remington Faces A Misfiring Squad”)

5. The verdicts stopped with the Collins verdict. After that, Remington settled all claims. Instead of recalling or replacing the defective fire control, Remington has quietly paid almost $20 million to settle claims out of court, finally replacing the fire control only in 2007.

Remington’s Redesign Efforts After the $17 million Collins Verdict

1. After Collins, Remington again contemplated a recall and again recognized the need to redesign its fire control. Internal documents detail Remington’s extensive knowledge of the problem. However, until it finally introduced a new fire control in 2007 (a design that eliminates the connector), Remington consistently chose to forego a safer design.

Timeline of Redesign Efforts

1. In 1995, Remington openly acknowledges the need to “fix” the fire control and “eliminate” ‘Fire on Safety Release’ malfunction.”

2. In 1997, when Remington embarked on the design of the Model 710, documents reflect Remington’s desire not to include the M700 “Walker” –based fire control in the M710.

3. Remington designers then developed several connectorless fire controls for the M710. Remington documents clearly show that the new designs were favored (“The new concept barrel and fire control analysis was complete with excellent results.”)

4. However, the designs met their downfall during Remington’s economic analysis. Project spending was put on hold in May 1998 “until economics and project is approved.” That approval never came. In August 1998, the safer designs were abandoned due to an “estimated cost increase.”

5. Remington instead decided to pull the unsafe Model 700 fire control off the shelf and use it in the new Model 710 to “eliminate development cost and time.”

6. As Remington began its internal testing of the new Model 710 (with the old Model 700 fire control installed), Remington, knowing the history of the design, warned its internal testers of the possibility of inadvertent discharge;
For each of the four rounds in the magazine the tester will close the bolt “smartly” –(i.e. as quickly as practical” –and be prepared for the rifle to inadvertently follow down or fire).

No such warning is provided to customers that purchase the Model 700 or 710, nor was such a warning given to the Barber parents, whose son died as the result of the trigger defect.

1. In 2000, a Model 710 rifle fired on bolt closure during Remington’s testing. Remington’s own expert witness in litigation admits that Remington “could not nail down” the reason for the discharge without a trigger pull.


Predictably, Remington began receiving reports of injury and accidental discharge from the Model 710 almost identical to the thousands of complaints it had received from the Model 700 soon after its release.

APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLION DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED REMINGTON TRIGGERS ARE STILL BEING TRUSTED AND USED BY THE UNSUSPECTING AMERICAN SPORTSMAN.
__________________
Andre Shoumatoff
UtahFirearms.com Admin
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-12-2009, 05:45 PM
W.R.Buchanan W.R.Buchanan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 124
Default

Andre: no doubt the are plenty of assholes in this world.

As far as the Remington 700 trigger issue, I thnk if it was an issue, they would have done a recall.

Along time ago Ruger redesigned the trigger mechinism on all of their single action revolvers. They made it so you could safely carry the firearm with all six chambers loaded. Prior to that change you had to drop the hammer on an empty cylinder so it wouldn't go off if you bumped the gun accidentially. Many guys riding horses shot themselves in the calf by bumping the hammer while riding. With a .44 mag this would be real unpleasant, hell it would suck with a .22.

They have had a standing offer for 40 years and they advertise on their website, to anyone who has an early 3 screw Ruger pistol to change the mechinism to the new style for FREE. All you do is send the gun to them, they even pay for the return postage and give you back the old parts (for collectors). The gun WILL NOT fire unless the Trigger is held back while dropping the hammer, if the trigger is released like in decocking the gun will not fire.

If Remington had similar problems with a gun that has been in continuous production for 50+ years they would do the same thing.

If this problem was isolated to only a few people then they would probably just pay them off and be done with it.

Let's face it,,,,, There is NO substitute for proper gun handling. And all mishaps with firearms short of blow ups can and should be prevented by just aiming the thing in a safe direction EVERYTIME! You can never slack off on this point, it MUST be adhered to. It can't be stressed enough.

Randy

Last edited by W.R.Buchanan; 12-12-2009 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-2009, 08:34 PM
Roktoys84 Roktoys84 is offline
Click Click BOOM
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cache Valley
Posts: 6
Default

My buddy bought a used 700 that would fire if you slammed to bolt home to hard. We tore it down and the trigger had been adjusted well past it's limits. We just adjusted it back to factory specs (maybe a little lighter than stock) and haven't had anymore issues. I think the flaw with the 700 trigger is that it is easily adjustable but can be made too light. The accutrigger is a better system imho.
__________________
Μολὼν λάβε
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2009, 09:54 AM
dieselcruiserhead dieselcruiserhead is offline
SKS Fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Park City
Posts: 216
Default

I was reading some accounts of some 700s randomly going off. I'm not sure it is a totally moot point but I think it is probably super limited. A lot of these companies have a cost to benefit ratio and the cost to recall thousands and thousands of firearms for something that affects maybe .01% of guns is a lot. So it might come down to that.. I really have been hearing some stories... One was in a pickup truck mount and the driver lost his hearing...
__________________
Andre Shoumatoff
UtahFirearms.com Admin
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-01-2010, 03:49 PM
Dieselschlepper's Avatar
Dieselschlepper Dieselschlepper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 83
Default Lugars too

Remeber that character who shot the German officer off his horse in "Band of Brothers". Later on the poor boob shot himself in the leg with the thing - severed the femoral artery and died - just like that. Not the first one to do that. Don't carry a Lugar with the chamber loaded, or a Mauser Broomhandle for that matter.

That reminds me: when I was about 14 we were turkey hunting up in the "Big Woods" in NW PA. The son of the family we used to visit up there, who later turned out to be a very sweet kind of guy, almost blew my leg off while looking at my Grandad's old Ithaca double 16 ga. It had a bad safety. Whew! Doesn't pay to le that sort of thing go. I need to cal my brother about that; he has the gun and my nephew is getting close to 12.

Last edited by Dieselschlepper; 01-01-2010 at 03:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.