I was wondering if anyone saw the CNBC special regarding the trigger lock on the Remington 700 and ghost fires? I have Netflix streaming and it was there that I saw it. I assume it aired on regular tv at some point. Apparently Remington has been covering up this up since the 40's and denying there was a huge fault with the safety. They actually interviewed the designer of the 700, he was 98 years old. Amazng. He admitted that he informed remington of possible design flaw and even came up with a new safety lock which they refused to use. Now they sell that design as the 710 i believe. Has anyone experienced this phenomenon? I'm new to firearms and the forum and found this interesting even though it may be old news. The most amazing part to me was the fact that remington could've fixed the problem in the 40's for only 5.5 cents a gun, but they found the extra cost to be too much of a tear into it's bottom line. Imagine that, A mega company being careless and being more concerned about it's profit than the safety of the consumer.

This is very old news and typically biased by the MSM. Much of the content has been disproved. Make sure you find Remington's rebuttal.

 

This at least two years old, maybe more.

This is almost two years old already. To sum it up in writer Dave Petzal's words; "If the original 700 trigger has a fault, it is that it can be fooled with by anyone who has a small screwdriver."

 

Reminton's response:

http://www.remington700.tv/

 

 

Field & Stream's David Petzal -

http://www.fieldands...del-700-trigger

great.. thank you so much for the link... i just saw it last night while i was trolling throuh the online menu. i wasn't pointing the finger at remington, as i know they're reputation is one of high marks. i'm wondering why CNBC seems to be going after Remington. What could be the motive? I never watch the news and barely believe anything i ever read for good reason. Why did Remington settle so many of the cases brought against them? Why continue to settle when you are in the right? why wouldn't remington counter sue for reputable damages? i just know that if i ever buy a 700, i will make sure to keep it super super clean and obviously keep my finger off the trigger.

P.S. I was in no way trying to pass on old faulty information as i am totally against the fear mongering that goes on in the media. i was only asking for my own clarification and wondering what the other side of the story was. i'm sure that the answers i get here are alot more straightforward than those recieved through corporate media outlets

Does the media need a motive for going after a corporation, especially one producing something they dislike as much as firearms?

Unforunately, in our legal system it is often more cost effective to settle than to litigate. While I'm not privy to the settlements, I'd wager that every one has a clause that says there is no admission of fault, attached to it.

true... i guess the way to take out a corporation is finding something wrong with their most prized product and going after it. Curious as to why remington settled with the family of the little boy that was shot, even after they took apart her gun and saw the horrible condition it was in. I'm sure remingtons lawyers wouldn't have allowed that if there wasn't the "possibility" of it happening. I don't like it when someone questions my integrity and I tend to fight to clear my name, but i guess remington found it cheaper to settle than to fight it. which brings us back to the bottom line point. Corporations will do whatever to protect it, even if it means arranging the truth to fit in their favor.

Not the first time this has happened. Remington has deep pockets, which makes them an easy target. In the 90's, while they were still under DuPont, they settled a class action lawsuit over their shotgun barrels, the suit claiming the barrels burst upon use. Those who participated received a disbursement of $17.125 million. (Of course, there were a lot of people who participated for it involved Remington shotguns manufactured between 1960 and 1995!)

Pizza Bob... you're right! I believe the settlements all had that clause attached.. a.k.a. the "we give you money so you shut up" clause. i just hate to see people getting killed because of corporate greed or the other side of this story...careless firearm handling

Corporations will do whatever to protect it, even if it means arranging the truth to fit in their favor.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Settling is in no way admitting fault. When you go before a jury, especially when the suit involves firearms, something that engenders strong feelings, a jury could go find for the plaintiff regardless of the "rightness" of the defendant's position.

 

Yes it is nice to fight for principle, but what may happen is a pyrrhic victory: Win the battle, loose the war. A protracted legal battle with an unsure outcome (there is no predicting what a jury will do) can bankrupt a company, even if they successfully defend. Nice to be idealic, but business is "real".

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

by that statement, i meant protect their bottom line. Pharmacutical companies are a good example of this. Good point about bankruptcy, i agree, it's easier to pay up front.

 

thanks for the input, it was helpful

Curious as to why remington settled with the family of the little boy that was shot,

There, explained it for you. In civil suits, liability is not really a matter of law, but a matter of persuading the jury. Jury's tend to get all emotional about dead kids, so even though the parents were negligent, you settle, because it is cheaper than losing

Didn't they redesigned the trigger on new models?

I believe they did using the alternate design

There has been more than one recall on 700's and their variants. The bigger one involved pre-1982 rifles and the bolt lock integrated with the trigger/safety. (Taking the safety OFF to manipulate the bolt to unchamber a live round I guess unnerved some people.)

 

http://www.firearmsi...Recalls%204.htm