700 Remington Quality

[john keyes]

I love the MkII actions

those little Hawkeye .358s in stainless/composite  have caught my eye.

[Augustis]

Safety on all guns are mechanical. Mechanical things break once in a while. Common sense should be at hand by one operating a firearm. Had a hunting partner with a Winchester Pre 64 had a safety problem and it discharged while going from safe psition to middle position to open the bolt luckily had it in a safe direction at the time.

700
I believe you have been duped, weather you know it or not... while safe gun handling should ALWAY be observed to the best of our ability under a diverse set of circumstances, This was in fact Remington's contribution to the 10 Commandments of safe gun handling that was disseminated to the public through SAAMI. The purpose.... It was primarily a defensive strategy by Remington to move the blame from their defective fire controls in the field at that time onto the gun handler in the event of an accident. INSTEAD of recalling the estimated 1% of 2 million defective rifles already in the field which were intentionally left in the hands of Remington customers. Personally I think the estimated number is BS but I am on record here stating this is my opinion...but as some might guess, I have good reasons based off of documentation I have reviewed that leads me to this conclusion.

AGAIN, Remington considered recalling the M/700 in 1979, but they arrived at the final position that the  "Recall would undercut the message they planned to communicate to the public concerning safe gun handling" instead of recalling the effected rifles that some of you may still have in your possession. Please read my earlier post on this subject IF you are interested in the truth of the matter FYI.

I have to question the incident as you describe above... For the incident to occur as you describe, the firing pin would have had to break at the notch (or forward of) in the striker that the 3 position safety is fitted into. That is about the only means that I can think of that would allow forward travel of a portion of the striker to allow the arm to fire with the safety in the "ON" safe position.  The M/70 safety is a striker block system, in that the safety acts directly on the striker. That would be the only way (that I can think of)  that the M/70 design could fail. Further there is one MAJOR difference between the M/70 and M/700 design... The conditions in the M/700 are an inerrant condition, the incident with the M/70 was a fluke of bad luck, not an inherent malfunction in the design itself!! Further, the failure in the M/700 is NOT a failure of the safety, but AGAIN a failure of the trigger, or more specifically the failure of the trigger connector to perform its intended function!

Safety on all guns are mechanical. Mechanical things break once in a while. Common sense should be at hand by one operating a firearm. ...

Very true.  It is also true, however, that a firearms manufacturer should take extra care to ensure that a SAFETY is just that - SAFE.  When as many as 1% of M700 safeties and 50% of M600 safeties had a problem there is a serious problem with the product design.

As I indicated in an earlier post the "FSR" malfunction is an "interference condition" between the sear and trigger connector. If there is no support for the sear when the safety is released, the safety then acts as a trigger.

This is from a "Process Record Change Authorization" form (PRCA Record)

Feb, 2 1973 - Model 700 - Final Assembly   Requested by: C. Prosser

(Quote) Add element to final inspection to check for possible connector - sear interference. At leased twenty in 1972, and four so far in 1973. Customer complaints including one personal injury are attributed to this interference. (End Quote)

The trigger connector can in some instance become trapped in the firing notch on the sear, this was due to an oversight, or error made on the sear safety cam eccentric when the 2 piece sear AND safety cam was superceded and replaced with a one piece sear safety cam design in about 1967. There is also a potential compounding factor relationship as to the slip fit of the trigger connector on the trigger body. This condition can potentially exceed the sear lift with the safety in the on safe position, which was maybe further compounded by the lack of extended duration of sear lift with the safety ON for a given period of production until Remington corrected the sear safety cam in later production rifles. This condition allowed for the connector to become trapped in the firing notch of the sear. When that happens there is no support for the sear when the safety is released, and so upon release of the safety the rifle fires.

This is also referred to as a "tolerance stack up" condition. Parts in a mechanism have plus and minus tolerances established for the assembled parts of a system to function as designed, when the parts are assembled into the mechanism these conditions are then added and subtracted together and as an end result CAN in some instances lead to interferences of certain parts that may result in malfunctions. The connector design fire control has been an example of this effect of stack up conditions.

I believe I have already addressed the function of the trigger connector utilized in this design in earlier posts??

It's a pity more people aren't immovable.  I've been shooting Remington products since the early 1960s.  I've never seen a bad one.

I am stead fast in my beliefs... And Immovable!  One major difference between you and I is that I can back up my claims with fact, to date you have posted NADA about anything remotely factual about this issue, and yet you admently deny that any problems ever existed, or exist in connector design production rifles. How can that be when a few of the companies own internal records are in links posted here for anyone to see, if they so choose to review them ;O)

Edited to Include:

As of this writing I have heard of 7 ID incidents over the past month, 3 of which has allegedly resulted in further injuries or death... before spring I suspect there will be more incidents that may yet surface. Concealment of this issue has only served to permit further loss of life and limb to someone's familiy member, Think about that for a moment before you attempt to further mislead people seeking answers, Shame on you if you have had ANY part in this Sham committed against the gun bearing public!


Aug ><>

[mannyrock]

Iowa Don,

   This is in addition to my earlier reply.

   Personally, I shoot and love the .308 Winchester.  You certainly can't go wrong with it.

   But, some folks who are deer hunters only, really like the 7mm-08, because it kicks slightly less than the .308, it shoots slightly flatter than the .308, and it comes in as standard factory load (Remington Core-locked, 140 grain bullet)  that is as close to perfect as you will ever find for an all around deer cartridge.

   If you think that you may someday go on an Elk, Moose, or black bear hunt, then definitely go with the .308.   There are premium factory loads for it, including the Light Magnum loads, at reasonable prices, that make it equal to or better than a traditional 30-06 round.

Hope this helps.

Mannyrock

[Augustis]

Swampman

I am still waiting for your reply...


...

It's a pity more people aren't immovable.  I've been shooting Remington products since the early 1960s.  I've never seen a bad one.

I am stead fast in my beliefs... And Immovable!  One major difference between you and I is that I can back up my claims with fact, to date you have posted NADA about anything remotely factual about this issue, and yet you admently deny that any problems ever existed, or exist in connector design production rifles. How can that be when a few of the companies own internal records are in links posted here for anyone to see, if they so choose to review them ;O)

Edited to Include:

As of this writing I have heard of 7 ID incidents over the past month, 3 of which has allegedly resulted in further injuries or death... before spring I suspect there will be more incidents that may yet surface. Concealment of this issue has only served to permit further loss of life and limb to someone's familiy member, Think about that for a moment before you attempt to further mislead people seeking answers, Shame on you if you have had ANY part in this Sham committed against the gun bearing public!

[One Eye]

I am stead fast in my beliefs... And Immovable!  One major difference between you and I is that I can back up my claims with fact, to date you have posted NADA about anything remotely factual about this issue, and yet you admently deny that any problems ever existed, or exist in connector design production rifles. How can that be when a few of the companies own internal records are in links posted here for anyone to see, if they so choose to review them ;O)

Edited to Include:

As of this writing I have heard of 7 ID incidents over the past month, 3 of which has allegedly resulted in further injuries or death... before spring I suspect there will be more incidents that may yet surface. Concealment of this issue has only served to permit further loss of life and limb to someone's familiy member, Think about that for a moment before you attempt to further mislead people seeking answers, Shame on you if you have had ANY part in this Sham committed against the gun bearing public!

Augustis,

I thank you for sharing this information, and it has directly influenced my selection of firearm manufacturers.  Especially for those I will put in my children's hands.

Dan

[Skunk]

+1 on the good info provided by August. Thank you very much.

I think I'll take the X-Mark Pro Trigger off my .223 Tactical and replace the old style trigger on my CDL with it. Then, I'll get a Jewel trigger for the .223, but first, a couple of questions for August, or anyone else who might know the answers:

1. From August's previous posts, Am I understanding correctly that the new X-Mark Pro Trigger does in fact fix the safety/trigger problem with the 700 (the X-Mark Pro blocks both the sear and the trigger)?

2. Does the Jewel trigger with the optional Safety mechanism also provide a solution to the 700 safety/trigger problem? Here is a picture of one if that helps:

Thanks in advance for any info.

[Augustis]

+1 on the good info provided by August. Thank you very much.

1. From August's previous posts, Am I understanding correctly that the new X-Mark Pro Trigger does in fact fix the safety/trigger problem with the 700 (the X-Mark Pro blocks both the sear and the trigger)?

Thanks in advance for any info.

Skunk

Yes, the X Mark Pro has adequately addressed the potential malfunction issues that may ultimately result in an inadvertent discharge due to a failure of the trigger in the previous production fire control IMO.

  Why,   The X Mark Pro does NOT contain the "resiliently mounted trigger connector" as DID the previous design. One of the more notable features of this new design is that it blocks BOTH the sear AND the trigger, which protects the trigger from movement, and secures the triggers relationship to ensure a secure and reliable sear support condition with the arm in the ON safe position. Further, ALL of the aftermarket fire controls that I know of at this time also  have a one piece trigger construction, the same conventional design utilized in the new X Mark Pro.  I further believe Remington has done gone one step further, over and above the current after market fire control manufacturers by further blocking the trigger for the basic reasons I have stated above...

Aug ><>

[Skunk]

Thanks for the info Augustis. Now, after hearing more about the safety issues fixed by the X-Mark Pro, maybe I'll just replace the CDL's trigger with one of those and keep the X-Mark on the .223. The X-Mark Pro is actually really nice in terms of having nearly zero creep and very little over travel. Only thing I don't really care for is the pull, but I realize I can adjust it.

It's pretty sad though on Remington's part. A person shouldn't have to fix a defective trigger on a new rifle. It's one thing that the original 700 triggers are pathetic in regard to pull, creep, and over travel - those features can be safely adjusted to a superb feel. It's quite another thing altogether to knowingly allow the sale of an unsafe, potentially lethal product and do nothing to fix it because of greed. Well, it's nice to see they are finally doing something about it after 40 some years. 

Thanks again Augustis. Happy you came to the forum.

[Augustis]

Skunk

I think a DuPont employee (Robert A. Darby) pretty well summed up the opposite of your thoughts when he stated:

December 30,1985

(Quote) In reviewing the attached strategie summary on firearms, one product feature which we stress internally, but to my knowledge we do not stress very extensively in the marketplace, is SAFETY.

The world is surely increasingly safety - conscious - I dont know weather macho hunters are concerned, but they should be.
R&D is working on improved safety and security features which should have marketable VALUE.
(If they dont, we ought to stop the work) (End Quote)

If you read the Business Week article posted in one of the links provided you will note it was determined in a court of law (In Texas, 1994) that Remington did in fact develop a safer gun through a program which came to be known as the "NBAR Program" (New Bolt Action Rifle). The new rifle was NEVER released to production, and this fact has also been hidden from the public eye.

At this time I think it fair to acknowledge that the present Remington was not a party to these decisions. There was a "Limited Asset Sale" which took place on December 31, 1993, in at that time, in essence a "New Remington" emerged from this asset sale... and with that, in essence there were two (2) Remington Arm Companies, each of which retained OR assumed certain liabilities under provisions of the sale agreement.

Also Note, prior to the sale, From a "Point OF View" Record, dated  October 15, 1993 (Two Months before the asset sale)

Bill Warren References Liability concerning a New fire control concept to be utilized in the NBAR rifle when he stated:

(Quote) Readily Defensible, Reason for departure from current design (End Quote)

The company changed hands about two months later... the potential safety issues swept under the rug, and here we are today in the same boat as we were almost 60 years ago when they first considered changing the design only months after release of the M/721 rifle in March of 1948.

What I have written here does NOT begin to scratch the surface of the extent of this issue!

Aug ><>

[Skunk]

Augustis,

Am I missing something here? It just seems that having the safety issues brought to the attention of upper management and still not doing anything about it only makes Remington's position worse. It appears they could have taken care of the problem with the NBAR, but they still didn't. Why did the NBAR project get swept under the rug? My guess is that the NBAR must have incorporated a drastic design change that deviated from the Model 700 and that Remington worried that the new design would not be accepted by consumers like the already proven Model 700. Thus, they didn't release it due to the threat of lost sales.

[DebosDave]

Augustis,

Am I missing something here? It just seems that having the safety issues brought to the attention of upper management and still not doing anything about it only makes Remington's position worse. It appears they could have taken care of the problem with the NBAR, but they still didn't. Why did the NBAR project get swept under the rug? My guess is that the NBAR must have incorporated a drastic design change that deviated from the Model 700 and that Remington worried that the new design would not be accepted by consumers like the already proven Model 700. Thus, they didn't release it due to the threat of lost sales.

It would appear to me that Remington made a decision based on the bottom line.  They feel that it is cheaper to settle lawsuits as they arrise than to fix the issue.  I also think there is something happening in regards to statute of limitations on the issue.  I think after a certain amount of time, the company will be exempt from liability for these old triggers.  I may be all washed up on this, but I think that the time frame is coming into play somewhere.  The biggest problem is that when the liability is released, it won't change the fact that these unsafe triggers are still in the field being used daily.  Perhaps Augustis knows more about the time frame and company liability for the triggers that are still in the field?

Dave

[Swampman]

The only safety issues that ever existed were caused by improper handling.  The guns worked exactly the way they were supposed to.

[DebosDave]

The only safety issues that ever existed were caused by improper handling.  The guns worked exactly the way they were supposed to.

I can't believe you would advocate that their fire control was designed to fire when the safety lever was moved from 'safe' to 'fire' position??  Even Remington seems to think this was contrary to their design and that it constituted a problem.  And also it has been demonstrated that they were indeed aware and felt compelled to go as far as recalling the bolt-lock, which doesn't fix the connector design, just allows it to be bypassed during the unloading process.  Too little too late in my opinion. 

Dave

[Coyote Hunter]

The only safety issues that ever existed were caused by improper handling.  The guns worked exactly the way they were supposed to.

While it can be argued improper gun handling was a contributing factor in any injury resulting from the M700's FSR problems, that improper gun handling was not the cause of the FSR problem.

In other words, the FSR problem was both a) a real problem acknowledged by Remington, and b) pre-existed the handling problems.  It was a contributing factor in many injuries.

Hide your head in the sand, we're used to it.

[Augustis]

Augustis,

Am I missing something here? It just seems that having the safety issues brought to the attention of upper management and still not doing anything about it only makes Remington's position worse. It appears they could have taken care of the problem with the NBAR, but they still didn't. Why did the NBAR project get swept under the rug? My guess is that the NBAR must have incorporated a drastic design change that deviated from the Model 700 and that Remington worried that the new design would not be accepted by consumers like the already proven Model 700. Thus, they didn't release it due to the threat of lost sales.

I am short on time for awhile, but I will attempt to answer your initial question about NBAR and start with this, and write further when time permits, Or when I feel like further exposing myself and putting my neck out further on the chopping block.... Which ever comes first?

The origins of NBAR date back to the Mid 70s -  late 1975 or early 1976. The initial program was styled "The M/700 Fire Control Improvement Program", although I have reviewed records that should have served to put Remington/DuPont on further notice that problems existed much earlier than this approximate date for a program to correct known deficiencies in the fire control systems utilized in EVERY center fire bolt action rifle Remington produced since 1948, with the exception of the M/788 by that time later in 1975.

From materials gathered, investigated and analyzed by Remington engineers, including a sampling of NEW Mohawk 600 rifles that were returned to Remington (at their request) from wholesalers from around the Country for the "Special Safety Audit" on ALL C/F bolt action rifles. Subsequently,  From what was learned and determined in 1975 from the special safety audit, the M/700 fire control improvement program appeared to the best course of action, and so was first initiated to specifically concentrate solely on the "safety related" issues on the M/700 - M/600 fire controls exclusively.

Augustis,

Am I missing something here? It just seems that having the safety issues brought to the attention of upper management and still not doing anything about it only makes Remington's position worse.

 ONLY if the facts are leaked to the public!

Secrecy has always been the key factor to keep a lid on the facts surounding Remington's conduct and course of action to keep this information out of the public eye. With that, not a single case that I know of against the M/700 product line has gone to court since 1994!  The verdict in the Collins case was the LAST one to go to trial, which potentially revealed the true nature of the NBAR Program design goals...

When Judge Loydd Dogette stated in his decision from the bench of the Texas Supreme Court with regard to the newly discovered NBAR Documents:

(Quote) The Documents provide  evidence of great signifiicance... as to Remington's knowledge of defects and its ability to implement alternative safer designs (End Quote)

Further the Judge Ruled:

(Quote) The NBAR Program had as its goal improvement of the defective fire control on the model 700 rifle (END Quote)

  Source: Business Week 1994 - "Remington Faces a Mis-Firing Squad"

Since that case, instead the solution has been settled out of court, accompanied by protective order, or confidentially agreement with regard to the terms of settlement as well as facts related to the incident in those cases, and of course information discovered by plaintiffs through this process are stringently "protected" from public view by court order. If you have not already read the Business Week Article, again, take a look at it!

 Aug ><>

[Coyote Hunter]

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b337363.arc.htm


BusinessWeek: May 23, 1994

Legal Affairs

REMINGTON FACES A MISFIRING SQUAD

On Dec. 29, 1989, Glenn W. Collins was ready for a day of deer and wild-boar hunting in Eagle Pass, Tex. But while he was unloading his rifle after running into bad weather, it accidentally discharged, wounding him in the foot. That afternoon, the 53-year-old Amoco Corp. drilling supervisor had to have his foot amputated.

Collins claimed that the gun, Remington Arms Co.'s Model 700 bolt-action rifle, had gone off without his ever touching the trigger. And on May 7, he persuaded a Texas jury it had: After a six-week trial, Remington was ordered to pay Collins $17 million--$15 million of it in punitive damages. "I think what the jury was telling Remington and all gun manufacturers is that if you have a defective or unsafe product, you'd better do something about it," says Collins.

The Wilmington (Del.) gunmaker hasn't decided whether to appeal the verdict. But company spokesman William Wohl says Remington flatly denies that the Model 700--one of the top-selling hunting rifles in the U.S.--is faulty in any way. "We have believed in the past and continue to believe today that the Model 700 is one of the finest bolt-action rifles manufactured," says Wohl. "We see the product as a safe and reliable sporting firearm."

STORMY OUTLOOK. Remington maintains that the accidents stem from users' mistakes, not from product defects--a defense it used in the Collins' case. "When a gun goes off, the first thing people say is: 'It's not my fault,'" argues Kenneth Soucy, who is in charge of research and development at Remington. "Usually, we find that people have been messing around with the fire control. They get in there and screw things up."

Remington has done pretty well with that argument, winning 8 out of 12 jury trials since 1981. In a further 18 known suits settled since 1981, Remington has negotiated modest payouts--some as little as $5,000, say plaintiff lawyers. But the Collins case is the first time a jury saw internal Remington documents allegedly showing that the company had developed a safer design yet chose not to market it. "The documents established that Remington has had a design for at least a dozen years that eliminates the heart of the problem," says Richard C. Miller, a lawyer in Springfield, Mo., who represents Collins and 17 other plaintiffs in past and present suits against Remington involving its Model 700. "This implies that they knew something was wrong with the existing fire-control system."

Now, with the new documents and with 11 pending suits similarly alleging inadvertent firings of the Model 700, Remington's legal troubles could worsen. Plaintiff lawyers say more cases will be filed against Remington later this year, and pressure is mounting from consumers and Congress for more controls on firearms. Critics hope these actions, taken together, will compel Remington to consider modifying its rifle free of charge or recalling it if it can't conclusively demonstrate its safety.

That's a tall order for the nation's largest seller of shotguns and rifles. Four deaths have been linked to alleged malfunctions of the Model 700, in addition to dozens of injuries, court records show. Furthermore, some 1,400 written customer complaints have been lodged with the company over the past 16 years concerning the Model 700--many of which assert the rifle went off without the trigger being pulled. Remington still insists shooter errors are the problem. "If you're following the rules of safe gun handling...people won't get hurt," says Remington's Wohl.

In 1989, however, Miller discovered a program started in 1981 whose purpose, he says, was to design a safer bolt action rifle, thus contradicting Remington's repeated court statements that the Model 700 is flawless. The company argued that records pertaining to this new bolt-action rifle (NBAR) program were proprietary and unrelated to the Model 700. But more than 20 judges have ruled otherwise, forcing Remington to give up the documents. "The NBAR program had as its goal improvement of the defective fire control on the Model 700," wrote Texas Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Doggett in December, 1992. "[The documents] provide evidence of great significance...as to Remington's knowledge of defects and of its ability to implement safer alternative designs."

The company has good reason to defend its popular product: More than 100,000 Model 700 rifles are sold annually, at an average cost of $500. That accounts for an estimated $58 million of the company's $370 million in annual revenues. Today, nearly 3 million such rifles in 21 different calibers are in consumers' hands.

In addition to the NBAR evidence, internal corporate documents first disclosed in the Collins case show Remington may have known as early as 1975 that its rifle could accidentally discharge. That's when the company first began investigating customer and retailer complaints about malfunctions, according to Remington records. In a Dec. 8, 1987, letter, Nina Dula of Lenoir, N.C., complained that a rifle in the front seat of a Jeep discharged when a neighbor kicked a tire. She didn't report the accident to the company until the rifle fired inadvertently a second time. "In both instances, the trigger was never touched," wrote Dula.

Remington investigated Dula's complaint and determined the rifle functioned properly. The company wrote to Dula on Jan. 8, 1988: "The only manner in which the rifle could be made to fire was with the safety off and the trigger pulled." In 52 other responses to customer complaints BUSINESS WEEK reviewed, Remington either said it "cannot duplicate customer complaint" or concluded the owner unknowingly pulled the trigger.

In a 1979 internal memo, however, Remington's product-safety subcommittee stated that, based on tests of returned rifles, 1% of the 2 million pre-1975 Model 700s could be "tricked" into firing. The panel considered a recall but concluded the discharges were "more associated with abnormal use or misuse of the product rather than indication of a defective product," according to the memo. Instead, the subcommittee recommended issuing a statement to customers on proper gun handling. "The recall would have to gather 2 million guns just to find 20,000 that are susceptible to this condition," wrote the panel, noting "a large percentage of competitor's models can be tricked."

Eighteen months later, Fred Martin, a Remington field-service specialist, urged officials to make changes in newly manufactured rifles. His estimated cost: 32 a gun. "I feel we should not pass up this opportunity to improve our fire control," Martin wrote in a 1981 internal memo that was first used as evidence against Remington in the Collins case.

TRIGGER COMPLACENT. Remington did make one modification in 1982: The company eliminated the bolt lock, which had required the shooter to take the safety off to load and unload the rifle. But Remington says the change wasn't for safety's sake. "The removal of the bolt lock in 1982 was due to customer preference. This was not at all related to a safety issue," says Soucy. Still, the adjustment decreased reports of accidents.

Remington did not address what some experts say is the gun's most serious defect: an unreliable trigger connector. They say this causes the rifle to fire when the safety is released or when the bolt is opened or closed. "No other manufacturer utilizes a resiliently mounted trigger connector of this type," says Tom Butters, a gun expert in Houston who has testified against Remington. "Other trigger designs are much less likely to be involved in a malfunction."

Remington disputes Butters' assessment and says its trigger design is entirely safe and one of the most attractive features of the Model 700. "The Model 700 is one of the real pillars of this design," says Soucy. "The trigger is light in pull. You can check with most gun writers and find that this feature makes the gun one of the most desirable."

Firearms are one of the few consumer products for which regulators do not have authority to set design and safety standards--even though guns cause more accidental deaths than any other consumer product. Firearms accounted for 1,416 such fatalities in 1990, according to the National Safety Council, a nonprofit group in Itasca, Ill. By contrast, deaths from all other sports equipment or recreational activities totaled 1,220, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Assn. are opposed to current efforts toward tighter regulation. But consumer activists hope the public's growing concern over guns will compel lawmakers to adopt stricter standards. For now, consumers' only recourse is a legal one--and it looks like they plan to use it.

Loren Berger in Washington

[nomosendero]

I doubt any three or four of you on here buy as many Remington rifles in an average year as I do. I just am not seeing the quality issues you guys claim. I hate to say I don't believe a fellow gun owner when they report a problem but damn it guys I buy a bunch of them annually and just do not have the problems you folks are reporting EVER.

So why is it I can own perhaps ten or twenty to your one and you always have problems and I don't? Something seems mighty fishy to me. I can recall only one with any significant problem in the last 50 or so I've owned. It had a laminated stock that was cut wrong in the barrel channel and it pressed against the barrel on one side. I called Remington and explained to them what was happening and that I had not bought it new but rather used. I was told to box up the stock with SN of rifle and ship it for an immediate replacement which I did. Problem solved.

You folks complaining of Remington quality are either the most unlucky people in the world, the most picky or not being 100% truthful in my opinion. Which I dunno.

My results have not been as consistant as Bill's, but I have had more good experiences with the Remington 700 than any other & I have tried a bunch. My results with Sav. has been good except 1 & I had a great 300WEA. MKV & I have a very good M70 30-06AI. Admittedly, I have mostly upper end M700's but a couple of ADL's. Othewr than an early M77 7RM & a fantastic 220 Swift, my Ruger rifles have been sub par, that's why they are gone. I may try a 375 Ruger after I know the stock issues are gone, they are supposed to have better barrels now.

Concerning the M700 trigger, it is for sure something to look at. It would not hurt for a real trigger pro to look at mine even though I have had no trigger issues with those I have fired or tested for others. But thanks for bringing it up.

Of course I have heard of the stainless Sako that blew up & different problems with virtually all of them. That's part of it & always more people are shooting at #1. But I know what my Rems. that I own will do & that's why they are in the safe.

[Coyote Hunter]

Like nomosendero I've had mostly good experiences with Remington M700's.  I have two but have shot others.  Accuracy for my .308 BDL is very good but for my .30-06 SPW not so much.  (Nor was accuracy any great shakes for a .30-06 SPS I scoped and sighted in for a friend.)  No problems with the safeties, but the SPW (2005 mfg date) came with the new style and the BDL (1984) had the safety modified.

All my Rugers shoot very well, no problems with the safeties -- or anything else for that matter.

In spite of the fact that I don't think M700's are the perfect rifle, I'd not hesitate to buy another.  And I'm always willing to buy another Ruger.  For that matter I don't have any problems with Savage, either.  Might buy a Winchester some day - a pre '64 or possibly one of the new ones coming from the FN plant, no desire for anything in-between.  Sako, Tikka, or Browning bolts, no interest.  In fact, Uncle wanted to give me his 7mm Rem Mag A-Bolt but I said "No, but thanks".  Kimber, TC, CZ, no interest.  Montana, you bet.  Howa or Weatherby?  Maybe.  Remington M798/799?  Door stops, and not very good at that, either.  Remington M710/770?  You have to be kidding - I'd take a Stevens any day before spending money on one of those.

Just my preference but, since its my money, that's all that counts.

[Augustis]

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1994/b337363.arc.htm


BusinessWeek: May 23, 1994


Legal Affairs

REMINGTON FACES A MISFIRING SQUAD


Eighteen months later, Fred Martin, a Remington field-service specialist, urged officials to make changes in newly manufactured rifles. His estimated cost: 32 a gun. "I feel we should not pass up this opportunity to improve our fire control," Martin wrote in a 1981 internal memo that was first used as evidence against Remington in the Collins case.

[Swampman]

I do think the Remington 700 is the perfect rifle.  Of course accuracy is high on my list of needs.

There never was a problem with the Model 700.  It worked exactly the way it was designed to.

[Augustis]

the entire content of the Record in question:

June 23,1981

To: JS Martin

From: FE Martin

RE: M-700 Trigger Assembly Estimate

Estimate figures $.32 additional cost per gun. For this amount we have the:

-Bolt lock removed.

-Ability to unload the gun in the safe position.

-Insurance that the trigger wont be moved with the safety "On Safe".

-Trigger becoming inpoerative when adjusted out of spec.

I feel we should not pass up this opportunity to improve our fire control.

[Augustis]

Operations Committee
Ilion Division

July 17,1980
(From Page 26)

(Quote) Chart XXXVI Shows Category 1 projects, Intended to put us in a more secure with respect to product liability:

1. The M/700 bolt lock has been redesigned to operate independently of the safety and to allow the shooter to reload his gun with the safety in the 'ON" position. Production costs are being developed by Industrial Engineering and the final version is now in test.

2. Three different designs of the M/700 fire control are being considered. Two are ready for release to the teat lab and one is still on the drawing board. Upon successful completion of the M/700, work will continue to develop similar mechanism for all of our bolt action rifles. (End Quote)

[Augustis]

Hey Swampman, what do you say we just "let the documents speak for themselves"?? All the content below are ALL word for word (including the quotation marks) from internal records themselves.

Skunk, this is pre NBAR design objectives or engineering goals.

RESEARCH MEETING

November 7,1978

Subject: Bolt Action Fire Control

Observations

1. "Can" or "Must" condition on unloading a rifle in "ON SAFE" position. Majority feel a "Must".

2. Unload magazine box without cycling thru chamber

3. Gun must be safe when unloaded!



Yet another record:
.................................................................................
November 16,1978 Research Dept.

Bolt Action Fire Control - Design Review 11-14-78

The following design requirements for a NEW fire control for bolt action rifles were tentatively established -

1. Eliminate the "trick" condition. At this point the best solution appears to be adding a trigger block to the safety cam mechanism. This would prevent the trigger from moving in the "safe" position - eliminating the "fail" to "reset" possibility.

2. The NEW fire control should be retrofittable.

3. A bolt lock arrangement should be provided. At this point a locking device separate from the fire control appears most desirable.

-Program

1. Marketing will conduct consumer tests of the fire control designs now in hand during December and January. These include 3 position and a 2 position safety with an external bolt lock. A sample with the present fire control with the bolt lock removed will be included.

[Augustis]

In a memo to PB Rutherford, MH (Mike) Walker on December 3, 1946 warns his superior of a "Theoretical UNSAE condition of the M/721 safety. This is four months prior to the test result report on the M/721 Pilot Line Testing dated April 9,1947, where it has been determined that a "Very Dangerous" condition existed "From a safety and functional point of view".

The following "Listed" malfunctions led to this conclusion:

1. Firing pin moves forward during the bolt locking cycle.

2. Possible to fire the gun by pushing the safety to the "Off" position.

3. Occasionaly the firing pin moves forward during the bold locking cycle.

From the inspection standpoint, situation #3 should be considered the most dangerous in that the malfunction might not occur in the relatively few cycles that the gun would be functioned during inspection.
...
I think the test engineer,Wayne Leek, had concerns that rifles could potentially make it  through the inspection process and into the hands of their customers. This record was generated about 11 months BEFORE release to the public which occurred in March Of 1948 without the benefit of any of the recommended design changes that may have protected the system from the listed form of malfunctions that we STILL see today, 60 years later....



 In yet another memo from Mike Walker on August 16,1948 to HA Brown Mike still urges his superior to make changes to the fire control design with the "addition of a trigger block" as an added element  to the safey to control the trigger connector.

Subject: M/721 Modification of Safety Design

"One modification of the M/721 safety uses a "Trigger Block" in addition to the present design.

He then gives further details to accomplish this recommendation in the record.

Take special note in that the same recommendation to "Eliminate the Trick Condition", and the potential "Fail To Reset Possibility" in the 1978 record is the SAME design goal as the 1948 recommendation Walker made, except 30 years has now passed without any action to correct the condition(s) that have led to these forms of malfunctions associated to this design...

Aug ><>

[Augustis]

I do think the Remington 700 is the perfect rifle.  Of course accuracy is high on my list of needs.

There never was a problem with the Model 700.  It worked exactly the way it was designed to.

IF you ARE affiliated with Remington in some way, ALL this must come as a great shock to you I suspect???  I am not going to waste my time debating this issue with you because evidence clearly suggests your opinion incorrect, or you have been misinformed...
 

Aug ><>

[smokey66]

 

[cruiser394]

After lurking on the site for a little while, I finally joined to be able to add my two cents for what they're worth. This topic is of particular interest to me since I have a bit of experience with Remington M700's myself. I don't have any delusions of changing Swampman's mind since I'm guessing he's an employee of Remington or DuPont, but if I can help another shooter avoid tragedy because of the possible danger the M700 poses, I've done a good thing.

My disclaimer is that I have no axe to grind with Remington, and the M700 is a fine rifle, especially for the money. I don't have the knowledge base or research material that Augustis has, but I have a fair understanding of the situation.

I have personally seen three M700's fire when moving the safety from "safe" to "fire". All three were clean, with no alterations or trigger work whatsoever. All three were manufactured in the early 1990's and had the newer bolt and safety that allowed manipulation of the bolt with the safety engaged.

Someone asked why we don't hear more about this problem. One of the main reasons is that when Remington settles a suit involving these rifles and the injury they cause, there is almost always a confidentiality clause in the settlement prohibiting the parties involved from discussing details of the settlement or of the case (I think Augustis already addressed that). It's simply a way for Remington to buy the silence of the best witnesses against them. I'm personally aware of only one instance in which that clause was not part of the settlement, and that is the case which resulted in the recall of pre-1982 M700's (and other models) and the redesigned trigger which they started installing in 2006.

If you notice, Remington claims the only rifles affected and able to fire upon release of the safety are those manufactured prior to 1982, but the rifles I had experiences with were manufactured ten years later. Any M700 made prior to 2006 is subject to this condition.

This thread seems to be winding down a little and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse (if I am, there's no real harm since Swampman appears to be the only one riding it). I just wanted to offer my experience with those three rifles as further proof that there is a real problem with the M700 and it's not some isolated incident when one discharges when it shouldn't.

[Bart Solo]

Thanks Cruiser.  Augustis has made a compelling case that the older M700s were defective, and that Remington tried to fix the defect with the  newer bolt/safety arrangement.  That they may not have succeeded is troubling. 

Again for all who have been reading this thread, given that there are also reports of similar unintended discharges involving other bolt actions,  it is prudent to assume that any firearm can go off at any time and to never allow the muzzle to point at anyone.     

[700xcr]

 

Again for all who have been reading this thread, given that there are also reports of similar unintended discharges involving other bolt actions,  it is prudent to assume that any firearm can go off at any time and to never allow the muzzle to point at anyone.     
[/quote]Agreed. Mechanical safety can fail. The best safety is common sense with the person handling the firearm.

[Swampman]

Augustis has made a compelling case that the older M700s were defective, and that Remington tried to fix the defect with the  newer bolt/safety arrangement.

I read the whole thing several times, and I never saw that..........