Swampman: You are perfectly correct this time, I admit it, there is no trigger defect, it is a safety defect, guess we just don't fully understand the problem. If Remington just totally removed the safety from the rifles then there would be no problem at all. Like Lenin said, "No person, No problem". Larry
There is info about the issue/defect here:
http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,152938.60.htmlStart with this Copy/Paste:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Coyote Hunter on October 04, 2008, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: Swampman on October 04, 2008, 03:31:14 PM
Yep a gun that works exactly the way it should is dangerous if you point it in the wrong direction. Don't point it at something you don't want a hole in. Seems simple enough. If I had one like that, I wouldn't let Remington "fix" it because there's nothing wrong with it.
Remington's own internal papers, presented at the trial, indicated that as many as 1% of all M700's that left the factory were subject to firing when the safety was released. Their numbers came to around 20,000 rifles at risk when they left the factory.
Blame it on the users if you want to, and there are no doubt people who have improperly adjusted their triggers. Nevertheless, Remington admited it was a factory problem as well.
...
Someone contacted me about this discussion and asked me to check it out to see what I thought, and if I could contribute anything to the discussion... Maybe I have a few things I can contribute to this thread to distinguish certain facts from fiction. Being a newb here I might as well jump in with both feet ;O)
Remington has had safety related issues with their connector design fire control since day one, with the introduction of the M/721 in March of 1948. Although there was a special category of M/700 rifles manufactured before Jan of 1975 that is being referenced above, that were never recalled. These effected rifles have dimensional/tolerance stack up conditions and potential defects that compound deeper underlying design issues. As to the estimated effected rifles... Remington estimated that 1% of 2 million rifles in the field were susceptible to what they termed "the trick condition" and would subsequently fire on safety release under certain manipulation criteria.
In a Jan. 2, 1979 PSSC record which goes on the say "That would mean a recall would have to gather 2 million rifles JUST to find 20,000" rifles susceptible to the trick condition". And, "would undercut the message Remington planned to communicate to the public concerning safe gun handling," instead of recalling the effected rifles already in the field, referencing the Feb 23 1979 PSSC records concerning the issue of "safe gun handling" and "the Trick Condition" : this message was communicated to the public through SAAMI in 1979: "PSSC" = Product Safety Sub-Committee Records
1) always keep the muzzle pointed in a SAFE direction
2) Never trust a safety which is a mechanical device and can fail (Half safe is Unsafe)
3) Never touch the trigger while the safety is in the ON safe position.
A Hemmm...
There was not any specific mention of Remington rifles susceptibility to these functional factors that could potentially result in an inadvertent discharge.
It was Remington's position (Then and now) that it should not matter if there was a potential defect in these effected rifles in the field, if the first rule of safe gun handling was ALWAYS observed, no injury or death should be attributable to these conditions that lead to several forms of malfunctions that would ultimately cause inadvertent discharges. In their opinion human error was the main cause of these forms of accidents even if the rifle may fire without trigger contact being made.
Incidentally, in so many words, the trick condition is referenced in the July 11, 1950 Patent Application: " The value of any safety is proportional to the positiveness of its action. To this end we have found it to be essential that the safety means be so arranged that an inadvertent operation of the trigger while the safety is in the on safe position, will not condition the arm to fire upon release of the safety"
Further Remington developed a rifle with a 3 position safety to allow the user to unload the arm with the safety blocking the sear much as the current production M/700 at topic here, and yet allowed bolt lift to clear the chamber with the safety placed in an intermediate position. This was the M/725 designed by Clark Campbell and Wayne Leek, the M/725 was released to production in 1958. During the design efforts of the M/725, and because the M/721 and 722 safety was deemed "Inadequate" by management, because Remington was fielding complaints from customers for fire on safety release malfunctions. They considered discontinuing production of the M/721 and 722 or at the very leased incorporating the 3 position safety to these product lines, which history now shows never happened.
When the M/700 was released in 1962 Remington abandoned this prior art with regard to a 3 position safety to allow the user to unload the rifle with the sear blocked, as with the later design with the bolt lock deletion after Feb 26 1982 [To Quote] "to put the company in a more secure position with respect to product liability"[End Quote]
There is of course more to the history of this issue, but I will let everyone digest the content of what I have written to this point... I hope the reading is worth the time I spent typing??
Aug ><>
