Remington Nits and Wits

[RandyWakeman]

http://www.remington.com/NR/exeres/00001476pwclubmouyfdozkh/safety.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fsafety%2fml_reminder%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7bFF1E7CAA-0AE2-4ADA-902F-7939E7D2DF01%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1

Remington states:

A very dangerous message (which could result in serious injury or death) is being created among the shooting public as the result of a major firearms manufacturer introducing and marketing a "Smokeless Powder Muzzleloader." Even though this particular gun may be safe, as its producer claims, the promotion of the gun and concept has already created, and will continue to create, a dangerous state of confusion among shooters.


All this from a company that has very little clue about muzzleloading in general, and has sent more people to their graves (with their own help) than most, due to their defective Walker Trigger. The lawsuits and "60 Minutes" expose apparently have done little to slow them down, nor their recalls that keep coming.

Unfortunately having spent time with current production attempts by Remington-- see http://www.chuckhawks.com/remington700MLS.htm , they are poorly qualified to comment in an area they themselves are so vividly incompetent in.

[Underclocked]

Randy, while what you say is true it in no way reduces the validity of the Remington statements to which you've drawn attention (for the wrong reasons).  

And I happen to totally agree with Remington on this one.

[RandyWakeman]

it in no way reduces the validity of the Remington statements .  

Of course it does.


Does the existence of 20 gauge ammunition somehow compel its use in a 12 ga.? The existence of .270 ammo automatically make .30-06's more dangerous? The existence of reloading equipment automatically make all firearms unsafe? Just because a firearm can be misused in no way makes it a safety hazard. Most any firearm barrel can be obstructed, but how tragically foolish must you really be to do so?

Just because you can plug a toaster into an electrical outlet in the bathroom, does not give you license to toast your bread while taking a bath. Just because you can drink paint does not encourage that action. Just because your car may be able to speed through a parking lot or playground at 100 miles an hour does not encourage such reckless actions. The sudden realization that hot coffee is indeed hot should not be a problem to those with a few brain cells to rub together, though a well-known 'incident' has shown quite vividly that is not always the case. Though most drownings are caused by water, that should not immediately dissuade people from drinking it.

If you are a muzzleloader, you are a reloader. That is the shooter's responsibility. If one is so barren of grey matter as to arbitrarily stuff smokeless powder down a barrel stamped "BLACK POWDER ONLY," they are the ones richly deserving of the consequences. They created the situtuation by their own ignorance. You need to be smarter than the thing you are operating, and if you aren't-- do not operate. Just because you can double charge or double load a muzzleloader is no encouragement to do so. If a manufacturer is incapable of conveying basic, safe operating instructions with their product-- they are the ones with some huge problems.

In concert, if anyone is incapable of following the manufacturer's instructions as to how to operate their equipment, the opportunity for professional instruction and training is available. If one is incapable of learning, reading,  or following rules-- they have no business with a muzzleloader.

Or, an automobile.

"Stupid is as stupid does."

[Underclocked]

I think you are purposely missing it on this one.  Ford has built some lemons.  Ford built some vehicles that might well explode if rear-ended.
Ford might also advise you not to step in front of moving trucks.  

Would anything in the first two statements detract from the solid advice in the the third?

Haven't you already seen ample evidence of experienced muzzleloaders pushing past the envelope with smokeless in rifles never designed for its use?  Such precautions as the one from Remington are spot on.

I would say the "stupid is as stupid does" is most appropriate in this case.

If I tell you that you should not smoke cigarettes, even as I light one up, is the advice not solid?

And Randy, believe it or not, Remington sold a ton of those 700MLs and not everyone is unhappy with their sample (mine was excellent).  My only experience with Remington's customer service was outstanding in a positive way.  Maybe we should assume that all of Remington's customer service is outstanding as are all Remington 700ML based solely upon my own limited experience.   Or should we assume the opposite based upon yours?

And in the case of the Walker triggers, stupid is TRULY as stupid does.  In every case, another very basic rule of safety was violated.  I'm very confident of the triggers on my rifles (including an excellent 700) but there isn't a single one that I would point at a person (well, maybe a couple of people.....).

[RandyWakeman]

I think you are purposely missing it on this one.  Ford has built some lemons.  

Likewise.

The existence of the Savage 10ML-II in no way allows, promulgates, suggests, or otherwise encourages non-Savage 10-ML hunters to misuse other muzzleloaders.

Savage does, and has always clearly and loudly warned that Savage smokeless loads are use in the Savage 10ML ONLY.

The basis and inspiration for Henry Ball's invention in the first place was to create a stronger, cleaner, safer muzzleloader to own and use. That, he has provably done.

[Underclocked]

I guess time will tell which of us views this correctly.  One thing is certain, when someone blows their head off with smokeless, it won't be because I advocated their using it in a muzzleloader.


Meanwhile, since we seem to be the only ones here......   :-D     gronk! :bye:

[RandyWakeman]

I guess time will tell which of us views this correctly.  

I wonder how much "time-telling" is required? As the Savage 10ML has been on the market for some four years, no mass suicides have manifested themselves. It seems it took Remington all this time to suddenly now spring into action at this very late date, with all the speed of a wounded gerbil.

When Nick Sexy, of Remington Engineering (Lexington, KY), commented that the Ball design was FAR superior to the (not yet released) Remington ML, but would be not released by Remington only because of the "not invented here" syndrome, it was not an uniformed statement.

If muzzleloading injuries to innocent users are the real concern, that concern is certainly best bestowed upon CVA for releasing a gun so inadequate, its subsequent lawsuits forced them into bankruptcy. Not all of those Apollos are yet accounted for. If you are worried solely about head injuries, the old H & R Huntsman "quick-release" breechplug made an impact in that department. In both of these blood-filled situations, smokeless powder played no distinct role.

No major firearms company advocates smokeless powder in a "blackpowder only" firearm, whether BP muzzleloader or blackpowder-only cartridge gun. No news there.

The Savage 10ML is not just "claimed as safe," as in Remington's smarmy statement. It has been proven as safe, tested to 129,000 PSI. Don't you wish you knew what all other brands were tested to, or IF indeed they are tested at all?

[Underclocked]

last word

[Wolfhound]

last word

That'd be mine.

[grouse]

Muzzleloaders are starting to be like automobiles. Some people like Chevy, some Ford, Dodge, etc. Everybody has there opinion. Like General motors, i think you are crazy not to own them. :eek:  Muzzleloaders are the same way to people. Everybody has there choice to buy what they want. As far as Savage, what is there to say bad? Remington, well not so lucky. They have had some problems with alot of guns, not just Muzzleloaders. Whats the best Muzzleloader to own?

[Wolfhound]

Whats the best Muzzleloader to own?

The one that's the most accurate, best fitting, easiest to clean, and also the prettiest. For me it's the thumbhole Omega. Your mileage however may vary.

[DannoBoone]

Certainly is difficult to tell who here has a Savage and who does not!!!!!!!!!
 :-D    

Make something break-proof, and someone will find a way to break it.
(The oldest son could find a way to break an anvil with a rubber mallet.)

Make something completely safe, and some Darwinian Award candidate
will find a way to get himself killed with it.

But what really is Remington's point? Could it be they have decided not
to make a smokeless ML and using all this safety propaganda as their
excuse?

By law, people must inform themselves prior to operating a vehicle, or
flying an airplane, and many other things.

Fortunately/unfortunately the operation of firearms is still up to each
individual to get informed. It is STILL an individual responsibility. Those
who strive for a Darwinian Award will not inform themselves of
anything left up to individual responsibility.  This should NOT be
perceived as the fault of a gun manufacturer, tractor manufacturer,
etc., etc.   :evil:

Sincerely,
Another CSB  

[RandyWakeman]

To appease the Great Underclocked, we could have the Schumer / Boxer / Feinstein / Kennedy sponsored

"Blackpowder Safety Act of 2004"

WHEREAS,

Black powder muzzleloading arms are by nature uncontrolled firearms, and are not built to the standards of sporting firearms that are capable of safely using smokeless powder;

And learned blackpowder enthusiasts such as the Great Underclocked have acknowledged that black powder users are easily confused, and are incapable of properly operating their weaker weapons on their own;

FURTHER, blackpowder muzzleloading enthusiasts are accepted to be so dim of wit that they are quite incapable of educating themselves without further assistance; unable to call, write, or otherwise contact the manufacturers of these low-pressure sporting arms for instruction, nor to heed the warnings embossed on the barrels of many of these these arms;

A NATIONAL REPOSITORY shall therefore be established to promote the common welfare of these poor souls and THOSE AROUND THEM, and all black powder muzzleloading users will need to pass an annual safety course prior to purchasing one of these arms, which will require the proper preparation of Federal Form 4473-BLACK than is inclusive of the most recent safety course certificate authentication number, accompanied by a processing fee of $85 per annum to offset costs;

Possession of any of these arms without prior paperwork and processing shall be considered a Federal Offense, punishable by ten years of incarceration. The Savage 10ML muzzleloader is solely exempt from this act, as it ALONE has been proven perfectly safe with smokeless powder, and its Accu-Trigger passes the California drop-test and all other such tests by a huge margin.

And the Great Underclocked can rest easier, the clear and present danger of blackpowder arms and their clumsy, uneducated users now addressed to his personal satisfaction.

[grouse]

You are right about that. I seem to grab my Encore more. But i shot
the same amount of deer with the Knight. They both are easy to clean,
and nice looking. I guess i like both of them. :grin:

[copiah]

There use to be a fellow posting on the T/C section of this board that he was using smokeless in his Encore.  

The way I see it, if someone thinks they are smarter than the manufacturer, they will get what the deserve when the gun comes loose.

[Underclocked]

You cheap, technology-mongering, wishy-washy soapbox toting nub of a newbie to the sport.....how dare you associatiate me - the illustrious potentate of worthless opinion - with all those "great" thinkers of our political system?  :bird:   You can say that only the intellectual participate, only those who would never take a wrong turn are involved, or suggest that people must surely be moronic for making mistakes (I DON'T think so - we ALL make mistakes).  You can resort to concocted fictional parables to support your singularly worthy opinion, you can use your venomous and vile nature to attack on wild tangents, you can float to the top of any debate by virtue of your low density and lack of substance, you can pile it on until it's difficult to wipe off, and do all this while jousting imaginary windmills, Sire Wakeman.

Nader, Vader, or neither?

But you are still wrong in my most humble and obviously Savage-less opinion.

[RandyWakeman]

But you are still wrong in my most humble and obviously Savage-less opinion.

About what, O Lord of Lead, Titan of Truncation, Castmaster of Conicalarity, Prince of Project 70, Master of Monopolarity, Sultan of Soot,  Baron of BoreButter, Giant of Greenfield?

[Roger_Dailey]

There seems to be a bit of disagreement going on here.

 Randy disagrees with something Remington published, or maybe he just disagrees with Remington.  UC disagrees with Randy's disagreement.  Randy returns volley with his disagreement of UC's disagreement.  

  Pretty entertaining stuff....

[Underclocked]

I dunno, I fergot whut we'z talkin bout.

[sabotloader]

Well, I am going to step in and then duck out really quick, I know I am a minnow in a big pond but my Remington ML works great and I wouldn't think of disaposing of it, nor would I use smokeles in it, so I don't know if I agree with UC or disagree with RW.  (I think the topic started out about smokeless in a BP/Pyro gun) But, I do no one of my best friends in the world was from MO, has anyone ever changed a guys from MO mind with words... You have to show em and then they may not believe, they can be difficult.  And then there are times that i think RW is difficult - THEREFORE it's a "draw" - i am outa here

[grouse]

:eek:  :?  :oops:  UC and Randy,
       I really hope you two are just kidding around.

[RandyWakeman]

Remington has arbitrarily, with no basis, claimed a state of dangerous confusion exists about smokeless powder use in blackpowder-only muzzleloaders. That has no merit. Confusion does exist about how to operate Remington muzzleloaders, though-- a look at THEIR owner's manual quickly reveals why.

The Great Underclocked, who is not generally dangerous or confused, finds no merit in my "lack of merit" observation. The Great Underclocked, however, has a great history of being arbitrary.

It is a pity that Remington 700ML's disappear from the market at an ever-increasing pace, though a close examination of current production will reveal why that is the case. With the number of safety-related lawsuits against Remington and resultant recalls on Remington product-- "consider the source" applies.

For any that might be confused, it is an act of imbecility to shoot smokeless powder in any firearm not proven as safe for its use, from a manufacturer that recommends NO smokeless loads be employed.  The Savage 10ML was designed some 12 years ago specifically TO shoot smokeless powder, and has been PROVEN safe with smokeless powder loads in excess of 300% of the pressure ANY Savage allowed load. No other muzzleloader, no other FIREARM can make this claim.

That is hardly confusing to those in touch with reality, and despite Underclocked's jocularity-- he is not in the least bit confused about that. :lol: The mysteries of serial ATA drives are a potential source of confusion to the casual user, however. :roll:

Enjoy your new Savage, Rich-- and please "put me down for three."

[Underclocked]

Bruhahaha.  Enjoy your new Savage!  Bruhahaha!!   :devil2:

[TCAS]

With Freedom we have choices, and we must bear some degree of personal reponsibility for our choice.  i.e use that gray matter betwix your ears.  If you don't think it's safe don't buy it.  And don't depend on the Government to make a decision that you should clearly make for yourself.

Less Government, More personal accountabillity....maybe I strayed off topic but that's how I see it.

Tom

[jgalar]

There has been a few times when I was shooting a BP gun I have had someone ask if you can only shoot BP in them or have you ever shot smokeless in it. Except for the loading rod the modern BP guns look like a cartridge gun. For someone who doesn't know anything about a muzzleloader I am sure it can be confusing. They may have seen an ad in a magazine for a smokeless muzzleloader (the Savage) and didn't remember which one it was. Remington may be getting calls asking if smokeless can be used in their gun.

[RandyWakeman]

Remington may be getting calls--

Consider the source of the comments. I can assure you Remington has had "calls"-- however, their capability of addressing those calls is an open question.

THE REMINGTON SAGA                  Friday, June 06, 2003

I have staunchly supported Remington Arms Company over the last thirty years in the form of retail purchases of no less than one hundred rifles and shotguns; untold cases of green-box “Core-Lokt” rifle ammunition, and TENS of thousands of rounds of your outstanding STS-hulled shotshell ammo, 209P primers, bags of Remington shot, and wads. I have sung the praises of this company long and hard. I think that makes me a reasonably good Remington customer and supporter—I have no idea what Remington thinks.

In October / November of 2002, I had a very pleasant conversation with Linda Powell, regarding the testing of a Remington 700ML muzzleloader in the video project called “21st Century Muzzleloading.” I was glad that Remington was happy to play a role, as Thompson / Center Arms, Knight Rifles, CVA-Winchester, and other companies had generously offered whatever sponsorship they could provide. The list was long, including Powerbelt Bullets, Hodgdon Powder, Millett Rings and scopes, Bushnell Performance Optics, and even companies like Brownells and Gamaliel Shooting Supply offered encouragement.

Remington alone failed to provide the promised rifle in a timely manner, insisting on shipping to my FFL (whose ink-signed FFL copy was mailed to Remington no less than THREE times). Both frustrating and disappointing, I expected more professionalism from Remington than “the rest.” I received the least. Finally, with several months passing by and most of the live shooting completed, I e-mailed both Linda Powell and Teressa Carter asking them to please disregard the request, as time was growing too short. Only the Remington was not discussed on the first tape, a pity.

The response was good; the decision was made to do a second tape. This time, in addition to the above participants, Savage Arms, Traditions, Austin & Halleck, and White Rifles supplied test rifles—with all the previous companies supplying their latest models. Nikon, Leica, Winchester-Olin, Zeiss, Precision Rifle, Midway-Battenfield, Birchwood-Casey, Talley, Sightron, XS, Sights, etc., happily became involved, along with Hodgdon, Bushnell, Brownells, etc., etc, as before.

Yet again the test rifle request was made to Remington, a company I have long supported with my personal purchasing dollars. One of the several previously mailed FFL’s had mysteriously (finally) shown up, and I was told “no problem.” Other brands of rifles quickly appeared, some new 2003 models flown to me as soon as they cleared customs. Again, a couple of months went by- no Remington. An e-mail to Teressa Carter inquiring as to the status was answered by “my gun was not yet approved.” I was flabbergasted, as this muzzleloader was approved by Linda Powell back in November, 2002.

Finally, a rifle arrived at my FFL months after promised. The bolt falls right out, or locks into place when the bolt stop screw is stiffly cranked down. The instruction manual calls out 120 grains FFg MAX in red letters, yet this gun has been marketed for some time as a “Magnum Gun.” I have repeatedly asked for clarification—none has been forthcoming. The barrel is stamped “REFER TO OWNER’s MANUAL. The erratic trigger break was from 6-7 lbs., the heaviest of some 15 test guns here.

Remington Arms was advised of the above. The answer was the trigger pull weight was “possible,” they no longer have a vent hole in the weather shroud, but have not updated the owner’s manual. No explanation for the bolt problems, and the gun was called “dangerous,” insulting my muzzleloading experience. This isn’t my first rodeo. Remington scolded me for asking about the weather shroud with 209 primers supplied by Remington; being told it “In fact, just the opposite, we warn users against using the weather shroud for repeat shooting.  It is for one shot situations in inclement conditions.” To be fair to Remington, this is partially true. It is recommended for hunting as opposed to target shooting, however, as the detailed vent-hole description and weather shroud installation instructions are just plain WRONG, it is hard for the consumer to give credibility to a currently supplied manual for eight year old or so model containing such grievous errors. Currently, the Remington website states “NOTE: The Model 700 ML Weather Shroud Is Not Intended For Use With 209 Primers.” This tidbit of information has not yet filtered to their manual, nor (apparently) was Remington tech support aware of it. I was promised clarification—none has been forthcoming as of this writing.

A photocopied addendum would seem a reasonable expectation, for dummies like me who actually read owner’s manuals. The entire situation is a bit frustrating, as rings, bases, custom PowerRods, slings, scopes, and other accessories have already been procured for this test rifle— yet, no concern has been expressed by Remington for the time and expense involved. Nor was a replacement rifle or a repair offered in a timely manner, a legitimate concern to any consumer should muzzleloading season be at hand.

Shortly after the above conversation, I received an unsolicited phone call from Laura Watson at Remington, who seemed genuinely concerned and offered to help. Laura is at extension 8789. I expressed my concern that the recently arrived 700MLS was wanted back very quickly by Teressa Carter, and that I was not looking to cause problems. Laura felt a replacement bolt and screw would likely fix the bolt issues. Laura promised she would get involved with all parties, NOT to worry, and she would get back to me either late that day (a Friday) or the following Monday at the latest. No return call or e-mail has ever been made.

Concerned, I tried Laura the following week several times. The recording indicated that the department was “closed for training” temporarily. Finally, the following week, I was able to leave a voice mail inquiring as to the status of her efforts, leaving my name and number: information Remington already had, of course.

Late on 6/5/2003, I received a phone call from an obviously irritated Teressa Carter, who rudely informed me that Laura Watson had “NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.” I note that Teressa, in all this time, had no interest in addressing previous shroud questions, loading concerns, bolt problems, etc.

Dear Remington—your internal squabbling and politics have nothing to do with me. If Remington personnel do NOT communicate with their co-workers in the very same office, that is solely a Remington issue.  

To put me in a position of having one Remington employee tell me to ignore the words and promises of another Remington employee is patently unfair. With every other of the several specifically named rifle companies involved in this video project, there have been NO problems whatsoever. Solely Remington. This is sad commentary for a company I have supported for so many years. To say I am disillusioned and disappointed with the string of broken promises made by Remington Arms through-out this ordeal is an understatement.

Teressa demanded that the 700MLS be shipped back TODAY, oblivious to the private range time, equipment and shooting team assembled for this coming Saturday. I said I would do so, and have done so, UPS 1Z 4XX 596 90 4016 0479. In so doing, I have shipped something within a few hours that Remington has displayed the repeated inability to do in several months.

If anyone went through my exact little Remington saga, wouldn’t they be a bit frustrated? WOULD YOU?

Sincerely,

Randy Wakeman
Plainfield, IL

The entirety of the above text was sent to Teressa Carter, Linda Powell, Eddie Stevenson, and the President of Remington. Teressa replied with a terse e-mail saying only, “Have a nice day.”

On July 21st, I spoke with another pleasant individual from Remington, Meredith Nunnery. Meredith assured me that a call tag would be mailed out to me in a day or so. I’m still waiting.

Today, August 14, 2003, yet another invoice arrived from Remington for this defective, miserable little muzzleloader, for well over $300 for this non-firing plastic gem. Remington knows full well that I would not want this amazing concoction of hollow-stocked bolt-flying ineptitude for free, much less for over $300. Apparently, despite all the previous correspondence and multiple broken promises by the green-monster that is Remington Arms, this information had yet to make it to yet another innocent Remington employee, this time Ms. Jean G. Powell. The sad saga continues.

I really pity any consumer who is forced to deal with this company that has displayed a level of ineptitude I have never, ever experienced before in the firearms industry.

August 22, 2003: Since the start of the saga, loyal Remington employee Laura Watson became "in a motherly way," and has since given birth to brandy new baby girl. Mother and daughter are both doing vibrantly well, so congratulations to Laura and her family.

Pleasant Remington employee Meredith Nunnery has since offered a few more pleasant phone calls, and a pick-up tag was finally issued by Remington, Tracking # 1Z 4XX 596 90 4041 3017.

Yet another (also pleasant- but not quite as pleasant as Meredith) Remington person from accounts receivables called. Though pleasant, she needed the tracking number. As the Tracking # / pick up Tag was sent here directly by Remington, I wondered (aloud) why Remington would call to ask me what they had at last sent to me? Another minor mystery. A good thing that Remington DID send a tag, as the last 700 ML was sent to Madison, NC. This one went to Ilion, NY. I asked why a different location this time, and was told "that's just the way it works, sometimes."

As the sun sets on the small Hamlet of Plainfield, Illinois, I can finally rest easy knowing the Remington Saga has drawn to a merciful close. Remington did e-mail, saying "SOME SERIOUS ACTION IS BEING TAKEN ON YOUR BEHALF, TO ENSURE NO ONE SUFFERS THROUGH ALL OF THIS AGAIN. I PROMISE YOU THAT THESE ISSUES ARE NOT TYPICAL OF REMINGTON."

Naturally, I asked what serious action specifically was taken? It seems that there is no serious answer to that, either. If there were, I would mention it here.

I still do not know what the correct maximum allowable loads are in a Remington 700ML, how they "REALLY" want you to use the weather shroud without a hole that sears your face with carefully directed flaming sands of Pyrodex and primer gas. It seems I am not worthy of such powerful knowledge. Remington is aware of this thread, they have read it, and could certainly post here if they had something to add.

I'm just quite satisfied that there is no Remington 700 taking up space here any longer. Sometimes, you just never fully appreciate how much you enjoy not having something until it is gone. I very much enjoy not having a Remington 700ML.

I have learned also that Meredith Nunnery of Remington is a very, very pleasant person. I'm spectacularly happy with that, if with nothing else.

So, Meredith, thank you for navigating the perilous waters of RACI, INC. (who actually ARE you guys, anyway?), and also for being so distinctly pleasantly pleasant.

I did receive a plastic sticker with the late Dale Earnhardt on it. I'm not sure where to stick it? The sticker, depicting Mr. Earnhardt, mention's that Dale's choice was "Remington Fishing."

It is quite good for the memory of Mr. Earnhardt that the sticker mentions nothing of the Remington 700ML. If I were dead, I'd much rather get people hooked on Remington fishing, rather than live in eternal torment that I might be reeling people in on Remington firearms.

In the case of Remington Firearms, I feel that "catch and release" is the only responsible method for their marketing.

Special thanks to Meredith Nunnery for exceeding the sunny disposition of all other Remington employees-- combined.

As of September 2nd, there have since been pleasant phone calls from the extremely pleasant Meredith Nunnery, and the extremely pleasant Jean G. Powell, who suggested that I should “spit that nasty taste” out of my mouth, and that things almost never are handled “like this.” So, I took her lead and spit and spat, perhaps rivaling the llama in spittle prowess.

On a subsequent phone call with Meredith, after being entreated to “give Remington another try,” I asked for information on their reduced-pressure 209 .410 shotshell primers for muzzleloading use. Not expecting her to have that information, I asked if she could pass along my request to the appropriate parties. She replied in the positive, adding that I could expect an answer in a day or so. Unfortunately, no information was forthcoming. I asked via e-mail if there was any “peep” from Remington “RE: .410 209 primers?”

The pleasant Meredith, it seems, was taken to task for trying to be helpful. The reply was terse, sent on September 2:
RANDY,
PLEASE ADDRESS ANY FUTURE EMAILS & PHONE CALLS DIRECTLY TO “XXXXX XXXXXX.” I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE.

In stark contrast, Federal Cartridge Company answered all my questions immediately, and I received a follow-up call the next to see if they could be of even more help. Federal has a completely different, much higher level than the still sickeningly sad Remington.

Remington Arms Company is a wonderful example of a tortured enterprise, so consumed with internal political posturing, power struggles, and awkward company structure that their dazzling incompetence at handling the simplest of matters continues to amaze me. The Remington employees that have been pleasant, showed concern, and a genuine willingness to help (Laura, Meredith, Jean) apparently have not been saluted for the fine representation of Remington (RACI Holdings), but have been REPRIMANDED for it.

I bought yet another case of STS Nitro 27 12 ga. loads this week, and almost gagged while doing so. The distinction that Remington continues to forge for itself is one that this writer feels is unparalleled in today’s firearms industry.

If Remington is suddenly sincerely worried about "confusion," or how muzzleloaders function-- it seems apparent, if only to me, that they are quite confused about how their company works, or if indeed it does. If one is in search of confusion, the Remington 700ML owners manual is a good place to find some. :roll:

[AndyHass]

C'mon guys, this is America.  No one is responsible for their actions anymore.  Spill hot coffee on yourself because you put it between your legs while driving?  Sue the restaurant.  Fall through a school's skylight while trying to break in?  Sue the district for having such an inviting entrance.  Your kid died because he drove (underage) his girfriend's car drunk?  Sue the girlfriend, her mother, and Coors; obviously it wasn't your KIDS's fault for getting behind the wheel without a license after willingly drinking a case.
    If someone is bone-headed enough to shoot smokeless in a BP-only ML, I think they deserve whatever happens, I just hope they don't take any innocents with them.   Companies should be immune from prosecution for such stupidity.  When will people realize that the penalty for allowing all of these responsibility-displacing lawsuits to take place IS THE LOSS OF FREEDOM FOR THE REST OF US?

[Super 91]

C'mon guys, this is America.  No one is responsible for their actions anymore.  Spill hot coffee on yourself because you put it between your legs while driving?  Sue the restaurant.  Fall through a school's skylight while trying to break in?  Sue the district for having such an inviting entrance.  Your kid died because he drove (underage) his girfriend's car drunk?  Sue the girlfriend, her mother, and Coors; obviously it wasn't your KIDS's fault for getting behind the wheel without a license after willingly drinking a case.
    If someone is bone-headed enough to shoot smokeless in a BP-only ML, I think they deserve whatever happens, I just hope they don't take any innocents with them.   Companies should be immune from prosecution for such stupidity.  When will people realize that the penalty for allowing all of these responsibility-displacing lawsuits to take place IS THE LOSS OF FREEDOM FOR THE REST OF US?

I tend to agree with you on this one.  Good show.  But then how would all the lawyers make any money?

[Underclocked]

No wonder there are such terrible train wrecks.  

This one has gotten way off track.  I think Remington has every right to post those words of caution regardless of whether they tickle Randy's fancy.  And I do not doubt the validity of their words.  

I'm sure Savage has little difficulty selling every smokeless muzzleloader they can put out the door as there seems to a very large group of ready buyers.  And the Savage is surely a quality rifle capable of centerfire performance without all the bothersome chores associated with shooting legitimate muzzleloaders.    :shock:

Of course I want no more Big Brother intervention, a whole lot less government would tickle me to no end.  But that has absolutely zip to do with my opinion regarding the use of smokeless in muzzleloaders.  I have more than one objection to that activity and safety isn't even the larger issue to me personally.  But what person that reads these forums for any length of time can honestly say they haven't seen more inquiries about smokeless barrels, smokeless experimentation, and smokeless discussions in general than ever before??  Consider that along with they myriad of questions and confusion you'll see about pellets, loose powder, and equivalence.  Consider that along with the abundance of misleading and confusing information put out by the manufacturers themselves.  Consider how performance driven our culture is and consider just how many newbies there are out there trying to digest all this.  

It's time for the manufacturers and major players in the sport to start advocating sane practices, sane objectives, sane performance expectations, as well as clear and accurate methods and means of using the equipment they sell.   Just a small administered dose of the "soul of the sport" wouldn't hurt either.  Remington's cautionary note, irrespective of their motivation for making it, is a welcome change from the rush toward faster, cleaner, easier, and hyping for the quick buck.  

Take two pellets and Powerbelt and call me in the morning.  Tomorrow I'll have smokeless pellets preloaded in "use once" rifles for you.

Let's all put our heads together and see if we can eliminate the ramrod.

[RandyWakeman]

This one has gotten way off track.  I think Remington has every right to post those words of caution regardless of whether they tickle Randy's fancy.  And I do not doubt the validity of their words.

In your opinion. Whether Remington is committing libel against Savage is up to the court system to decide. One should doubt "validity"-- when the source of the information is a company with so many of their own safety issues, they are are the subject of "60 Minutes" inquiries.

All this, in a muzzleloading industry with folks like Traditions and CVA that instruct their customers to use 25,000 PSI area loads in barrels proofed to sub-10,000 PSI? Most have heard of that by now. If you have not, this could help refresh your memory: http://www.chuckhawks.com/unsafe_muzzleloaders.htm .

Savage Arms has proven that the 10ML-II is the strongest, safest muzzleloader ever made. No one has made a valid case to the contrary, for the simple reason there is none. Savage Arms themselves has, long loudly warned that approved loads for their gun are dangerous in "blackpowder only" guns.

Surely, Underclocked, if you sincerely feel that the muzzleloading community is so dim of wit as to pour smokeless powder down barrels clearly stamped "for BLACKPOWDER USE ONLY", and that people are confused solely by the existence of a product that is vastly superior in strength by design, you might have been able to find time during one of your last 10,000 Internet postings to start a thread to help eliminate the confusion theory you might think exists.

Apparently, you have not found it so worthy.

It is a very simple statement: it is reckness, irresponsible, stupid, and a potential hazard not only to one's self, but to those around them to use smokeless powder in a muzzleloader untested and unproven for use with smokeless powder.

The Savage 10-ML is the ONLY muzzleloader on the market today well-proven as safe for use with smokeless powder, with some TWELVE years of testing and documentation to back it up. Use of Savage 10ML-approved loadings in ANY other muzzleloader is an absolutely needless risk. The Savage 10ML ALONE was designed from its inception to use smokeless powder. The Savage 10ML ALONE was created to be a SAFER alternative to the cheap, poorly made, marginal non-4473 blackpowder arms that have infested the sport-- with no universal standards of quality, dimension, or strength.  

What is it that could possibly confuse anyone? :idea:  :idea:  :idea:
Are you confused? Know anyone who is? If you do, I'm sure you will do your part to "unconfuse" them!