Remington 700 safety problems: CNBC, 10/20/10, 8PM Central.

[Mando'a]

I've been in the market to buy a 700 in .308.

I wanted to take it deer hunting in Arkansas this November.

I guess I'll hold off for a while longer.

[VMI77]

CNBC suddenly cares about gun owners? I don't buy it. I don't watch TV anymore, so I don't know: have they done any stories about how citizens use guns for self-defense? I think this story serves an anti-gun agenda --it communicates the notion to the general public that even guns that have been around a long time and are used by professionals are inherently dangerous and can just go off for no reason and kill someone. I don't think they have any other motivation for this story.

[A-R]

CNBC suddenly cares about gun owners? I don't buy it. I don't watch TV anymore, so I don't know: have they done any stories about how citizens use guns for self-defense? I think this story serves an anti-gun agenda --it communicates the notion to the general public that even guns that have been around a long time and are used by professionals are inherently dangerous and can just go off for no reason and kill someone. I don't think they have any other motivation for this story.

I really don't understand this type of response. And I mean this generally VM177, don't mean to single you out - yours was just the most recent similar response.

I do understand the healthy skepticism of the media. I even understand making a personal decision not to watch TV anymore. And I fully believe everyone is entitled to make their own educated (or even uneducated) opinion about the truthfulness of any media report, especially one which demonizes a practice or a product that you enjoy, respect, hold dear etc.

What I don't understand is dismissing an obviously lengthy and detailed report on the safety of a consumer product as automatically unworthy because of suspected ulterior motives behind the persons or organization making the report. Even when the Brady bunch put out their ridiculous statistics "proving" that CHL holders are violent dangerous people", I read the report (as much of it as I could stand) long enough to pick out the obvious lies and intellectual fallacies before labeling it is "bunk".

I don't like the idea that a venerable American gun manufacturer may have been purposely overlooking a known safety problem with one of its most popular products for decades. I don't like how that could possibly make the entire gun industry and all "gun people" in general look bad. And I'm not dismissing the good possibility that there may be a politically slanted reason why CNBC chose to do this report.

But at the end of the day, if - proven beyond a reasonable doubt - a bolt-action rifle often or regularly can be made to fire a bullet by simply disengaging the safety or by lightly tapping the bolt handle as the law enforcement sniper shows in one of the videos, then all motivations (political or otherwise) of the people bringing such problems to light are immaterial. That product - that firearm - is inherently unsafe and MUST be fixed regardless of price or consequences. If fixing or replacing all those 5 million Rem 700s puts Remington out of business - so be it. If the company knew about the problem for 60 years and ignored it, they DESERVE to go out of business. If they truly didn't realize the extent of the problem and are just now realizing how bad it is, then that's just bad business and the basic tenants of capitalism say they must suffer the consequences and go out of business.

A lot of IFS in the statement above. But IF they all point in a bad direction, then Remington is a bad company. Period. Big bold statement I realize, which is why I couch it with so many ifs.

But again, what I can't understand is this idea of turning a blind eye to such allegations just because we may not like the result of the allegations. As is said in the CNBC report (if you watch the whole thing, not just the "preview") it is in the best interests of Remington and the gun industry generally to correct these types of problems themselves. The nightmare scenario - stated by the father of the young boy who was killed by a unintentional discharge from a Rem 700 - is that the government steps in to "clean up the industry" and makes all guns "so safe that they become useless."

As supporters of 2A/RKBA, we should be demanding that all gun manufacturers produce safe and reliable firearms and that they quickly rectify any known problems before the government usurps the power to step in and do it for them.

And yes I realize as is said in the CNBC piece that the government has never regulated firearms industry as it has cars and other consumer products because it would be seen as trampling on 2A. And recent attempts by government to sue the firearms industry for firearms related deaths failed miserably as they should have. But this is not the same thing. I'm not advocating forcing a gun manufacturer to change because of the wrongful actions of end users. I'm advocating forcing gun manufacturers to correct a known defect in a consumer product that can cause serious risk of death or serious bodily injury. I would greatly prefer if Remington would take this action itself and not wait for a court or God-forbid a legislature to force them to do so.

[The Annoyed Man]

I certainly don't want to start a war over this supposed "issue" but I will state two truths from over 50 years of shooting Remington 700's.

1) Any idiot, thinking himself a gunsmith, can cause a Remington trigger to go off when the bolt is closed.
2) That same idiot can probably arrange for a whole host of other makes to do the same thing.

Don't believe everything you hear from the media. You should all know the truth: Every gun story in the media has at least one error. Finally, go over to snipershide.com and see if you can get every military sniper who has ever carried a Remington (nearly all of them) to agree that there is a vast Remington conspiracy. Sorry, but CNBC is "junk media", like so many others.

Ditto.

FWIW, the guy who did the work on mine is a for-realz gunsmith who also builds custom bolt rifles out of a local gunshop.

[puma guy]

I haven't heard about this, so it's nice to have the info to add to my little list of "things to keep an eye on"

Well, as Mason Williams testified to Congress many years ago "I don't watch TV, I keep an eye on it".

[MoJo]

CNBC suddenly cares about gun owners? I don't buy it. I don't watch TV anymore, so I don't know: have they done any stories about how citizens use guns for self-defense? I think this story serves an anti-gun agenda --it communicates the notion to the general public that even guns that have been around a long time and are used by professionals are inherently dangerous and can just go off for no reason and kill someone. I don't think they have any other motivation for this story.

They never mention the MILLIONS of Remington 700 rifles that haven't "gone off" by turning the safety off. Media seems to only report bad news especially when any consumer product is involved. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Remington 700 rifle based on the number of guns sold and the small number of accidents that have happened. Whenever handling a firearm, we must always remember the NRA's rules of gun safety.


http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.


3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've been in the market to buy a 700 in .308.

I wanted to take it deer hunting in Arkansas this November.

I guess I'll hold off for a while longer.

Don't hold off. This is a non-issue. Like Pete Camp said, several decades worth of military snipers using Remington 700s can't be wrong. It's a military weapon. If the rifle were unsafe to anyone other than the target, they would have forced Remington to deal with it.

Newsflash: Not all cops are for real shooters, including their snipers.

Another newsflash: even real shooters sometimes make mistakes.

Final newsflash: Sometimes things break, and "stuff" happens. I have yet to see a 100%, without every any history of flaw failure or breakeage, reliable firearm. They are all a matter of degree and percentages.

If you want a Remington 700, get you one. You'll never regret it. I love mine:

[Outbreaker]

Mine first did it when I was shooting at a coyote....dang....saftey on....slip it off.....BOOM. I replaced the trigger with a jewel match grade trigger......no more problems.

[VMI77]

But at the end of the day, if - proven beyond a reasonable doubt - a bolt-action rifle often or regularly can be made to fire a bullet by simply disengaging the safety or by lightly tapping the bolt handle as the law enforcement sniper shows in one of the videos, then all motivations (political or otherwise) of the people bringing such problems to light are immaterial. That product - that firearm - is inherently unsafe and MUST be fixed regardless of price or consequences. If fixing or replacing all those 5 million Rem 700s puts Remington out of business - so be it. If the company knew about the problem for 60 years and ignored it, they DESERVE to go out of business. If they truly didn't realize the extent of the problem and are just now realizing how bad it is, then that's just bad business and the basic tenants of capitalism say they must suffer the consequences and go out of business. .

The proper venue for proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt is in court, not on television. It's not like I've never watched TV before; I don't watch it because I'm quite familiar with what's on it (though I admit, I do occasionally pick up a series on DVD). I've never seen any television program even come close to answering the most obvious questions on a subject, much less prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt --including programs in less politicized venues.

Let's look at your perspective on this from another angle. Let's say they're not going to distort reality in their presentation (which, btw, I don't believe for a second and am merely proposing for the sake of argument), everything they present is true, they present the whole truth in a way that allows viewers to draw a well founded conclusion, and that conclusion is that these rifles really are inherently dangerous. We're back to my question about CNBC: are they presenting programs, like, for instance, how citizens have saved innocent lives using firearms? If not, then I suggest your contention that their motivation is irrelevant is false. If they only put on programs like this then even if every single one of them is entirely true, the perception they create about firearm ownership is entirely negative and false, and therefore constitutes deliberate lying and deception.

And that is why I have the attitude I do: I see the big lie. I don't particularly care if this one program is accurate or not, because in the larger scheme, it still amounts to a lie, and it still serves the anti-gun agenda. This might be different if the MSM was not unilaterally anti-gun. If, for instance, they were neutral on the subject, or, some were anti-gun and some pro-gun. But none of the MSM is pro-gun or pro-2nd Amendment.

EDIT ADDITION

BTW, what little research I did on this at gun sites, where people share your safety concerns, and unlike the MSM, actually know something about guns, tells me that the CNBC program is a hit piece that exaggerates a problem caused by user modifications, or as TAM says --a non-issue. And I've had a Remington 700 since high school, and never had a problem with it, so I have reason to be concerned and experience with this particular rifle.

Edit to My Edit

Consider also the audience for this --it isn't Remington 700 owners or gun owners in general. Do gun owners look in the MSM for critical info about guns they own or plan to buy? We come to forums like this one to get answers from people who are knowledgeable about guns. In fact, I highly doubt they care how gun owners perceive this hit piece; their audience is an uninformed and impressionable public. They want to reinforce the anti-gun biases of their audience and push anyone who is undecided into the anti-gun camp --they know they're not going to convince anyone who is pro gun rights. They HATE us.

I can't emphasize this enough: the MSM and the anti-gun people HATE us. Some of them, maybe even a majority of them, believe we're crazy and want to see us dead or in prison. For example, just consider the kinds of remarks being made by the anti-gun crowd in conjunction with the concealed carry ban at the NRA convention. Many of them, stewed in their ignorance, relished the notion of gun owners shooting each other at the NRA convention --they actually believe CHL holders can't be together in a crowd without shooting each other, and they anticipated such an outcome with pure glee. Some of these people have warmer feelings for actual predatory criminals than they do for law abiding gun owners.

[philip964]

The preview I saw showed a military sniper closing the bolt and the gun fired, no hand was near the trigger.

Near as I can tell Remmington is saying that this is due to people adjusting and modifying the trigger. They follow that with that if proper gun safety is used no injuries or deaths would have occurred.

Their second statement is certainly true as, if a gun is never pointed at something that you don't want to kill or destroy no one would have been injured or killed.

I guess this is something all of us need to remember because everything that man makes is not perfect and failures can occur and when they do with guns it is never nice.

Regarding why CNBC is covering this, it is that Remmington is a company that is on track for an Initial Public Offering and it is good news just like their story on Toyota's unintended acceleration (which DOT tests have now shown that it was driver error in all cases reviewed, hitting gas not brake). CNBC has not aired a new expose' now with this information.

[puma guy]

The preview I saw showed a military sniper closing the bolt and the gun fired, no hand was near the trigger.

Near as I can tell Remmington is saying that this is due to people adjusting and modifying the trigger. They follow that with that if proper gun safety is used no injuries or deaths would have occurred.

Their second statement is certainly true as, if a gun is never pointed at something that you don't want to kill or destroy no one would have been injured or killed.

I guess this is something all of us need to remember because everything that man makes is not perfect and failures can occur and when they do with guns it is never nice.

Regarding why CNBC is covering this, it is that Remmington is a company that is on track for an Initial Public Offering and it is good news just like their story on Toyota's unintended acceleration (which DOT tests have now shown that it was driver error in all cases reviewed, hitting gas not brake). CNBC has not aired a new expose' now with this information.

I can assure you all the sniper rifles have had trigger work to lighten as much as possible. No self respecting sniper would be satisfied with the factory trigger. They probably left out the part where the bolt was intentionally slightly out of battery, the trigger was pulled and then the bolt was closed. Wa! La! Bang! Either that or the trigger was set to lightly to begin with. I have a friend with a Rem 721 that had his trigger adjusted to lightly and I used it once with the result of a bang when I closed the bolt. He took it to a real gunsmith (KDF) and got it fixed. I obeyed the rule to have the muzzle pointed away from ANYTHING I was unwilling to kill, harm or damage while emptying the weapon. Sadly the lady in the TV show pointed it toward the trailer.

[PeteCamp]

What I don't understand is dismissing an obviously lengthy and detailed report on the safety of a consumer product as automatically unworthy because of suspected ulterior motives behind the persons or organization making the report.

And I'm not dismissing the good possibility that there may be a politically slanted reason why CNBC chose to do this report.

Well at least you're consistent....or are you? What exactly should we do with an obviously politically slanted report? Something akin to the infamous National Guard report on George Bush? Honesty has been taken out of the vocabulary of most media organizations.

Let me challenge anyone who does not understand this to take your Remington 700 to a quality gunsmith, who regularly works on stock Remington triggers, and ask him to show you this so-called "problem". I can make a 700 do it easily by simply misadjusting the sear engagement screw. (OH...CNBC didn't tell you about that particluar screw?) Do an internet search on "adjusting your Remington 700 trigger" and you will find the problem described in detail in the Safety Check part. But of course, "We don't need no steenkin safety checks." The idiot just adjusts his trigger incorrectly and phones CNBC.

The preview I saw showed a military sniper closing the bolt and the gun fired, no hand was near the trigger.

A military sniper? Look at it again. Sporter weight barrel. Wrong scope. Someone wearing camo with the face blurred. It could have been me except all my 700's are heavy barrel.

For those who don't know what an M24 (Rem 700) looks like:

[The Annoyed Man]

The preview I saw showed a military sniper closing the bolt and the gun fired, no hand was near the trigger.

Near as I can tell Remmington is saying that this is due to people adjusting and modifying the trigger. They follow that with that if proper gun safety is used no injuries or deaths would have occurred.

Their second statement is certainly true as, if a gun is never pointed at something that you don't want to kill or destroy no one would have been injured or killed.

I guess this is something all of us need to remember because everything that man makes is not perfect and failures can occur and when they do with guns it is never nice.

Regarding why CNBC is covering this, it is that Remmington is a company that is on track for an Initial Public Offering and it is good news just like their story on Toyota's unintended acceleration (which DOT tests have now shown that it was driver error in all cases reviewed, hitting gas not brake). CNBC has not aired a new expose' now with this information.

And that was exactly my experience, and that is why I don't lay it at Remington's feet. Wanna bet that a military grade sniper rifle has a lightened trigger? I've never shot one, but I'll bet it does.

And for the record, when Sportsmans Warehouse was still open in Lewisville, the guys behind the rifle counter showed me a new in the box Savage varmint rifle in .223 with a fat barrel that would trip the trigger on closing the bolt - and it came from the factory that way. Also for the record, that was the very first time in 20 years of shooting bolt action rifles that I had ever seen that phenomenon.

That's not to say that it can't happen. It happened to me with my Remington. But I am saying that it isn't common, and it doesn't just happen to Remington rifles.

[Mando'a]

I've been in the market to buy a 700 in .308.

I wanted to take it deer hunting in Arkansas this November.

I guess I'll hold off for a while longer.

Don't hold off. This is a non-issue. Like Pete Camp said, several decades worth of military snipers using Remington 700s can't be wrong. It's a military weapon. If the rifle were unsafe to anyone other than the target, they would have forced Remington to deal with it.

Newsflash: Not all cops are for real shooters, including their snipers.

Another newsflash: even real shooters sometimes make mistakes.

Final newsflash: Sometimes things break, and "stuff" happens. I have yet to see a 100%, without every any history of flaw failure or breakeage, reliable firearm. They are all a matter of degree and percentages.

If you want a Remington 700, get you one. You'll never regret it. I love mine:

Your post does make me feel better about this. I certainly agree that stuff happens.

When I was researching this rifle, I never found any thing concerning this issue. Although, I was looking more for the reviews.

I also figured that since it has been in service for the U.S. Military for about 20yrs+ as the M24, it must be pretty reliable.
Which was the main reason it was my #1 pick (Savage Edge XP was my #2, Mosin-Nagant #3).

I found a rebuttal here from Remington:
http://www.remington700.tv/#/home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't Googled yet for this issue, but I will as soon as I get time. It's not the first time I've been taken in on shock reporting...

Thanks again for the reassurance.

[Katygunnut]

You certainly have to give Remington credit for not backing down. Then again, if there really is a problem and they acknowledge that they knew of and did not fix the problem, then there may be no real alternative. I'm on the fence on this one. I'm not willing to completely discredit allegations just because of their source, although I do feel that CNBC has an anti-gun agenda, and I give these allegations less credence than I would if they came from the NRA, for example.

That said, if an unmodified and undamaged Remington 700 fires without pulling the trigger, this is a big problem for me personally. Even if this only happens with one gun out of a hundred, that is a problem. Maybe I am being naive, but I prefer to know that there is no way my guns are going to fire unless the trigger is pulled. I own a total of 15 guns at the moment, and have probably owned or used close to a hundred over the years (including 4 years in the US Army). I have never had a gun that ever fired without the trigger being pulled, and I have never heard of this happening from anyone that I personally know.