Remington 700 safety issues

[pourts]

Any of you ever hear about issues with the Remington 700 safety? I just watched a show on CNBC about the "fire on safety release" issue. Basically, the rifles made before 1982 don't actualy have a safety, just a bolt lock. And actuating that safety can cause the rifle to fire (about 1%).

For $20 and shipping, you can send your rifle to Remington and have them do a "safety modification." Note this is not a recall. Sounds to me like they should do it for free.

http://www.remington.com/pages/news...ogram/remington-model-700-and-model-40-X.aspx

 

[statesman]

Interesting find, however if you're using proper firearm handling technique you'd never experience this malfunction...

I'm not a fan of so called safetys, the more you use them the more likely you are to have it engaged when you need your gun most...

 

[sickboy]

I'm not a fan of so called safetys, the more you use them the more likely you are to have it engaged when you need your gun most...

And the more likely you are to be lax with the handling rules.

 

[gaijin6423]

Is this issue the same or different than the one associated with the SWAT guys making their 700 fire by slamming the the bolt down? I had thought that was found to be due to some shitty in-house 'custom work' by the PD's armorer, and that one of the news channels grossly overstated the problem to create some news on a slow day? I thought that there was even a retraction piece aired by the network.

ETA: And no mechanism, no matter how advanced, is a substitute for good fundamental safety practices and weapons handling skills. A safety is, IMO, only designed to enhance those practices, and only when used in concert with them. It should never be a substitute.

 

[Bevo16]

I am glad that the Remington 700 in .338 Ultra Mag that my girlfriend's father sent me home with on Saturday is new.

Anybody got a shoulder pad I can use. I hear these things kick like a mo-fo.

 

[Boomhower]

I hear these things kick like a mo-fo.

They do. Shooting a .338 Ultra Mag is what turned me off from getting a .338 Lapua (which is even hotter). Get a shoulder pad, muzzle brake, heavy stock and lead sled; then you'll be fine. I might be overstating it just a bit. But, make sure your eye relief on the scope is fairly far away.

However, on the plus side, it will kill a hog like it made it up and will put an axis buck on its nose. The one I shot was a .338 UM Browning BAR with a 1x4 scope. It was made for running around the sand hills after hogs.

 

[wink]

Interesting find, however if you're using proper firearm handling technique you'd never experience this malfunction...

I'm not a fan of so called safetys, the more you use them the more likely you are to have it engaged when you need your gun most...

In general, I am with you. The one handgun I have with a safety I carry safety off. But it isn't like a Remington 700 is a defense weapon. And if you put a safety on a weapon it better act like one. Safe gun handling only makes sure the AD round goes 600 yards and plants itself in some guy's tractor or Angus cow you can't see. Allowing for the anti gun slant, Remington did have a problem or they wouldn't be offering a fix. No weapon should discharge without pulling the trigger. Just because you didn't shoot your son and the round went into terra firma doesn't mean it is acceptable.

 

[Pugs]

Any of you ever hear about issues with the Remington 700 safety? Note this is not a recall. Sounds to me like they should do it for free.

It's been a common discussion in most newsgroups and among shooters from back in the days when the 700 had a bolt lock such that you had to take the rifle off safe to unload it. They stopped using that design in 1982 - nearly 30 years ago - Anyone who was hurt by this either pointed a rifle at another person or had someone had a rifle pointed at them and likely that rifle had either had the trigger modified or it had not been maintained.

I have one Remington 700 in .221 Fireball and it hasn't shot me yet but there it lurks in the safe just waiting for it opportunity I'm sure

 

[cblack]

Is this issue the same or different than the one associated with the SWAT guys making their 700 fire by slamming the the bolt down? I had thought that was found to be due to some shitty in-house 'custom work' by the PD's armorer, and that one of the news channels grossly overstated the problem to create some news on a slow day? I thought that there was even a retraction piece aired by the network.

I don't know if that issue is what the OP is referring to, but you are correct about the shitty custom work done on the trigger by the SWAT guys. Something like adjusting the trigger pull outside the limits which caused the gun to fire when they moved the bolt a certain way.

Remington issued a response to the CNBC report: .

 

[pourts]

Thanks for posting the Remington response. I think there were several permutations of the issue, but it basically had to do with the trigger group and the "safety" that didn't block the firing pin, and therefore should never have been called a safety.

I myself have shot the rifle on numerous occasions and had no issues. However, the flaw was reported to occur in 1% of the pre-1982 rifles, so almost everyone who has ever shot one probably has had a good experience.

Like Wink said we all know the weapons safety rules are paramount, but an ND is still an ND and if caused by a faulty design, is unacceptable.

What suprised me is that this is the most popular hunting rifle in the world, and arguably one of the most accurate and I hadn't heard anything about design flaws until this show. This is the only internet board I frequent, so maybe I am just out of the loop. In its response video Remington cites poor maintenance (in addition to improper alterations, which I have no argument with) as a possible cause of malfunctions. My response is that detailed cleaning and inspection of the inner workings of the trigger group is something that shouldn't be expected of your average recreational shooter. At least not on a regular basis.

Furthermore, if there is no issue, why is Remington doing safety modifications for pre-1982 rifles? Likewise, if there is a problem, why are they charging people for what is basically a voluntary recall? When car companies have voluntary recalls, the labor is free to the customer. I am not anti-gun by any means, but it seems like Remington is getting a pass here.

 

[statesman]

In general, I am with you. The one handgun I have with a safety I carry safety off. But it isn't like a Remington 700 is a defense weapon. And if you put a safety on a weapon it better act like one. Safe gun handling only makes sure the AD round goes 600 yards and plants itself in some guy's tractor or Angus cow you can't see. Allowing for the anti gun slant, Remington did have a problem or they wouldn't be offering a fix. No weapon should discharge without pulling the trigger. Just because you didn't shoot your son and the round went into terra firma doesn't mean it is acceptable.

No doubt there Wink, and I agree if the mechanism isnt working right, by all means it should be fixed. Though from the sound of the Upgrade Program it wasnt that the gun was discharging without the trigger being pulled, it was that the rifle would discharge with the trigger pulled with the select switch in 'safe'....

And again if I had one of these I would certainly pay the small fee to have it repaired / upgraded... I was just commenting on the view that a 'saftey' is anything more than a luxury.

 

[statesman]

Furthermore, if there is no issue, why is Remington doing safety modifications for pre-1982 rifles? Likewise, if there is a problem, why are they charging people for what is basically a voluntary recall? When car companies have voluntary recalls, the labor is free to the customer. I am not anti-gun by any means, but it seems like Remington is getting a pass here.

Because the Lawyers. Not that they shouldnt be offering this upgrade, but if these non factory modifications are the cause of the problem then nearly any other product the manufacturer would say "dude your SOL you modified the product, and your warranty is VOID". My guess is that they are just doing it to be extra safe. Often times Perception is WAY more important than reality, especially for gun companies.

That's just my W A G... because like you I had never heard this about the Remmington 700, and my guess is that its not a manufacture defect... its some jackholes messing with something they shouldnt be....

 

[wink]

It isn't a manufactures defect, it is a poor design. Not all of the problems were born out of poor modifications. In, fact, the only one I am familiar with is the SWAT case. Generally, manufacturers are held responsible for poor designs. While firearms do not come under the consumer products safety act (a huge thing for the antis because it looks like gun makers are immune, above the law) they are, however, still subject to law suits
(which the antis don't mention). So, in that sense, yes it is the lawyers because, well, it may be a tort issue. When the state of the art at the time provided for a better "safety" design, Remington should have used it or have a very very good reason for not doing so and subsequently informed users that their "safety" was different then might be expected.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Anyone who was hurt by this either pointed a rifle at another person or had someone had a rifle pointed at them...

+2
I sat through that "documentary" for the sole reason of watching CNBC pathetically try to create a "scandal."

That being said, as with any major design flaw, they should still offer the fix free of charge for those who wish.