http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YFIwoZsWHk
I haven't seen (and am having trouble finding) the origninal CNBC piece about the Remington 700. But as is usual for the media these days, it seems it was filled half truths. I've heard a bit about the "Walker trigger" problem, but Remington's response really sheds some light on the matter.
Drewsifer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YFIwoZsWHk I haven't seen (and am having trouble finding) the origninal CNBC piece about the Remington 700. But as is usual for the media these days, it seems it was filled half truths. I've heard a bit about the "Walker trigger" problem, but Remington's response really sheds some light on the matter.
I worked for remington for a summer in engineering school. They're really not that technologically advanced of a company. I know nothing of this issue, but from what I saw about their produciton and design capabilities.. Ehh i'ts entirely possible. I can go on further if you want.
In fairness the CNBC video had videos sent in from military personnel and others that showed the action of just closing the bolt on the gun would fire it. I searched and couldn't find those videos for myself. I'd like to see them to truly understand the problem.
I'll also say that 90% of the problems that were attirbuted to the guns really were the problems of the operator. I can go on at length about this material change in shotgun barrels that was required as part of a settlement cause some nerd tripped while hunting, plugged his barrel full of mud, failed to clear it, and then blew his gun up in his face.
ignorant wrote:Drewsifer wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YFIwoZsWHk I haven't seen (and am having trouble finding) the origninal CNBC piece about the Remington 700. But as is usual for the media these days, it seems it was filled half truths. I've heard a bit about the "Walker trigger" problem, but Remington's response really sheds some light on the matter.I worked for remington for a summer in engineering school. They're really not that technologically advanced of a company. I know nothing of this issue, but from what I saw about their produciton and design capabilities.. Ehh i'ts entirely possible. I can go on further if you want. In fairness the CNBC video had videos sent in from military personnel and others that showed the action of just closing the bolt on the gun would fire it. I searched and couldn't find those videos for myself. I'd like to see them to truly understand the problem. I'll also say that 90% of the problems that were attirbuted to the guns really were the problems of the operator. I can go on at length about this material change in shotgun barrels that was required as part of a settlement cause some nerd tripped while hunting, plugged his barrel full of mud, failed to clear it, and then blew his gun up in his face.
It seems to me that most of the problems came from weapons that hadn't been maintained, or set to dangerously low trigger pulls. I don't doubt that Remington is capable of make an unsafe weapon. I just hate sensational media. Anything you'd like to add about Remington production method I would seriously love to hear. I don't know a whole lot about them, so I'm all ears.
All I know, is I love my 11-48.
Joey
This isn't simply a bunch of anti-gun nuts finding something to scream about, it is indeed a real problem. Discussed in pro-gun communities, with less that complimentary words. For example: http://www.gunsmiths.com/articledetail.php?id=87 and http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=74394
Remmington has never been noted for high quality. Be it their guns or their ammo. Though I do have one or their 22 rifles. Their shotgun ammo is so bad I refuse to use it, and know of at least one range that prohibits its use in slug guns at the range.
Several of my guns have free floating pins, are are also capable of firing when dropped. Though this is markedly different than the Remington problem. For a free floating pin gun to fire it must impact the ground with severe violence, and that impact must be parallel with the pin (pointing almost straight up or down when it hits the ground). The Remington on the otherhand is capable of fully firing the pin by mere slippage internally, or a mild dropping impact perpendicular to the gun (lying flat).
Problems from stupid engineering in firearms has existed before. And almost always been corrected quite rapidly. Remington on the other hand has been steadfastly ignoring this very real and stupid problem for years on end. They are far from unaware of the problem, and may well ultimately be destroyed in court for deliberate malace aforethought for continuing to manufacture this gun.
Drewsifer wrote: It seems to me that most of the problems came from weapons that hadn't been maintained, or set to dangerously low trigger pulls. I don't doubt that Remington is capable of make an unsafe weapon. I just hate sensational media. Anything you'd like to add about Remington production method I would seriously love to hear. I don't know a whole lot about them, so I'm all ears.
It's an awesome place. Very old factory with lots of old unused rooms built on the side of a hill. They offer tours in the summer. I 100% encourage everyone to go. It's cool. The custom shop is great and most of the people are wonderful. The problem is Ilion NY is in the middle of nowhere.
internally they compare most of their shotguns to brownings. that is their gold standard, so why not purchase one of those.
Awesome after work skeet and trap league.
This info is dated (2001-2002 and I'll also stay away from anything you couldn't learn from a quick plant tour at that time or on the internet now) but at this time they had an extreme lack of new computerized production methods. Most of their machines were old, very old. They had invested tons of money into their new shotgun barrel shop but had stacks of barrels that were bent like Shepherd's crooks. while they spent much time in the barrel shop with QC, other areas of the plant had a distinct lack of CMM's or quality control. I can go on about the disrepair of machines, lack of computers in design(both analysis and just drafting), and horrid shop floor 5S.
I had a O/U come apart on me during functional testing. On hand held the butt stock, one hand held the butt stock the barrel was on the ground. It fell apart after firing. I cannot remember if it was a model 300 or model 332. I believe it was a 332, but still a m3h shotgun that was only produced 4 years.
(ok a bit of internal information).. Most of their QC checks seemed to stem from (as the rumor on the shop floor went) court cases. It seemed like they really didn't take quality to heart. For example, (rumor had it) that they rifle barrel explode on a guy elk hunting. After he sued they found inclusions in the barrel forgings. whoops. So they started magnafluxing every barrel. etc. etc. etc..
I can go on.
There are tons of stories out there of these guns going off with just closing the bolt handle. I even found some on expeditionportal.com
It is kind of odd that Remington has such a bad reputation as far as quality goes yet it is basically the go to rifle (the 700) for so many hunters and by snipers.
That being said when I picked up my new hunting rifle I first looked at a 700 they had on the rack, while it was comfortable and looked great the action was rather rough and seemed a bit loose. I then tried the Weatherby Vanguard, this is the "economy" Weatherby using a Howa action. This rifle was smooth as silk in the operation of the action and was nice and tight, it was also $300 less. Needless to say I bought the Weatherby.
I've seen tape of a State of Maine trooper at the range, gun fails to fire. He turns to his sargent, starts talking to him, touches the side of the rifle and it goes off. Finger no where near the trigger. Scared the crap out the trooper. There's some kind of problem, maybe a batch/quality control problem or a design problem, but there is a problem. I think it was on CBS, about when this story hit the non-cable channels.
rebelgtp wrote: It is kind of odd that Remington has such a bad reputation as far as quality goes yet it is basically the go to rifle (the 700) for so many hunters and by snipers. That being said when I picked up my new hunting rifle I first looked at a 700 they had on the rack, while it was comfortable and looked great the action was rather rough and seemed a bit loose. I then tried the Weatherby Vanguard, this is the "economy" Weatherby using a Howa action. This rifle was smooth as silk in the operation of the action and was nice and tight, it was also $300 less. Needless to say I bought the Weatherby.
Hunters don't need a tack driver, and the military considers MOA good enough for snipers. Remington 700's are not all that impressive as far as bolt guns go: barrels are mediocre and the actions can be a bit rough. There are definitely more accurate platforms out there, but you pay through the nose for an accurized factory gun. It's pretty common to start out with a stock 700, because they are common and affordable, and change the barrel, true the action, and maybe upgrade the stock and you have a very capable rifle (albeit there isnt much factory Remington left).
I was hoping this was about NBC bringing back Remington Steel
YaNi wrote: Hunters don't need a tack driver, and the military considers MOA good enough for snipers. Remington 700's are not all that impressive as far as bolt guns go: barrels are mediocre and the actions can be a bit rough. There are definitely more accurate platforms out there, but you pay through the nose for an accurized factory gun. It's pretty common to start out with a stock 700, because they are common and affordable, and change the barrel, true the action, and maybe upgrade the stock and you have a very capable rifle (albeit there isnt much factory Remington left).
substitute 10/22 for 700 and it is also true.
I have a Remington or two, although currently no 700's. I have, however, used 700's in hunting and in NRA Highpower matches (centerfire, iron sights, ranges to 1000 yards, slow and rapid fire). The one problem I had with them was that the bolts didn't run as smooth as, say, a Winchester 70 or '03 Springfield in rapid fire. On one, that was just a slightly-too-long rear action screw, fixed in a matter of minutes. There might be a trigger issue on a few, but I never witnessed one. Remington 700's aren't my favorite rifles, but I'm not afraid of them.
In reply to YaNi:
You do realize that it is also one of the more popular platforms for ranged competition shooting right? Granted those do have little left of the original 700 in parts as well. The point being they are capable of being a tack driver and treated as such.
Also many hunters I know will argue they need the most accurate rifles they can get their hands on to ensure a clean kill. Granted many of these hunters are those that hunt to put meat on their families table vs hunting for trophies. Then again I live in a rural area with a high unemployment rate, most jobs don't pay much when you get them, loads of people have to hit the food bank and are on food stamps to get food. Often these people will hunt everything that they can over the year (if it is in season it is hunted plenty of bear meat and cougar meat in the freezers in this valley) and their guns are prized possessions that are tools used to feed their families. To these people suggesting that every shot doesn't count could earn you a whoopin.
I have no fear of the 700 either in fact I almost bought an older one a week or so ago. However I would much rather have a Winchester 70. I'm also going to be picking up a new Savage with the purpose of rebuilding it and grabbing another Weatherby at some point as well. Someday I will grab an '03 as well.
The 700 is the SBC of the rifle world. They do so well because they do just about everything well and are offered in almost every caliber know to man and a lot of smiths seem to like them. It was one of the first American designed actions that was not biased on the Mauser action and could be mass produced ( i.e. they didn't require near the amount of fitting and machining other comparable models did) without a loss in accuracy. They didn't look bad, the price was right, and they were reasonably accurate so American hunters bought them in droves.
They also have the largest aftermarket and that is a big plus. Their are tons of gunsmiths ready to make these rifles into anything you want them to be.
In fact their are so many of these rifles that if they had some kind of problem with the trigger everyone would know about it.
JohnGalt wrote: In fact their are so many of these rifles that if they had some kind of problem with the trigger everyone would know about it.
see links that foxtrapper posted. Also tons of stuff on the high road if you google.
it just seems to me most of these problems where from old/improperly maintained/badly modified weapons. And it seems there was a lot of user error involved. Unsafe is unsafe. It doesn't matter if the safety is on or not, treat every weapon like its loaded. If people followed basic gun safety, I don't think as many accidents would happen.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=548107 <-- That is some very good discussion on the topic. Some guys report just having the rifle fire switching off the safety.
My dad owns a 700 that has done nothing but shoot anything asked of it, and take deer and wild pigs with ease. He also owns an 1100 and I have an 870. Our hunting party uses 870s and 1100s almost exclusively (my brother and I have Browning gold hunters bought in the period when you could only get 11-87s and 1100s with synthetic stocks).
I've found Remington to be supremely reliably and wholly suited to hunting and recreational use. As much as I love my Browning, and it is superior firearm, the 1100 does everthing you ask of it.
It is a standard functional test of a firearm to (unloaded) cock it, put the safety on, pull on the trigger, let go, take the safety off. The weapon should not fire, that is, the hammer should not drop. If it does, it is defective. Bad trigger or safety, something worn out of spec, not fitted right in the first place, etc. Any weapon can do that. Many do, for the reasons stated. I would hope that a factory built 700 would not. I've had a small ring Mauser do that in the early assembly stage. The parts, from many different guns and 100 years old, didn't all work together without fitting.
People tinkering with all the bits to get a better trigger can seriously screw up anything. Even so-called professional gunsmiths. I would venture to say that the majority of the problems stated are from either worn out actions or someone tinkering, and most likely tinkering because the number of shots to induce that much wear would cost more than any of use could afford in a lifetime of shooting. Is a 700 more susceptible to this than others? I dunno. Maybe. I would also venture to say that given the number of 700's and 700 based rifles out there, there would be a bigger chance of any problem being seen. I mean, it's like saying that SBC's are susceptible to rocker arms grenading on you, here's some stats, a thousand of them blew up last year. Well, given the billion SBC's out there, it's a pretty small problem, and of those thousand, 500 had big cams added.
I also know the military likes 700's because the pre-64 Winchesters were discontinued (in 63) and the post 64's extractors were said to possibly foul after several hundred rounds at a single shooting. You know, like when you're shooting up an entire enemy company by yourself or with just a spotter. The 700, with it's conventional Mauser style large extractor was the only other choice they had at the time, so they went with that. That is from an interview with the father of the modern Marine Corp Sniper program that I read within the past couple years.
I shoot highpower silhouette competition. My first competition rifle was a new 700 and I used it heavily for years and still do on occasion. I adjusted the factory trigger down to two pounds, solely by fiddling with the screws...no polishing or internal work at all. I followed the directions of knowledgeable folks, but do NOT claim I really knew what I was doing. I got my two pounds with no creep.
After a couple of years of competition shooting, I let a new guy try a few shots. He was trained to put the safety on after every shot. (A safety really has no use on a traget rifle which is fired as soon as it's loaded. A safety's sole purpose is to allow hunters to carry the gun around while it's loaded.) I tried to take a shot, pulled the trigger, found the safety on. When I pushed the safety off, BOOM. I later learned what a common problem this is. With muzzle control, there was no damage and, really, no danger. Just a big surprise.
They are really fine, mass-market guns if you know what you're doing. Which I obviously didn't, quite. The SBC analogy is a good one.
You'll need to log in to post.
