Remington Under Fire

[NWFLYJ]

I did not get a chance to take in the CNBC report, I'm hoping somebody on here did.
My wife gave me one of these all dolled up with a bull barrel, scope, extended bolt handle, bipod, ect....for my birthday. I own lots of other long guns but have never owned a Remmy.
My gut feeling goes back the "Don't let your sights cover a target you are not willing to destroy" rule. I read something on a Google search that they interveiwed the designer of the trigger and he had recommended changes early on.
I just spent an hour trying to trick mine into doing it, and I could not make it fail. Any thoughts? Mark

[Artful]

I own a 700V that's over 20 years old and it's never messed up on me.

here's a link of the stink
http://www.clickondetroit.com/money/25451838/detail.html

but the biggest problem I have seen with guns going off is the person who "adjusted" the trigger to his liking - usually way off factory spec's

[Potsy]

I watched about 5 minutes of it. I was watching something else and caught a few minutes of it during commercials.
When I watched it, they were talking about the Marine Snipers having an issue with it (I was under the impression that their triggers were either aftermarket, or worked over) and police departments having issue with it (considering the number of AD's cops have with Glocks and other firearms too complicated for "C-Stringers", I'm not surprised).
Couldn't force myself to watch it. More CNBC bunk.

Plus, I was interested in what to do in case a virus turns everyone into flesh eating zombies so I was watching "28 Days Later".

[winelover]

I watched it and what I got out of it was that 700's made since 1982 have the improved trigger and SHOULD be fine! I don't own any Remington Bolt guns anyhow. Only Winchesters and Rugers. They could have corrected the SUSPECTED problem years ago for 5.5 cents per rifle but the BEAN COUNTERS said NO!! TYPICAL!!! Recalls , would cost the company about 22 million in the 90's and over $100 per gun today!!!! They made over 5 million guns.

Winelover

[exile]

I watched about 10 or 15 minutes of it (all that was left once I caught it). I have never owned a Remington 700. That being said, it seemed to me that some of the statements I heard were misinformation (particularly regarding the rules of gun safety). They also stated that "no gun company had ever done a recall on a gun"., and that the gun industry was less regulated than other industries. It seemed to me to be the typical MSM propaganda regarding the firearms industry.

It seems to me that if they can defeat one gun company they can defeat them all. To date, my rifles have been Savage, Winchester, Marlin and Ruger, but I felt the desire to purchase a Remington, just to say, "take a hike".

If the Remington 700 has such issues,and has had for years, why would law enforcement and the military gravitate so strongly towards the Remington 700?

As usual, I regret it every time I turn on the television.

exile:groner:

[300winmag]

I have a serious collection of the 700's from 30 years ago to current. small to large calibers, never any issues at all. if there was it was no fault of the rifle.
the golden rule KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TILL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE
300 winmag

[Heavy lead]

I've many 700's and have had more, and will have more. I'm very dissappointed in this cow pile from CNBC, up until now for the most part they differ greatly from MSNBC, this whole story is full of holes and is nothing but left wing propeganda. Have I had a 700 go off when I moved the safety to fire? Yup, BUT the muzzle was in a safe direction AND I messed with the trigger, I'm much better at adjusting them now, hasn't happened since, BUT if it DOES the damn muzzle will be in a safe direction, same with my Winchesters, Rugers, Savages and all the rest, cause they all can/will/might do it.

[mike in co]

same stories rehashed every several years or so...nothing new...must be a slow news week.
or as close to an anti gun the weak kneed liberal press can come up with wiht thier current limp demorcates..

[rbuck351]

I have one of the first 223 700Vs that hit the market. I had it fire when the safety was pushed off. As it was pointed where I was going to shoot it made little difference except I missed my shot. Then when when the bolt was cycled the sear wouldn't reset unless the safety was on first. Then would fire when the safety was taken off. Cleaning the trigger fixed it.

[Lloyd Smale]

ive used more 700 over the years then all the other bolt guns combined and i have NEVER had any problem like that other then when i myself fooled with the trigger and have never had one go off because i make darned sure there safe after i adjust them. Bench rest shooters have used that trigger for years and used it ajusted down to ungodly low pull weights and ive never heard of an accidentle discharge on the line and if they did happen im sure they wouldnt be allowed in any competition. The problem comes from idiots that dont know what there doing turning those screws.

[scb]

This is an old, old story. The first one I can remember was some lawyer in Texas was shot by his kid. He was sitting in the front seat of the car. The kid was in the back. This happened, I think, in the late 70's early 80's. The jury awarded the old man (who wasn't killed but lost the lower part of his spine) a couple of mill and I believe Remington appealed it. Don't know what the final outcome was. All of these cases of course come down to the same thing, improper gun handling - period. But some ambulance chaser or anti gun group (like CNBC) gets a hold of the grieving family and tells them that it's really not their fault and they need to punish the people "responsible". I think for the principles involved it has a lot more to do with absolution of guilt than any monetary gain. And it's not just Remington. I've seen M70s' go off when you flip the safety off. Why do you think Ruger still to this day is retro-fitting their old SA's with transfer bar systems. Or Marlin and Winchester added those stupid cross bolt safeties. The Winchester M100 recall of a rifle that had been out of production for almost 20 years was caused by one of these frivolous litigation's. They are all mechanical systems and as such can be subject to failure. Thats why, as we all know, you "never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy". It is also the responsibility of the person holding the firearm to know what is going on around them. It's a tragedy that that woman killed her kid, but she is the only one responsible. Does anyone think this story would have seen the light of day if the rifle involved had been an old M98 Mauser, and yes I've seen them do it as well.

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

More here : http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=96177 up in shooters . . . ;-)

[Marine Sgt 2111]

Every 700 that I own (3 right now) have all gotten the standard treatment by me: bolts lapped, raceways lapped, cocking ramp and sear polished and trigger "adjusted" to no creep, 24oz of pull, and little to no backlash. Not one of them has ever misfired. If you set the sear engagement to a point it's barely engaging..yes you will have problems. Someone tinkered with those triggers...:rolleyes:

[sturf]

Did you notice the way the narrator was holding the rifle at the very first scene? With HIS FINGER ON THE TRIGGER the whole time. Very knowledgeable about firearms.

[chris112]

NWFLYJ, If you have one with the new trigger it shouldn't have the problem. The old one, however, are a different story. To check the old ones; close the bolt on an empty chamber, set safety, then try to lift the bolt. If you can it has either been fixed or the trigger changed out. If you can't lift the bolt then the rifle has the orginal trigger and needs to be fixed.

As for the bubbaed up triggers. If you have to send the rifle into Remington they automatically check the trigger, if it is an aftermarket or adjusted out of spec they just put on a new trigger and bill you for the "service". Not hard to figure out their thinking. They have a certain degree of liablity and don't want to get sued because of someone that doesn't really know what they are doing adjusting the trigger to an unsafe point.

[rbuck351]

The trigger on my 700 has never been altered in any way and still has the factory paint on the screws. It discharged when the safety was let off because dirt/crud had built up in the trigger until the sear would not hold properly. That was my fault for not cleaning it. Had I shot someone or something that i did not want to, that also would have been my fault. The point here is that this can happen with unaltered triggers and that only safe gun handling can prevent these kinds of "accidents".

[fatelk]

I've had one go off before, but like a lot of you guys I had improperly adjusted the trigger.

I have some friends that hunt with model 700s and model 7s. They have had their rifles go off several times, and the triggers were never messed with. What they had done every year, though, was clean and oil their rifles after hunting season, then stick them in the closet butt down. Any extra solvent or oil would run down into the trigger, along with any grit or grime along the way, and congeal in the mechanism.

The worst one was last year, in a rifle that had been sitting for a couple years. I had to take the trigger completely apart and clean it. They were ready to get rid of all their Remingtons and buy something else. I showed them a better way to clean the rifle.

All that said, apparently there have been cases of rifles with clean, factory adjusted triggers that have had this problem. I have never seen that myself.

[snowwolfe]

I used to own many Remingtons but sold off the last one about 10 years ago. Had one go off when releasing the safety at the range and difficulties with ice freezing inside the trigger housing when hunting in sub freezing wet weather. They might be a fine rifle for good weather but I'll never own another.
Make mine Win 70's or Rugers.

[500bfrman]

NWFLYJ, If you have one with the new trigger it shouldn't have the problem. The old one, however, are a different story. To check the old ones; close the bolt on an empty chamber, set safety, then try to lift the bolt. If you can it has either been fixed or the trigger changed out. If you can't lift the bolt then the rifle has the orginal trigger and needs to be fixed.



could you please clarify. "it has been fixed"

[leadman]

My friend had his 700 go off when he pushed the safety to off. No one was hurt. Bad part he was inside his 5th wheel trailer and blew a hole in the side! Was not the best place to unload his gun.
Gunsmith he took the rifle to said it had a worn part in the trigger.
I watched the show on tv and the one rifle would go off after the trigger was pulled with the safety on, then the safety pushed off.
I had given my father's 700 to my son several years ago. He stopped by Timney and boght a replacement trigger for it. I think this is a good move.

All of the "accidents" on the show could have been prevented by pointing the muzzle in a direction that a discharge would have done no damage.

[leftiye]

Like Lloyd said, the nut behind the screwdriver IMO. I've always been a Rem. fan, no problemo, never. the 40X match triggers are almost not worth paying for, as the standard trigger will "fiddle with" to almost match lightweight settings. You might want to (reads should) cock it after fiddling and slam (reasonably) the back end vertically into a piece of 2X4 on a cement floor to be sure it won't knock "off" (more impact than you'll ever deliver through the assembled gun). If you get enough dirt on any trigger to get it to malfunction, you should be horse whipped for not cleaning it.

[mike in co]

here is how i feel about it...i traded for another 700 last night(308 win leftie, truck axle bbl)


mike in co

[NWFLYJ]

More here : http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=96177 up in shooters . . . ;-)

I saw that after I started this one. Opppps. I did a search too? Thanks Mark

[a.squibload]

Sucker is too long. 7mag 26" barrel. Shoots good though.

How do I find out the year of manufacture?

How do I know if it's a factory or aftermarket trigger?

I have never cleaned the trigger group, haven't shot it much.
Have never slopped oil on any gun but would be good to clean/check this one.
Difficult to disassemble?
Tips?

Thanks...A.

[Lloyd Smale]

heres a post i made on another site that is full of remington bashers.

go here and watch the videos. http://www.remington700.tv/#/home
Sure its remingtons side of the story and may be a bit biased but it will show without a doubt that this was total bs and nothing but a witch hunt by the antis and in my opinion the posters who are defending this witch hunt are just as guilty of feeding the antis as the tv show was. Not once were any of the reported cases of them going off repeatable or documentable. If anyone was going to have a problem with it it would be our military and they just signed a contract for a new batch of them. Seems kind of funny dont it. My opinion and i know it isnt worth much is where remington opened the door to this thing was when they started producing those cammo ars and really started the ar as a hunting gun thing. It made the antis flip over backwards to see the market in ars bloom and made them there #1 target to take down. The question i have for everyone here who is taking the side of that tv show and posting that its a flawed design is to show me one gun that is not tampered with and kept even halfway clean that will go off without pulling the trigger. Theres guys here that prefer a ruger or a winchester or some other brand but this is NO WAY to express those opinions. Remember the antis cruse these sites too!

[Three44s]

The best safety is the one between your EARS!

Mind your muzzle!!

The mother that killed her son in NBC's program had the rifle pointed at their horse trailer and did not realize her son had already piled off his horse.

Any parent ought to know that kids show up in the darnedest places ....... even standing in front of the tack room compartment?

Rather than piling on Remington they should be piling on sloppy gun handlers.


Three 44s

[EOD3]

I have "a few" 700's and have never had a "negligent or accidental" discharge despite the fact one of my rifles has been adjusted to 20 ounces.

I HAVE seen a negligent discharge at the range (while rifle shopping 8-)). Picture it, Idiot with finger ON THE TRIGGER pushes the safety forward and the rifle "mysteriously" fires. I guess the rifle was defective, or maybe it was the shooter that was defective. :roll:

[2shot]

I watched the show on tv and the one rifle would go off after the trigger was pulled with the safety on, then the safety pushed off.

This is what happened to a Rem ADL 30-06 that I bought in 1969. I have a habit of putting the saftey on, pointing the muzzle in a safe direction and pulling the trigger to make sure the saftey works. This ADL had fired when I pushed the saftey to off (no finger on the trigger at this time) to shoot at a deer and it scared the $h*t out of me. This happened twice in the same day, the first time I figured that I must have somehow had my finger on the trigger, the second time I knew for sure it was the rifle not me and quit hunting for the day. I had never played with this trigger but when I got back to my cabin I cleaned the trigger and then set it for a heavier pull than what the factory had it set for. Never had another problem with that ADL and still own it after 40 years. I now own at least 10 Remington 700's and this one was the only one I ever had a problem with, the others have been fine. I must say though that I now check every firearm I buy to make sure the saftey works. I put the saftey on and pull the trigger then flip the saftey off to see if it will fire (WITH AN EMPTY CHAMBER). I also cock the gun and bang the butt plate on the floor HARD to see it the gun will fire (WITH AN EMPTY CHAMBER also). If the firearm doesn't pass these test I send it back to the factory!

All of the "accidents" on the show could have been prevented by pointing the muzzle in a direction that a discharge would have done no damage.

+1000 on this!!!! My habit of checking to see if the saftey works comes from me owning a .22 rimfire that the saftey didn't work at all. If I cocked the gun put the saftey on and pulled the trigger the gun would fire. Said gun was destroyed after it came back from the manufacturer in the same condition. I don't trust saftey's and will continue to do my check of pulling the trigger with saftey on POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION OF COURSE and I don't push the saftey to off until I'm lining up my sights on the intended target or pointed in a safe direction after the hunt.

2shot

[EOD3]

You know fellas, I can't refute what you believe...

BUT

If you're testing your rifles for proper functioning WITH A CARTRIDGE IN THE CHAMBER, it's time you took up bow hunting... :idea:

[2shot]

You know fellas, I can't refute what you believe...

BUT

If you're testing your rifles for proper functioning WITH A CARTRIDGE IN THE CHAMBER, it's time you took up bow hunting... :idea:


Don't know about anybody else but my rifle displayed NO signs of doing this before the discribed above and I had over 500 rounds through this Rem 700 before this accident. If the rifle fires when the saftey is flipped off in a random sequence how would one know if it never happened before.

Lets face facts, if your around and handleing firearms long enough at some point your going to have an accident that may not be the fault of the opperator of the gun but the gun itself.

Case in point. I bought a S&W 20 some years ago, a 639 I believe was the model. It was a stainless model of the 39. These models have a hammer drop/saftey lever feature so that you can fire the first shot double action. I put the magazine in the firearm, racked the slide to chamber the first round. All's fine to that point then I push the hammer drop/saftey lever on the slide. The hammer dropped and the gun fired much to my suprise while pointed in a safe direction. This gun was sent back to S&W and I was told that in this particular gun the firing pin was to long and when the hammer drop lever was used the firing pin was tapped and the inertia would send the firing pin forward fast enough to strike the primer and ignite it. This gun was returned from S&W with a shorter firing pin and was prompty sold, I didn't trust it anymore.

So with your statment of people testing guns with a cartridge in the chamber should take up bow hunting how would you have known with the above S&W 639 that the gun would fire when the hammer drop/saftey lever was used ? Why do you think that most police departments have a barrel of sand for the officers to point their guns in while they load their semi-autos and drop the hammer on the chambered rounds?

Like I said, if your around firearms long enough accidents will happen and the firing of the gun is not always the fault of the opperator. Let's keep the muzzles pointed in a safe direction.

2shot

BTW I do bow hunt too.

[NWFLYJ]

Lets face facts, if your around and handleing firearms long enough at some point your going to have an accident that may not be the fault of the opperator of the gun but the gun itself.




An accident is a specific, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

Fatal gun accidents often receive national attention. Subsequently politicians demand mandatory firearms safety classes for all gun owners, yet many more lives could be saved by randomly selecting and educating a group of drivers rather than gun owners, not to mention the populace at large regarding, administering first-aid, how to eat, and basic common sense safety habits.

The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns.

Guns are safe, knifes are safe, cars are safe. It's all the objects mechanical ability and the user understanding those mechanics and taking every precaution to be safe. Mark

[jblee10]

I think it is our duty to watch show like this to see how the gun grabbers work.
As for the snipers having a discharge while operating the bolt, this is a completely different problem then a problem with the safety. I would venture to say that I can make any bolt action with a trigger overtravel screw act that way. Their armour should be the one shot! Is he really a trained armour or were they even marines? This portion of the show disgusted me as much as any of it. Blatant untruths!
Remember the #1 rule of muzzle safety. And never place a gun on safe and sit around pulling the trigger. If the safety does not lift the sear off the trigger or the trigger does not return fully due to dirt, the gun will fire when the safety is disengaged.
I always give a new firearm a run through without live ammo. I once had a brand new S&W with an unsafe conditiion. It may have left the factory that way or it may have been something that happened in the gun shop. I sent it to the factory and had it back within two weeks. Would I buy another? You bet!
A saying I remember from years ago is "ANYTHING MECHANICAL CAN FAIL". This could be a rollercoaster, car, plane or a firearm. It is our training that should prepare us for these failures.
My advice to anyone buying any firearm, if they are not comfortable with their own mechanical understanding, is ask around. Take your new firearm that you purchased at Sportsmans Warehouse to a reputable gunsmith and have it checked out. But there is no substitute for safe handling practices. Go buy a Remy and shoot, shoot, shoot!

[shotman]

as jb said you can anything do what you want to make a point several years back someone had a way to make an adjustable trigger for a 788. First a 788 trigger is good when you do the "modiy" you have a deadly weapon I have 3 700s have set for several hours and tried to get one to fire . never have a trigger that was "special" will do it 75 % of the time its in the trash box painted red
the win 70 has a screw to adjust you can run it out and will fire easy why didnt they pick on Win because the couldnt find an old one
anything you hear the news doing remember they are you friend "we are here to help" BS

[CJR]

This may not be the appropriate thread for this comment. But I present it here in the interest of gun safety. My meat gun is an old Remington 760 in 300 Savage. Years ago, I was hunting alone in a remote camp in winter. After a day's hunt, I decided to lock my gun in my Jeep Cherokee to avoid any moisture problems (hot cabin to cold conditions) the next day. I unloaded my gun, opened my tailgate and with the muzzle low, placed the gun in the Jeep. The next morning, I removed the gun, placed a mag into it, pointed the muzzle in a safe direction, and racked the slide to load it. The gun fired. I didn't have my finger on the trigger and decided to rack the slide again with the muzzle pointing in a safe direction. It fired once more. At that point I unloaded the gun and looked at the bolt. I could see the firing pin had frozen in the forward position. Each time I had racked the slide the forward frozen firing pin set off the cartridge. The gun went into the cabin and I continued hunting with my revolver.

When I got home, here's what I found out and how I corrected it. The gun oil used had frozen and locked the firing pin forward. I checked gun schematics and found the firing pin was a free-floating design, i.e. firing pin not held back with a spring like a 1911 pistol design. I contacted Remington to see if they had issued any design modifications-no answers/replies to my inquiry. I pulled the carrier bolt apart and found a spring that fit right in to keep the firing pin positioned back. Now to make sure the gun fired with this spring, I went the range to check it out and it worked well. Lessons learned? Firing pin must be held back with a spring and bolt must be de-greased before hunting and a low temperature oil used. Hope this helps other Rem 760 owners. I kept my rifle and still use it to hunt with.

Best regards,

CJR

[Artful]

Remington has new website with response to CNBC story

http://www.remington700.tv/#/home

[Mumblypeg]

Anyone who has a Remington model 700 that they don't want, I'll be more than happy to take them off your hands so you don't get hurt or so they don't make you feel uneasy...
You would think that Remington could sue NBC.

[HangFireW8]

My opinion and i know it isnt worth much is where remington opened the door to this thing was when they started producing those cammo ars and really started the ar as a hunting gun thing. It made the antis flip over backwards to see the market in ars bloom and made them there #1 target to take down.

Remington was very, very late in the AR-15 hunting market, 2007, after being taken over by Cerberus Capital Management, Bushmaster's owner. Previous several managers (back to Du Pont) had a "3 ring of steel" breeching policy that the AR simply didn't meet, so it was a no-go until owned by a company that made AR's elsewere.

HF

[clodhopper]

There is more to this story than reported by the American rifleman, who drags out the trial lawyer boogeyman and NBCs past and maybe present efforts to make their antigun points. I wonder how much influence advertisers have on the Rifleman.
1 Rich Barber is sueing to force remington, or more accuratly duPont to open their records, they tried to buy him off years ago, money will not replace Gus.
Rich's quest is to save another family the greif he has suffered.
2 there is evidence that the desinger of that trigger after some testing had doubts about the saftey, and came up with a better design costing only marginally more per unit, but the rifles were going into production and a coprate decision was made to carry on.
3 the dirt in the trigger thing is not nessacarly poor maintence but can happen with no warning if a bit of pine needle, some bark, or dirt getting into just the right spot while you are walking your rifle in the woods.
Disclaimer:
I consider NBC to be counter to many ideals close to my heart.
I know Richard Barber and consider him a freind.
He is a strong supporter of the second amendment, hunter, and shooter.
I own and use two remington 700s
This whole event should reinforce to all of us the first rule of gun saftey.
Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction

[iron brigade]

i have a friend that owns a 700 ss/syn in 300 win mag. while attempting to sight the rifle in for his upcoming wyoming hunt he chambered a round and flipped off the safety and BOOM!
his brother was with him and goes'what the heck'. he replied 'i didn't have my finger even near the trigger' and then repeated it. BOOM! again.
i told him to replace the trigger mech with a timney. he called remington and they asked if he had the rifle cleaned by a certified gun smith, he said he cleaned it himself, they said sorry we can't help you then. the theory is that powder residue /dirt ect gets down in to the sear and prematurely wears it out over time.

[Char-Gar]

I finally viewed that program and have a couple of thoughts about the issue at hand.

The section with Walker was very telling. If he says the trigger can be "tricked" into going off when the safety is disengaged, I would take that as gospel. He designed the thing for pity sake!!! He told Remington the safety should be modified many years ago.

The fact that it doesn't happen very often does not negate the fact that the trigger has a defect.

My Uncles was present when the accident in Texas took place. The son reached into a vehicle and pulled the rifle by the barrel toward him. It discharged cutting his father's spine.

We all know better than have a rifle with a loaded round in the chamber in a vehicle and not to pull a loaded rifle by the barrel. We all know that if the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction and goes off unintentional there is no damage. We all know not to depend on any mechanical safety mechanism.

But, the fact remains that Remington knew there was a design defect in the trigger and continue to produced them because it was cheaper to pay a few lawsuits than modify the rifles.

I have had Remington 720s, 721s and 700s and still have one. I have never had a problem, but that doesn't mean much.

I know it our knee jerk reaction to defend Remington and condemn the press and legal community. But, sometimes gun makers, just like the makers of other stuff, do screw up.

[EOD3]

I don't intend to get involved in a major dust-up but, I can't let it stand as is.

I've been shooting Remington rifles for over 40 years and I have yet to have/see/hear of one going off unasked. I own several 700's that are rust-free, thoroughly cleaned, and properly oiled. I have factory adjusted triggers and I have "adjusted" triggers. I think it's time for me to round them up and head for the range. If I survive (and after the move) I'll let you know if I can "trick" one into going off. Maybe I'll meet someone with an old Ithica shotgun that keeps going off when he closes the slide. Maybe he'll sell it to me for cheap.

[HangFireW8]

My Uncles was present when the accident in Texas took place. The son reached into a vehicle and pulled the rifle by the barrel toward him. It discharged cutting his father's spine.

This is not an ACCIDENT. This is NEGLIGENCE, as in a Negligent Discharge.

Only a lawyer could equate such negligence with questionable design decisions.

Please tell us who these folks are, so we can ban them from our clubs, ranges, and shooting society, as we do not want to fall to their negligence as well.

-HF

[EOD3]

Hangfire: I'm not one to question the veracity of anyone' remarks but there is something I don't understand and I'd like to ask for clarification.


My Uncles was present when the accident in Texas took place. The son reached into a vehicle and pulled the rifle by the barrel toward him. It discharged cutting his father's spine.

Can anyone explain how pulling a rifle by the barrel could possibly disengage the safety? On all my model 700 rifles the safety is moved FORWARD to the fire position. Pulling on the barrel might ENGAGE the safety (or press the trigger) but the mechanics of the stated situation don't add up.

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire...

I would agree that "accident" is not the best term. I should have used the term "incident" as that is a neutral term.

There was most certainly negligence, but the question is negligence on the behalf of whom..Remington, the kid who pulled the rifle, the fellow who placed it in the vehicle (whoever that was) etc. etc.

Negligence is defined as "What would a reasonable prudent person (gun maker, etc) do under the same or similar circumstances. Firearms being what they are, a very high standard of care is necessary to ensure they don't shoot the wrong thing or person.

In Texas where the incident took place, we have comparative negligence. That means if there was negligence on behalf of the rifle maker and the rifle handler, the amount of damages (money) is reduced by the percentage of negligence of the handler. If that percentage is 51% or greater, then the handler gets zero.

In the case at hand, it was not settled, but went to a jury trial which decided that Remington was indeed negligent in the design of the firearm and awarded damages accordingly.

Now about lawyers! Years back a Deputy Sheriff took a swing at me, because he hated lawyers. It took place in the County Sheriffs office in front of witnesses. I ducked the swing and let the matter go. Less than a year latter, the same Deputy shot a 15 year old kid in the head with his Colt Govt Model 45 auto, killing him graveyard dead. A state Grand Jury returned a No Bill, but a Federal Grand Jury indicted him. The day after the indictment was handed down, he showed up in our office, hat in one hand, checkbook in the other and a hang dog look on his face. The moral of this true story is evident.

[HangFireW8]

Chargar,

The few times I've needed the advice of a lawyer, I've gotten my money's worth.

I wasn't making a blanket slam, but again, only a lawyer could equate causality between a ND not related to the safety mechanism, and design issues with the safety mechanism. Or if not equate causality, ignore it, and proceed anyway.

It's like, my car fell off the cliff because I forgot to put on the parking brake, so I'm suing for damages due to a defective parking brake. Such cases are won (on occasion), and perhaps there were issues with the parking brake, but in this case there is no causality. Still, some lawyers accept such cases knowing the logical fallacies, and some judges juries award damages in such cases. That's the issue I have problems with.

So, it was more a grumble about the need for tort reform, that allows such cases to go through.

-HF

[EOD3]

...The moral of this true story is evident.

Yepper, them cops'll make a deal with the devil to save their uhhhh.... :kidding::kidding::bigsmyl2:

[badbob454]

ive heard remington has used the upgraded trigger group, during the last 2 years of production in the mod 700"s isnt this true?

[Russel Nash]

in a somewhat similar vein, wasn't it NBC's Dateline program that rigged some General Motor's pickup trucks to explode when struck from the side?

A-ha! it was!

pardon me, but I am on my smart phone, and this is the mobile link that wikipedia gave me:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC?wasRedirected=true

pardon the thread drift....but boy oh boy.... I could just imagine myself drunk with power if I was an NBC CEO back in the early 90's .

I could just conveniently run into the CEO of GM at say the golf course or some 5 star restaurant and just casually mention that some of my reporters are doing a Dateline episode about a dangerous condition with one of their pick up trucks. Then I slip the guy my business card with my private number on it...ya...know....just in case he wanted to comment on our story or get interviewed...

ya....know....just hypothetically speaking....

[45-70bpcr]

ive used more 700 over the years then all the other bolt guns combined and i have NEVER had any problem like that other then when i myself fooled with the trigger and have never had one go off because i make darned sure there safe after i adjust them. Bench rest shooters have used that trigger for years and used it ajusted down to ungodly low pull weights and ive never heard of an accidentle discharge on the line and if they did happen im sure they wouldnt be allowed in any competition. The problem comes from idiots that dont know what there doing turning those screws.

You are correct but the problem is when someone does mess with one and it eventually ends up on a used rack for sale to someone that doesn't know the history. I came off a mountain one evening with several friends after a hunt. I had a 700 ADL that I bought used. We all went to unload. With my gun pointed in a safe direction I took the safety off and the stupid thing went off. No one hurt but scared the **** out of all of us and they were convinced I was some reckless idiot. I got home that night and found I could duplicate it (empty gun of course) by closing the bolt, putting the safety on, touching the trigger, then taking the safety off. It would drop the hammer about half the time. I showed all those on the hunt what was happening and cleared my name. Never trust any safety, they are mechanical and can fail. I have since come across a couple other 700's on used racks that would do the same thing. I don't care what anyone says it is real but how many people have witnessed a model 94 win. go off unintentionally when someone means to lower the hammer on a loaded round? Keep them all pointed in a safe direction.

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire.. My grumble is with folks who read news accounts of law suits and decided (without having all of the fact) the law suit was bogus.

A good examples was the gal who spilled McDonalds coffee on her and got a million bucks or so from McDonalds. Everybody ranted and raved about that and how law suits got out of hand. Now for the rest of the story...

That particular McDonalds had a bunch of Geezers who hung out there and took advantage of the free coffee refills to the point, it was eating up all of the coffee profits. The manager got the bright idea to raise the temp of the coffee and thereby causing the geezers to drink less coffee. Well the coffee was heated to a scalding high temp and the lady dumped a cup of it on her lap. It took over $200,00 of reconstructive surgery to put her genitalia back into some what of a working order. That does not include a whole bunch of pain and mental anguish. When one understands all of the facts, they are not to sympathetic with McDonalds.

Now all of these facts were proven in court to a jury. In the Remington case, the design defect of the safety was proven to a jury. If folks are not sitting there listening to the testimony they really should hold their fire on lawyers and tort reform. The vast majority of the time the jury gets it right and all to often the press gets it wrong.

[jblee10]

Of course there are some 700's that have a problem. As with any model. But is it a massive problem like the show stated? I don't thimk so. By the way, look at a military Mauser 98 and how it lifts the striker off the sear. It has to be one of the safest systems ever. But with enough wear or dirt or soft springs it will fail. There is no substitute for safe handling practices.

[a.squibload]

A good examples was the gal who spilled McDonalds coffee...

The manager was wrong to increase the temperature to scalding level,
should have amended the conditions of the offer
(2 free refills or something like that).

However, I take precautions to prevent liquids spilling on me.
Especially when they're hot.
Location of spill is unfortunate and she has my sympathy but
coffee is supposed to be hot.
A million dollars? Really?

Not like I'm a Mcdogfood fan or anything...

PS: My 700 is old and I bought it used,
should I remove the trigger group to find out which it is?
Is there an easy way to tell if it is the standard trigger group?
I have never removed it for cleaning.
Thanks!

[Char-Gar]

Sqiib.. McDonalds had a rule which governed the temp of the coffee to prevent injury to the customers. The manager on his own hook, raised the temp of the coffee. Being an employee, McDonalds was responsible for his negligent actions. The legal doctrine which makes the "master" responsible for the torts of his "servants" goes back hundreds of years to the common law of England.

Have you ever spilled anything on youself? Would you let your pecker be scaled beyond use for $1,000,000?

[HangFireW8]

Hangfire.. My grumble is with folks who read news accounts of law suits and decided (without having all of the fact) the law suit was bogus.

I never said Remington wasn't negligent. I see you avoided the topic of causality between their negligence and the plaintiff's incident.

-HF

[Multigunner]

I'd always kept the muzzle pointed down when racking in a round when using a semi auto or bolt action, except when on the range with rifle pointed down range to begin with. I also usually pointed the rifle down when clearing the chamber of an unfired round.
Then I got to thinking about the difference between a bullet striking the ground, with the possibility of a rock directly under the surface, which is pretty common here, and a bullet going straight up.
A bullet going straight up uses up 100% of its stored energy reaching maximum elevation. When it drops back to earth none of the original energy of the shot is left, only the acceleration of a falling object. Falling objects reach a terminal velocity according to their shape ,density, and area.
I checked this out in several sources, then found that experiments had been done by a Captain Hardcastle of the British Army, and in later years by a gun manufacturer testing a radar system that tracked bullets in flight. The falling bullets would either fall base first or stabilize in a side on position. Air resistence kept the bullet from reaching any lethal velocity as it fell.

The only problem I've heard of that would make pointing the muzzle down safer than pointing it up was when an SKS slamfired on chambering a round, then continued firing for several more rounds in an uncontrolled burst. The rifle slipped in the shooter's grasp and kicked over backwards putting a bullet through his face.
So perhaps a hard recoiling center fire semi auto rifle or shotgun might be safer pointed down, and a bolt action or .22 semi auto should be pointed up when clearing a chamber.
A .22 is much more likely to be deflected by a rock or even hard packed dirt than the bullet from a centerfire rifle.

[300winmag]

This is a lawsuit happy world for some, the ones that are just out to make money. It has gotten way out of hand. what ever happened to innocence till prov-en guilty. freedom of speech you can get sued for that. O.K now and by the way I have Rem 700,s in almost all the calibers they made back from late 60,s till now never any problems. somehow someway all this sh** needs to come to an end. unfortunately its only going to get worse. put on your seat belts and hang on.
300winmag

[a.squibload]

Sqiib.. McDonalds had a rule which governed the temp of the coffee to prevent injury to the customers. The manager on his own hook, raised the temp of the coffee. Being an employee, McDonalds was responsible for his negligent actions. The legal doctrine which makes the "master" responsible for the torts of his "servants" goes back hundreds of years to the common law of England.

Have you ever spilled anything on youself? Would you let your pecker be scaled beyond use for $1,000,000?

1st part: sounds like you agree with me, and I understand the history.

2nd part: I don't get your reply. I don't think she did it on purpose,
just think it's a LOT of compensation for something she was mostly
responsible for. Maybe shouldn't have held it there.
Kinda like when a gun goes off it's not "normal" to have it pointing in an unsafe direction.

Just my 2¢ worth!

[Russel Nash]

regarding Mickey Dee's hot coffee...

I think what the clincher was in that case, with the jury, is that there were several internal memos/documents about the coffee being too hot, and the crappy design of their cups and lids. IIRC, she was not the first one to be harmed by the too hot coffee.

In every case/lawsuit like that, there is a discovery phase where the plaintiff gets access to or copies of documents, so that is what sealed the deal with the jurors. MacDonald's knew they had a problem and chose to not deal with it.

That is called negligence.

IIRC, the other reason that Mickey Dee's had their coffee so incredibly hot was so that the smell permeated the store and lofted out the drive thru windows which would in turn entice people to buy the coffee.

[EOD3]

I'm reasonably sure there are some others here that drink plain old coffee on a regular basis (curmudgeons anonymous). First, it's nearly impossible to heat water (at atmospheric pressure) to a temperature above boiling. If the coffee was "in the pot" at anything near boiling it will out-gas but it will also taste like POO.

The whole thing sounds like a case of someone getting EXACTLY what they ordered and then being too stupid to use it within it's operational specifications or it's intended use.

These people stay up nights thinking of ways to win the lottery at someone elses expense. The notion that someone else is responsible for their stupidity is absurd.

[Russel Nash]

I would have to ASSume that someone with a screenname of EOD would kinda know what happens to human skin when it gets burned. supposedly part of the process to get it to heal is to abrade the area with... I guess what are scouring pads.

hmmn....okay...now imagine someone taking a brillo pad and agressively rubbing your you know what's with it.

maybe the plaintiff's lawyer was able to enter into evidence pictures of this woman's burnt/scalded va-jay-jay.

I am sure to get the full effect they brought in a burn expert who described in very graphic detail what had to be done to treat the plaintiff's wounds.

I think most residential water heaters have a top end of 120*F or maybe even 140*F. so you have about 80 more degrees before it boils off.

think about how it feels for those few seconds when you're in the shower and somebody flushes the toilet.

[Char-Gar]

There are just a certain percentage of people, who have a bias and prejudice against Lawyers and litigation. They are not interested in the facts, just their own preconceived notions. Fortunately we have the Voir Dire process to root out and exclude folks with such bias from the jury. However, they do express their feelings on boards such as this.

[Char-Gar]

This is a lawsuit happy world for some, the ones that are just out to make money. It has gotten way out of hand. what ever happened to innocence till prov-en guilty. freedom of speech you can get sued for that. O.K now and by the way I have Rem 700,s in almost all the calibers they made back from late 60,s till now never any problems. somehow someway all this sh** needs to come to an end. unfortunately its only going to get worse. put on your seat belts and hang on.
300winmag

1. The presumption of innocent relates to criminal charges and not civil suits. In civil suits the Plantiff must prove her/her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

2. Freedom of speech is a Constitutional constraint on the Government. It does not give one citizen the right to injury with words our fellow citizens.

If you are going to express you opinions on the legal situation in American, you really should be better informed.

[Char-Gar]

1st part: sounds like you agree with me, and I understand the history.

2nd part: I don't get your reply. I don't think she did it on purpose,
just think it's a LOT of compensation for something she was mostly
responsible for. Maybe shouldn't have held it there.
Kinda like when a gun goes off it's not "normal" to have it pointing in an unsafe direction.

Just my 2¢ worth!

Squib.. The point of part two is this: If a public eating place served you coffee heated beyond what is safe if spilled, and you dropped in in your lap, scalding your pecker so bad it took $200,000 worth of reconstructive surgery, would you think $1,000,000 was too much for you to receive for your injury?

She was not "mostly responsible" because if the coffee had not been intentional over heated, it would not have burned her. Folks spill coffee on them selves in such places every day. I have done so. They don't get burned, if the coffee is served at the correct temperature. The intentional and negligence overheating of the coffee was the cause of the burn and not the woman's clumsiness.

[a.squibload]

I see your point, "hot" (normal) coffee is different from "scalding" (rules ignored by manager) coffee.
Hot coffee is not a danger to customers, scalding coffee is.

I try to ignore "what if you..." questions as my projected emotion shouldn't be considered in the evaluation of the situation.
But a million bucks might make the pain a little more bearable, mainly knowing
that it's enough to call the defendant's attention to the problem,
to get it corrected.

I learn a lot on the CB site!

[HangFireW8]

There are just a certain percentage of people, who have a bias and prejudice against Lawyers and litigation.

Chargar,

I see you are still avoiding the causality issue and crying discrimination.

-HF

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire... I am not avoiding the issue of causality, it is just so obvious I didn't think it needed comment. But here is it by the number. See number 6 below.

1. Legal Duty - The woman who went into McDonalds was a business invitee and McDonalds owed her a duty to use all reasonable care to see she was not injured on their premises. This is a matter of law and not fact.

2. Breech of Duty - Did McDonalds breech this legal duty by heating their coffee to the scalding point? This is a question of fact and the jury found Yes!

3. Negligence - Was McDonalds negligent in their breech of the duty. The test of negligence would be "What would a reasonable prudent cafe owner do under the same or similar circumstance?' This also is a question of fact. Thee jury heard the evidence and decided that McDonalds was indeed negligence.

4. Injury - Was the woman injured by the Negligence breech of the legal duty on behalf of McDonald? This is a question of fact and the jury found Yes!

5. PROXIMATE CAUSE(causality) - Was the negligent breech of the legal duty on behalf of McDonald the proximate cause of the woman's injury. This is a question of fact and the jury decided it was.

6, Damages - What was the dollar amount of damages to be awarded to the woman who was damaged by the negligence of McDonalds. This also is a question of fact and the jury heard the evidence and came up with a dollar amount.

There you have it Hangfire old boy. Tort law 101 in a nutshell.

You will find I never said discrimination. I said prejudice and bias. They are not the same word, nor the same concept.

[Char-Gar]

squib... I would agree with you about the subjective nature of the "what if" question. However, the jury had that in mind, as they listened to the evidence. What if that had been my private parts? If can't be avoided by the human mind, if they are trying to come up with a dollar amount to compensate for an injury. Dollars cannot repair the injury or take away the pain, suffering and humiliation, but they are the only remedy we have available.

You are quite correct about the value of lawsuits to teach others about the consequences of their actions and attitudes. Lawyer get a bum rap often, by folks who think they are after nothing but money. They are also social regulators, that operate just like the lock who help keep honest men honest. Without this constraint, many more people would be hurt and injured by folks who didn't give a damn because there were no consequences to their actions.

[HangFireW8]

Hangfire... I am not avoiding the issue of causality, it is just so obvious I didn't think it needed comment.

Chargar,

I see you are still avoiding the topic of causality in respect to the Remington lawsuit settlement by, now, bringing up the straw man/non-sequitar of the McDonald's case.

-HF

[EOD3]

Chuck: The seriousness of the injury nor the difficulty associated with treating it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual question. If I sell you a gallon of gasoline and you pour it onto your crotch, you will find it very painful. Is it my fault you spilled the gas, NO. Any person in their right mind avoids injuring themselves by the inappropriate use of "whatever". Try to tell me a reasonable and prudent person would stuff "hot" coffee between their legs? Everyone I know understands that smoking around powder or eating while casting, or about a million other things are just plain stupid.

Stupid people do stupid things and their troubles are ALWAYS someone elses fault, not theirs. There are examples a plenty of people intentionally misusing a product or actually disabling safety equipment. They'll cry a river and find some land shark who's ONLY purpose is to make it too expensive for the company to defend themselves so, they settle because it's cheaper. The IDIOT gets 1/3 minus expenses and the SHYSTER gets 2/3 and cheats on his taxes.

[EOD3]

There are just a certain percentage of people, who have a bias and prejudice against Lawyers and litigation. They are not interested in the facts, just their own preconceived notions. Fortunately we have the Voir Dire process to root out and exclude folks with such bias from the jury. However, they do express their feelings on boards such as this.

It's only a "bias and/or prejudice" if the sentiment is not grounded in facts. Anyone paying attention sees lawyers with ZERO integrity. I've known several lawyers over the years and the ONLY one I've met that didn't have "situational ethics" was a Public Defender who represented his job as keeping the government honest.

Now, I clearly haven't met all the lawyers (thank God) and there have got to be honest ones but, I don't personally know any.

[felix]

They are also social regulators, that operate just like the lock who help keep honest men honest. Without this constraint, many more people would be hurt and injured by folks who didn't give a damn because there were no consequences to their actions.

This ideology is what I get upset over. This is a religious jurisdiction, not governmental. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Felix... I don't get your meaning. Could you expand a little please.. Charles

[felix]

I know, Charles, because it is a little hard to explain. Let me think of a short cut, and get back with you. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Felix.... I am not certain I get your drift, but let me respond to what I think you are saying. Correct me if I have "misconscrewed" your post. This will be a little long winded, but that comes easy to me. :-)

I can't speak for all religions, but the central theme of Christianity, is the forgiveness of sin and the restoration of the individual human to a correct relationship with God, as they were created. This is done by an act of God's grace in Christ, the individual human response and not law.

Law as a social regulator is far more of an Old Testament concept than it is a New Testament notion, although there is some of it in the NT to be certain. In Christian thinking, the individual is to treat all others as they themselves wish to be treated. Unless an individual is psychotic, they want nothing but the best for themselves and hence for others as well.

The fly in the ointment is that human thing called sin because of that darn free will thingie. The result is that is very little "love thy neighbor as thyself" thing going on. If it were there, would be no need for government at all.

Well, it is not working, at least on a large scale, and left to their own devices, human will do great injury and harm to reach other, on a massive scale. So, we have governments step in to fill the gap and serve as social regulators. Among other things, they try and hold one person accountable for the damage they do to another and attempt to make restitution. They don't do a bang up, job of this, but they seem to be the only game in town. I can accept the fact that we are living in an imperfect world. I don't like it, but I do accept it.

I am a religious person first and a law person very much in second place. I consider law to be a necessary evil. I am very much a Jeffersonian Libertarian and think that the best government is the least governments and don't like governmental intrusion in my life. No government does nothing but increase human on human damage. So we are left in a, grin and bear it, Catch 22 conundrum.

Lawyers like doctors, chemists, engineers, artists, truck drivers, fork lift operators etc are fully human an come in large variety. As a class, lawyers are no better or worse than others. Some are scum of the earth and many are fine people of great integrity and honor, who are trying to make the system work for the benefit of all. I guess they are like the folks on this board. Some of the folks on this board are intelligent honorable folks and others are ignorant fools.

I firmly believe that Christ will return again and all of this will be moot and a sad and tragic part of the human past. Maranatha!

Take care Felix Robbins... I appreciate and respect you as a human being and a contributor to this board.

[felix]

You got it, Charles. Thanks for articulating my answer to you. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire.. I was not trying to avoid your question. I am sorry if you took it that way. I set out the essential elements of a tort law suit in post #66 above. The principals are the same whether you are talking about spilled coffee, Remington rifles, dog food or whatever. I thought you could make the connection. I am sorry that you could not. Please review that post.

The obvious hostility in your posts is not called for or needed.

In the Remington case and all other cases, there can be multiple causes. In the Remington case it could be the defective trigger produced by Remington and the unsafe gun handling practices on behalf of the son who shot his father or a combination thereof.

In Texas, where the incident and law suit took place, we have Comparative Negligence. This means, if both parties are negligent, the jury compares their negligence. If the Plantiff's negligence contributed 51% or more to his injury, then he will receive nothing. If the Plantiff's negligence was less than 51% then the award will be reduced by the percentage of his negligence.

The negligence being the "proximate cause/causation" of the injury.

In the Remington case, a jury heard all of the evidence from both sides and concluded the preponderance of the credible evidence proved that the negligence of 'Remington was at least 51% of the cause of the injury.

Folks may or may not think that the jury got it right. But at the end of the day, the only the folks in the jury box hearing all of the evidence were the folks with the responsibility to make the decision and they made it.

I hope you will find this response to be adequate for it is about as good as I can do under the circumstances.

Take care and God bless!

[HangFireW8]

Chargar,

Thank you for explaining the legal background. The obvious hostility you see does not exist- think of it as just another cross-examination in search of facts. It just mystifies me, as an engineer, how a jury (obviously part of the problem here) could equate 51% of the guilt to the manufacturer when a loaded gun was pulled barrel first out of a vehicle, when the safety lever deactivates by going forward.

It also mystifies me how, knowing that negligence on the part of Remington had nothing to do with the negligent discharge, a lawyer, or any officer of the court, could press forward with the hopes of convincing a jury that one mistake had something to do with the other.

Having made my case for common sense, I retire.

-HF

[Char-Gar]

"It also mystifies me how, knowing that negligence on the part of Remington had nothing to do with the negligent discharge, a lawyer, or any officer of the court, could press forward with the hopes of convincing a jury that one mistake had something to do with the other."

That is an opinion you hold and not an accepted fact. In our legal system, the jury is the decider of disputed facts and they did not agree with you. In fact Mike Walker the man who designed the 700 and the trigger for Remington admitted the trigger needed to be modified and told Remington so, but Remington refused to modify the design.

Your case, which you call common sense is also very much an opinion and in dispute. I would call it nonsense instead of common sense. Had you been in the courtroom and listened to the sworn testimony of all the witness which were engineers and firearms experts, you would have not been mystified. Your lack of understanding is due to your lack of knowledge and nothing more.

No hostility here, just another cross examination in search of knowledge.

[John 242]

That particular McDonalds had a bunch of Geezers who hung out there and took advantage of the free coffee refills to the point, it was eating up all of the coffee profits. The manager got the bright idea to raise the temp of the coffee and thereby causing the geezers to drink less coffee. Well the coffee was heated to a scalding high temp and the lady dumped a cup of it on her lap. It took over $200,00 of reconstructive surgery to put her genitalia back into some what of a working order. That does not include a whole bunch of pain and mental anguish. When one understands all of the facts, they are not to sympathetic with McDonalds.

I guess you wouldn't want me on that jury because I wouldn't have been very sympathetic, but you are right, there are two sides to every story.

I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that $2.86 million was a fair amount for damages since the medical expenses were only $10,500. Her attorneys asked for $2500 for future medical expenses and $5000 for lost 'wages' for a total of settlement of $18,000. McDonalds refused the settlement and offered $800 (real smart).

In the end the 'old geezer' was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages (although her actual medical bills were only $10,500) and the jury decided to punish the EVIL McDonalds to the tune of $2.7 million dollars to send the message that McDonalds should have known that coffee served at 180°F was both RECKLESS and NEGLEGENT.


But, what if that coffee had been at 150°F? It wouldn't have mattered. Why?
Because "a British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds."(Wiki)
A similar lawsuit in Great Britain was thrown out of court. Funny how we mock the British, but apparently they're doing something right.

Here's a little more food for thought; "Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns." (Wiki)

McDonalds had put a warning on their cups saying the coffee was hot, but apparently that wasn't enough of a warning.

By the way according to what I have read, your home brew coffee pot keeps your coffee warm at 180 to 185°F. Don't spill it.

Edit- Here's a little more case law for you...
"Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

[John 242]

So, what does all of that have to do with Remington? Not much, I guess.
Whether or not Remington produced a defective product remains to be proven.
There seems to be enough complaints from users here and on other boards that seem to point to something being not quite right with the Model 700's safety.
If the rifles were unsafe and Remington knew about the condition, then they are liable, IMO.
(Edit- I think the term 'unsafe' needs to be defined. M1 Garands and other rifles can slam fire, but they are not necessarily unsafe. Get my point?)

What we don't know is whether the cause of these rifles firing, in the majority of instances, is from someone messing with the trigger/sear engagement or if it's a mechanical fault by design. The designer seems to think so.

I think it’s unfair though to make the blanket statement that the Remington 700 is perfectly safe and that the rifles being discussed were messed with. There are too many folks coming forward with what is essentially the same problem; the rifle firing when the safety if taken off.
I'd like to think our brethren are not as full of stuff as the rest of society. I could be wrong.

[Char-Gar]

"So, what does all of that have to do with Remington? Not much, I guess.
Whether or not Remington produced a defective product remains to be proven. "

Good post John. I just want to say, that in at least once instance (Texas trial) that the Remington rifle was proven to be defective. All of the legal mumbo jumbo is only relevant, in that many folks, want to shift the responsibility from Remington to the Legal Community.

I like Remington 700 rifles, have one and would purchase another without hesitation. But, facts are stubborn things, and it would appear, there is a great likelihood Remington had their way with the shooters of American on this one. I would think, these same shooters, being the folks who got bent over by Remington, would be the first to cry foul. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Shooters are not able to recognize the deference between a justified law suit against a gun maker, and the bogus law suits which are a stalking horse for the anti-gun folks. I credit a general bias against Lawyers for this tunnel vision.

[HangFireW8]

That is an opinion you hold and not an accepted fact. In our legal system, the jury is the decider of disputed facts and they did not agree with you. In fact Mike Walker the man who designed the 700 and the trigger for Remington admitted the trigger needed to be modified and told Remington so, but Remington refused to modify the design.

Chargar, if you had been paying attention, you'd already know that I agree with these facts. It is connecting Remington's negligence with the owner's negligence that caused the discharge that I disagree with. The faultiest safety in the world does not excuse the complete, total and culpable negligence of driving around with loaded guns in vehicles and then pulling them forward by the barrel while they are pointed at people. As far as I am concerned, such people should NOT be protected from their own negligence. It is the legal system that creates a connection between these two sets of (undisputed) facts that mystifies me. Perhaps there is even more that I don't know, that might change my mind.

-Ken

[chris112]

Concerning the gal with the McDee coffee. Anyone who sticks a styrofoam cup of hot liquid between their thighs while driving they deserve what they get. If I had been on that jury that is the only thing that would have mattered to me. There are times in this life you need to use your brains for something other than keeping your ears apart.

[John 242]

Not to pile on you, I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I have a problem with the following statements:


My Uncles was present when the accident in Texas took place. The son reached into a vehicle and pulled the rifle by the barrel toward him. It discharged cutting his father's spine.
Pulling a loaded rifle out by the barrel is irresponsible, reckless and negligent. I think we agree, do we not?


Negligence is defined as "What would a reasonable prudent person (gun maker, etc) do under the same or similar circumstances. Firearms being what they are, a very high standard of care is necessary to ensure they don't shoot the wrong thing or person.
Exactly, that’s why you don’t pull a loaded rifle by the barrel out of a vehicle! Because they require a “very high standard of care [that] is necessary to ensure they don’t shoot the wrong thing or person” the onus is on the user to ensure that they handle their rifle in a safe manner. If the person pulling the rifle out of the vehicle had acted “reasonable and prudent”, the discharge would not have taken place and no one would have been injured.


In the case at hand, it was not settled, but went to a jury trial which decided that Remington was indeed negligent in the design of the firearm and awarded damages accordingly.
Of course they did. Refer to my post above about the McDonalds coffee suit and it’s outcome and then examine the facts in this case.
The actor places himself and others at risk, injures someone, and Remington is found responsible because of the design of their rifle? WTH? All the egregious violations of safe gun handling and the responsibility for the discharge falls on Remington?

I guess the next time I’m playing with my M4, you know, pointing it at people and pulling the trigger with the safety on, if it happens to go off when I flick it to semi, I guess I’ll sue Colt.

I'm not trying to be a jerk and I am far from being a Remington fan (I think their quality has gone to hell), but I honestly feel that people should not be rewarded for their own stupidity.

By the way, it's after midnight here so I'm going to bed.
Take care,
John

[Char-Gar]

John.. Your first post was well researched and thought out. It does my heart good to see posts by folks who take the time to get the facts. I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, but for others who might read this, there are different levels of negligence.

There is ordinary negligence and gross negligence. Gross negligence,is so egregious,as to be tantamount to being willful/intentional. In these cases, the law does allow for a damages which do indeed punish the defendant for their gross negligence.

British tort law like British gun law is really weird stuff and doesn't relate much to America. Mexican tort law is also really weird and is best left south of the border.

[HangFireW8]

OK, so Remington was grossly negligent, does that mean I can sue them too, since I once owned a Remington rifle? Or do I have to be grossly negligent first to have the right to sue? By sue, I mean sue and win millions of bucks.

[Char-Gar]

Well, this has heated up again, so here goes.

Hangfire.. Your retired, so that that way!

John.. I would agree with you the gun handling in the Texas case was at least stupid if not worse. I would also agree that folks should not be rewarded for their own stupidity. Where we would disagree, is that Remington should not be given a pass if their defective rifle was at least 51% of the cause behind the whole mess. But for the defective rifle, the poor gun handling would not have resulted in an injury. Things like this are never clear and simple. The clear and simple ones never go to court. It is these complex and perplexing cases that go to a jury. This is the reason why we have juries and I for one am willing to not try and second guess them on the Internet.

I don't have a dog in the fight in either the McDonald's coffee case, or the Remington rifle case. I am also content to let folks think what they will of Lawyers.

I will rise to the defense of juries and their decisions. We are the only country in the world that allows common folks to be the deciders of disputed facts across the board. Some counties have juries, but they don't have the power and authority like they do in American. Most countries, like Mexico, Italy and the like to not have juries at all. The fate of the people are in the hands of judges, many of which are unqualified or political appointees. Travesties are common.

Both the 2nd Amendments and the Jury System are both expressions of the sovereignty of the American people. These are rights are what separate this wonderful country from from all of the rest on this globe.

Our Jury System and our legal system are not perfect, but they are far, far better than every other in the world.

[Char-Gar]

Hangfire.. Trying to educate you seems to be an endless process that is not bearing fruit.

You cannot sue Remington, because you were not shot!!! Go shoot yourself with a Remington 700 and we will talk about it.

[HangFireW8]

Hangfire.. Trying to educate you seems to be an endless process that is not bearing fruit.

You cannot sue Remington, because you were not shot!!! Go shoot yourself with a Remington 700 and we will talk about it.

Chargar,

You are right, I can't sue Remington, because my owning a 700 had nothing to do with their negligence... just like the plaintiff's shooting themselves had nothing to do with Remington's negligence.

As for education, you steadfastly refuse to discuss my point, so look which direction the fingers are pointing.

Please reply to my post #82 if you want to educate me. I've already pointed out, multiple times, that I don't see the connection between the (stated, obvious, accepted) negligence of Remington, and the (stated, obvious, seemingly unconnected) negligence of the plaintiffs, which brought about their injury.

You seem to be content that there was negligence on Remington's side, but since that didn't cause the discharge, and any harm could have been averted by any number of safe gun handling steps ignored by the plaintiffs, I've yet to see any explanation of how Remington's negligence, however well proven, has anything to do with the plaintiff's self-lart.

But, anyway, I'm not arguing with you any more, anyone reading the thread can see you've been avoiding discussing any connection or causality, though I thank you for explaining some points of law and bringing out the facts of the case.

-HF

[bowfin]

I own two lefthanded models and my brother owns one of them ***** righthanded ones. No problems so far in the last 30 years.

I'm thinking it would be a feather in their cap if they could help run Remington out of business, much like what happened to the original Harrington & Richardson company. They lost a lawsuit in which a kid drilled out the barrel of a starter pistol and crippled another kid.

[a.squibload]

Well it's their own fault, they shoulda made those barrels out of Undrillium.
'Course a starter pistol would cost about $3000...

[Char-Gar]

I own two lefthanded models and my brother owns one of them ***** righthanded ones. No problems so far in the last 30 years.

I'm thinking it would be a feather in their cap if they could help run Remington out of business, much like what happened to the original Harrington & Richardson company. They lost a lawsuit in which a kid drilled out the barrel of a starter pistol and crippled another kid.

I have never been killed in an airplane crash. Goodness know how hundreds of thousands of miles I have flow in the past 60 years!

[9.3X62AL]

Was contributory negligence a factor here? That is, was the award balanced out by weighing plaintiff and defendant liabilities for the course of conduct?

[Char-Gar]

I don't know the particulars of the case, but it was a Texas case. In Texas we do have "Comparative Negligence" that does as you mentioned in your case.