Bolt gun safety

"The first thing I noticed was that if the bolt was accidently raised/opened close to half-way, safety "off," the rifle would fire (I tried this as a test with the rifle empty), and the bolt would slam down to the closed position, dropping the firing pin."

I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt the striker will hit the primer hard enough to set it off under this scenario. I have on several occasions tried to fire one of the 700's with the non-bolt lock safety w/o noticing the bolt handle was not fully closed. The rifle NEVER fired. The primer was dimpled but not indented nearly enough to fire.
 
Mobuck,

Good thing to know, thanks for the tip. Again, never had any problems with my newer ADL and the way the safety/bolt operation works. Personally, I just prefer the older style bolt locking system with the safety "on."

reinert
 
There is no one RIGHT way to do things with firearms designs-think Mauser vs say Mosin Nagant or Lee-Enfield in milsurps-which is "correct" ? All were widely produced and saw years of service. One of my Iron Rules is get completely familiar with the individual firearm, understand its design and how it functions.
 
well remington did make a rifle with a three posion saftey as i have one, a model 725 made before the rem 700. and it is a super rifle. eastbank.
 
I've always wanted a Model 725, east bank, but I don't think they came with a three-position safety. The Model 725 was nothing more than a nicely gussied-up Model 721/722 and a precursor to the Model 700. Model 721s and 722s, along with the Model 725 and early (until 1982) Model 700s all came with 2-position safeties that locked the bolt closed when the safety was "on".
If I'm wrong about the Model 725 (in terms of whether or not it had a 3-position safety), please provide evidence. I'd be interested to learn the truth of the matter (I know I'm on slippery ground here because you say you have one. Still...:confused:).
 
Last edited:
there was a little problem that killed a number of people: the trigger mechanism.
Click to expand...

While Remington could have, and should have built a better trigger to start with, they don't deserve ALL the blame for the people killed and injured.

To state the obvious, every one of the deaths and injuries ALSO involved the users failing some part of basic gun safety.

It is ridiculously easy to do, to make a mistake and point the muzzle in what is NOT a safe direction, or what you think is a safe direction but isn't.

Remington cannot be blamed for that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I wish that I had kept the reference, but I read in one of these Remington trigger threads of an account in El Paso where the owner of a Rem 700 went hunting/shooting and brought the rifle home in a loaded condition. After taking the rifle out of the vehicle he attempted to unload it in his driveway. The rifle discharged when the safety was taken off and a lady mowing the lawn, some unknown distance away, was hit by that bullet and died.

It is my opinion that Remington can be blamed for that. It may not be obvious to some, but even if the muzzle is pointing away from anyone in the near vicinity, since these things carry thousands of yards downrange, you cannot be certain that a negligent discharge will end benignly. To the lady mowing the lawn, she certainly did not desire to die just because she happened to be standing on one particular spot of her yard, precisely at the moment when a defective Remington trigger malfunctioned.

As long as we are comfortable with Corporations killing us, and as long as it not someone we know, I guess that makes it OK and we will continue to allow it.
 
Slamfire said:
I wish that I had kept the reference, but I read in one of these Remington trigger threads of an account in El Paso where the owner of a Rem 700 went hunting/shooting and brought the rifle home in a loaded condition. After taking the rifle out of the vehicle he attempted to unload it in his driveway. The rifle discharged when the safety was taken off and a lady mowing the lawn, some unknown distance away, was hit by that bullet and died.

It is my opinion that Remington can be blamed for that. It may not be obvious to some, but even if the muzzle is pointing away from anyone in the near vicinity, since these things carry thousands of yards downrange, you cannot be certain that a negligent discharge will end benignly. To the lady mowing the lawn, she certainly did not desire to die just because she happened to be standing on one particular spot of her yard, precisely at the moment when a defective Remington trigger malfunctioned.

As long as we are comfortable with Corporations killing us, and as long as it not someone we know, I guess that makes it OK and we will continue to allow it.
Click to expand...
A Remington 700 in an unaltered and well maintained condition will not do that. Likewise, any firearm that's worn or neglected may fire when taking off safety.

4 rules for firearm safety. One of them is to mind whatever behind the target. Should the gun owner point the rifle at a back drop to clear the round? Should he clear the gun before even getting into the truck? I don't like that I have to take off the safety to clear the chamber. Remington should have a 3-position safety. But the corporations are killing us? It is too far fetched I'm afraid.

-TL
 
I own two M700s, and trust them completely. I had my gunsmith check them both out, and I keep them clean, and that goes a long way to keep them safe, IMO. No problems whatsoever.

FWIW, If you own and use the M700, and have questions, watch this updated video on the Remington trigger issue. BTW, Remington is celebrating it's 200th year in the firearms industry this year, also.

www.cnbc.com/remington-under-fire/
 
QUOTE: "...Should the gun owner point the rifle at a back drop to clear the round? Should he clear the gun before even getting into the truck? I don't like that I have to take off the safety to clear the chamber..."

When unloading any gun, regardless of the safety design, point the firearm in a safe direction (the ground, a backdrop, a sand-filled bucket, whatever is safe), keep your finger off the trigger and operate the action until all of the cartridges are ejected (double-check that the gun's chamber and magazine are empty). In almost any circumstance that I can conjure up, a loaded hunting rifle should never be taken into or kept in a vehicle (in most states I'm acquainted with, to do so is illegal and the act of doing so is generally referred to as "Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle").

While you may not like having to "take off the safety to clear the chamber" (and that is, obviously, certainly your prerogative and, fortunately for you, there are plenty of rifles that are available with safeties that are "on" while unloading them that you can choose from); unloading a rifle with the safety "off" is not intrinsically unsafe if, as mentioned earlier in this thread, basic firearm safety protocol is followed.
 
Last edited:
It is my opinion that Remington can be blamed for that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don see it that way.

Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

The difference between what IS a safe direction and what someone THINKS is a safe direction is what allows tragedies like the one in El Paso you mentioned.
 
There was no excuse for the rifle to have been transported with a round chambered. Old and not so old lever guns also had what would amount to being a 2 position safety also. Maybe Remington did have a trigger problem and maybe this was exasperated by improper adjustment of the trigger? A law suit to me has no basis when basic firearm safety is not followed. People make lots of silly mistakes in their life, it's very unfortunate when those are deadly. I believe the hunter and not Remington should have been held accountable in the case of the poor lady getting fatally shot. He made a mistake by transporting a hunting rifle with a round chambered, how do we know he didn't make any others?
 
I carried a Rem 700 for many winters often with a round chambered laying across my lap on the pickup seat. NEVER had a problem.
I was present when a 700 fired upon releasing the safety BUT the cause was very apparent. The user had a piece of glove finger stuck between trigger and guard when the safety was released-was still stuck there after the shot fired. You can't blame Remington for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My older Brother asked me to "take a look at" a used 700 he'd bought from a local dealer. About 50% of the time, it would either fail to catch the striker when closed OR drop the striker if the trigger was pulled(not pulled like trying to break it off-just manipulated)and then the safety released.
We found out later that the previous owner had messed with the adjustments and then had an AD/ND incident after which he traded the rifle away. This was the only Rem 700 I've seen with this problem although I've seen others with grungy or heavily greased triggers that would occasionally fail to catch the striker when being closed.
The problem isn't just Remingtons either. I bought a used Savage 110 that would fire about 75% of the time if the trigger was pulled and then the safety released. A couple of scared deer was the only result of that problem (which I fixed with a new Rifle Basix trigger).
 
I have had two different win 70 discharge upon safety being turned off, but I have never had a 700 do it. Both accidental discharges killed the animal I intended to shoot with them.
 
dgludwig,

I was a bit surprised when you questioned Eastbank about the 725, and even more so the second time around. I would feel a bit insulted if I was him. With a minimum of research, if you had any doubt the question would be answered. The 725 shares the style of safety of the 720 and earlier 30, and even earlier Enfield pattern rifles.

Here is a link straight from Remington :

http://www.remington.com/support/safety-center/safety-modification-program/remington-model-725
 
QUOTE: "...dgludwig,

I was a bit surprised when you questioned Eastbank about the 725, and even more so the second time around. I would feel a bit insulted if I was him. With a minimum of research, if you had any doubt the question would be answered..."

I'm not sure why you would think eastbank should feel insulted just because I was interested in the safety configuration of his Remington Model 725. He said it had a three-position safety and my "research" was based on the account and descriptions of the Remington Models 721, 722 and 725 as provided for in Frank de Haas' book, Bolt Action Rifles. Mr. de Haas said that the models 721, 722, 725 and the later Model 700 were essentially the same rifles and made no distinction as to any differences of the trigger designs of the four rifles (three of which had/have 2-position safeties).


I conceded I was on "slippery ground" when I had the audacity to question the account of an owner of a Model 725 but I just wanted to be certain that the information was correct. I've always been a fan of the Model 725 and the fact that it has a 3-position safety only adds to my like for it. Someday I hope to own one.


If eastbank does feel insulted by my question, I certainly apologize for any misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top