gaseousclay said:
i'm curious. a lot of you seem to defend Remington and their faulty triggers like it's not an issue
What evidence you have that the triggers are
faulty?
If there is some actual evidence, I will be happy to change my opinion, but lacking anything at all, the only "fault" I can find is that any moron with a small screwdriver can monkey with them and make them unsafe.
One of mine (early 1980s BDL) was like that when I got it. Way too light, way too little sear engagement. It has since been fixed, and I can beat on the rifle with a rubber mallet with the rifle cocked and safety off without it going off.
jmr40 said:
Here is a letter from Remington's repair facility admitting that they were able to reproduce the problem.
Well, they could reproduce a problem, but they don't specify what the problem they could reproduce was. The listed problem on the both rifles was a binding firing pin head, and the 600 had a binding safety. What exactly was the symptom those rifles were returned for? Binding firing pins were pretty much the opposite of rifles firing uncommanded, aren't they?
jmr40 said:
Of 133 Remington 700's sent in that year Remingtons own people could get 89 of them to fire without pulling the trigger.
No. "Unable to duplicate" means they could
not get the rifle to go off. Of the 133 complaints 44 were verified, but there is no info in that document as to what those complaints were. They had ~75 reports of 700s going off by themselves (which I admit seems high) that they could not duplicate, the other unable to duplicate problems were different.
jmr40 said:
Mike Walkers 1948 letter urging Remington to change the trigger.
I can hardly read that, but OK. I agree, A trigger block on the safety is a good idea. It does not automatically mean that a safety without a trigger block is defective.
That being said, the old 700 safety design that locked the bolt was stupid.
jmr40 said:
A 1947 letter from engineers advising Remington management of a dangerous trigger
Actually, that says some of the parts are "out of design limits", which "can be be very dangerous from a safety and functional point of view" Were there any follow on memos that either the design limits were revised to meet the out-of-spec parts, or were the parts inspected and improved so they meet the specs?
jmr40 said:
Another letter from Mike Walker advising Remington management of a dangerous situation.
Which he fixed:
"This change will be incorporated in the drawing as soon as tool procurement is completed". It is also referring to the 721 trigger, which predates the Remington 700.
jmr40 said:
Various customer complaints
What were the results of those complaints? What did Remington find when they inspected the rifles?
jmr40 said:
If I can just get one knucklehead to understand that a Remington can quite possibly discharge on it's own might save one persons life.
You should be getting the knuckleheads to understand that
any firearm is potentially dangerous, and mechanical safeties do not cancel out the need for basic firearms safety. Any of those tragedies could have been averted by application of Rule # 2: "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy."