another rifle explodes

[dukkillr]

i had a new rem 700 in .300 win mag go off when i closed the bolt during an elk hunt.  i don't care if you remmington fans believe me or defend the company  or whatever, but i've got no reason to lie.  I believe some 700s were a danger and the company knew it.

[gunnut69]

Boy has this been hashed over before or what. The lady in question who shoot her son was the cause of his death.  The trigger desighn Remington uses contains a part that floats between and connect the striker sear and the trigger sear. If it does not the rifle won't stay cocked. The safety on the M700 won't allow the striker to fall as long as the safety is ON.  The woman claimed that the rifle fired as the safety was moved to the OFF position which she was forced to do because of the bolt lock on the older remington rifles. The trigger didn't fail because it was defective, it was filthy! Her contention was that the bolt lock didn't allow her to unload her rifle with the safety on.  Remington paid and altered the safety so that the bolt lock was gone. These triggers sork very well if they are maintained and the sear engagement is correct..  If not they can fire when the bolt is closed or the safety moved to OFF. The new remington triggers can still fire when the safety is moved to OFF, BUT the gun can be unloaded without off safing the rifle.  This tragedy was not the rifle's fault although the mother and father and the jury would like to believe it so.  It was the fault of the mother. She pointed the rifle in an unsafe direction, regardless.  And that cost her son his life and she her son. All safeties can fail, even the Winchester and mauser although it's much less likely.. It actually requires a failure of some structural part, the Remington just requires a bit of stupidity or neglect.  My last run in with a problem 700 was a BDL version that while several years old had not yet fired a hundred rounds. It would not stay cocked.  Disassembly found the gun was clean and well keep, except for all the gelled 3-in-1 oil. I cleaned the trigger and reassembled it.  No further problems and a nice 3 lb trigger pull. Had a M70 fail once. The sear return spring didn't and when the safety was released it fired.  Have had several that fired as the safety was moved to off but they were traced to the person had his finger on the trigger and the action of pushing the safety off pressed the trigger as a reflex..  In the last he was aiming at a smallish buch as he removed the safety. Range was around 100 yards or so and the buck was killed in his tracks, the victum of an accidental discharge! ALL safeties caan fail!!!!  But juries can't bring themselves to tell a mother, or father that though the rifle had a mechanical failure, their child, brother, whatever, died because THEY WERE CARELESS.  As to all of us being dangerous at some point, I agree with GB. One time I see your muzzle in my face and I won't be there again..

[Mr_Christopher]

I agree with GB on this one. If that woman had a loaded rifle pointed at someone when she clicked the safety off, then the result is her own fault, and in my opinion she should be charged with a crime. ANY MECHANICAL SAFETY CAN FAIL. Muzzle control is the first basic rule of gun handling.

if a gun is manufactured and it can fire from simply disengaging the safety (and not having to pull the trigger) the manufacturer is responsible.

If a dork points any gun (loaded , unloaded, cocked, uncocked,) they are obviously too dumb to own or use a gun.

But a default design like what is being described is a deadly one, one that the manufacturer ought to be held responsible for big time.

Or they ought to provide a warning that states

"this gun is will go off without you pulling the trigger or banging it on anything.  disengaging the safety may cause the gun to fire without warning.  DO NOT BUY GUNS FROM US IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE"

[dukkillr]

All safeties can fail, even the Winchester and mauser although it's much less likely

shouldn't it be a concern if any safety fails much more often than another?  shouldn't it be a concern if a gun is made less safe because of a design flaw, even if user negligence is also part of the problem?

[gunnut69]

So if a person fails to perform maintenance on a cars brakes and that maker, we'll say GM, makes more cars with those brakes than any other brand the manufacturer is responsible for that persons negligence. Remember the cause of the crash was the drivers indifference to safe driving practices.  It's precisely the same except for one thing, this is a gun.  Some might say a winchester has a better safety, so it is correct to say then that it's OK if someone points a M70 in your direction? After all the safety doesn't fail much on them..  People this is frighteningly similar to local governements suing gunmakers because their weapons are used in the commision of a crime!  Remington's trigger has not been proven to fail more often than others, it was the bolt lock that they changed, not the trigger.. I much prefer simpler mechanisms but the last unsafe trigger I delt with was a Savage.  It would let the striker fall when the bolt was slammed or the rifle dropped firmly to the floor on it's butt.  Folks the lady was holding the weapon. A weapon that had a trigger that was crudded up to the point that the sear could not hold the striker.  When the safety was taken off to unload the weapon it fired and BECAUSE it was NOT pointed in a safe direction and young man died, a tragedy for cerain.  Preventable, certainly, follow the golden rule of handling weapons, never point the muzzle in an unsafe direction, ever!! The brain is in the person as is the resposiblity!!

[Vern Humphrey]

All safeties can fail, even the Winchester and mauser although it's much less likely

shouldn't it be a concern if any safety fails much more often than another?  shouldn't it be a concern if a gun is made less safe because of a design flaw, even if user negligence is also part of the problem?

You betcha!

I agree 100% that good gunhandling would have prevented all the injories and/or deaths from accidental discharges.  But that doesn't let Remington off  the hook for a faulty safety.

And I don't like their fix.  I want my bolt locked down when I'm hunting.

And yes, Mauser and Winchester safeties can fail -- but they don't fail at the rate Remington safeties fail.

[Vern Humphrey]

There are two issues, (1)  Do the safeties fail?  They do.  (2) Do they fail far more frequently than safties on other makes of rifle, under similar conditions?  They do.

If the car had brakes that failed UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS when other makes didn't fail, yeah -- people would be up in arms about that, too.

I like the 3-position safety.  I like knowing my safety won't fail.  I like having the bolt locked down while I'm hunting, and still being able to load and unload with the safety on.

[dukkillr]

im not refering to jury awards or any other specific case.  i am refering to quality control.  If a car company used brakes that were signficantly more likely to suffer a complete failure under adverse conditions than another company i would be worried.  For instance if a company used brakes that simply stopped functioning when the pads were used up that would be significantly less safe than a set of breaks that still stops the car but just burns up the rotors.  I would be concerned about the quality control of the first company, regardless of how often the brakes got changed...

of course no auto maker would make a car whose brakes simply stopped working when the pads were toast, there's no reason not use the safer alternative.  there's no reason for remmington to not use a safer, more dependable safety.  

btw, when my gun malfunctioned it was clean, it was basically new (less than 40 rounds through it).  Since getting it fixed it's worked flawlessly on everything from Kansas whitetail in the mud to Quebec caribou in the driving sleet.  Once fixed it's been a great gun I just wonder why I had to get it fixed to begin with, and I wonder why Remmington doesn't want to produce the safest product possibly

[daddywpb]

Mr_Christopher,

If a gun fires because of a malfunction of a safety, then you're right, it's the manufacturer's fault. If that same gun kills someone when it fires because of a malfunction of a safety, then it's the fault of the idiot that had the muzzle of a loaded gun pointed at someone. Whether or not there was something in between them is irrelevant. There are two places that are safe to point a loaded firearm - one is up, and the other is down. She chose neither. I can guarantee you that somewhere in the manual that comes with every firearm you own it says something about being sure that it is unloaded or pointed in a safe direction.

Tripod,

There is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to be looking down the muzzle of a loaded gun - EVER! If I find myself looking at a muzzle, the person holding that gun will hear about it in no uncertain terms, and that will be the last time that I am in their presence while they're holding a firearm whether it's in the woods or on the range. It's the responsibility of every shooter to be safe 100% of the time - otherwise, people die, and it's not going to be me. I have been around people who have had AD's twice. Both times were on the range during IPSC matches. Both times were the result of a broken part, and both times those people were practicing safe gun handling, and nobody was hurt. The rounds went harmlessly into the ground because of one thing - muzzle control. My life is too valuable to me to hang around with idiots.

[tripod]

Hi, No offense but the car comparison thing isn't quite the same. First you have a gearshift and engine compression. Then an emergency brake. Then a steering wheel. Then a key to turn off. A door to jump out. A horn for warning. Lights. A seatbelt. Airbags. And on and on.  When guns and bullets progress to this level  we will be required to get another license and this thread will go into eternity.

[Vern Humphrey]

 btw, when my gun malfunctioned it was clean, it was basically new (less than 40 rounds through it).  Since getting it fixed it's worked flawlessly on everything from Kansas whitetail in the mud to Quebec caribou in the driving sleet.  Once fixed it's been a great gun I just wonder why I had to get it fixed to begin with, and I wonder why Remmington doesn't want to produce the safest product possibly

You can buy an after-market 3-position safety for the Remington, and pay a gunsmith to install it.

But why should I do that when I can buy a comparable rifle with the 3-position safety already installed?

[dukkillr]

oh i agree completely... i doubt i'll buy another 700 but at the time i was a senior in college and short on funds... i've aquired a mauser and springfield since then that have more confidence in.  I was only trying to point out that i'm not bashing the 700 as a whole, in fact since i had it worked on it has functioned flawlessly, even in some nasty conditions.

[Lawdog]

One thing to note here is Mrs. Barber had her rifle pointed in a safe direction.  When she looked down to unload her rifle her son, Gus, ran out from behind a truck and right into the line of the barrel.  When she looked down there was no one there and only a second or two went by.  It was NOT Mrs. Barber’s fault.  This could have happened to anyone here.  This happened in the late 1990’s and the rifle was new.  Remington knew this could happen and choose to do nothing about it.  Figured it is cheaper paying off a few lawsuits then going to the expense of recalling all those M700’s with the faulty safeties.  As far as Sako/Tikka defect goes the only rifles effected by the recall are the stainless ones.  But I would call Sako just to make sure.  Lawdog
 

[gunnut69]

Folks my point was simply this, Remington didn't pay because the safety failed, it didn't.  They didn't pay because the trigger failed. Testimony at the trial indicated the trigger was fouled and had not been cleaned. They paid and recalled the old models to eliminate the bolt lock. They were guilty because the lady had to take the safety off to open the nolt! Also the boy was on the opposite side of the horse trailer when the AD happened.  I am not defending the trigger here but am pointing out a basic flaw in this entire thread, the boy died because the gun fired accidentally?  NO! He died because when the rifle discharged, for whatever reason, it was pointed in an unsafe direction, at him.  It's hard to defend in court the death of a little boy and to point a finger of blame at the mother but she was holding the rifle, she made the mistake that killed her son.  The rifle discharged when it was not expected and that was bad but she was holding the rifle.. One other thing I tried to make clear but evidently failed was that all things mechanical fail.  When they fail and someone gets hurt because the shooter was pointing that gun the wrong way, who's fault will it be?  It will always be the shooters fault. Here in Missouri a man in a hotel had an accidental discharge. I don't know the details but the bullet passed through the cieling and the fllor above and killed a young woman. The man was charged and convicted of manslaughter.

[Greybeard]

I agree with Jerry. Cannot agree with Lawdog on this. If the boy was shot when the gun went off the gun was NOT pointed in a safe direction. NEVER EVER point that muzzle at anything you do not want to shoot. She could just as well have done this while in the woods before getting to where people were. She could have pointed it directly to the ground near here. She could even have pointed it upward assuming they were in a place where a discharge upward might be safe.

Unsafe and improper gun handling was the ONLY reason for the boy's death. The mother committed the unsafe act. The fault was 100% hers.

I am so sick of the way this society has come to blame everyone but the one at fault when something happens. Does no one take responsibility for their own actions anymore?

[tominboise]

As a mechanical engineer who spent 10 years designing flight controls for Boeing, I have to weigh in on this.  Accidents happen.  Planes crash, Firestone tires come apart, SUV's roll over, hot coffee gets spilled, etc, etc, etc.  Accidents happen.  Manufacturers of a product try their best to produce a product that works and is safe to use.   If accidents occur, then analysis and redesign occur.  Typically, engineers do their best to think thru all possible failure modes, and work to eliminate them (I am referring here, of course, to highly engineered products, which a firearm certainly is).  Sometimes they miss them, or a product is used in way that no one thought of, and then it fails. An example of this would be using a cinder block as a jack stand for a car - the block (material) is not designed to support the compressive loads of an automobile.  When it fails, somebody gets crushed.  Sometimes, though, SH## happens, and a design just has problems.  In this case, remedies need to happen.

A responsible manufacturer should be willing and able to step up and address failures, particularly when a safety system fails.  We can argue all day long and thrash the keyboards until they scream about gun handling safety, not pointing the muzzle at anything you don't want to shoot, blah, blah, blah, and I will agree with you.  Proper gun handling is key, but the reality is, is that one has a reasonable expectation that a rifle will not discharge when the safety is released.  I would argue that it would be better to have NO safety on the rifle, rather then one that fails in operation.  Mechanical safeties are no replacement for safe gun handling, I think we would all agree.  But the presence of one implies that it will work as intended.  The Remington design seems to have more failures (20,000 or more, I read somewhere, Remington estimated).  I wonder if 20000 Winchester or Mauser 98 or Weatherby safeties have failed, resulting in a discharge when released.

I would also guess that like Tripod posted, everyone on here has had their muzzle point at something they didn't want to shoot.  It's just a fact of life.  Hell, holstering a pistol points the muzzle at a lot of things I don't want shot.

[Vern Humphrey]

A responsible manufacturer should be willing and able to step up and address failures, particularly when a safety system fails.  We can argue all day long and thrash the keyboards until they scream about gun handling safety, not pointing the muzzle at anything you don't want to shoot, blah, blah, blah, and I will agree with you.  Proper gun handling is key, but the reality is, is that one has a reasonable expectation that a rifle will not discharge when the safety is released.  I would argue that it would be better to have NO safety on the rifle, rather then one that fails in operation.  Mechanical safeties are no replacement for safe gun handling, I think we would all agree.  But the presence of one implies that it will work as intended.  The Remington design seems to have more failures (20,000 or more, I read somewhere, Remington estimated).  I wonder if 20000 Winchester or Mauser 98 or Weatherby safeties have failed, resulting in a discharge when released.

Good post.

No one says that good gun handling is not critical -- and that if you shoot someone, no matter why, you're responsible.

But when I buy a gun, I expect it to work.  I expect ALL its functions to work.  If it goes off when I release the safety, or close the bolt -- what good is it to me?  Can I hunt with a gun that fires when I release the safety?

I'll stick with Winchester until Remington solves its problems.

[Big Tom]

But when I buy a gun, I expect it to work.  I expect ALL its functions to work.  If it goes off when I release the safety, or close the bolt -- what good is it to me?  Can I hunt with a gun that fires when I release the safety?

Before I first came on this site a few years ago I was a Remington Fanatic for almost 40 years. My first deer rifle was a 721 in 1962. I bought the first year Classic, first year Mountain rifle etc... (wish I still had em :lol: )
In the past 4 or 5 years I have had a series of bad experiences with both Remington and Winchester, tried and purchased Weatherby,Tikka, annd Sako. They have been excellent so far.

Tom makes an excellent point in that World market changes forces marketing and manufacturing changes. In our lawsuit crazy world right now the cart is definately before the horse. However, I don't think we will get any where saying "I would touch a "F#@$%ing" Sako, Remington, or Savage.

Would I buy another Remington, Winchester or Sako? All lot depends on the comments and reports I read RIGHT HERE! There are a ton of guys with loads of knowledge and "hands on" experience to draw on. Thats why I tune in to Gray beard! :grin:

[anweis]

two years ago a friend bought a new Rem 700 ADL or BDL and i wanted to shoot it, so i offered to install the scope and sight it in.
The rifle was rested on sandbags and i set the safety OFF when it discharged downrange. We took the rifle back the same day.
He bought a CZ after this.
I will never buy a Remington. I am saving for a Sako 75. I'd rather have a gun that does what i want, when i want.
The lady who killed her son was only part of the problem. Remington should still be accountable. If she pointed that gun to the ground, bullet fragments and rocks or dirt could have injured someone. If she pointed that gun to the sky, the bullet could have flown 1 - 2 miles away and landed on someone's head or car or house. I know of an accidental discharge in Europe where a .22 went over a bern (it was pointed in a safe direction on a shooting range, just a bit in the wrong angle) and landed in a baby girl's crib 900 meters away and killed her.
In any gun store in Europe they will start selling you a rifle by saying "this one is safe, or that one is the safest". I went with my brother in law looking for a rifle for him, we asked for 6.5 Swedish, and the sales person started by telling us CZ is the safest, and that Sako and Tikka are equally safe but they shoot a bit better". Nobody said anything about groups and such.
What i am rambling about here is the consumer attitude. When consumers ask about group size and other things, and overlook the 100% safety factor, then that's what manufacturers are going to sell.
About the SAKO recall: it's pretty difficult to recall every single rifle when you don't know where they are (rifle owners are not registered). The info was out to gun shops, internet, magazines, and such. But i guess if somebody is not in touch, like me, they would never find out.

[Lawdog]

What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that Remington KNEW about the safety problem and chose to do nothing about it.  Internal documents where uncovered that showed this and that there were safer alternatives.  Everybody jumped on Chevrolet for their “firetrap” pick-ups, where they installed the gas tanks between the frame and the body and knew it was potentially dangerous, and yet will defend a firearm company that did about the same thing.  Just like Chevrolet was at fault, Remington is at fault.  Lawdog
 

[Donaldo]

This has been a most interesting read.  I personally don't have any experience with a Remington, so I can't say one way or the other.  I have however seen and read of manufacturers of many different products that knew that they were making a product that had failure problems and decided for whatever reason to ignore it.  A responsible manufacturer should step up and admit their mistakes.  Most of us would appreciate that, but......there are plenty of lawyers out there just looking for something like that to jump on.  We have all seen the ads on TV and in the newspapers.  Seems like I read somewhere that the USA has more lawyers per citizen than any other country in the world.  No wonder there are so many lawsuits......got to keep all them lawyers fed.  Present company excepted of course.  :wink:

[AZ223]

This post makes me a little nervous about my old 700. My father had bought it before he died, and even though it's over 20 years old, it probably has less than 300 rounds through it. I don't like the bolt-lock mechanism of the safety, but then again I'm fairly meticulous about keeping the action clean. I disassemble the bolt periodically just to make certain. The only time I've ever had a firing pin that "stuck" was my old .22 bolt I took out one really frigid Wisconsin winter. It was well below zero, but I didn't care; I was a teenager then. Anyway, the sticking problem was fixed by using a graphite compound to lubricate it.

It boils down to some really basic things: Firearms are inherently dangerous, and as such they require that the user PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. Safeties aren't a substitute for common sense; follow the four "golden rules" of gunhandling, and hopefully even an accidental discharge will be at most an embarrassment.

Now I'm going to go clean my 700 again...  :shock:

[daddywpb]

AZ223,

Well said!

[Redhawk1]

I have a Sako that was made in 1960 in 375H&H and it is a great gun with quit a few rounds down the tube. I also have a Tikka Whitetail hunter in 300Win Mag and it is also a fine gun.  But with that said, any gun maker can have a faulty gun or a gun KB. It is very unfortunate for the user that it happen. All gun makers need to get tighter on the safety issues with guns.  

[Vern Humphrey]

We don't have any hard numbers here, but in terms of rifles produced, the failure rate may be greater than that of low number Springfields.

[missing967]

OK some may say I'm living on the edge, but I am in the process of buying a Sako 75 Synthetic Stainless in 375 H&H.  I talked with Beretta customer service just before Christmas and was told that all the rifles that were suspected of having bad steel in them had been recalled, and the problem had been rectified.

[hkg3k]

About the SAKO recall: it's pretty difficult to recall every single rifle when you don't know where they are (rifle owners are not registered). The info was out to gun shops, internet, magazines, and such. But i guess if somebody is not in touch, like me, they would never find out.

If the rifle was purchased from an FFL, it is (or better be) tracable.  Period.  If purchased 2nd hand from an individual, then that's another matter altogether.  The last person who purchased the rifle from a licensed dealer will get a call, based on their information on the 4473.

Sako's are quaility rifles, no doubt.  I have 2, and although I admire the quality, they are not the best shooters in my rack.  I've got at least 2 model 70s and an A-Bolt that are at least 0.5 moa better than my 2 Sakos (.308 & 7 mag).

[Vern Humphrey]

[quote="hkg3k]If the rifle was purchased from an FFL, it is (or better be) tracable.  Period.  If purchased 2nd hand from an individual, then that's another matter altogether.  The last person who purchased the rifle from a licensed dealer will get a call, based on their information on the 4473.
[/quote]

It doesn't work that way -- the 4473 stays with the dealer.  So the best they can do is contact the dealer, and ask him to go thumbing through all his filed 4473s to find the buyer.

[longwinters]

I just asked the dealer where I buy all my rifles, last week, about this whole thing.  He said that Sako sent letters out to everyone (FFL) that had sold one of these rifles.  Now he is an up front kind of guy and sells many brands of rifles, not just Sako, so I would think that he is being honest about it.  And I would think that if he even thought there could be a problem with his having sold one of these that he would do whatever he had to do to check it out.  Otherwise in this society his gun shop would be owned by whoever sues him when their rifle blew up.  A dealer would have to be a real fool not to follow up on something like this.

Long

[hkg3k]

It doesn't work that way -- the 4473 stays with the dealer.  So the best they can do is contact the dealer, and ask him to go thumbing through all his filed 4473s to find the buyer.

Sorry you misunderstand, but it works EXACTLY that way.  ANY firearm is traceable from the Manufacturer/importer to the 1st purchaser.  Period.  If not, BATF is gonna be up someone's backside.  Manufacturer/importer has a record of which firearm goes to which wholesaler (or in some cases dealer).  Wholesaler has a record of which firearm goes to which dealer.  Dealer has a record (4473) of which firearm is sold to which individual.

The dealer can either "thumb through a stack of 4473s" or go to his bound book (which is usually computerized) to find which individual made the purchase.  Its not difficult and happens all the time.  

This is exactly the same chain of discovery Law Enforcement goes through when they encounter a firearm and want to know to whom it was initially registered.  Sako BEING the manufacturer, should have little trouble tracking the rifles down.