CNBC Investigates the Remington 700

[Mig]

FYI . . . http://www.cnbc.com/id/39554936/

Inside Remington Rifle's Controversial Trigger

Published: Tuesday, 19 Oct 2010 | 1:55 PM ET

By: Scott Cohn

Senior Correspondent, CNBC

At the heart of the decades-long controversy over the Remington 700 series is a piece of metal that is roughly the length of a paper clip.

It is called a “trigger connector,” and it is an integral part of the firing mechanism patented by Remington engineer Merle “Mike” Walker in 1950. The so-called “Walker trigger” was a breakthrough in firearm design, allowing the smooth, crisp action favored by expert shooters at an affordable price.

The connector is mounted on a spring inside the firing mechanism, sitting between the trigger and the sear—the metal bar that holds back the firing pin. According to Walker’s patent, the connector not only smoothes the action of the trigger, but also eliminates “trigger slap,” where the trigger bounces back slightly after the gun is fired.

To this day, Walker calls his invention “a perfect trigger.” But multiple lawsuits against Remington allege the design is flawed. They claim small amounts of rust, debris, or even a small jolt can push the connector out of alignment, separating the trigger itself from the rest of the firing mechanism. Then, the complaints allege, the gun can go off when other parts are operated, such as the safety or the bolt.

Walker himself advocated a mechanism that would have held the trigger and connector in place while the safety was on, but internal company documents show Remington rejected Walker’s “trigger block” because of the cost—estimated in 1948 to be an additional 5 ½ cents per gun.

In a statement to CNBC, Remington says the 700 “has been free of defects since it was first produced.” But in 2007, Remington introduced a new firing mechanism for the 700 that includes the feature Mike Walker had proposed nearly 60 years earlier. The new trigger system, marketed as the “X-Mark Pro,” also eliminates Walker’s trigger connector. A source close to Remington tells CNBC the connector was removed because it had become the focus of so many lawsuits.

However, Remington still insists the older system is safe, and in court cases has likened the introduction of the X-Mark Pro to that of a new car model—it does not mean the old model is inferior. Remington has not ordered a recall, and continues to use the Walker trigger in models such as the Remington 770 as well as sniper rifles supplied to the U.S. military. And CNBC found older models of the 700 with the Walker trigger still on sale at retailers across the country.

To determine if your Remington 700 has the Walker firing mechanism or the X-Mark Pro, look at the trigger itself. If the trigger has grooves, it is a Walker. If it is smooth, it is an X-Mark Pro.

CNBC.com will soon be publishing more stories about the Remington 700. And be sure to watch "Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation," reported by Scott Cohn, Wednesday, October 20 at 9pm ET/PT. © 2010 CNBC.com

[JFlowers]

What an incredibly lousy piece of journalism. It lacks facts and is largely based on innuendo. How many lawsuits have been filed? Out of how many guns produced? Facts, figures, give the reader something solid. Instead they use the fact that Remington introduced a new trigger as proof that the old was bad. So the fact that Ford produced a 2011 Mustang is proof that the 1964 1/2 was bad?

The Remington 700 has been in production since 1962. Lets say 1000 rifles a year, which I figure is low. That 39,000 rifles. Even 400 lawsuits is a defect rate of 1%, which would be very good for any manufactured product. And that is why organizations like CNBC don't use facts.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Let's try more like 100,000 rifles a year.

[twodownzero]

For the record, a 1% failure rate with something as dangerous as a firearm would be a tragedy--certainly not impressive at all.

[JFlowers]

TwoDown,

How much more dangerous is a car and the auto industry's failure rate is much much higher. At 100,000 rifles a year, 400 defective rifles would be a 1 in 10,000 defect rate. For any manufactured product - firearm, car, toaster oven - that's a very high quality rate. My current project just got a 99.75% rating and we were praised. That would be 25 defects in 10,000.

But my real point was the lack of any facts in the article and how they were making a manufacturer out to be knowingly producing defective products with no facts to back up the claim.

[Lisa C]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

[Kevin G.]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

The only thing I see on the website (I will watch the broadcast to see if there are any real facts presented) is that a rifle that is more than likely heavily used has an issue with the trigger not releasing the sear when pulled. This results in the gun firing when the bolt is moved, albeit ever so slightly, AFTER the trigger has been pulled. As soon as a firearm doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled, with safety disengaged, an alarm should go off in the operators head and he/she should keep it pointed in a safe direction until the chamber is cleared. In the case of this agency rifle, it should go directly to the armorer for repair before any other rounds are chambered. To do otherwise is reckless and irresponsible.

What work had been done to this rifle? Who knows. The video also cuts between the rifle operating correctly and when it malfunctions. Why?

Lisa C.

For a small fee I will retire that "unsafe rifle" and will give my word that no AD from it will ever harm anyone. (I obey the rules of firearm handling) I don't want anyone to be strapped with a firearm they feel unsure of. It's the least I could

do.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Kevin G.

[Graham Smith]

I fear that this is yet another example of investigative journalism at it's weakest. Is there a potential problem, sure there is, but EXACTLY how unsafe is something - in pure numbers that people can understand - 1 in 10, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 10,000,000 ? This "the sky is falling" non-sense is yellow journalism (look it up if you don't get the reference) of the worst kind. It completely fails to do it's primary job - which is to inform. I would wager that about 75% of what we see and read anymore that passes for journalism actually informs. The rest is pretty much a steaming pile of somewhat related words.

All that acknowledged, Remington does appear to have committed the one unforgivable breach of faith - they lied and tried to hide the fact that there might be a problem.

As an aside, we won't go into any possible political implications of the timing of this story.

[Avezorak]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

If this is a real concern to you, look into having a gunsmith install a Timney or other aftermarket trigger system. With that said I own and have owned several M700's and would never distrust them based on this report.

[twodownzero]

TwoDown,

How much more dangerous is a car and the auto industry's failure rate is much much higher. At 100,000 rifles a year, 400 defective rifles would be a 1 in 10,000 defect rate. For any manufactured product - firearm, car, toaster oven - that's a very high quality rate. My current project just got a 99.75% rating and we were praised. That would be 25 defects in 10,000.

But my real point was the lack of any facts in the article and how they were making a manufacturer out to be knowingly producing defective products with no facts to back up the claim.

If the auto industry's failure rate was 1% in defects that inevitably and logically could lead to death or serious injury, I think we'd have far fewer car companies. The fact is that isn't the case.

25 defects in 10,000 that were likely to cause death? Or 25 defects that required warranty work? These are very different questions.

For the record, I don't own an R700, but if I did, I wouldn't be concerned. There should be no doubt after almost 50 years of service that the R700 has an enviable and unquestionable record of safety and reliability.

Edited October 21, 2010 by twodownzero

[pjb45]

I have watched half of the broadcast so far.

The previous commenters have decried "not stating the facts."

1. There is video documentation of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled

2. There is internal memos from Remington engineers acknowledging the design problem

3. The original engineer of the trigger reiterates the design flaw

4. Remington was able to replicate the gun firing without the trigger being pulled 44 times

5. Internal Reminton memos note original $.055 cost of fixing the gun

6. Remington offered to fix existing 700 with the new trigger

7. Remington has settled out of court numerous lawsuits

8. 700 was fired in a courtroom without the trigger being pulled which resulted in a $17M judgement

Pretty hard cold facts!

In the auto industry - noted for denying engineering flaws - has settle lawsuits for the Pinto and Crown Victoria because of design flaws.

In the baby carriage industry - recall were required for products with far fewer deaths

The same is true for almost all other industries.

The is a Product Liability problem. Being Pro-Gun should not blind us to the facts.

If your competition pistol fired without touching the trigger, that would be a safety issue, you would fix right?

This issue being raised is not a manufacturing defect problem, it is a design problem. Two entirely different issues. In the Remington case, there was not a mechnical failure of the safety, it worked as designed, in the video there was not a mechnical failure of the bolt and the gun fired. Twodownzero your analogy is not valid.

The point being made by the CNBC is there was a engineering design defect, acknowledged by internally by Remington and not rectified by Remington.

I routinely do not like CNBC but they did a good job this time.

[Lisa C]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

If this is a real concern to you, look into having a gunsmith install a Timney or other aftermarket trigger system. With that said I own and have owned several M700's and would never distrust them based on this report.

Thanks, Avezorak. Will do.

I understand not trusting CNBC, as I normally don't consider news programs as reporting facts. I consider them to be entertainment. However, with all of those letters pouring in to Remington and watching the examples of how the shots are fired without touching the trigger, how can that be disputed?

[Lisa C]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

The only thing I see on the website (I will watch the broadcast to see if there are any real facts presented) is that a rifle that is more than likely heavily used has an issue with the trigger not releasing the sear when pulled. This results in the gun firing when the bolt is moved, albeit ever so slightly, AFTER the trigger has been pulled. As soon as a firearm doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled, with safety disengaged, an alarm should go off in the operators head and he/she should keep it pointed in a safe direction until the chamber is cleared. In the case of this agency rifle, it should go directly to the armorer for repair before any other rounds are chambered. To do otherwise is reckless and irresponsible.

What work had been done to this rifle? Who knows. The video also cuts between the rifle operating correctly and when it malfunctions. Why?

Lisa C.

For a small fee I will retire that "unsafe rifle" and will give my word that no AD from it will ever harm anyone. (I obey the rules of firearm handling) I don't want anyone to be strapped with a firearm they feel unsure of. It's the least I could

do.

Just to clarify, the bottom paragraph is "To Lisa C."

[Powder Finger]

twodownzero:

Thanks for your input and insight.

Mig:

I'm watching the CNBC show right now and am wondering how to retire my 700. I don't want to sell it because I don't want anyone else to be at risk. I loved my rifle until watching this. I know too many people who've had other ND/AD's resulting in harming someone. Handling a rifle with known problems isn't worth taking to the range. Thanks a lot for posting this.

If this is a real concern to you, look into having a gunsmith install a Timney or other aftermarket trigger system. With that said I own and have owned several M700's and would never distrust them based on this report.

I'm sure this is the same design as the original just better finish and steel.

Not that i'm saying it has any problem as I don't feel the Remington did either.

If enough people stick a gun barrel in the snow then fire it and blow it up does that mean the fact that the rifle does not

have a protective snow cap make it a design flaw?

[Middle Man]

The trigger design in question was on pre 1982 rifles. Rather lame that CNBC is 28 years late on reporting and investigating...check Google there have been tons of pixels burned writing about this subject on several gun blogs.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Middle Man

[pjb45]

It is not better steel and finish on the trigger that was changed. Look at the design better steel and finish have nothing to do with the trigger bar. The design allows the release of the firing pin without touching the trigger.

Honestly, ask yourself if you would own a gun that could fire without touching the trigger. Would you let your kid use a gun knowing the gun could fire without touching the trigger or just by releasing the safety?

It is the original design, I think it goes back to 1947. Through the years, Remington ignored conclusions of its own engineers. Results show the Remington engineers were correct in their assessment the original trigger designed was flawed. This is a fact proven by Remington's own documentation. Furthermore, Remington's engineers were able to replicate the firing without touching the trigger.

The modification to the design was offered much later and it was similar if not the same as the design the original design engineered offered and was recommended by subsequent Remington engineers but denied by Remington management.

As to the snow analogy--how far off can you really be--- you are talking about an unsafe practice. Engineers do not design guns to accommodate every unsafe practice, such as plugging the muzzle and expecting not to have a problem.

The trigger was design to operate in a safe manner. It was clearing shown the trigger did not operate in a safe manner numerous times over the years.

I have owned Remington rifles as did my dad. I like the company. But reality is Remington knew they had a problem and failed to rectify it. This is irresponsible.

I believe Ruger noted they had a problem with one of their guns and issued a recall. More than once. Ruger stepped up and fixed the problem. Remington ignored theirs.

[Middle Man]

Ignored? Maybe, maybe not. Remington has been offering to upgrade pre 1982 rifles for 20 bucks (dumb move IMO) since at least 2002.

http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/safety-center/safety-modification-program/remington-model-700-and-model-40-X.aspx

Only those Model 700 or 40-X rifles made before March 1982 were manufactured with a bolt-lock mechanism. Model 700 or 40-X rifles made after March 1982 do not have a bolt-lock mechanism and may be loaded and unloaded with the safety in the “S” or “On Safe” position. Consequently, post-1982 Model 700 or 40-X rifles are not subject to this bolt-lock Safety Modification Program.

CBS also did a story on the flaw and the resulting lawsuits in 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/17/eveningnews/main301947.shtml

The thing about "expert witnesses" is that any lawyer can find any "expert" to sit on the witness stand and back up their claim(s) for enough money.

[MarkCO]

Wow, digging deep they are. There were several failure analysis performed on this, and published, in the 1980s and early 1990. In fact in the December 1998 NAFE Journal, there was an article which included this topic. Based on my records and research, since Remington changed the safety in 1982, there have only been a few cases of alleged "inadvertant discharge" on 700s. Of the last five alleged "inadvertant discharge" cases I have worked on professionally, one was a hangfire and the other four, the operator pressed the trigger and the firearm operated as intended.

[Middle Man]

Loads of potential settlement cash from large public corporations often attracts the most un-ethical parties...

[MarkCO]

The thing about "expert witnesses" is that any lawyer can find any "expert" to sit on the witness stand and back up their claim(s) for enough money.

Not true, at least not for this expert. I'm sure I'll see this is an upcoming depo though.

Edited October 21, 2010 by MarkCO

[Middle Man]

The thing about "expert witnesses" is that any lawyer can find any "expert" to sit on the witness stand and back up their claim(s) for enough money.

Not entirely true, at least not for this expert. I'm sure I'll see this is an upcoming depo though.

Didn't Dateline NBC fabricate some exploding GM trucks in the early 1990's?

[Powder Finger]

It is not better steel and finish on the trigger that was changed. Look at the design better steel and finish have nothing to do with the trigger bar. The design allows the release of the firing pin without touching the trigger.

Not trying to say Remington changed the steel or any thing, this was about the Timmney trigger which I still say I think is the same basic

Remington design but built and finished better. My 700's won't fire as stated, but then I don't let the trigger rust, get dirty or anything

else that would detract from function or safety. IMO.

[Corey]

i cant tell you one thing for sure...aftermarket trigger sales are going to skyrocket in the near future!

[Middle Man]

i cant tell you one thing for sure...aftermarket trigger sales are going to skyrocket in the near future!

Maybe for 30 year old rifles...

[MarkCO]

i cant tell you one thing for sure...aftermarket trigger sales are going to skyrocket in the near future!

Maybe one of the aftermakret trigger makers tipped off a "newsman" on a 30 year old story.