new Remington 700 quality

[Deleted member 48126]

You're on it mudrunner. I hate Remington under fire by 60 minutes. Literally all they described were a bunch of idiots killing each other.

So you were cleaning your rifle when it went off in your kitchen killing your wife in the next room who was watching tv?

That's correct...the safety failed me!!

What a crock of crap. I LOVE Remington. I have a stock ADL with a laminated stock that I bought when I turned 18. It was manufactured in 2006. It shoots MOA all day with 150 corlokts. It has a Nikon 3x9x40 pro staff, and it will perform out to 500 yards with ease. I love that rifle. I have 5 Remington 700s. 4 semi customs and the stock 30-06. Purchase without worry.

My only complaint is the triggers are crappy, but I just replace them with timneys or jewels anyway. I want to buy 3 more before I'm satisfied...260, 308, and a 7 rem mag.

Rant over

 

[Trickymissfit]

You do know that after that incredibly biased and ignorant anti-gun "60 Minutes" special on CNBC back in 2010 (which is what I'm pretty sure you're referring to) that it was actually lack of gun safety, neglect, or modification by a 3rd party (or end-user) that inevitably caused the safeties to fail, that caused harm or death. Also, it was neglect on the user's part for having a loaded and cocked rifle in the direction of another human being. Failure to follow proper gun safety procedures was one of the biggest contributing factors.

But in that interview special, they never asked the people if the trigger had been altered after the rifle was bought. Which was really fishy, or the people on CNBC making the report were actually too ignorant about guns to know any better...

have not watched 60minutes in at least thirty years or more. What I said about their safety had nothing to do with their triggers, but the design is flawed in itself. Not just my opinion as it also was the designer's view point (Mike Walker even stated it more than once). For the longest time I thought it was just me, but Ferris Pindell also confirmed to me the design was unsafe when I had issues with my last Remington. Believe me Pindell knew as much about a Remington as any man out there. The gunsmith at my dealer took five or six brand new in the box rifles that had never been sold, and half of them had flawed safeties. They then sent all the new 700's back to Remington. To go a step further, I never told anybody about the rifle firing when I let the safety off. I thought I somehow bumped the trigger. The samething happened with the gunsmith, and two others.

That rifle now has a 1978 trigger assembly that Ferris built. Not because of the safety issue but another even stranger issue. The trigger would often just freeze up during travel. I never worry about the safety any more as I simply know it's dangerous.
gary

 

[bigngreen]

You do know that after that incredibly biased and ignorant anti-gun "60 Minutes" special on CNBC back in 2010 (which is what I'm pretty sure you're referring to) that it was actually lack of gun safety, neglect, or modification by a 3rd party (or end-user) that inevitably caused the safeties to fail, that caused harm or death. Also, it was neglect on the user's part for having a loaded and cocked rifle in the direction of another human being. Failure to follow proper gun safety procedures was one of the biggest contributing factors.

But in that interview special, they never asked the people if the trigger had been altered after the rifle was bought. Which was really fishy, or the people on CNBC making the report were actually too ignorant about guns to know any better...

That is actually incorrect, one of the primary rifles used in the court case has zero tampering or neglect, it will randomly drop the firing pin and is unsafe, no one got hurt because it was handled with care but when moving it of safe it would discharge.

 

[MudRunner2005]

have not watched 60minutes in at least thirty years or more. What I said about their safety had nothing to do with their triggers, but the design is flawed in itself. Not just my opinion as it also was the designer's view point (Mike Walker even stated it more than once). For the longest time I thought it was just me, but Ferris Pindell also confirmed to me the design was unsafe when I had issues with my last Remington. Believe me Pindell knew as much about a Remington as any man out there. The gunsmith at my dealer took five or six brand new in the box rifles that had never been sold, and half of them had flawed safeties. They then sent all the new 700's back to Remington. To go a step further, I never told anybody about the rifle firing when I let the safety off. I thought I somehow bumped the trigger. The samething happened with the gunsmith, and two others.

That rifle now has a 1978 trigger assembly that Ferris built. Not because of the safety issue but another even stranger issue. The trigger would often just freeze up during travel. I never worry about the safety any more as I simply know it's dangerous.
gary

I have read before that Mike wanted to change the design that would have cost Remington a whopping $0.05 per trigger more, but they said no. I could never find a definitive proof of that being fact, that's why I don't put much weight into it...But it did sound like it could have been legit, knowing how greedy big business is.

Yeah, the old flat-back triggers were excellent after being worked-over. I have a few of them that I've tuned. They break like glass, and I have never had a single issue with any of them.

 

[MudRunner2005]

That is actually incorrect, one of the primary rifles used in the court case has zero tampering or neglect, it will randomly drop the firing pin and is unsafe, no one got hurt because it was handled with care but when moving it of safe it would discharge.

The odds of one of them in the actual court case being legitimately defective is not that uncommon when you really think about it. It can, and does happen with every company. I was just saying that out of those "numerous" specific incidents on that 60 Minutes special, most appeared (to me), to be complete negligence and improper gun safety practices. As for the actual court case, I don't know what examples they cited, so I can't confirm or deny.