CNBC to claim Remington has been selling defective weapons for many many years

[FrankenMauser]

How can you tell if the information done by MSN is biased or good when you've already made up your mind that you are going to hear biased spins? That mindset where you have already decided renders you incapable of assimilating information good or bad.

A person can only watch a given number of shows from a program (or network) full of half-truths and twisted "facts", before the assumption is made that all future programs will be just as twisted.

If I squirted you in the left eye with a water pistol the last 56 times I saw you, it's safe to assume I'll do it on number 57, right?

If you want unbiased information, you have to go to the sources. Media outlets twist everything they produce. Whether it's for ratings, personal views (author, produce, network execs, etc.), or to support a sponsor, everything is twisted.

You will never get the real story, without going to original sources.


I'm done replying here, until the program airs.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So by going to the source, you are suggesting going directly to Remington? They will tell you that their guns are fine.

Going to the owners that have had problems?
They will tell you that the guns are unsafe?

Going to the public records on settlements?
On the internet, all you will find are the settlements lost by Remington (or that has been my experience so far), both in and out of court. Maybe you are talking about going to every court where the cases have been heard and looking at their hard copies. That will be costly.

Let me ask this. Has anyone found any records of Remington winning any of the suits against them on this issue? I am curious as I have not found any. I find the claims to be somewhat dubious because the problems are not consistent within the product line and even within individuals guns with reported problems, though there have been numerous claims and Remington has paid out a bunch of times.

 

[tanner33]

A person can only watch a given number of shows from a program (or network) full of half-truths and twisted "facts", before the assumption is made that all future programs will be just as twisted.

I believe you are backpeddling, but I understand. I don't watch either Fox or NBC because of the twisted nature of both networks. That's not to say that either one doesn't put out some good investigative programs but that they both have been caught numerous times bending or flat out lying about the truth.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I do some day trading and have CNBC on in the background proably six hours a day. The notion that they have some habitual bias is ridiculous. Most of their commentators and anchors are pro business conservative if anything, but they will give the more liberal players as far as policy a chance to try and make their case.

I have little doubt that this program is going to take Remington to task, but it is not some CNBC conspiracy against business in general.

And, if Remington has factually had this problem for decades, perhaps they should have fixed it long ago.

 

[44 AMP]

Frankly, I find the idea that the news isn't biased to be ridiculous.!
They are selling news! That in itself creates a bias. It may not be obvious, it may be very subtle, it may be about guns, or about any of a thousand other things, but its there. Count on it.

Remember the exploding pickup trucks? Great story, horrible big business, out to kill people with a defective product...until they got caught at rigging the trucks to go boom....

It is virtually guaranteed that no matter the facts (which they might report accurately) the slant of the story will be in favor of the little guy over "big business", and since it involves a gun maker, I would expect them to go all out. It might be that they will treat the story fairly and evenly, but if they do, I will be pleasantly surprised, as it will be a change from long standing past practice.

 

[CK_32]

Everything NBC and CCN put out on their stories is always 10 years behind..
Half the time something I have been doing for years they come up with some story about this brand new craze or event that just broke out... Half if not most of the time they are wrong with 70% of their info.. By picking some random bistandars and people in the area and asking whats going on and then begin the story like they did major research and turn around and start the feed.. I've seen it in person..

They just throw up and put a spin on it for those band waggon haters sitting on the couch just waiting to have an outrage fit.


Yea I have heard of a problem with this a few times never seen it. But have heard of it.. If anyone can make ANY product with moving componants and machanical workings and sell 500,000,000 of it and not have a few 1,000 have a problem.. By all means you are a manufacturing god.


Just ask toyota

 

[ZeroJunk]

Frankly, I find the idea that the news isn't biased to be ridiculous.!

Absolutely. But, don't confuse CNBC with NBC and MSNBC. What CNBC does through Kudlow at 8:00 PM is all stock, bond, monetary policy etc. and if anything they are pro business. MSNBC and NBC make no apologies for being left leaning alternatives to FOX.

 

[madmag]

I have interest becasue my son owns a 700, so In the hopes of keeping this on subject and not about news stations, I have found the following about re-calls on the 700 rifle. Did I miss any??

REMINGTON
MODEL 700,CENTER FIRE RIFLES MFG BEFORE 1982
MODEL 600, 660, 721, 722 40-X RIFLES MFG BEFORE MARCH 1982
MODEL XP-100 TARGET PISTOL MFG BEFORE FEBRUARY 1975

RECALL: Remington Arms Company, Inc. is offering a safety modification program for certain bolt-action centerfire firearms manufactured prior to 1982, including the Model 700, Model 600, 660, 721, 722, 40-X bolt-action rifles (made before March 1982) and Model XP-100 target pistols made before February 1975.

These firearms have a feature known as a bolt-lock that requires the safety to be placed in the “off” position in order to unload the gun. If you participated in this program, your firearm will be modified to eliminate the bolt-lock feature. The operation of your gun will not be otherwise affected.


If you want assistance, call Remington’s toll-free consumer hotline at (877) 387-6691. To learn more about the 1979 safety recall, check our website at www.remington.com.

Offer valid through December 31, 2002

Remington
870 Remington Drive
Madison, North Carolina 27025-0700Source:
North American Hunter, August 2002; page 103

REMINGTON,
MODEL 700, 17 REMINGTON CALIBER, RIFLE**
RECALL: The Remington Arms Company is recalling all Model 700 bolt-action centerfire rifles in .17 Remington caliber. The company is taking this action because some of these .17 caliber barrels could develop cracks and splits. A barrel split could result in serious personal injury.

Shooters who purchased Model 700s after January 1, 1981 are requested by Remington not to use them. They are requested to contact Remington by calling its toll-free numbers in the U.S.: (800) 634-2459 or in Canada: (800) 634-5401. The customer should present the serial number of his rifle to Remington personnel to determine if he owns an affected rifle. All affected rifles returned to Remington under the recall will have barrels replaced at no charge to the owners.

No other Model 700 rifles in other calibers or any other Remington autoloading or pump-action centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles, or shotguns are included in this recall.

**Some visitors have reported that Remington representatives have no knowledge of this recall. Also, the phone number listed has been found to possibly be invalid. Use these numbers at your own risk! Visit the Remington website to obtain current customer service information.

Source:

AFTE Journal, April 1990; Volume 22, Number 2:227

Shooting Times, March 1990; page 47

American Firearms Industry, February 1990; page 19

American Rifleman, January 1990; page ?

American Rifleman, February 1990; page 10

California Department of Justice Firearms Safety Note 90-1

RECALL: Remington Arms centerfire rifle Models 700, Seven, 40-XB, 40-XC and Sportsman 78 manufactured between July 29 and December 11, 1987, have been withdrawn from sale temporarily for replacement if trigger assembly mechanisms.

This action was taken because a limited number of rifles produced during that period may have an improperly manufactured part in the trigger assembly mechanism. Although it is unlikely, the defective part could break and cause the rifle to fire accidentally.

Remington Arms has launched a program to identify and recover all rifles made and sold during this period, and as a precaution, will replace the trigger assembly on every affected rifle without charge to the owner.

All Remington trade customers and individual rifle owners are being notified, and it is expected that this program will quickly identify owners of the affected rifles.

This notice applies only to those bolt action models listed. No other Remington firearms are involved.

If you have purchased one of these rifles since July 29, 1987, do not load it.

We ask that you call our Trigger Assembly Replacement Program at 1-800-634-2459 with the model and serial number of your rifle. From that number, we can tell you immediately if yours is one of the affected rifles, and if it is, how you can arrange for a free replacement of the trigger assembly.



Source:

Guns & Ammo, June 1988; page 89

Rifle, July-August 1988; Volume 22, Number 4, page ?

California Department of Justice Firearms Safety Note 88-3

 

[ADB]

I don't know about you guys, but I find it hard to believe the Remington, or any arms maker for that matter, would continue to produce a design that would fire on its own for over 60 years. I'm just not buying it.

Why not?

Ford produced the Pinto, despite the fact that they knew it was prone to catching on fire. Dell made laptops that they knew were prone to shorting out and dying. Many big companies have made the same calculation: it's cheaper to keep selling than it is to fix the problem. Hell, tobacco companies make products that actually kill their customers on a regular basis when used properly. Greed is a hell of a motivator.

 

[HiBC]

On blowing holes in your truck,I know it is always unlawful,and perhaps a felony,to have a round in the chamber of a rifle within a vehicle in Colorado.I don't think I would document a report of the incident.

Treat them as loaded all the time,but really,I generally do not chamber a round hunting until it seems necessary.
I am not an expert on that trigger/safety.I know 1) It is adjustable2)A new rifle comes with such a horrid trigger pull people will adjust them.3) There is a right way to adjust them,then all the other ways people do adjust them.
I personally prefer a safety that locks the bolt.If you have ever slung an unloaded rifle and the dragged a deer,etc to find your bolt has opened and is held in only by the bolt stop,you may understand.
Wouldn't it be delightful if the rifles were sold with a crisp,well adjusted 3 1/2 lb pull I would have no inclination to monkey with?
get used to a 14lb trigger,your habit may be to pull pretty hard.
A lightened trigger means reducing the trigger return spring tension.Stamped parts and tolerance buildups,and a hard pull springing the assy,if the sear surfaces are not perfectly sharp cornered,the sear can drop slightly over the break,into the rounded,worn corner.The return spring will not push it back.The safety is released,and the sear cams off the rounded corner.
One way to round the corner:not enough overtravel.The sear just barely breaks(zero overtravel) and there is no clearance,so the edges clash and are damaged.
Not that I know what happened,I just close my eyes and watch the parts work.

 

[.300 Weatherby Mag]

As much as a problem as I have with the monkeys putting together some of the Rem 700s today... The design is sound and I think that most of these cases of safety and trigger issues are related to trigger jobs done by Billy Bob the home gunsmith... I do not like messing with triggers that are not easily user adjustable such as the accutrigger and X-mark adjustable.. I take rifles to a professional gunsmith that also happens to be a remington service center for my trigger jobs...

 

[number9]

Let me guess, the end of adjustable triggers is coming? I wish these Progressive dirtbags would just move to a Socialist country and leave the USA alone.

....

 

[handlerer2]

I just don't see how any manufacturer can make thier product completely idiot proof. Earlier a poster stated was this problem unique to Rem bolt actions. I think not, because of an incident when I was in college. A military science instructor in know at local community college, was going hunting with his brother. His brother had his Rem 1100 in the rifle rack of his P/U. He opened his door and grabbed the shotgun, which was loaded with slugs, when he grabbed the gun it discharged through the window and hit him in the right cheek. Well, he hit the ground and his brother picked him up and took him the nearest hospital, which was a very small hospital in Wiggins,MS. He was x-rayed and it showed the slug adjacent to heart. The doctor panicked and called a chopper to take him to Keesler AFB, where there was an Air Force trauma team. It turns out that he had aspirated the slug and it was siting in the trachea above his heart. Very freaky and very lucky. He lost four teeth and has a dime sized scar on his cheek.

He should never have been hauling a loaded shotgun in his truck, but it was supposed to be on safe. He had started litigation with Remington and received a settlement. IMO he was much as fault for this as Remington, but Remington in this case sought to avoid litigation.

 

[Ted]

Any thing mechanical can and will some time s fail. Frankly Scarlet I do not trust the liberal media tells me! Check for your self and then make up your own mind.

 

[jmquinn05]

My 700 has never done this. Factory trigger never touched. Also when if flip the saftey my sites are on something I want to shoot.

 

[TMackey]

I don't know about you guys, but I find it hard to believe the Remington, or any arms maker for that matter, would continue to produce a design that would fire on its own for over 60 years. I'm just not buying it.

Why not?

Ford produced the Pinto, despite the fact that they knew it was prone to catching on fire. Dell made laptops that they knew were prone to shorting out and dying. Many big companies have made the same calculation: it's cheaper to keep selling than it is to fix the problem. Hell, tobacco companies make products that actually kill their customers on a regular basis when used properly. Greed is a hell of a motivator.

I don't believe much I see in the news anymore, but I also wouldn't trust Remington as far as I could throw them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My 700 has never done this. Factory trigger never touched. Also when if flip the saftey my sites are on something I want to shoot.

You either have one of the modified guns or you never unloaded your chamber without firing it first. The older models would not allow you to open the chamber with the safety on.

Any thing mechanical can and will some time s fail. Frankly Scarlet I do not trust the liberal media tells me! Check for your self and then make up your own mind.

Yep, anything mechanical can fail. The problem with the Rems wasn't just that they failed, but that they failed when they should not have failed. As for checking, that is why I posted some of the links to Rem's settlement losses. The payouts are not imaginary.

 

[OysterShooter]

This Reporter Ain't to be Trusted!

Check out the photo of the CNBC reporter, Scott Cohn. He's lecturing us about rifles and safety, and he'd already violating the basic rules of safety -- bolt closed, finger on the trigger ... "NO, officer, I didn't touch the trigger," Safety Scott says, as his sound guy bleeds out in the dirt.

Just another example of gun-ignorant, gun-hatin media.

 

[Wildalaska]

As for checking, that is why I posted some of the links to Rem's settlement losses. The payouts are not imaginary.

Nope they are not. And thats the basic underlying premise of tort law....economic burden shifting.

Trailer Park Remmy shooter has adjusted his own trigger to a crisp 1lb. He has never cleaned it in his 20 years of owning it. He goes to unload his gun whilst laughing and joking with his buds and touches one off in his friends chest.

Trailer Park Remmy hasnt got insurance, works at Walmart for $8 per hour, has no assets. His shot in the chest bud is 25 years old, a college graduate and has three kids. He is now permanently disbled and cant work.

He sues TP remmy and Remington. Most states (but not all) are comparative negligence states. TP Remmy violated every rule, he is 99% responsible for the injuries. Remington is 1% responsible. Who pays the $10 mil verdict..in full? Remington.

So hey, easy target. Remington is better off self insuring and settling, if necessary with a structured settlement where 10 mil costs them 1.

Keep this in mind...there is no fix for stupid and NOTHING is idiot proof. And defective is a term of art. Defective for idiots is probably the best way to describe many product liability claims. But our system shifts the burdens from idiots to those with deep pockets...otherwise you wouldnt have warning stickers on lawnmowers telling you not to put your fingers in the chutes.

And I bet the lawnmower companies still pay. See above. But I have never stuck my fingers in a lawnmower chute even if there wasnt a sticker. So is it then defective?

Its the cost of doing business. How many rifles has Remington made. How many idiots or victims of idiots have been paid. Whats the percentage?

Dont like the above? Change the tort system. Instead of burdening private entities with the societal costs of stupidity, shift it back to the taxpayers...or let the injured starve?

WildthereissomefodderforyouAlaska ™©2002-2010

 

[woodguru]

I'm for the 10,000 rule on tort issues, if 10,000 people can go without having a problem the few that do are idiots and can go suck pickles.

The rifles that have been modified in any way shape or form should be the ones that relieve Remington of liability.

The ones that did go off and cause damage should be reasonably settled without an attorney getting half unless they want to try to refuse.