Remington Model 700 rifle Safety issues

[TwoRivers]

The ones they lost? They paid handsomely. The ones that didn't go to court also made out alright, with "non-disclosure" agreements.

[xl_target]

The ones they lost? They paid handsomely. The ones that didn't go to court also made out alright, with "non-disclosure" agreements.

I'm sure they paid handsomely when they lost and even paid quite a bit when they settled out of court. Unfortunately, in a US product liability case, you can be at fault and win or you can be blameless and still lose. A lot depends on how good your lawyer is or even if the coffee tasted good in the Jury room that day. While losing a product liability case can be an indication of a faulty product, it doesn't necessarily mean that your product is faulty.

Let me explain with an example. Many years ago, I worked for a company that made agricultural implements. This company had bought out another company that was ailing. We acquired several of their people and I was very friendly with one of their former Sales Managers. He related a product liability case to me.

The company produced Forage Harvesting equipment. This included a cutter box where the forage was chopped up by large tungsten carbide knives rotating at a very high speed. Steel covers covered the knife box to prevent foreign matter from entering and for safety. There was even a lockout to prevent the knives from spinning if the covers were removed. One farmer, for whatever reason, removed the covers, defeated the lockouts and and stuck his feet in there. Of course, it took his feet off at the knees.

When the case went to court, his sons put him in a bushel basket and carried him in that way. The jury, completely forgetting that wheelchairs exist in the this day and age, felt sorry for the poor old man who had to be carried around everywhere, in a wicker basket, by his sons. The company lost the case as soon as the judge allowed such grandstanding. So, while losing a product liability lawsuit might mean that you have a bad product, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have a defective product. One would have to look at each suit on a case by case basis.

You bring a little kid in who has been injured and the kid's side will often win regardless of who is at fault. It's just the way product liability sometimes works. That's one of the reasons that American instruction manuals are filled with stupid warnings about death and dismemberment.

[TwoRivers]

XL wrote: "You serious? Just to be sure the safety works? " Well, how else would you know it works? Just like "check your brakes". Haven't you ever been behind a driver on an icy road, tapping the brakes every couple hundred feet? They have been told "check your brakes". Knowledge is comparatively easy to obtain, comprehension does not always come with it. And as Mark Twain pointed out, "common sense" is a very uncommon thing.

[MoA]

The quality of the Rem 700 has dropped in recent years. Mine did have a 'safety issue' though largely due to me modifying the trigger. In any case my safety is my finger off the trigger.

[xl_target]

XL wrote: "You serious? Just to be sure the safety works? " Well, how else would you know it works? Just like "check your brakes". Haven't you ever been behind a driver on an icy road, tapping the brakes every couple hundred feet?

Check it before putting a live cartridge in the chamber, maybe? If it works then, it will most likely work when the gun is loaded. I'm sorry but pulling the trigger repeatedly to see if the safety works does seem kinda strange. I can see checking it at the range when you first get the gun but I really try to keep my finger out of the trigger guard at all times, especially if I know there is a cartridge in the chamber. That's just the way I was taught.

As far as checking brakes: in MN we have the possibility of driving on icy roads almost six months out of the year. Applying the brakes on an icy surface is fraught with danger. All you need is for one wheel to lock up and you're pretty much done. When I drive on ice, I try to touch my brakes as few times as possible. My last ice related accident was about twenty four years ago and it scared the crap out of me. It's an eerie feeling to have your car making repeated 360 degree rotations as you travel down the highway, with absolutely no control on your part . Of course, today's front wheel drive cars and anti-lock brakes have greatly reduced the dangers of losing control on ice while braking.

[timmy]

As far as checking brakes: in MN we have the possibility of driving on icy roads almost six months out of the year. Applying the brakes on an icy surface is fraught with danger. All you need is for one wheel to lock up and you're pretty much done. When I drive on ice, I try to touch my brakes as few times as possible.

He he! Yes, the gringos and flatlanders that move up to the mountains love the brakes, don't they? Here in Texas, they will slam on the brake for no reason -- at least that's what I thought. Now I wonder if they are just testing them?

At any rate, when they come up to lands where there is snow and ice, their brake-slamming habit lands them up in the borrow pit in the blink of an eye.

I believe that people should be trained by driving 10 or so cars on a 1/4 mile race track covered with ice. First, they make a number of laps together. Then their brakes are disconnected and they make some more laps. Finally, half of them are sent around the track clockwise and the other half counterclockwise. When they can do all this without slamming into each other, they are ready for driving on ice.

Yes, I have done such things often in my youth, racing around light poles on empty icy parking lots. Great experience, and plenty of fun, as well.

Too bad we can't do similar training with guns.

[shooter]

timy, you never fail to amuse me.

[TwoRivers]

I think that's "bumper cars", Tim.

[Priyan]

Bubba+dremel+gun=recipe for disaster just like vodka+Mosin Nagant+hacksaw
Speaking of driving in Texas, they don't call armadillo the unofficial road bump for nothing.