I have a remington 30-06 that was stamped a 270 cal at factory

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a bad primer in a box of Winchester ammo that I had sighted in for my deer rifle. My first year deer hunting, last day of the season, I had a really nice 4x4 buck come up at 100 yards - "click" with a deep primer hit. Could not reload fast enough to get the deer before it spooked. Did Winchester compensate me for the loss of opportunity of no deer that season? No....they gave me a new box of ammo....which I will never use hunting.
 
gwes2003 said:
No company anywhere is going to do any more than replace or refund. Even when it's a major fup like this. Unless someone dies they'll never payout. Best you take the refund and go another brand.
Click to expand...

This, is sound advise. OP Take note, it is not worth your time to chase the matter. Take what you can, spread the word and run with it. Had this been a slip and fall incident inside their facilities while on a tour, then it would be a different story.
 
platnumbob said:
I had a bad primer in a box of Winchester ammo that I had sighted in for my deer rifle. My first year deer hunting, last day of the season, I had a really nice 4x4 buck come up at 100 yards - "click" with a deep primer hit. Could not reload fast enough to get the deer before it spooked. Did Winchester compensate me for the loss of opportunity of no deer that season? No....they gave me a new box of ammo....which I will never use hunting.
Click to expand...

what would you say if your box of winchester ammo had a rifle round loaded full with pistol powder?

remington gave this guy a dangerously unsafe product. "Didn't work" analogies don't apply here.
 
platnumbob said:
I had a bad primer in a box of Winchester ammo that I had sighted in for my deer rifle. My first year deer hunting, last day of the season, I had a really nice 4x4 buck come up at 100 yards - "click" with a deep primer hit. Could not reload fast enough to get the deer before it spooked. Did Winchester compensate me for the loss of opportunity of no deer that season? No....they gave me a new box of ammo....which I will never use hunting.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. Bought 3 boxes of 150gr pp, tried to sight in, all over a 18" square at 100. It even sounded different from shot to shot. Fired 10 rds and took the rest home. Pulled them and weighed the charges, between high and low the diffy was 7.8gr of powder. That and there were 3 different types of bullet. Quality control my derriere!
 
JaredP said:
This is complete negligence on behalf of Remington. There are a number of caliber mix-ups that could straight up kill you. A .223 barrel stamped .300 blackout for example. This isn't an innocent routine mix-up.

Another thing. The 783 is specifically advertised as bore-sighted from factory. It's not completely out of the question to throw up a target when you get to camp and dial in your elevation with 2 or 3 shots.
Click to expand...

EVERY new rifle needs to be cleaned and gone over for torque. All scope mounts and rings need a touch of locktite or nail polish. Even assuming they were torqued properly from the factory, it is normal to check for snugness after a few shots, the same reason you re torque lug nuts after 100 km. Not checking is a lesson that those new to firearms need learn only once. I am sure most of us have been there...

Very few rifles, and even those of the highest quality in the sub $3000 range, don't need a little attention when new. A burr here, factory crud here, a loose screw or bolt, its going to happen. Unfortunately this is the landscape of today's firearms. And the lower you go on the price grid, the more you should expect. Cleaning the burr off the extractor of a new CZ mauser copy that thought it was a push feed reminded me that even the best factory produced rifles, are just factory produced rifles. But I sure felt confident stepping afield with a rifle I knew functioned perfectly, and was sighted in as finely as could be. And this was tested on at least 3 trips to the range or out just to plink before I even considered firing at a live target. It took me 10 minutes to diagnose, and 5 minutes to remedy an otherwise flawless and very fine firearm. When pursuing a bargain, it is fine to expect the best. Just plan for the worst...
 
cheapsk8 said:
EVERY new rifle needs to be cleaned and gone over for torque. All scope mounts and rings need a touch of locktite or nail polish. Even assuming they were torqued properly from the factory, it is normal to check for snugness after a few shots, the same reason you re torque lug nuts after 100 km. Not checking is a lesson that those new to firearms need learn only once. I am sure most of us have been there...

Very few rifles, and even those of the highest quality in the sub $3000 range, don't need a little attention when new. A burr here, factory crud here, a loose screw or bolt, its going to happen. Unfortunately this is the landscape of today's firearms. And the lower you go on the price grid, the more you should expect. Cleaning the burr off the extractor of a new CZ mauser copy that thought it was a push feed reminded me that even the best factory produced rifles, are just factory produced rifles. But I sure felt confident stepping afield with a rifle I knew functioned perfectly, and was sighted in as finely as could be. And this was tested on at least 3 trips to the range or out just to plink before I even considered firing at a live target. It took me 10 minutes to diagnose, and 5 minutes to remedy an otherwise flawless and very fine firearm. When pursuing a bargain, it is fine to expect the best. Just plan for the worst...
Click to expand...

yup. may as well put the barrel in a vice and retorque that too. And re-crown the barrel because ya never know. Should probably take the scope apart and re-gas it too. because "factory rifle" doesn't mean anything apparently.
 
JaredP said:
yup. may as well put the barrel in a vice and retorque that too. And re-crown the barrel because ya never know. Should probably take the scope apart and re-gas it too. because "factory rifle" doesn't mean anything apparently.
Click to expand...

The best lessons in life are the most expensive, the most painful, or both. We all learn from our journey, it's just a matter of what stage one is at. Godspeed, good sir.
 
JaredP said:
what would you say if your box of winchester ammo had a rifle round loaded full with pistol powder?

remington gave this guy a dangerously unsafe product. "Didn't work" analogies don't apply here.
Click to expand...

It's not really dangerous to fire a .270 in a 30-06.
 
Gatehouse said:
It's not really dangerous to fire a .270 in a 30-06.
Click to expand...

the particular set of calibres remington happened to mix up in this case is not significant.

"30-06 stamped .270" could have just as easily been ".223 stamped .300 Blackout" or "12g stamped 20g" or "270 stamped 308" or any other of the endless number of combinations that could be lethal.
 
JaredP said:
the particular set of calibres remington happened to mix up in this case is not significant.

"30-06 stamped .270" could have just as easily been ".223 stamped .300 Blackout" or "12g stamped 20g" or "270 stamped 308" or any other of the endless number of combinations that could be lethal.
Click to expand...

It's something that I thought could never happen, but it did happen. Unacceptable.
 
JaredP said:
the particular set of calibres remington happened to mix up in this case is not significant.

"30-06 stamped .270" could have just as easily been ".223 stamped .300 Blackout" or "12g stamped 20g" or "270 stamped 308" or any other of the endless number of combinations that could be lethal.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't, was it.
It was a .30-06 stamped .270. Firing a .270 in an '06 won't hit the broadside of a barn, but because the bullet is so undersized, pressure will be low. No way for the shooter to be injured.
 
tiriaq said:
But it wasn't, was it.
It was a .30-06 stamped .270. Firing a .270 in an '06 won't hit the broadside of a barn, but because the bullet is so undersized, pressure will be low. No way for the shooter to be injured.
Click to expand...

The point is who's to say that if an error does happen again, which this proves to be possible, you can't be sure it isn't a more dangerous combination. Just because it was "OK" this time doesn't mean it will be if there's a next time. That's what's meaningful about this.
 
Speculating about what could happen some other time contributes little to what happened this time.
The OP declined an offer from the business where he bought the rifle, before going to the 'net.
The distributor also offered to help, but they need to see the rifle.
The OP did start two threads on this site, and another elsewhere. He did substantial editing to two of the three initial posts.
 
tiriaq said:
Speculating about what could happen some other time contributes little to what happened this time.
The OP declined an offer from the business where he bought the rifle, before going to the 'net.
The distributor also offered to help, but they need to see the rifle.
The OP did start two threads on this site, and another elsewhere. He did substantial editing to two of the three initial posts.
Click to expand...

There is no speculation. We are discussing exactly what happened. The barrel was stamped one calibre, and chambered for another. IN GENERAL - This is extremely dangerous and possibly life threatening.

Unless you're suggesting that Remington knowingly chambered this dudes rifle in 30-06 and stamped it 270 because it wouldn't be so bad if he happened to fire 270 through it, the "speculation" bit is not valid.
 
This thread is about one situation, where a specific caliber stamp did not match the actual barrel. Because of the .30-06 barrel, the .270 data stamp poses no danger; .270 ammunition fired in this particular rifle will not cause damage to either the rifle or the shooter. When Remington proof tested the rifle, no doubt a .270 proof load was used. Other combinations could indeed be dangerous, but this one wasn't. This situation is not acceptable, which is why both the dealer and the distributor have offered to resolve the situation.
 
What compensation do you want?
New gun?
Gas money to and from hunt camp?
Pain and suffering?
$10,000 for bring in danger?
1000 rounds of ammo too?
 
It's clear that Remington does not reliably proof their guns. You can find several examples of rifles with the REP "Proof" marks with half-cut chambers, or no chambers at all.

This would be an example of a reportable "near miss" by Remington. It only takes so many "near misses" until you're statistically likely to hit an "incident".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom