Remington triggers in the news again...

hoytcanon said:
A faulty trigger didn't kill Rich Barber's son... poor muzzle control kill his son... Rich needs to look in the mirror not assage his guilt by scape-goating a corporation.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough of the specifics of the incident to say. I do know that the very basics of gun safety is muzzle control.

I should also point out that the aim of the proposed settlement doesn't appear to be compensation for the loss of Rich Barber's son, but rather to fix a problem. I'm sure Rich has looked in the mirror often enough. I don't wish what happened to him upon my worst enemy.
 
Last edited:
I have owned so many Remington 700 rifles that I have sort of lost count. [also 600s, 660s, 721s, 722s, etc, etc]

I did have one 700 that I bought used that actually would fire once in 8-10 tries if you had it cocked and set the safety, pulled the trigger, and then took the safety off.
I caught it before I ever actually shot it, and then took a look at the trigger. The previous owner was one of those guys that had to oil everything, "often".

That trigger was so gummed up it's a wonder it worked at all!! I cleaned it all up with CRC "Brakleen" and dried it out thoroughly. Never failed again, even after I reduced the sear contact a bit and adjusted it to 3#....nice and crisp.

I agree with the safe handling concept. Mechanisms do fail, and being safe means we must not completely trust any of them.

I will keep my walker triggers....they work just fine.

Regards, Dave.
 
1899 said:
While I am not up to speed about various State and Federal (US) laws, I know a lot more about the legal system than you do. I know what negligence and liability mean - without having to google it. I know what constitutes a frivolous or vexatious actions and know the consequences of those types of actions. I know what the media release and conditions set out therein from Remington means. I know how corporations and insurance companies look at risk analysis including the costs of precedents - and the way they may pay out nuisance settlements. I know about court ordered costs levied against the losing parties. I also know how the media affects people like you and your perception of how the the legal system works. Start a baseless action against a corporation with the financial backing of Remington and see how it turns out for you.

The only thing you are right about is that to Remington this is not about justice, truth or honesty - it is about business and Remington trying to reduce its exposure to an adverse finding at trial. Agreeing to this kind of settlement is one way they can convince people like you that they have committed no wrong doing and have no liability. And from a business perspective the payout to convince people like you of that is money well spent.
Click to expand...


How do you know you have more experience than I do? Making a statement like that without actually knowing me doesn't make you look very clever.

Maybe I missed something - on what basis are you able to state that you know without doubt that remington was responsible for each and every one of those injuries? I want to see your proof.

Companies make settlements regularly because it makes financial sense, not as an admission of responsibility. I have been involved in exactly this type of transaction at a corporate level on more than one occasion. If you are so naive to believe that a voluntary financial settlement is an automatic admission of guilt then I have to question your claim to be so highly experienced in legal matters.

Courts in the US have and do award settlements at ridiculous amounts, sometimes with very little reason. A corporate decision to take the hit MIGHT be good business and nothing more. Corporations have oversight by directors that represent shareholders. If shareholders perceive a possible loss of value they will strongly support fixing it and not gambling on court evoked settlements. Uncertainty kills share value in a publicly traded corporation. Guilt or innocence, right or wrong - it means nothing to shareholders. Loss of share value and risk of same is what motivates them.

The antifirearms media won this fight. Be careful who you cheer for.
 
Last edited:
Jethunter - we've both been on this board a long time and many moons ago I seem to recall us discussing about what I do for work, which is why I was snappy in my response to your suggestion that if I honestly believe what I say then I am extremely naïve. If I am mistaken and it if I have mistaken you for someone else, then I sincerely apologize. I am a lawyer and I deal only with prosecuting claims involving negligence and, to a much lessor extent, breach of contract (indemnity). I know about voluntary settlements as I've done dozens of them this year alone. I agree with you that Remington have made a calculated decision to minimize their financial and publicity risks. Those risks are evaluated on the strengths and weaknesses of a case. It is risk management.

I don't want the antis to win anything. I also don't want any company to put your family's safety in jeopardy for the sake of making a few dollars.
 
1899 said:
Jethunter - we've both been on this board a long time and many moons ago I seem to recall us discussing about what I do for work, which is why I was snappy in my response to your suggestion that if I honestly believe what I say then I am extremely naïve. If I am mistaken and it if I have mistaken you for someone else, then I sincerely apologize. I am a lawyer and I deal only with prosecuting claims involving negligence and, to a much lessor extent, breach of contract (indemnity). I know about voluntary settlements as I've done dozens of them this year alone. I agree with you that Remington have made a calculated decision to minimize their financial and publicity risks. Those risks are evaluated on the strengths and weaknesses of a case. It is risk management.

I don't want the antis to win anything. I also don't want any company to put your family's safety in jeopardy for the sake of making a few dollars.
Click to expand...

See the highlighted part in your post above - that's what I said to begin with, and that's what you took exception to in my post and what you were arguing against. But now you agree with me!? Are you just screwing around for ####s and giggles or did you lose the plot somehow?

And BTW, it would appear you don't know who I am.
 
Go back and read the last paragraph in post 19 and your comment relating to post 16 being "BS". As you can see from post 19 I agree with one aspect of your analysis. The difference, I think, is that you appear to believe this is a nuisance settlement whereas I thin it goes beyond that. That is where our disagreement lies.

I stand by my comment in post 16, which you thought was BS and naïve, that they wouldn't have agreed to this settlement if they hadn't done anything wrong or felt there was a risk of a finding that they had done something wrong. I base it not "automatically" on the fact that they are ponying up some (fairly large amount) of money, but on some of Remington's own comments on the reported terms of the proposed agreement.

Like I also said, I may have mistaken you for someone else and clearly I have. Sorry.
 
1899 said:
Go back and read the last paragraph in post 19 and your comment relating to post 16 being "BS". As you can see from post 19 I agree with one aspect of your analysis. The difference, I think, is that you appear to believe this is a nuisance settlement whereas I thin it goes beyond that. That is where our disagreement lies.

I stand by my comment in post 16, which you thought was BS and naïve, that they wouldn't have agreed to this settlement if they hadn't done anything wrong or felt there was a risk of a finding that they had done something wrong. I base it not "automatically" on the fact that they are ponying up some (fairly large amount) of money, but on some of Remington's own comments on the reported terms of the proposed agreement.

Like I also said, I may have mistaken you for someone else and clearly I have. Sorry.
Click to expand...

If i thought it was a nuisance settlement then I would have said so. I did not.

I also did not in any single instance say anything that should be interpreted as saying Remington was blameless or should not be liable to any greater or lesser extent. You assumed I did, and i did not see the need to correct you. I guess we all do that occasionally.

I will not agree that ALL settlements at a corporate level are an automatic admission of guilt. As you later said - it is risk management, or more properly called damage control - the risk is already come to fruition and it is now real damage. Minimizing or controlling the cost of the damage is a financial imperative. That is the gist of what I said and that is what I meant and still do.

Hopefully we will talk again under more amaible circumstances. :)
 
hoytcanon said:
A faulty trigger didn't kill Rich Barber's son... poor muzzle control kill his son... Rich needs to look in the mirror not assage his guilt by scape-goating a corporation.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear he doesn't have to look in the mirror because he was not the one holding the gun. It was his wife. AND she was not knowingly pointing it at someone. It was pointing at a trailer. when the gun went off the bullet travelled through the trailer and killed her son who was on the other side. A mistake? Yes, but she was not being careless.
Many of the comments made on this topic suggest that most of the individuals commenting have not seen the NBC story in full.
 
g-manz35 said:
Just to be clear he doesn't have to look in the mirror because he was not the one holding the gun. It was his wife. AND she was not knowingly pointing it at someone. It was pointing at a trailer. when the gun went off the bullet travelled through the trailer and killed her son who was on the other side. A mistake? Yes, but she was not being careless.
Many of the comments made on this topic suggest that most of the individuals commenting have not seen the NBC story in full.
Click to expand...

DAFUQ? Isn't one of the fundamental rules of firearm handling not to point a firearm at something you aren't willing to destroy? I don't know about you but no one should be pointing a firearm at anything of mine, trailer, dog, house, oak tree...nothing. Pointing a firearm at something you do not intend to destroy is careless handling of a firearm. Period.
 
g-manz35 said:
Just to be clear he doesn't have to look in the mirror because he was not the one holding the gun. It was his wife. AND she was not knowingly pointing it at someone. It was pointing at a trailer. when the gun went off the bullet travelled through the trailer and killed her son who was on the other side. A mistake? Yes, but she was not being careless.
Many of the comments made on this topic suggest that most of the individuals commenting have not seen the NBC story in full.
Click to expand...

careless indeed, pointed at a trailer?? even if the trailer was a target {which I doubt it was} then she is still responsible for whats on the other side of it, she is in fact responsible for that bullet until it comes to rest, therefor a brutal lesson to learn but definitely her negligence.
 
g-manz35 said:
AND she was not knowingly pointing it at someone. It was pointing at a trailer. when the gun went off the bullet travelled through the trailer and killed her son who was on the other side. A mistake? Yes, but she was not being careless.l.
Click to expand...

Know what's at your target and beyond.

Pointing a gun at a trailer. ...careless.

Not saying her 700 tricker didn't go off....but I'm still saying she's careless.

And before someone jumps on me and says "so you're telling me you've never pointed a gun anywhere but in the sky or into the ground while it was loaded?!?!" ....no....hell no. Never.
 
Just bought one about a month ago. Big scare till I read the bottom of the recall PDF -- if your bolt release button has a punch mark in it then the upgrade has already been done.

Upgrade only applies to 700's with the the X-Mark Pro triggers made during and after 2006.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm off topic here. I think you guys are discussing the potential settlement of the class-action
lawsuits that affect 700's with the Walker trigger. carry on
 
Last edited:
archie_james_c said:
Know what's at your target and beyond.

Pointing a gun at a trailer. ...careless.

Not saying her 700 tricker didn't go off....but I'm still saying she's careless.

And before someone jumps on me and says "so you're telling me you've never pointed a gun anywhere but in the sky or into the ground while it was loaded?!?!" ....no....hell no. Never.
Click to expand...

Ya. The stones really start flying every time this topic comes up! You do realize that pointing your gun in the air is not 100% safe either.
 
Last edited:
BigUglyMan said:
DAFUQ? Isn't one of the fundamental rules of firearm handling not to point a firearm at something you aren't willing to destroy? I don't know about you but no one should be pointing a firearm at anything of mine, trailer, dog, house, oak tree...nothing. Pointing a firearm at something you do not intend to destroy is careless handling of a firearm. Period.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am saying is that under certain circumstances pointing a gun at you truck or some other back stop may actually be the best option. I don't know. I wasn't there. And neither was anyone else who is commenting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom