“I would jump at the chance to buy anything that had a .000625% chance of failing.”
How about if you chose 1 in 10,000 people that claimed to have a malfunctioning rifle to be pointed at your head and the bolt closed on a live round? Would THAT be an acceptable failure rate then? Of course not. Any idiot that know failure rates knows officially reported incidents are usually just the tip of the iceberg of actual failures.
“How about if you chose 1 in 10,000 people that claimed to have a malfunctioning rifle to be pointed at your head and the bolt closed on a live round?”
Speaking for myself, I’m not big on ANYONE pointed a loaded gun at my head. That is darn near just cause to drop, draw and shoot in response.
To answer your question, no, I would not want a known defective, loaded gun pointed at my head. Nobody I know would want any firearm ever pointed at their head. That question struck me as needlessly offensive. I was just making the point that the failure rate is actually extremely low. I am sure it does not seem low if you are one of the people who got one of those guns, but to me it seems very low. Even if there are 100 times the actual failures as reported, it is still low. I wish all the stuff I bought had a failure rate that low. I think it will be hard for them to come up with something better. I do hope the Remington fix for this issue has a better failure rate than the issue it is fixing. I wonder what the rate on other popular weapons is? I have seen and heard a few NDs in my time around military camps but they never take the possibility of equipment failure into account when dealing with the responsible individual.