Posted on 03/07/2002 8:42:17 AM PST by 45Auto
The Remington Arms Company is offering to modify a bolt lock on some 2.5 million rifles following the accidental shooting death of a 9-year-old boy, the company said Wednesday. The modification is being offered to the owners of all the Remington bolt-action rifles manufactured before 1982.
Remington says the effort was initiated in part as a response to the death of Gus Barber, who was accidentally shot by his mother two years ago as she was unloading her Remington 700 bolt-action rifle. The family, of Manhattan, Mont., said the presence of a bolt-lock mechanism required Barbara Barber to release the safety in order to open the bolt to eject the chambered round.
The trigger was not pulled or even touched, but the rifle immediately fired on safety release, the family said.
"The gun went off. My finger was nowhere near the trigger," Barbara Barber said in an interview last year with CBS. Remington is offering to remove the bolts and clean and inspect the rifles for $20 each. The rifles will be returned with a $20 coupon toward the purchase of Remington products, the company said on its Web site.
A call placed to Remington's headquarters in Madison was not returned Wednesday. In a letter to CBS Evening News, the company said, "The Barber family knows it has our deepest sympathy."
I own and use three pre-82 Remington 700's and have experienced one incident where a rifle fired when the safety was disengaged. One time in thousands of unloadings. Of course, the gun was pointed in a safe direction so no harm done.
None of my rifles are going back for modification. Apply the safe handling rules and there is no problem. End of story.
In the Ruger P-9* series, with the non-DAO pistols you have no choice but to use the decocker with a round in the chamber. The act of chambering a round cocks the hammer. You then have to decock it. I'm in the habit of holding the hammer with my thumb, then GENTLY letting it down upon operating the decock lever, all the while pointing it at a safe backstop. Russian makarov pistols are the same way.
I've been an NRA member for only about 1 1/2 years(since the 2000 election debacle),have never owned a gun(save a BB when I was a kid),but I know at least that much.There is no substitute for common sense.
What Remington is offering to "fix" isn't even what you have been claiming is wrong with Remington's in your link.
By the way, these were court case that Remington LOST when it was proved the gun was defective.
A jury verdict impresses me even less, given the history of bogus claims accepted by juries.
The kid may have been on the other side of the house, so without knowing the facts it is hard to state that negligence is a factor.
I have a bunch of 700's and have modified them all to remove the bolt lock. The only thing between you and an accidental discharge is 0.030" of sear engagement, and less if sear return is hampered by some crud or congealed grease in cold weather. The Remington safety, being a trigger-blocking safety, is inherently not as safe as a firing pin locking type like a Winchester M70. Unfortunately, M70's are not as accurate a design as the Remington (no flames, please...you never see Winchesters winning benchrest matches, but Remingtons are common). Winchesters feature a middle safety position to allow unloading without disengaging the firing pin lock. Much safer.
Yep. The kid was on the other side of the trailer, and the mom was unloading the rifle inside. If she controlled the muzzle, and say, pointed it at the ground or floor of the trailer, if it went off, no one would be hurt or killed. If she had unloaded it in the field, aimed at a tree, no one would be hurt or killed (well, maybe a environmentalist might die of shock, but I think they grow on trees... at least they fall from trees). ;)
Brian
To another poster I read In the end anyones opinions regarding the level of rugged-survivalist-lone gunsmith-ness a person has is is irrelevant to whether they should be ALLOWED the LUXARY owning a gun. Owning a gun is not a luxury it is a right, and therfore I shouldn't have to be a gunsmith to exercise this right.
Brian
I fail to see how your comment is responsive to anything I've posted.
No matter how fool proof you make something, the human race will always generate a greater fool to un-proof it. Case in point...
IF the cop was putting it on "safe" then he clearly didn't perceive a deadly threat was present. In which case, there is no justification for pointing the gun at the perp. If a civilian did this he would be charged with murder. Was this cop charged?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.