By Scott Cohn
CNBC Senior Correspondent
Millions of Americans hunt, but it is fair to say none of them expect what happened to Justen Yerger of Monroe, Louisiana.
“My life changed forever that day,” he recalls in an interview broadcast on April 11 on Rock Center with Brian Williams.
Yerger was 19 years old, fresh out of high school; the star kicker on his football team, with dreams of playing in college. But all that was about to change.
Yerger had returned to his truck after dove hunting alone near his home. He says he leaned his shotgun--a Remington Sportsman 12--against the wheel well, with the safety on. As he tossed his gear into the back, the gun fell over and went off.
He insists his hands were “nowhere near the trigger,” yet the gun fired anyway. His understanding had always been that a gun is not supposed to fire without the trigger being pulled.
“That’s what I’ve always known,” he says. “Especially when the safety is on.”
The next thing Yerger remembers was lying flat on his back on the ground. He'd been hit in his left leg and was bleeding badly.
“Seemed like every time my heart would beat, it looked like a water sprinkler.”
A couple driving by saw Yerger and stopped to help. They rushed him to the emergency room at a nearby hospital.
“I was hit in my left leg - probably about three inches above my knee.”
Yerger’s ordeal was just beginning.
He spent three months in the hospital. Ultimately, it would take 13 surgeries, 128 units of blood and hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills for him to walk again.
He does not believe anything he did that day was wrong.
“I leaned my gun up. Gun's on safety,” he recalls. “There's not a doubt in my mind that I did not do anything wrong that day.”
Yerger sued Remington and the case eventually settled out of court. The terms of the agreement are confidential.
Now 34 years old with a family of his own and still suffering the effects of his injury, Yerger says his story is a cautionary tale for other gun users.
“They need to know that it can happen to anybody, anywhere, any time. I'm proof of it.”
No government agency can order a manufacturer to recall a defective gun. In fact, Congress specifically barred the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating firearms and ammunition, in keeping with the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. That means gun manufacturers police themselves.
But critics say Remington is shirking its responsibility when it comes to the firing mechanism used in some of the most popular long guns in America, including the shotgun owned by Justen Yerger.
Tom Butters, an engineer, marksman and a trained authority on firearms, has been paid as an expert in more than 100 claims involving reported malfunctions of Remington guns. He alleges Remington has been hiding a dangerous secret about the firing mechanism, which is known as the Common Fire Control or CFC. He says guns equipped with the CFC can go off without pulling the trigger, even with the safety on. And he claims the company has known about it for years.
“I would say it's been known to Remington ever since that first batch of guns went onto the market,” he told Rock Center.
That was in 1948, and since then, Remington has installed the CFC in some 20 million of its guns, and at least 20 different models. They include the 870 shotgun, which is widely used by law enforcement, the 742 semi-automatic rifle, and the Sportsman 12 that Justen Yerger owned.
The patented design of the CFC is unique to Remington. While the safety—the switch that's supposed to keep a gun from firing accidentally—locks the trigger in place, it doesn't block the internal parts from moving; specifically the hammer, the sear and the firing pin.
Butters says if those parts become disengaged, because of debris or even just bumping or dropping the gun, the result can be disastrous.
Butters and several other experts consulted by Rock Center say unlike some other gun makers that have changed their designs in response to similar issues, Remington has held firm.
Butters says Remington has done “virtually nothing” about the problem, and as a result, the owners of tens of millions of guns know nothing about it.
“And Remington does not want them to know about it,” Butters alleges, “because it will affect their market position.”
He claims Remington has essentially put profits over human lives.
“And I have made that allegation under oath on a number of occasions.”
Remington denies there is any problem with the CFC, and insists its guns are safe.
The company declined Rock Center’s requests for an on-camera interview, instead providing a written statement.
“The only defect rests with NBC’s inaccurate and biased reporting,” the statement says.
"(T)he fact remains that these guns are owned and used by tens of millions of waterfowl and upland hunters, competition shooters, law enforcement officers and military personnel—men and women who have relied on these firearms under the most extreme conditions over the last 60 years. These field, home and battlefield experienced users stand as a sophisticated and time-tested testament to the quality and reliability of these iconic firearms."
While the statement does not directly address the allegations of a design defect, Remington has confronted the issue head-on in numerous court cases. The company has consistently maintained its guns are safe, and that every incident can be attributed to modifications made by the user, poor maintenance, or careless handling.
The company has also challenged the credibility of Tom Butters, suggesting he is an expert for hire who has testified against a number of gun companies.
However, when Rock Center asked Remington to offer an expert of its own to counter Butters’ claims of an unsafe design, the company declined.
Butters says one of the most troubling aspects of the issue is that the guns can fire with the safety on, which is exactly what Russell Chaney of Pryor, Oklahoma says happened to him in 1984 while he was out on a boat, duck hunting with friends.
“I had my gun setting up on a bench. Kind of a seat,” he says.
He says as the gun slipped off the seat of the boat. As he tried to grab it, his hand slipped over the gun’s barrel. Just then, the butt of the gun hit the bottom of the boat. The gun went off, and blew off two of Chaney’s fingers.
A retired police officer, Chaney has been around guns his whole life and says he had never seen anything like it. Wondering how his gun could go off with the safety on, he sent it to an independent lab for testing.
“They duplicated the discharge, just like it happened, just like we did,” he says.
In its report, obtained by Rock Center, the Oklahoma forensic lab said it took the gun "with the safety off and no pressure on the trigger" and dropped it butt first.
"(T)he weapon discharged," the report says.
The test was then repeated with the safety on.
"(T)he weapon discharged again."
The report notes that in both tests, “the hammer had disengaged from the sear and had struck the firing pin, a condition which should only exist when the trigger is pulled."
So Chaney decided to write a letter to Remington.
“I was involved in a hunting accident because my gun goes off on safety when bumped on the butt,” he wrote. “Would Remington be interested in this gun for research?"
Chaney says he wrote the letter with one purpose in mind.
“I didn't want this to happen to somebody else.”
Remington agreed to look at the gun, but the letter the company sent back offered a much different conclusion than the independent lab.
"(T)he fire control, as received, showed no defective parts which could have caused the incident although the trigger was loose," Remington wrote, adding "(T)he firearm was repeatedly bounced on the butt from as high as thirty (30) inches without any discharge."
“I don't believe what they wrote to me in saying that it wouldn't go off,” Chaney says.
Asked if he thinks Remington was lying to him, Chaney says, “Well, I believe they probably were.”
Chaney decided not to sue Remington, but says he is troubled by the fact that he alerted them more than 25 years ago, yet incidents continued.
“Just kinda sad that these people are injured or killed,” he says, “after I know that they knew about the problem.”
Determining just how many others complained, though, is not easy.
While a source close to the company insists Remington keeps records of every complaint, court testimony shows the company began destroying at least some records in the 1980s. But before that change, Remington had compiled a list of 119 complaints over a ten-year period.
Records or not, the problems continued.
A five-month investigation by Rock Center has uncovered 125 incidents—including 75 injuries and seven deaths—all linked to alleged malfunctions of the Common Fire Control since 1973.
In Alaska, Paul Flynn was left quadriplegic when his Remington went off, and 15-year-old Philip Kensinger was shot in the face.
But many gun enthusiasts swear by their Remingtons. Jack Burch runs an Olympic training center outside Kerrville, Texas. He says Remington should alert the public if there's a problem. But over the past 11 years he says he has never seen any evidence the Remingtons are flawed.
“We see thousands of them come through here,” he says. “Kids shooting them, everybody. Just not an issue.”
Asked why more users are not aware of the customer complaints, Burch says, “I'm suspecting because it's not as common as people would like to think it is. It’s just not a pervasive problem that we see. Not only in this range, but I talk to ranges all over the state.”
Remington does include all kinds of warnings with every gun it sells, including what the company calls "The Ten Commandments of Firearm Safety."
By the book, Russell Chaney and Justen Yerger violated at least two, including the first commandment, "always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction,” and the third, "don't rely on your gun's safety."
But critics say that only proves that even the most experienced shooter isn't perfect, and the design of the CFC should take that into account. Yet Remington has turned down a number of patented design changes, offered from inside and outside the company. They include a mechanism patented by Tom Butters and a colleague aimed at keeping the guns from going off unless the trigger is pulled.
In court cases, Remington has contended that Butters’ criticism of Remington’s fire control is motivated by a desire to make money from his alternative design, which Butters denies.
“Well, if I were all that interested in pushing the design I would have protected it,” Butters says. Instead, he allowed the patent to expire.
Remington contends the design change is unnecessary because the theory advanced by Butters and others that debris can compromise the CFC is implausible. The company maintains its engineers have never been able to duplicate the problem, and one of Remington’s paid consultants has called the debris theory “a mythical allegation.”
But documents from the 1950s paint a different picture.
In 1957, when a gun shop owner in Michigan wrote to complain about a customer's gun going off with the safety on, he mentioned "gunsmiths around here have told us this is a rather common occurrence and that the guns are unsafe."
Remington responded the incident was "most unusual."
But just a year later, in a 1958 internal memo, Remington engineers identified the problem, that "might be aggravated by dirt or foreign matter in the fire control.”
And in 1985, when an insurance adjuster asked whether there were any problems with the model 1100 shotgun, Remington responded that it "had no problem," even though we found at the time of that letter, Remington had already faced a dozen lawsuits involving that model alone.
“As a professional engineer, my first canon of ethics reads, ‘I will hold the public safety paramount in each professional act,’" Tom Butters says. “I don't believe they did that.”
Leave a Comment:
All I know is none of these would have occurred if a round was NOT in the chamber. I really upsets me that all these people believed they did everything right but they all had a round in the chamber. What a hack job of reporting.
Right ON! The first thing my Dad taught me was that you NEVER prop a gun up, lean it up against anything, lay it down, or anything like that with a round in the chamber. I agree with a hack job of reporting.
So a known defect the has killed and injured people simply doesn't matter?
NRA stooge are ya?
Following age old safety rules would have prevented these accidents
True, but how else do you use the firearm? This issue is not unique to the 870 or the 742, but also prevalent in the 700 - the most popular hunting rifle out there.
In the case of the 700, accidental discharge have occurred when operating the bolt, which on the majority of this particular model requires the safety to be disengaged. In models where this occurs, it is easily repeatable by the user. The issue is so prevalent, that in the military, this is known as a "Remington moment."
CNBC did a really good documentary on the history of this issue. It is available on Netflx.
Yeah, this kid doesn't "know" sh*t. Don't chamber a round on a shotgun unless you're ready to use the stupid thing. And to lean it against something? Insane.
Safety rule #1: treat ALL guns as if they're loaded and ready to fire.
There is no defect. A problem brought on by a lack of maintenance does not constitute a defect. Remington rifles have been used by Marine Snipers since WWII, their shotguns are used by nearly every police force in the US. These weapons that are maintained properly and operated by experienced people do not malfunction. I personally own 3 Remington rifles and a Remington Shotgun and have never had a problem with any of them.
For those criticizing the NRA on this, if any of these people would have taken any NRA safety course, even with a defective firearm, they would not have injured themselves.
Just listen to John Wayne in the Shootist when he is talking to Ron Howard he only loads 5 rounds never has one under the hammer. Age old wisdom if the gun is not loaded it can't shoot you even if the trigger is pulled. An empty gun is as deadly as a hammer, it can still kill you but you need to be real close to do it. If your looking down the barrel of a gun your either cleaning it and know it's empty or looking death in the eye.
So would not speeding, but I still expect my airbag to deploy if I happen to surpass the speed limit.
They are knowingly selling a defective product, doesn't matter if it's a gun or a toaster, the product isn't performing as stated. If it can be replicated, and if they are settling lawsuits, clearly there is a problem. I own one of these and it is a loaded home defense weapon, not one in chamber, but had I known their safety is in question, I would have purchased another brand.
It's not silly or ridiculous for a consumer to expect the safety to work all the time, the very reason a safety exists is because humans make mistakes, pieces of metal should not, especially deadly ones.
Even Barney Fife didn't chamber his bullet and when he did it went off accidentally! Just ask Thelma Lou.
It's obvious that you don't understand. My adult son bought one of these rifles and he had it discharge as he was setting it down when the safety was on and after that he was afraid to put a round into it for fear that it would discharge without warning. When you're out target practicing or hunting you don't think that you will need to put the round in only when your ready to pull the trigger. He was fortunate that he didn't accidentally shoot any of his friends who were with him. No other rifle works this way and this is an obvious defect. I spent $200 to have a new trigger put on and the gun smith said that he had done quite a few of the remington rifles for other folks.
If, as many of you have said......" If you followed the commandments, you won't get hurt", than why did Remington both to install a "safety" in the rifles, and shotguns? Isn't that safety there to prevent unintentional handling of a firearm? Is a safety only safe, when it's [the rifle] lying flat on the ground? This issues in not about not chambering a round into the receiver, or not pointing it in a dangerous direction..... the safety is installed to prevent "accidents" from happening, and clearly......their safety is not fully safe!! I think it was a good article.
Oh, and as for myself, I put in 22 yrs in the US Army, and am quite familiar with firearms of all sizes, and shapes....and don't even attempt to make this a political statement, because it's not about Liberals, Republicans, and NRA [for, or against]. It's about keeping the operator safe while using a weapon.
After all "schitt happens", and that's why that "safety" is there!!
In high school about 30 years ago we were all given gun safety courses. It was mandatory because of the high number of hunters in the area. We were all taught to be careful handling guns because this kind of thing can and does happen safety on or not. Propping a gun up does not count as careful handling. In fact were told not to do that. You unload the gun, make sure the chamber is empty, put it into a rifle case and then treat the gun like it's still loaded anyway. You treat it very gently and make sure it's secure where you put it making sure it's pointed in a safe direction. You don't prop a gun against something and then toss things down next to it. Relying only on the safety to keep you safe is like relying on cruise control to keep you from having a car accident. The safety is an added precaution. It's not a replacement for common sense.
The safety was on? I have owned a lot of guns, rifles and shotguns both and both Winchester and Remington. If the safety is really on, it's not going to off on it's own. This guy screwed up and he wants a huge settlement from Remington. End of story.
@tstucker0958: The safety should always be viewed as a backup device, not primary, and is not a substitute for proper and conscientious gun handling.
To make this comment relevant to this thread, even if there are defects in the Remingtons (and this can happen to even previously safe lines, since manufacturing processes change, parts are improved, materials change, assembly operators make mistakes), the scenarios where these defects manifest should not pose a risk to human life if the basic gun-handling rules are followed--including a snap-fire when advancing the bolt, which several people have also referred to (assuming the round manages to reach the chamber before being fired).
So maybe Remington has an issue, maybe not. But if you start from a mental attitude that any gun is dangerous, and treat it with respect, nobody should be getting hurt.
You have got to be kidding me!?! None of this would have happened if there wasnt a round in the gun!?! First of all, STFU! You are a oxygen thief! Who gives a damn if a round is in the chamber!?! This problem has been a ongoing for over 50 years with not only this shotgun but also with their 7 series! The very creator of this weapon ADMITTED there was a propblem and even told them how to fix it! Guess what Remington said? It cost too much to fix and have always COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS PROBLEM! As for Mr. Dontknow@!$%# (Mckennec51) I would let someone like you touch a water gun!
If you are hunting you will have a round in the chamber. This is not a hack job. Try doing some critical thinking.
I am hunting. If I drop the weapon with or without the safety on will it fire. Apparently yes!
I am not a gun owner and never have been and even I know that you do not lean a loaded gun up against anything. If the gun is not in your hands with you getting ready to fire it, it should not have a round in the chamber. The impact of a gun falling over can cause an accidental discharge, this is why you never lean a loaded gun against a truck, tree, or anything else. I feel for the people that were injured, but if they had followed simple gun safety they would not have had a problem. They need to take responsibility for their own careless actions and stop trying to blame others.
No doubt in my mind that the design is for "Ease of firing" at the cost of safety. This "ease of firing" is the most economical way to manufacture the trigger mechanism thus making for a better profit margin for the corporation. Unhonorable for the manufacture of ANYTHING, let alone a gun. Remington should be forced to change it. Probably never happen tho. The corporation has enough $ lobbying Washington that the public (we the people) don't even have a say. It's not right.
Sure you do, Don't buy Remington.
You NEVER EVER RELY on the mechanical safety. YOU are teh only safety. A loaded gun, with a round in the chamber, and the safety on is NOT safe. It is not to be leaned, propped, set, placed, or any other word for removed from your hands until the chamber is empty. Every year people lean loaded rifles (of all makes) against fences, with the safety on, climb the fence, and shoot themselves when, pulling the gun over the fence, the safety is brushed off and the trigger tripped. It is a MAJOR range and hunting infraction to trust ANY mechanical safety. Even guns designed to be carried "Cocked and Locked" such as the 1911 .45 acp pistol require a safety strap between the hammer and firing pin to prevent ADs.
Most of my firearms are quite elderly at this late date. Many only have a half-cock notch in the hammer as a 'safety'. Others have an early, diminutive, 'cross bolt' safety button or a sliding safety block that passes through the trigger guard.
Honestly, I do not use safeties.
If I'm not on the firing line or the equivalent of such out in the field, the bolt is open and the chamber empty. I only chamber a round with the muzzle pointed in the direction of my target.
Now, if you're hunting or in combat, that doesn't always work for you. Game gets scared by an action being slammed into battery, and your enemy is potentially alerted to your position. That is what safeties are really for. But guess what? It's still a loaded gun, and your 'firing line' can 'appear' anytime, anywhere. If you're in the field with a loaded weapon, you've got to be extremely careful at all times.
There are only two firearm safety mechanisms I can say that I 'trust'. The first one is that of the M16 family of rifles and carbines. The other is the top-tang safety of the Mossberg pump shotguns. I know what state those are in by feel, without question. Anything else, I sure wouldn't want to take any chances on. Half the time, it's not that there's anything wrong with the safety, just user error in believing it is engaged when it really isn't. The smaller the button and/or the more slight the action it takes to operate it, the harder it is to tell whether it's off or on.
But, still, if the gun doesn't have to be loaded, it shouldn't be. If it has to be loaded, but not necessarily ready to fire, the chamber should be empty. It usually doesn't take but a half a second to advance a cartridge into the chamber as you're preparing to take aim.
More anti-gun hogwash from the left. Worthless article.
My reaction is exactly the same as mckennec51; UNLOAD the wreapon and leave the BREACH OPEN. A fallen gun may need some extra cleaning, but at atleast its owner won't need a new foot. (No disrespect to the fus of the article.)
Field hunting of upland birds requires carrying a loaded weapon, generally with the safety off due to limited reaction times. (re: the Cheney incident).
But returning to base (the car or truck) suggests that you unload your ammo, just like most US military bases. Reason? Accidental fire stacking, cleaning or moving weapons.
After 62 years and apparently more than a few hundred court cases, how can Remington claim ignorance? Especially on the 870?
Safeties are mechanical devices which can fail. The only fail safe safety, is the handler of the firearm. If you can give the muzzle your complete attention, then the firearm shouldn't be loaded. I'm sure there are other brands, models and makes of guns that this has happened to as well. This is nothing more than a left wing witch hunt and Remington happens to be the flavor of the week.
We have brakes and airbags in cars, does that mean that we drive reckless because something else is supposed to save us. I think not. Personal responsibility, nothing more, nothing less.
I worked for several months in a sardine canning factory to buy a Remington 11-87 with a camo pattern. I am former military, been around guns since I was 10. I KNOW how to clean a weapon. I was "jump shooting" ducks in a wooded area that was flooded. It was an area I was not familiar with. I saw a house, and immidiatly unloaded the shotgun. After getting clear of the house I continued hunting. I saw a pair of ducks in a wet area, and slowly reloaded my shotgun, as I chamered a round, I slowly released the breech bolt, holding it back so it chambered the round quietly. As soon as the round chambered with the saftey on, the gun discharged. My trigger finger was on the breech bolt, and my other hand was on the forestock. I took the gun to the gunsmith, and he told me there was no way the gun could discharge with the saftey on. He sent it back to Remington, who had it for more than a month sending it to 2 of their facilities to determine what happened. When I got the weapon back I was told that it had been factory inspected and repaired. I could get NO explanation for why it misfired in the first place. I paid more that $800 for it less than a year before, and I sold it to the gunsmith for $200 that day.
The weapon might have a problem or it might not...but there would never be an accidental/negligent discharge if proper safety rules were used by the shooter.
Even in LAPD we never chambered a round into the shotgun unless we were going into a threat, for carry it was empty chamber. If a round is in the chamber then the weapon MUST be in your hands at the ready.
When you are ready to let it out of your hands for any reason you open the breech and remove the shell and leave it open.
I own and shoot many old western weapons with NO safeties and this is the only way to ossess and use them.
Poor reporting and poor firearms safety.
Heres the long and short of it in simple numbers.............20 million Remington firearms with this safety system, it is a a mechanical system and we all know anything mechanical can malfunction! How many incidents have there been? 500 or less, you do the math, it's WELL under 1%!! Do you think Ford or GM would do anything about a problem that would have that low of a failure rate?
There is no huge cover up by Remington it is only a blind side attack by the anti gun crowd!!!!!!!! I could, given enough time figure out how to make just about any weapon to fire with the safety on, the easiest being the M-16 .............just sayin
By now an intelligent person would have figured out that he did do something wrong! One of the first things you are taught is to make sure that there is not a round in the chamber until you are ready to use the gun. There are also warnings to make sure that there is not a round in the chamber when leaning the gun up against something or climbing over a fence, etc. How can he still believe that he did nothing wrong unless it is to win a lawsuit?
Interesting. I'll respond briefly to the article and to some posters on here (not directly).
First, I'm in agreement that for the guy that was shot in the leg as a kid, he should have emptied the weapon and laid it down, rather than propping it up, loaded. Also in agreement that you should always treat a gun for what it is- a miniaturized cannon; a weapon designed/intended to wound, maim, or kill.
Second, Remington can absolutely feign ignorance. Companies do it all the time for obvious reasons. I have no idea if they were stating fact that they couldn't reproduce these problems and I have no idea if the owners would be at fault for improper maintenance in these situations of debris or carbon buildup (no details given in the article related specifically to this). However, a responsible company would at least acknowledge the obvious potential and redesign the safety to further minimize the chances of the firing pin being struck. There is nothing wrong with this course of action and doing so does not necessarily imply guilt. It does represent forward thinking by the company to be concerned with the well-being of a wide customer base. For those of you who may insist that the company should not change a thing because of an unfortunate incident (that may not be the company's fault) then you could at least look at it from the perspective that a modified saftey would not endanger the company's financial well-being and may actually help it's stance in court.
Third, here in the south, there are a great deal of loaded weapons. Many are, typically, kept and handled safely. You will frequently have sportsmen hold up a finger and declare that the only "true" safety. As many of you pointed out, that is the epitome of "respecting the firearm." (as a side-note, I wish people viewed driving in a similar fashion). The reason why I bring this up is b/c here in the south, many firearms are kept loaded for personal protection. For many users, unloading their chambers isn't something their willing to do for fear that it will render them helpless in the event of a late-night robbery. I will neither argue for or against this. I will simply point out that even those who understand gun safety take risks and having a safety that prevents a weapon from discharging without expressed intention (ie pulling the trigger) should not be viewed as extreme.
Fourth, a couple guys have labelled this article as anti-gun. Seriously? IF there is an issue with a manufacturer's firearm design, one can discuss it without any broader implications. People that wish to ban all guns and people that wish to allow free movement and distribution of guns (in schools, offices, political rallies) belong in the same boat... b/c they are both being idealistic and have unrealistic expectations.
Is it a real issue or is it a manufactured issue??? The numbers alone show that it is NOT a huge safety issue!!! A few hundred failures out of 20,000,000 is REALLY not a large percentage at all it's well under 1%, which is not bad for any consumer item that they have no control over once it leaves the factory!
THIS A GUN CONTROL ISSUE!!! They are trying to sneak in the back door by sensationalizing the whole thing!! I ask again would GM or Ford really get shook up over a remote incident that happens rarely, these guns have been around for years with very few failures....I fail to see the problem!!
As a former Marine, this story got me upset. In the military you are taught the "Treat, Never, Keep, Keep" for handling rifles. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded, never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to shot, keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire, keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire. After hearing about the guy shooting his wife, I was so mad because if you are cleaning your weapon, it should be completely dismantled and there should definitely not be a round in the chamber. Rifle misfires that result in the killing of people usually is from a result of user error. There is no way in hell that if I were cleaning my rifle, it would be pointed in any direction of causing possible harm if it were assembled. Disassemble your weapon before you clean it. This is my first time ever responding to something I watched on TV. If people want to own weapons, they need to take safety classes, and they also need to teach their family members the proper way to handle weapons.
Amen, brother. There is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge.
excellent post Miguel.... thankful my father was a veteran with knowledge on firearm safety as well as an expert marksman.
Those rules are great, however accidents can happen, even if you are just walking in the woods with a round chambered while hunting. You could slip and have the gun fall and fire inadvertently, hitting an unintended target.
No wonder they try to settle, but I think a few of these cases should go to trial. If it comes out that they have a problem they have ignored since the 1950's, they are going to be hit with HUGE damages.
This flaw sounds like it adds very significant dangers, even if you are following normal gun safety rules. Guns are not supposed to go off with the safety on.
Thank You. Every hunter or sport shooter MUST have this fact hammered into thier head. Treat every gun as a loaded gun, never lay down or "rest it against something" unless you are CERTAIN YOU have unloaded it. You know you have finished using a weapon after unloading it. Accidents involving guns are errors of omission. I do feel for every parent, brother, and friend that has suffered these events.
The essence of the defensive talking points - loaded guns are dangerous. The only safe gun is an unloaded gun. Unloaded guns are as safe as hammers. Loaded guns are unpredictable and dangerous. A 'safety' on a gun is an oxymoron.
So why can any yahoo buy a firearm? Required training and licensing is not 'gun control' - it is protecting the rest of us from dimwits.
@Nerm_L
We used to have gun safety classes in schools even in New York, then the liberals did away with it.
Kevin C,
Unless the hunter is using a flintlock or trapdoor rifle, having the chamber empty is NOT problem. Most modern bolts and feeds quite quiet. However, upland game birds (doves, quail, pheasant, grouse and turkey) and animals (squirrel or deer) require the quick response of a loaded weapon. However, the reality shows in the Louisana bayou, demonstrate the advisability of empty firing cylinders, even when under attack by an alligator. Unless you want to blow the bottom out of your boat, and join the alligator in his/her swamp.
When I went hunting as a boy, we loaded IN THE FIELD and unloaded IN THE FIELD; standing with guns broken open or bolts racked open. Guns were only closed while pointed directly into the ground. Part of this is on the gun owners. But a large part is also on Remington.
i don't think a gun should fire with the safety on...i don't expect my car to run with the key off...my guns fully loaded and my cars full of gas...
I have not used any of the Remington weapons with this "defect", but of those I have used, for the weapon to discharge, it must be primed (meaning the hammer is cocked).
Without first-hand experience of these weapons, I have to believe that those who have had an accident with them not only had a round chambered, but also had the weapon primed. Even the M16A has to be primed to "accidentally" discharge when a round is chambered. And from my experience, I will also have to believe that most weapons could discharge when dropped if it is primed and a round is chambered.
That would be one of the reasons that one of the first things we are taught when handling any weapon is to make sure we clear the chamber before we do anything else: to prevent "accidental" discharge.
Bill Marvell, as right as all of you are, there is simply no excuse for not fixing a known flaw for more than 50 years...a flaw that has maimed and killed. It is bad business, and two wrongs do not make a right.
@DunkinH -- Yep - and its still a good idea to have hunter safety classes in schools. The Boy Scouts used to have a good program, too. Our local Jaycees even conducted a hunter safety course many decades ago.
I don't have a problem with owning and enjoying firearms. But a firearm is not a toy and learning about them by trial and error is a really bad idea. The NRA is not serving the hobby very well by opposing training and licensing. The NRA opposition only allows any dimwit to have a gun - and - one dimwit makes everyone look bad.
Every one of these "victims" made one cardinal mistake in gun safety. They had a round in the chamber. If they were not getting ready to actually shoot at something there is absolutely no reason to have a round in the chamber. This simple safety issue would have prevented many of the incidents. I'm not trying to defend Remington's design or lack of taking ownership of the problem. I was simply appalled by the lack of integrity in this piece of journalism by not stating the obvious, no round in the chamber, no accidental discharge.
Every firearm owner knows the "10 commandments" of firearms safety. Respect every firearm as if were loaded-they failed. Watch the muzzle-they failed. Unload firearm when not in use (keep the action open- chamber clear)-they failed. They broke the first 3. My heart does go out to the victims and the families for the suffering. But take your part of the responsibility of the accidents.
The sad thing is that all firearm owners do not know the 10 commandments of firearms safety. If they did we would not hear these stories like "oh I leaned my gun up against the truck with a round in the chamber and it fell over and blew my leg off".
Not true. I own two rifles and don't know those "10 commandments". No classes are required to own a rifle or shotgun in many places and what my father and the Boy Scouts taught me 30 years ago have served me well. That said, maybe I should know something I do not (and I will certainly Google the "commandments"), but to assert that all gun owners do know them is silly.
Even though it is never safe to assume the safety will prevent the firearm from firing, Remington has a responsibility to ensure that it always does, to the best of their ability. Knowing that there are conditions (proper or not) that can lead to a discharge with the safety on and doing nothing but denying the issue is tantamount to criminal negligence, IMO.
If you don't know about the commandments, you must be one of those people that buy something and throw away the directions,then bitch cause it's not working correctly, ALL rifles, hand guns and shot guns comes with a manual, and if read ,it has the comandments in it.............
I am way more afraid of the several thousand pound cars/trucks moving at 50-70mph, driven by folks who pay more attention to their radio, cell phone, dog, etc. Than one of my many firearms (including a Remington 700). At least I can choose the level of safety I am comfortable with based on location and situation.
Dave,
While I am inclined to agree with you, I am afraid the same idiots have bought guns (and as 'marine1sandlake' suggested) failed to read the owners manual. "Afterall, I watched three episodes of "American Guns" and that episode of Myth-Busters where the cannon blew the crap out of the house" (never aired). You have to have a firearms safety certificate in many, if not most, states to get a hunting license; but not to buy a firearm. IRONIC.
The primary firearm safety is in my cranium......not on a weapon. The one on a weapon is just a mechanical device and any mechanical device can fail.
You would be correct if all firearms were sold new. Since many are sold used, you are in error.
Baja - All they have to do is go download the manual from the manufacturer. If nothing else (In case the gun is too old to have a manual online.) you can find the rules of safety in countless places. All it takes in a tiny sliver of personal responsibility. I know that's a novel concept in this country but there it is.
I had a Remington moment while target shooting with my model 700. This is very scary to know that this 30-06 can fire when you least expect it. My two daughters and brother witnessed the gun fire when the bolt was just pushed forward. Luckily, we were not pointing the gun in a bad direction to cause harm or damage. From then on, this gun is just a 275 dollar piece of iron. I will not sell this gun or use it until I know that it is safe. And for that to happen, Remington needs to admit, and rectify this problem.
Send it back to Remington and have them fix it. Or take it to a gunsmith and have the trigger re-adjusted or replaced. Rem will replace trigger for free or you can buy a deceant after market 700 trigger $80-120.
Most cases of " Remington " Moments is from poorly adj triggers. Take your gun apart, it should have anti-tamper seals over sear & travel adj screws. If it is gone your trigger has been messed with and warranty voided.
Reply misdirected.
Absolutely! My first thought about all this was "they had a round in the chamber?!" Since the first time I touched a firearm I was taught that you don't put a round in the chamber unless you are ready to shoot. When packing up to go home for the day the first thing you do even before setting the firearm down is to unload it and CLEAR THE CHAMBER. When cleaning any firearm you should again first ensure there is not a round in the weapon. All that being said it is a little scary that the hammer can just let go like that, but you can't put all the blame on the manufacturer.
It doesn't "just let go like that" In all these cases the gun was dropped, hit on the butt, or some type of abrupt contact. I feel sorry for them, however, it is hard to protect everyone against their own carelessness.
I own one of the defective models that this story is about. It is very scary for a 30-06 to discharge when you are least expecting it. I am a strong believer in safety and that is why no one got seriously hurt when this happened. If this happened to you, you would also have a different attitude towards Remington. Now this gun is a useless piece of iron that I would not sell or use until Remington admits and corrects this problem.
Antietam its plain you are a gun rookie. You talk about the gun being bad and worthless. Have you try changing the bolt? I had a browning 22-250 that did this and guess what the firing pin was bad. One trip to the gun smith and I had a new bolt assembly and perfitly safe firearm all for less than 100 bucks.
The 700 is not even in the same family with the guns in this report. Your problem is one any gun shop can fix. How about the shells you were useing. Firing when you close the bolt is often a high sited primer often seen with reloads and cheap ammo. Old ammo or badly stored ammo has also been know to swell unsiting the primer. Bottom line there are many diffenrt everyday problems that could have cause you problem. I'm a reloader and guess what I inspect EVER shell I load becaue I too have had rounds go off because of bad ammo.
Antietam, if it bothers you that much replace the trigger and bolt with after market ones, the 700 has hundreds of them.
If you didn't buy it new then whoever had it before you screwed with the trigger take it to a gunsmith and get it fixed.
I have to raise the BS flag here. I own several Remington firearms, an old Model 31, an 870, a 152 and a 700 and have never had a problem with them in the tens of thousands of rounds myself, my father and my grandfather have fired through them. If you shoot yourself or someone else while cleaning a gun, you are either from the left side of the bell curve or you are full of crap. The first step of gun cleaning? OPEN THE BOLT! How can you clean a rifle without opening the action? Are there really people out there that ram their cleaning rods into loaded cartridges in the rifle's chamber? I have a hard time believing that... Remington says the media has an anti-gun bias, go figure, this guy spent several months on this story and never sat down with a single person to learn how to clean a gun? Wonder why Remington might think that?
Great post! The whole store was fluff lets scary people crap. The remington story has ben around for every but some how it seems no one has produced a defitive gun in a court of law. I too have had guns with this desgin and guess what zero problems and The only person i have personal heard of haveing a problem abused his shotgun. People think nothing of shotting hundreds or thosands of rounds and never take the action apart to check it. Some of this guns have gone thru many hands and not everyone is like ANTIETAM. peopel will dump defretive or worn out guns at flea markets and gun shows. I learn very early from my grandfather what kinds of guns to avoid used. Duck, and Skeet guns are poor guns to bu used unless you take them apart and look them over with a jewelers glass. I once look at over two dozen 357 revolovers at a single gun show and guess what 90% of them the frames were cracked at the hammer. ( hot reloads and cowboy shoots)
Bottom line I did not see one piecs of usable information in the NBC report. They ignored the mistakes people made and Remington is never going to be free of this becaue people are alwas going to blame the gun before the person in the mirrior.
I too have an 870 and I have fired countless thousands of rounds through it with never a misfire. Of course I cleaned it after every time out firing it and kept it in proper working order. Some days I fired as much as 300 rounds through it and again without any mishap. I fired both trap loads and full powered field loads. I've fired hundreds of slugs through it. (I have both a bird barrel and smooth bore deer barrel for it.) Mostly 3" slugs. I've fired thousands of rounds of buckshot through it. There aren't many things you can fire through a shotgun I haven't fired through my 870 in copious quantities.
I can't say if they had a dirty gun, broken or worn out CFC or what. All I know is I would trust my 870 with my life and not even blink. I also wouldn't hesitate a second recommending one to a friend or family member.
Interesting that people with other make and even other Remington Models do not seem to have this problem in any numbers. I totally agree that every gun should be treated as loaded, rounds should not be left in chamber, never point at anything you do not intend to shoot, etc, but the safety should always work, and a round should not go off while
I love the fanatics and their posts. I find it incredible that only Remington has a design problem. Nobody has every had a Colt, Winchester, or any other brand fail with any consistency over 50+ years. This is a Remington only story - because the other manufacturers have designed a weapon what does not fail under normal expected usage. But you bozos argue that it is acceptable for Remington.
If this were an automobile - you would be saying Ford was justified in determining the cost of death in their cars (they determined that the cost of redesign was more that the expected lawsuit payouts) for their Pinto. And I guess that you would advocate that unsafe toasters should be allowed because everyone is supposed to unplug their toaster when not in use.
I love the gun nuts. They take offense against anything 'anti-gun' - they even argue for dangerous items. And unlike most of the 'wanna-be men' out there - I actually spent 20+ years in the military defending the wanna-be's right to be stupid.
@ observer - Hum, I didn't see anything above that says a dangerous gun shouldn't be fixed. I do see people question whether this is in fact a gun defect or a case of improper treatment or upkeep of a gun. I think those are fair questions. Let's face it you can't make a gun idiot proof or one that will not ever malfunction. It just won't happen. But let me make this clear - If Remington has a problem where a gun in proper condition discharges on it's own, then Remington must be responsible to fix the issue and liable for any damages or injuries. But if the issue is cause by improper use, abuse, neglect or circumstances outside the reasonable use of the gun then it's not Remington's problem.
Amen!
Ok, many of you you are saying that if there is no round in the chamber, then these accidents would not happen. Only true in a clinical ly controlled setting. Guns were made to have a round in the chamber for many different situations, some of which you could drop the gun on the butt or bump it in a way that these defective Remingtons could go off.when it was meant to be loaded. You might be reaching for your gun to unload it but you accidently knock it over and suddenly your shot! A burglar is breaking into your house and you keep one loaded in a safe place but in your haste you fumble it to the ground. A gun should be reliable at all times in all situations. In a perfect world we we not even need guns, and as it is we sometimes need to have them loaded and near us for safety. Remington needs to fix this problem.
Ryan, there is no defect in these Remingtons. A gun is like anything else, in that it wears and must be maintained. If you do not properly clean the trigger/firing mechanism assembly, you cannot then claim it is a defect when it malfunctions. I have been around Remington rifles and shotguns from a young age, and when properly maintained they will safely last for generations. That does not mean that you can pull a Remington out of the box and abuse it, not clean it, fire cheap ammo and then complain or sue when it does not work properly.
In theory you are correct Moose. In the real world, lots of people legally purchase firearms with no training whatsoever. Though training should be considered a requirement, it is not and Remington must act as if every purchaser is an idiot. I'm not saying they are responsible for the actions of every fool. I am saying that if they could modify the design to make it more fool-proof and do not, they leave themselves open to a lawsuit. That is the world we live in, whether we like it or not.
Baja I will agree that there are many people out there who are too dumb to handle a firearm. Unfortunately, we cannot take them away from the idiots without creating a mechanism for them to be taken away from us too. As for making them fool proof, my dad used to always tell me, that if you make something fool proof eventually along comes a new and improved fool.
Moose would be correct ONLY if all brands of firearms were having the same problem. So maybe Moose can explain why ONLY Remington owners are not cleaning and maintaing their weapon? Statistically speaking - Moose's statement is clearly flawed.
I have seen hand guns of all sorts with worn hammer. that would cause them to go off if you touch them. had a Stevens 16 gauge that would fire if you pulled back the bolt. again worn part, and as far as safety classed go do we need the when we buy a ladder?
You could use same analogy to say that all chainsaws should have a accelerometer that determines that it is being dropped and automatically shutoff before you fall on it. Somethings are inherently dangerous. You get to choose whether to "play" with these items.
Ok, many of you you are saying that if there is no round in the chamber, then these accidents would not happen. Only true in a clinically controlled setting. Guns were made to have a round in the chamber for many different situations, some of which you could drop the gun on the butt or bump it in a way that these defective Remingtons could go off when it was meant to be loaded. You might be reaching for your gun to unload it but you accidently knock it over and suddenly your shot! A burglar is breaking into your house and you keep one loaded in a safe place but in your haste you fumble it to the ground. A gun should be reliable at all times in all situations. In a perfect world we we not even need guns, and as it is we sometimes need to have them loaded and near us for safety. Remington needs to fix this problem.
Ok, many of you you are saying that if there is no round in the chamber, then these accidents would not happen. Only true in a clinically controlled setting. Guns were made to have a round in the chamber for many different situations, some of which you could drop the gun on the butt or bump it in a way that these defective Remingtons could go off when it was meant to be loaded. You might be reaching for your gun to unload it but you accidently knock it over and suddenly your shot! A burglar is breaking into your house and you keep one loaded in a safe place but in your haste you fumble it to the ground. A gun should be reliable at all times in all situations. In a perfect world we we not even need guns, and as it is we sometimes need to have them loaded and near us for safety. Remington needs to fix this problem.
While your story makes a strong case for the coverup of liability on the part of the Remington Arms company, it illustrates the danger of using a fraction of a story as support for your own.
I hope that anyone who is tempted to believe that John Casey is not guilty of the murder of his wife take the time to read the transcripts from the trial.
While Scott Cohn made numerous references to the refusal of Remington officials to make statements on the record, there is no apparent attempt to include a statement by the Chelan County prosecuting attorney that would stand in counterpoint to the sympathetic statements made by John Casey in his own defense.
If you want the complete story, I would suggest that you do a followup story looking more deeply into this particular case.
I speak from personal knowlege and I speak for the Wenatchee medical and legal communities as well as the many patients who suffered the loss of this lovely and unique woman. Please do not be party to opening old wounds or the promotion of an injustice to her memory.
Thank you.
Dear Brian, I am troubled by Your consent to air this report. By ALL standards I have come to respect Your skills. There is something very bias about using this venue to bring sensationalism to Your name. I have a certain respect for You and the content of objective journalism You have brought to the table.
For the love of God how can this one sided report bring You respect.
The issue is one of millions vs. the few clowns in the media eye. How is the truth to be known. You bring to Us a bias disclosure of a few people without proper respect for a weapon. The truth never told is the simple religion of respect for a person's weapon. Bring both sides to the table My friend....................
It is with heavy heart that I will include You in the crowd of sensationalism.....
God bless You and Yours,
Sam
Remington 700 series... go to your netflix account and search this. Watch the documentary that comes up (CNBC Remington under fire). You'll see them talk to the actuall inventor of the original remington 700 series (721?). anyways, guess what? He designed a fix for the problem himself, and not recently either folks. we're talking within the first 200 guns made (in 1946! he sent remington memos about problems and fixes were sent by 1948)he found the problem (problems happen all the time with new designs, hence the limited TEST RUNS, company's usually fix them though, esp. when informed by the designer:). anyways, 5 cents a peice to fix back then. did remington do it? or at least add design to next batch? nope.
you'll also see freedom of information request from elite sniper units reporting as many as 2 misfires (if that's what you call the gun going off when the saftey or bolt is tuched, not trigger) per 20 rounds, deeming it a "saftey concern to the school", and the ten commandments of firearms, or whatever? come on.. Most people posting negative feedback to these articles sight those, or just the idea that there was a round in the chamber. what about the case in florida where a police sniper's rem. 700 went off when he was on stand by for a drug bust !?! (BTW, that means aiming his rifle at police and possibly armed dealers, observing, though having no cause, or right to use force, he could have directly killed someone, or through involuntary escilation of the situation (gun shot) caused all kinds of injury and death. Jesus! Has this ever happened to one of our Armed Forces? What do you people think recon snipers do? sit around, looking down there scopes, waiting. I gauruntee that will encompase a portion of any mission calling for a shot to be taken. arethey expected NOT to be able to chamber a round. and inturn if they do, should they expect a 10% chance, as they learned in sniper school, that they're rifle will go off when they thumb the saftey off? or when they shoulder it? or fail to fire, then go off when they touch the bolt?
Guess we'll never just have to wonder about that one... Hopefully any crap they push on the military is gone over by military gunsmiths... though anyone who knows a lot about firearms knows custom work on every service weapon is a dream that will prolly never come true...
Ahh... I could rant about this from a dozen angles, for hours so I guess I'll stop here. Check out that other story though folks. Like 45min all on remington 700 series. This is for all people, especially gun owners. Don't take your gunmakers quality for granted. research the platforms and systems used before buying.
20 million of anything to the populace, and someone is going to get hurt.....nuff said!
Scumbag NBC is deleting comments critical of them. My comment and several others from yesterday are gone.
NBC has an editing problem. They have been caught editing the "news" in the past (remember that 911 call last week?), they edited this program to suit their agenda and now they are editing the feedback in these comments!
NBC, you are receiving overwhelming and clear feedback about how poorly you handled last night's story. Instead of listening, learning and correcting your actions, you are continuing to cover up the truth. Just ask any politician, covering-up your cover-ups is a slippery slope.
As a prior service weapons instrcutor with the USAF, I think I can speak to both sides of this issue. For nearly 30 years, I carried, fired and maintained Remington 870 shotguns in the AF. Not once did I ever hear of this type of accidental discharge. I don't mean to say that Remington doesn't have a major design flaw here, they obviously do. What I am saying is that in the military we teach our members to NEVER LEAVE A LOADED WEAPON UN-ATTENDED, NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND! While I think that Remington has at the very least, an obligation to take responsibility for such a design flaw, the "Victims" here also need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the fact that in nearly every case, they left a fully loaded firearm un-attended and they put themselves and everyone else in danger. This really is a 2 sided issue, and I think it is imparative that NBC tell both sides.
Yes, Remington has a bad design. AND People need to make certain that their weapons are fully cleared, (un-loaded), before leaving the range or hunting area, or before just setting it down to take a rest. Had these shooters followed that simple rule, then the vast majority of them would never have been hurt. The most that would have happened would be that they'd have heard a click as the hammer hit the firing pin. Not the BOOM of a round going off.
Both are at fault here.
Ex-USN corpsman with Marines in early 1970s. I saw an m-16 fire a round when dropped a couple of inches. These weapons were on the early side of production and I expect that the many modifications in the design has prevent this. In combat rounds are chambered all the time ( and safety is frequently off). After a few thousand rounds in the jungle things get a bit lax...
Remington's safety only blocks the trigger from being pulled rearward. Anyone who knows firearms knows this. You don't leave a loaded firearm leaning against anything. It may fall. Jarring the gun could easily dislodge the sear and trip the hammer. No one knows what muck or gunk was in the trigger mechanism which could compound problems.
Actually, in the Walker trigger group in the early Remington 700 series rifles up to the major redesign in the x- series triggers, the safety engages the sear separately from the trigger, if the trigger is pulled and "breaks" from the sear from it's designed contact patch of approx .004 sq. in. then the safety's engagement with the sear is the only thing preventing it from firing. If that engagement fails, due to consecutive or subsequent jarring or by clicking the safety off - there is nothing to prevent the system from firing and most likely - it will, under those circumstances.
I found the story very one sided and the given air time to a murder was slap in the face to murder victims family. This so called safty problem passed in the land of tin foil hats years ago. Remington or any other company can disprove the level of myth that has built up around this problem.
The facts are 1) we are talking about one of the most mass produced guns in history. Lawerys and grieving familys have been digging at the pockets of them for 40 plus years in place of accepting they own mistakes could have cause the problems. 2) any resposible gun owner checks his gun and ammo for problems after a unexplaned firing. There are hundres of reason for unexplains firings that have zero to do with Defective guns. I have never heard of a single problem that was not traced back to maintance or ammo. 3) Life long gun ownwers shoot themselves and others all the time becaue they just get lazy or have bad habits. 4) if there was real defect somebody would have been able to prove it by now. 1946 to 2012 is along time for no on single person out of how many lawsuits to produce edivance of a real defect. 5) if Remington would change a design just beacue of media and the tin foil hat crowd the laweys would eat them alive.
Too bad everyone's emotion, on both sides of the issue, won't bring those killed back or make those injured whole again. If those interviewed and those reporting really wanted to make sure these things don't happen in the future, maybe they would have spent some time on not having a round in the chamber unless the gun is in your hands in the ready position. Don't lay it down, don't prop it up, don't lean it up against something, don't clean it, don't put it in your "safe place" or any of that stuff with a round in the chamber. Had a highschool acquaintance killed in a hunting accident. Guess what, he had his gun proped up against the side of a pick-up truck and was walking away from the truck. Someone on the other side of the truck slammed the door and the gun fell over discharging and killing the kid. If he had only unloaded the gun first. I don't even know if it was a rem. shot gun. So regardless of the brand or model of gun, keep it unloaded, no round in the chamber until you are ready to use it and then unload it when you are finished using it, or it is no longer going to be in your hands in a ready position.
I don't hunt, don't even own a gun. I agree that they should always be unloaded. But like with everything things can have flaws. Even if someone lays a rifle down and it then gets knocked over, with a safety which on and shoots someone then what. Are cops always gonna have their guns unloaded? The fact was this company knows about the issue and is not fixing it. The other fact is no government agency over sees gun companies, yet they enforce laws about them.
I can't believe that as distinguished a news org as NBC would delve as far back as the 1980s to find a few obscure accidents regarding Remington. That was a gross waste of reporter time and effort. The individuals involved violated one of the most basic rules of gun safety in that the guns were loaded when they were not being actively used. NBC ignored the millions of owners of Remington firearms who have used them safely over a long period of time.
Well, first you don't have to dig. You Google. Second, the design is pretty much the same through the decades. Third, they say it is not common. I like my Remington 30.06, but I would want to know if it had a flaw.
Great, now we have defective weapons in the hands of defective owners and with a built in excuse.
In Pennsylvania, it's against the law to lean ANY weapon against your vehicle because the smooth surfaces WILL cause a gun or rifle to fall. Any manufacturer's weapon will discharge if shocked enough, even with the safety on. Flaws and normal wear can cause component slippage. UNLOAD your guns when not actively hunting! Not so hard to do
Gun saftey and access should be paramount to everyone and for Remington or any other gun manufacturer to NOT be regulated and required to recall defective guns is just plain stupid.
Would you allow you automobiles to have the same issue? No... Then why can't we have properly managed gun maunfacturing, registration and reporting?
How about you learn to read, son? This isn't about manufacturing issues, it's about usage issues. While no one should have to take a bullet for their ignorance, they at least provide the rest of us with real world examples of how not to handle a firearm.
Gun licensing is stupid; people licensing is smart. Nobody should be allowed to purchase a weapon who has not received general weapons training AND a detailed brief on the weapon in question. 'Course, this commonsense approach will never happen in this political climate.