Deer Hunting Forums - View Single Post - Did anyone see this
View Single Post
post #5 of (permalink) Old 01-29-2011, 12:00 AM
rdrader2002
B&C 140 Class
 
rdrader2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 824
In one of the recent "American Rifleman" magazines (Jan2011 in fact), there was an interesting article about that very subject. Yes, there were a few Remington models that they were having issues with. I visit Remington's website on a regular basis and have put their warning/recall notices out in one or more of these very forums. It's not like Remington was trying to hide their mistakes. They made a "bad batch" and knew it.

My question to everyone is this - How many (millions of) rifles has Remington made over the years (and sold to the government and law enforcement in many varieties) that have never had these issues? CNBC (my opinion here) gave a very lopsided/single sided view of the issue. They gave the lawyer/plaintiff point of view without attempting to offer a counterpoint from opposing sides (like the NRA). Remington wisely refused to comment knowing that anything said in front of the camera would have been cut and sliced to fit MSNBC's point of view and not be shown in its entirety. So called "journalism" or "factual reporting" like this can be expected from "news" networks such as CNN (Communist News Networks) and the like.

For anyone interested in the article, it's called -- Trial Lawyers, Guns, Money & Ratings: CNBC's "Remington Under Fire" and starts on Page 44 of the Jan 2011 issue of American Rifleman magazine. To me, the best part of the article is the final paragraph that reads -- quote --

"Journalism should be about getting to the heart of the story and reporting the truth. But so long as trial lawyers stand to profit and a desperate broadcaster looks to boost sagging ratings, the cycle of inflammatory reporting will likely continue, and the only place the "truth" will be exposed is in the courtroom." -- unquote --

I own two Remington's, neither of them a bolt action Model 700 or 710. Both of them are over 50 years old and semi-auto or auto-loading. Both (since the are auto-loading) would probably fit into the category of an "assault rifle" except that they only have an internal 4-round magazine capacity. My grandpappy, who bought them and taught me about firearms and firearm safety, told me to always respect a rifle when it was in my hands, loaded or unloaded, and to always treat it like it was loaded. (That means always be aware of where the muzzle end is pointing!)

Accidents happen -- or as the saying goes, Feces Occurs. Yup, the rifle had an unintentional discharge. But where was the muzzle pointing when the mama was unloading her rifle?? Had it not been pointing at her 9 year old son, would there even be a story here? I'm not trying to lessen by any means the pain and suffering that family must be feeling with the loss of their son, but will going after the gun manufacturer on TV and in court bring him back?

When in Iraq, every time that we left base, rounds were "locked and loaded". The first stop when arriving at our destination was the clearing barrels. Okay, to clear a magazine fed rifle or pistol, what's the obvious first thing to do -- drop the magazine, then lock the bolt the the rear, ejecting the round that was in the chamber, lock bolt to rear of weapon to visually verify nothing in the chamber. You'd be surprised at the number of soldiers, NCO's, and mainly officers, who simply could not grasp that concept.
Duh, grasp handle, duh, eject round in chamber, duh, let go of handle, duh, eject magazine, duh, point weapon into clearing barrel, duh, pull trigger to show nothing in chamber. "BANG" Can anyone guess how many times that has happened? Can anyone guess how many times that happened to field grade officers?
It's also called an unintentional discharge, something that the military highly frowns upon. When it happens to a lower enlisted soldier, the soldier and his NCO chain of command gets to visit the commander with the soldier likely losing money from his next paycheck. Do you think the same thing happens when it is a field grade officer? I'm just going to leave that question unanswered and let y'all think about it for a while.

All right, I'll get off my soapbox now before I turn this post into a novel.

What I would like to challenge the readers of this post to do is compare the article in American Rifleman to the presentation by CNBC. See which of the two present both sides of the issue. Then come back to this forum and tell us what you have to say about the both of them.

Is that too much to ask?
rdrader2002 is offline  
 
 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome