CNBC vs. the Remington 700

Links:

CNBC: Part 1  -  Part 2  -  Part 3
Remington(tm): Video Response  - Written Response

    It came to my attention via Facebook that major problem had been found with the Remington 700 rifle. This is a rifle that has been around for a very long time, has many variations (both civilian and military), and has been revered by enthusiasts. I was instantly disturbed by this news. The post cited "a television program" describing horrendous unintended discharges that have caused deaths. I am going to attempt to be unbiased in my presentation here, but make no promises.

CNBC claims:
    The story states that the rifle can go off without a deliberate pull of the trigger. This is a serious issue should it be true. The report shows a rifle discharging when a user touches the bolt handle. The evidence presented in the story includes many lawsuits lobbied against Remington(tm), heart rending stories of tragic accidental shootings, statements by people that claim to have either extensive firearms knowledge or Remington(tm) company, members of police and military agencies that say they have seen the rifles misfire (sic), and document excerpts that seem to have damning information that Remington(tm) is aware of the issue.

Remington(tm) claims:
    The responses, both written and video, have been very resolute. The manufacturer maintains that while many lawsuits have been lobbied, most have been thrown out. Of those that have gone to court, nearly all resulted in no blame to the firearm. Remington(tm) maintains that very few of the firearms that are involved were allowed to be inspected by the manufacturer. Whether tested by them or a third party, they say that the fault could not be duplicated on any of the guns involved in these tragic incidents. Remington(tm) also maintains that many of the "insiders" interviewed did not work in departments that would have knowledge of firearm complaints, and their interviews were edited so that the viewer was lead to agree with CNBC's assessment. Evidence provided included reports by the military and law enforcement agencies that state that while malfunctions occurred, the trigger mechanisms had been altered by the users. They also point out that in one of the tragic shootings, the rifle was old and in poor, rusted condition. In another case, a loaded rifle was passed between individuals, most likely with the safety off, and that there are discrepancies in the police report and how CNBC portrayed the incident.
    Remington(tm) maintains that unintended discharge cannot happen when the rifle is unaltered and maintained.

Should you be concerned?
    Ultimately, you should always watch for reports like these. Some are true, while others are not. As gun owners, we should inspect our Remington 700 models to be sure. Do this at the range with the rifle always pointed in a safe direction. In this process, make sure to thoroughly clean and inspect the rifle. Remington says that guns that malfunctioned were modified, so I would not recommend any mods to this rifle. If you have done work on the rifle, either treat it as if it could malfunction at any time, or order a new factory trigger mechanism (preferably installed by the manufacturer.) 

Remember safety.
    The shootings mentioned in the CNBC report are tragic. However, they point out the importance of safe gun handling. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, the most important rule to follow is to ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction no matter what. Some call this "muzzle awareness" and I often add on, "always treat it like it's loaded." If the muzzle is not pointed at a person, then injuries are not part of any discharge whether intended or not. 

How to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

     A recent article (LINK) by the New Haven Advocate poses this question. This is a dilemma for both ends of the gun control spectrum. Firearm advocates will be the first to tell you that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by persons that are not legal owners; usually drug dealers, gang members, and various other repeat offenders. Gun control proponents know this is true, but the difference of opinion comes in how to get guns off the streets.

    Gun control liberals want to take all guns away. Thus far (trying to be less biased here), the ideas that they have had would punish legal owners much more than any criminal. On the other hand, the conservative pro-gun groups don't have any grand ideas on how to target only illegal guns either.

    I like the article linked above because it was written in a liberal state with strict laws, yet takes a rather moderate approach to the topic. I was ready to be angry when I saw the statement about going after suppliers - because multiple federal agencies are trying to restrict or regulate federally licensed dealers. The problem, however, does not lie with them because they do all the necessary paperwork and sell legal guns to legal owners. The problem (identified correctly in this article) is when that owner decides to do something illegal by selling that firearm to someone that is not legal to possess one, or  does not report a lost or stolen gun. Rather than persecuting federal dealers and placing restrictions on legal buyers, the focus needs to be on investigation, arrest, and stiffer penalties for those "middlemen" that are truly supplying the criminal element.

In the NEWS - December 19, 2010

    I've been slacking lately because of finals and such, but here is an article that happened a couple days ago...

    The Washington Post (as well as many other media sources) reported this week that the feds (read ATF) have proposed a regulation that would require gun dealers report to the government when they sell 2 or more semi-automatic rifles. The purported motive for this is to stem the flow of weapons to Mexico. For the full article, click HERE.

Really?

    I personally would like to see what data they are using to determine how American firearms supposedly get into the hands of the Mexican cartels, and how they can justify infringing on our rights.

    The ATF declined to comment to The Wahington Post - as usual. However, Chris Cox of the NRA did comment. "This administration does not have the guts to build a wall, but they do have the audacity to blame and register gun owners for Mexico's problems," Cox said. "NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics."


     This indicates that this may well be the first major rub between the NRA and the Obama Administration. The NRA believes that this is a masked front by the feds to create a national database. This is further compounded by the section in the Obamacare bill that wants to establish a national database for everyone's medical records. As good as that sounds, it reeks of the method used to deprive thousands of veterans of their right to bear arms. If you missed it, many veteran medical records were released to the  ATF and FBI and then entered into the NICS - thus barring them from buying firearms. With that in mind, you can see how lawful owners start to feel as if the feds are just trying to find a loophole that will allow them to record every gun that exists.




    The feds need to stop penalizing the good guys under the deception that it will catch the bad guys. They want us to do the work for them rather than having to investigate themselves.

Learn Gun Safety With Eddie Eagle

     I mentioned in one of my news posts that parents are responsible for keeping firearms out of the hands of unsupervised children. I will now take that statement one step further. For parents, it is vitally important to teach children that firearms are dangerous. The key to this is teaching kids to respect guns rather than fear them. For my boys, a key component in their gun education came early thanks to the NRA.
    I learned about this video when taking a personal protection class from a gentleman that has been a certified NRA instructor longer than I have been alive. The class qualifies in my state toward obtaining a concealed carry permit, but is as much about how to defend your home and property as it is firearms. It is an old cartoon and this YouTube version degrades the quality, but it is good enough to show to parents, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, etc. I implore you to take a few moments and watch this no matter how old you are or your parental status. It really is the best approach I have come across to educating young kids in the armed household.



     Now let me tell you, when I saw this video I thought it might be too cheesy to have the desired effect. I could not have been more wrong. My two young boys were singing right along with Eddie by the end of the video and asked to watch it again. The skeptic in me then pondered whether the message was really understood, or if the boys were just enamored with the character.
     About a week after the boys (6 and 3 years old at the time) watched this, I put it to the test. I cleared my hunting rifle, removed the bolt, verified the chamber was clear, and put the safety on. Needless to say, there was absolutely no way that the rifle could be fired in this state. While the boys were in the tub, I placed the stripped rifle on their dresser. Once bath time was done, I sent them into their room to get pajamas while I waited just around the corner.
     At first, they didn't even notice. After a few moments, the older boy spots it. The initial reaction I hear is, "Wow! Look!" However, just as I was about to walk in and expect to) find him touching it I hear, "Oh wait! If you see a gun.... Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" He comes running out of the room calling me, and tells me that he sees a gun in his room. I was ecstatic.
     I still keep my firearms out of reach and hidden. But after that test and a couple of subsequent checks, I feel a lot better about having guns in the house. The boys are still immensely curious about firearms, but are good at only being inquisitive when I have one on me and under my control. They are aware that they can ask questions, but can only touch if fully supervised by an adult (although that request is usually denied.) They have not watched the video in quite a while, but if I asked them to, they could recite the ditty today.