[vicg]

No one is confused here, I don't think.

No one was hurt. What are you going to sue for? Because you MAY have been hurt? It could have been numerous factors, not necessarily a defective rifle. Again, no one lost an eye or died.

Be a man with self respect and character and simply move on.

 

[grandparem]

I believe the key here is "may or may not need a lawyer". If Remington and/or the ammunition manufacturer responds to the problem to the buyers satisfaction, what more is needed? Using common sense, if no one was injured, then replacing the gun along with an explanation of what and how it happened should suffice. No emotional trauma or stress involved here, just surprised the cr#@ out of you for a second. It would also be nice if whoever is determined to be at fault would kick in something extra which usually will happen.

 

[22994]

I think the tonality of the original response to go get a lawyer and sue Remington is what set everyone off. There are far too many 597 haters lurking on this board to believe that many of us who have had a 597 for years and have had no trouble out of them, would accept a statement so lightly.

A manufacturer should be responsible for GROSS negligence, but if you want to sue Remington every time the clip fails to function, or sue Marlin cause the trigger fired at different pull weights every time, or glock, because your model 23 went KB, or Ruger cause your 10/22 blew up even though you put a non-factory barrell on it, (OH YES, YOU ARE AWARE THAT ANYTHING BUT A RUGER BARREL, TRIGGER GROUP, OR ANY NON FACTORY PART, COMPLETELY REMOVES RUGER FROM LIABILITY?, AND IF ANYONE BUT A LICENSED GUNSMITH INSTALLS THOSE PARTS, THE AFTERMARKET MANUFACTURERS ARE BLAMELESS AS WELL?) etc. this is what is clogging and killing not only our justice system, but the responsible gun makers as well.

The suggestion to sue Remington, in a case where 3 different parties could so easily be held in account, being Remington, CCI, and unfortunately operator error, is what has everyone angry. Especially, when by the description of the failure, it sounds most likely this was an ammo related problem. But who is to say that f9 never cleaned the gun in 1000's of rounds of firing, thus showing negligence on his part, there are just too many variables. And the immediate suggestion of suing Remington is no better than suing Remington when a thug uses their product to commit a crime. Be a responsible citizen and figure out who is truely to blame before you just jump up and yell, SUE SUE SUE!!!!! We have lost sight of the fact that sometimes "POO POO HAPPENS!"

I believe that unless absolute gross negligence can be proven, you should only be able to sue anyone for anything for the actual amount of damages done. Too often, people are suing for $600,000,000 because they stuck a screwdriver in their eye, and claim that a screwdriver should have had a written warning against sticking it in their eye, and safety devices installed to prevent such. Or suing cause they fell off a toilet that had no built in safety handles. And because of bloodsucking, dirty, ambulance chasing, panty waisted liberal, lawyers, bending the wording of the law to their own end. Manufacturers of all kinds of products are even now being forced out of business.

But the deck is so stacked against some people whose post histories show that they are nothing but haters, or lovers of one particular brand, that is what sets some of us off. And to cry out "Run for a lawyer", before gathering all pertinent data is much the same. Bound to bring on firey reactions from all directions. :Blasting_

FWIW
DOC

 

[grandparem]

To BBW...

I agree with Doc that your first 2 or 3 posts made it appear that the first thing you should do was to contact an attorney. Your "lesson" in product liability made more sense. As you said and I reinterated, "you may, or may not, need a lawyer" is the key to this whole thing. If f9 is satisfied with whatever CCI and/or Remington comes up with then the only person who gains by contacting the lawyer, is the lawyer. Whatever f9 would get extra would be more than offset by all of our loses in increased prices. If someone had been injured, contacting an attorney ASAP would be a good idea just from the standpoint of knowing what to expect from all parties involved.

 

[Drilling Man]

Good post DocSpanky,

And to answer the question, "have you ever had a gun blow up in your hands"? Well, yes i have. Thing is, the mfg took care of it and life went on. I never even thought about sueing.

These days it seems there are too many people looking for a FREE ride, and too many to collect some $$ to get it for them!!!

Drilling Man

 

[grandparem]

I can see it now..... in a few years our new rifles will be competely covered with safety stickers so we can't even tell if it's a wood or synthetic stock (you won't be able to see that pretty walnut on your new 504). And If we remove them.... tough luck, even if it is the product that failed.
I remember many years ago some reporter was talking to the owner of a ladder factory about the cost of his ladders. It seem the price had about tripled in a year. It was all due to silly accidents that common sense and personal responsibility would have prevented. Not ladder failure, mind you, just stupid people. You have all seen the signs on step ladders.... same thing will happen to the gun industry, mark my word.
Now in f9s case there was a product failure but no one was injured.... no one should be compensated for anything other than reasonable replacement for damage and inconvenience.... IMHO

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

No one is confused here, I don't think.

No one was hurt. What are you going to sue for? Because you MAY have been hurt? It could have been numerous factors, not necessarily a defective rifle. Again, no one lost an eye or died.

Be a man with self respect and character and simply move on.

Please go back and re-read my original post. Did I say "sue?" No, I said "go see a lawyer."

The fact of the matter is that most product liability/personal injury lawyers (of which I am not one, I was a tax lawyer) provide a free consultation during which they advise a person of their legal rights. I think that some people, unduly influenced by industry propaganda, automatically equate lawyer with "sue." Such is not the case. Many times I have advised people of their legal rights, only to have them thank me for letting them know where they stand vis a vis the system, pay me a nominal consultation fee, then leave without my ever seeing them again.

A man of self-respect and good character I am. Meticulous, circumspective, and concerned with the rights of others I am too. Which is one reason I chose to become a lawyer. FYI, I no longer practice law, but I teach it. So there is no money in suing to be made by me. I do try to imbue my students with the passion to do what is right for their fellows in need. Regretably, the system under which we live too often thrives on the poor and ignorant. And ignorance is no way to address a problem, any problem. Which is why I advised the gentleman who started this thread the way I did. Go see a lawyer.

A personal attack on the advocate is a form of fallacy called ad hominem (toward the man) if one cannot attack the argument. I trust this explanation closes the issue, and now I "move on."

 

[21889]

Keep all parts of the gun, and the ammo. Then go see a lawyer.

Lawyers attacking Gun MFG's.... That's what we need more of .

[ / sarcasm ]

I note your a member of the NRA. I now have another reason not to renew with them.

 

[JR47]

The idea that membership of a single individual reflects the entire membership is ludicrous! The NRA deals with many items on a daily basis, the fact that you don't agree with the manner they use is sufficient reason not to join, but your remark was a total waste of band-width.

By the way, that would be you're, as in you are, not your, as in you own it. :1t

 

[10594]

Hey guys: I think that this thread is about to derail and get off track. I see it going from someone telling us about an unhappy accident while shooting to a thread that is turning political. Need to get back on track.

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

Lawyers attacking Gun MFG's.... That's what we need more of .

[ / sarcasm ]

I note your a member of the NRA. I now have another reason not to renew with them.

Life member. Member since ca. 1973, that's over 30 years I've been fighting the good fight.

 

[grandparem]

The idea that membership of a single individual reflects the entire membership is ludicrous! The NRA deals with many items on a daily basis, the fact that you don't agree with the manner they use is sufficient reason not to join, but your remark was a total waste of band-width.

By the way, that would be you're, as in you are, not your, as in you own it. :1t

JR, That one has always kind of bugged me too, but I've noticed that even a lot of educated people do it.

Everyone needs to go back and read BBW's post of 10:51PM yesterday. I believe he is on the right track with that post. One or two of his earlier posts probably came across a little more as an "ambulance chaser" than he intended after reading the "product liability" explanation. I think he may have had the right idea about hanging on to the parts and maybe not sending them directly to Remington right away. So let's get off his back. The NRA comment was entirely uncalled for, m15. :1t

My brother had a Winchester 97 blow up on him several years ago. It turned out that the lot # of Remington shells he was shooting were defective. Remington's offer was to find and purchase a "like new" 97 or give him his Remington of choice. The catch was that he had to send them the old 97 (a sporting goods dealer had contacted both Winchester and Remington for him). No one was seriously injured but my brother did have a tiny spot of blood raised in the middle of his forehead. He chose to do nothing and now has the 97 mounted on a walnut plaque in his rec. room. Of course this was before the days of litagating everything.

 

[highcaliber]

Is it wrong to expect some quality from Remington 597

You have two wonder where these manufacturer's brains are at, when they strive to put out a gun as cheap as possible, and yet know people then will be paying several hundred to over a thousand dollars to refine their cheap product. Since manufacturers buy at bulk cost, they could upgrade their product to something decent for a fraction of what a aftermarket barrel, stock, and trigger accessories, could cost.

At what point does Remington test fire their product? The .22/597 had obvious problems to even a blind man. Attempting to load and fire any random gun on the assembly line would have made this apparent.

I support responsible businesses making a quality product, I wouldn't tolerate a constantly defective gun, any more than I would tolerate defective brakes on a new automobile.

 

[Admin3]

e) Feel free to disagree as long as the thread does not become offensive and results in "flames". In the event that flames occur that specific post or the entire thread could be deleted depending upon the content therein.While this board is open to everyone, to keep it fair, peaceful and educational, we must impose restrictions on what you can and cannot post. It is the policy of RimfireCentral to not publicly embarrass a guest, company, or website. Therefore, we will try to handle violations privately.

 

[Sojac]

Amen

 

[hiddenhider]

F9, please keep us up to date on Remington's answer for this, I for one am dying to see how they handle this.

Thanks,
John

 

[oquirrh]

Agreed on no lawyers. BUT It's Remington that should have the crap scared out.

They should make it right for you AND figure out what went wrong--before someone seriously gets maimed.

If nothing else, R has it's brand to protect. The 597 has been emerging from a problem childhood, which has been bad enough for Rem.'s rep. But they don't want it to get around that it's been blowing up in users faces!

 

[22712]

Hey guys. I have been out of town for a few days. I will only relpy to one of the posts. I am not a "lurking 597 hater." I am a very big fan of Remington and I really like
the 597. I just wanted to see if this has happened before. I sent the gun back to Remington via the store I purchased it and am looking forward to getting it back and getting an explination. I lost the case, so I can't figure anything out from looking at it but I do remember it stove piping. I will post with any results or info from Remington. Thanks guys.


I almost forgot, there will be no damned attorneys involved in any way, shape, or form. :Blasting_

 

[JR47]

Sorry, I didn't mean to allow this off course. I also own a Remington 597, one of the first laminated stock, heavy-barrelled stainless rifles. It's been a good weapon so far. The plastic mags were a problem at first, but the steel ones seem to work quite well.

I'd be quite interested as to what happened to the rifle.

 

[langenc]

Dont tell some in US Senate that a gun can go "full auto" without cleaning, please.