dubyam
Beginner
- Nov 21, 2013
- 150
- 0
RiverRider":1nmwwty6 said:
I read through the document, and I've read the patent multiple times as well. I'll only say that the truth here is this document was written by a plaintiff's lawyer to specifically sway opinion against the "Walker Trigger." There are numerous leading statements and nondocumentable conclusions in the paper, and the most damning quotes from the patent are taken out of context. No mention is made of the section starting on Page 3, Line 71 of said Patent, which states,
Why is this important? Well, because it causes the connector to substantially remain in contact with the trigger except for the very moment of sear disengagement, which is what is discussed in the section quoted from Page 4, Line 40 through 45, though not completely quoted, as that would provide a full description of what occurs, rather than two statements which sound contradictory in the plaintiff's lawyers' report. What it actually says is,
What this says, for those who don't read patent descriptions regularly, is that the trigger and connector move as one, right up until the sear disengages. At that moment, the connector cams forward slightly, giving the 'glass rod' break to the Remington trigger. Now, this camming forward is minute. On the order of thousandths of an inch, and only occurs after the trigger itself has been sufficiently pivoted (pulled) to achieve disengagement of the sear from the lip (radius) of the connector, which then is cammed forward ever so slightly to clear the sear step (the part that sticks down from the sear and rides on the connector/trigger structure. The entire discussion about the part with no benefit (in the report, on page 4, just below the quoted "At this point the trigger stops but the connector..." is total BS. I have several Remington 700 and 7 rifles available to me, and two within reach of my desk right now. On both of these rifles, with factory Walker triggers which have been properly adjusted, the trigger does, indeed, stop right at the point of sear disengagement. There is no overtravel, because the overtravel screw (which does not rest against the connector, but protrudes through a hole in the connector and rests against the trigger, only, is properly adjusted on these triggers. My triggers stop dead when the sear disengages. All properly adjusted Remington triggers do. That's the design. So discussing how that's not what happens is total BS, and leads uninformed folks to believe the design is inherently flawed, due to the leading statements made to appear as fact, when they are in point of fact, untrue.
Now, it is fair to say that engineers might debate the merits of this design at length, and I suspect there are folks who would come down on either side, and sizeable numbers of each. But the facts are the facts. Or, to borrow from RiverRider above, "The truth is just what it is." And in this case, the truth is, not once in the history of time, not one time, not ever, not by any human being, ever, not once, not even by the TV media guys who rigged explosives on Chevy truck gas tanks to make a story, has anyone ever been able to find, demonstrate, or show as an example any Remington trigger with debris between the trigger and connector, in any measurable amount which in any capacity has changed the actuation of the connector in any such manner as to render the trigger unsafe. It has never been found, seen, evidenced, or demonstrated. It is a theory, just like the old, now disproven theory that the Earth was flat. It is a theory, postulated by a professional witness with an axe to grind, who has said under oath that no Remington "Walker" trigger ever in the history of time has, to his knowledge, ever exhibited the behavior he theorizes. Considering the design of the trigger, and how the connector and trigger fit together, if debris were to work its way in between the two, it would be inherently difficult for that debris to work its way out from between the two after the unintentional discharge, so that no evidence was found to support the theory. But, that is the truth - no evidence has ever been found to support this theory. What does that mean? It means this theory is no more valid than a theory which states that Remington "Walker" trigger-equipped rifles discharge unintentionally because little green fairies float up out of the grass and sit on the trigger, and are heavy enough to cause the rifle to discharge. That's right. There is the exact same amount of demonstrable evidence proving both of those theories as to how these unintentional discharges occur.
Additionally, the following statements from the lawyer's report are demonstrably false by examination of the patent and the actual operation of the trigger itself:
Nope. Re-read the patent. It clearly states, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes, that the connector is held relatively tightly against the trigger by the trigger spring (part number 42 in the patent diagrams).
Not exactly. The top is only open if you don't have the bolt in the rifle. (Now, I'm pretty sure with the bolt removed from the rifle, there's no chance of discharge, unintentional or intentional. And with no bolt in the rifle, there can be no debris getting "pumped" into the trigger mechanism. I'd be curious to know what the pump mechanism is, as there is not one visible in any diagram I've seen, nor on any of the several hundred Remington rifles which I have personally handled and inspected. I'm not sure what they are referring to as the top of the bolt release, as the top of all mine (and all I've ever inspected) is a knife edge, and has no debris on it, for certain. If they mean the upper surface of the lever you push from the trigger guard area, I'd argue that any debris there is dust from fingers and field held there by gravity. It's far too loose and uncompacted to be "pumped into the action" as stated in the lawyer's report.
Now, I could go on for several more paragraphs detailing the flaws of this plaintiff's lawyer's report, but I'm afraid most folks have stopped reading already anyway. For those of you who have stuck with me, I'll just finish by asking whether or not you believe the person who compiled this report had, as we say here in the south, a dog in this fight? I suspect it was compiled by a law clerk at this firm, in anticipation of an upcoming multi-million dollar suit against Remington, and the money trail tells you why and how this report was compiled.
Certainly if you want to avoid the Walker trigger, feel free to do so. But it's not a flawed design, and it's not responsible for the various (and precious few, I might add) incidents involving unintentional discharge of Remington rifles. One more thing to note, as well - Never once in the history of all the lawsuits has anyone, plaintiff or defendant, been able to reproduce any unintentional discharges from Remington rifles except in cases where the trigger is grossly maladjusted post-purchase, or the firearm is in severe neglect and has corrosion and deterioration issues in the trigger and on the action itself. Only in those cases where people rendered their guns unsafe through intentional adjustment or neglect has there been a documentable, repeatable unintentional discharge. I know, guys will come on here and say they know of some, but none of the court cases have ever produced one. Not once. The people getting rich off this are the trial lawyers, folks. And they wrote this report. Biased? Yep.
