Originally Posted By: Greg_MeyerOriginally Posted By: Bayou City Boy
... what is so difficult for some folks to understand about this recall? It's the ammunition and not the rifles at fault. Read the bottom two bold print lines of this post...
... It's REALLY their issue and not Remington's. They told all the 17 HMR ammo sellers where they peddle ammo to tell their users/buyers not to use the CCI produced ammo in semi-auto rifles.
...
Remington, Winchester, Federal, and Hornady all issued the same notices upon receiving the information from CCI: Don't use the 17 HMR ammo in a semi-auto rifle.
PRODUCT SAFETY WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE
17 HMR AMMUNITION AND MODEL 597® 17 HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC
DO NOT USE REMINGTON 17 HMR AMMUNITION IN SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS.
DO NOT USE THE REMINGTON MODEL 597 17 HMR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE.
Remington has been notified by its supplier of 17 HMR ammunition that 17 HMR ammunition is not suitable for use in semi-automatic firearms. The use of this ammunition in a semi-automatic firearm could result in property damage or serious personal injury.
(edited by the poster for relevancy top his reply)
-BCB
Okay, I agree that this is a problem with the ammunition (all apparentlt produced by CCI...
However, I don't think that that lets Remington or any other manufacturer of semi-autos off the hook.
If one takes a slow deliberate look at this from every angle, I think the manufacturers of the ammunition AND the manufacturers of the rifles are both at fault. Where was the R&D? Or, are these folks like Microsodft..."let the consum,er find the bugs...."? Before Rwemington released any rifles into production they should have been thoroughly tested. If they were and there were no failures AND the components of the ammunition changed then they would be off the hook, otherwise the testing should have shown the flaw... If it didn't the testing was flawed. This is a time bomb waiting to go off and the manufacturer has an obligation to take the product out of the consumer arena. Remington sold a product that was implicitedly represented to be safe for its intended use...as a rifle, not a decoration. It is not safe and useable as a rifle... That is a definite breach of an implied warranty...
I don't disagree with what you are saying about the unknowns here that are being totally neglected and ignored in this thread. Or for the need for the manufacturer (Remington) to get the item (Model 597 rifles) off the market. That is precisely what Remington is trying to do.....
However, I can't imagine a company of Remington's size to throw a product of this nature on the market that they knew might be defective and could result in lawyers and grieving widows lined up at their front door. Remington has lawyers, too, and lawyers generally require sufficient R&D to satisfy the Pope in a confessional booth..
That is speculation on my part. Yet this whole thread reeks of speculation and accusations against the manufacturer of rifles that CCI is NOW saying should not be used with THEIR ammunition. And all of this huff is over a few hundred dollars.
If Remington left these rifles on the market after CCI's recent disclosure, and one blew up, you would have beau coup folks demanding 140 acres of land to park their new boat and pick-up truck on. That is a certain fact in today's litigious society.
Remington's lawyers undoubtedly saw that possibility, too, so they immediately recalled the rifles AFTER CCI's notice. If CCI possibly knew or suspected this fact five years ago, why no word until now...? My guess is something has changed recently.... Who knows what "something" might be, however...
And just for consumer comparison purposes, I've never heard of a computer literally blowing up because of what Microsoft didn't do... These are two totally different kinds of liability issues...
-BCB
