GB>I see a strange notice in the Sunday (June 2) USA Weekend section
GB>of the newspaper ...
GB>What's up with the settlement where owners of many Remington 12g
GB>shotguns can get a few $$ if they own guns manufacturered between
GB>1960 and 1995?
I've got one of those such barrels.  I have no reason to worry about it, 
because the cause of the one barrel rupture that occured was due to the 
barrel being full of mud.  I've got complete faith in Remington to make a 
gun that lasts for literally one hundred thousand rounds, as many of 
these particular guns have.  I also trust myself not to do something 
boneheaded like fire a shell into a plugged barrel and then blame 
everyone but the one person whose fault it really was.
GB>Is this a real problem?  What is the truth?  Is there any reason to
GB>NOT submit the form if I have an affected gun?
If in doubt, as a gunsmith to take a look at it.  This is not an issue of 
safety, it is an issue of responsibility.  My personal belief is that I 
have enough responsibility to own and operate the firearm in question as 
intended by the manufacturer.  And if I am irresponsible or negligent in 
doing such, it's my duty to live with the consequences.
At one of the ranges I go to there is a perfect example:  On display 
they have a Browning rifle with a shredded chamber.  A Browning is 
arguably one of the best and strongest built bolt action rifles ever 
made.  But the person who did this placed a .308 winchester cartridge 
into this rifle that was chambered for .25-06.  The bullet had nowhere to 
go, and 60,000 psi of gasses had to get loose somehow.  Both the rifle 
and the ammo were in perfect condition.
This fellow learned from his mistake, and donated the rifle for display 
to remind the rest of us that responsibility begins and ends with the 
person shooting the gun.
þ SLMR 2.0 þ Wench: What you use to turn the head of * LAKOTA v1.5
--- Alexi/Mail 2.02 (#10000)
---------------