Originally Posted By: DiRTY DOGOriginally Posted By: Bayou City Boy
If "later it turns out the design is flawed", why did CCI issue the warning to every ammo vendor about their ammo - Winchester, Remington, Federal and Hornady? Why not just have CCI contact Remington and tell them to announce that CCI ammo is not safe in Remington rifles...?
-BCB Same difference. If all 17HMR ammo is made by CCI, then all 17HMR ammo is unsafe in 597's, not just CCI ammo.
Failure to notify of an unsafe product is how manufacturers loose huge lawsuits. They "have" to notify their customers, because not notifying them would cost them a whole lot more.
Which came first, the chicken (Rem 597). or the egg (17HMR ammo)? Really it doesn't matter. Remington has an obligation to produce a safe product.
I couldn't agree more about what you said about the lawsuit issue in itself.... It is all pretty obvious and has already been said several times here.
However, if it's the Remington rifle that is at fault, why should CCI be the one to lead the way in pointing it out by saying their ammo is not safe in any semi-auto rifle...? Again, why not just have Remington say they have concluded that ammo is not safe in their rifles, so send then back to Remington as they are doing, and CCI is home free. All CCI is doing by the approach they took is saying they have concerns about the ammo.
Remember, this all began along with CCI ammo that was doing over 2700 FPS over a chrony in both bolt and semi-auto guns. It should have been doing ~2550. The only way to get the extra velocity is with extra pressure.
Just blaming Remington for this doesn't pass the smell test for me...
-BCB