If you were wondering why Remington would recall their entire line of .17 HMR Model 597 rifles just take a look at these photos which show a magazine and cases fired from a .17 HMR Model 597. This type of damage was not uncommon!
Cracked Remington 597 magazine
Blown out case head.
Split Case
Thanks to Joe for the photos.
Comment Policy: I reserve the right to remove comments at my discretion. Think of comment threads like a dinner party at someone's house. If you make the party unpleasant for others or me, you won't be invited back. I am happy to tolerate a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but I'm not going to tolerate nastiness, rudeness, trolling, vitriol, or excessive snarkiness toward the author(s) or other commenters. You may make your case passionately, but civility is expected. Please stay on topic and respect the technical nature of this blog.
Spam Filtering: To avoid spam, comments are filtered using Akismet and then manually approved. Do not be alarmed if you comment does not appear instantly. I do not check the spam folder more than once per day.
So what’s the problem? Impressive photos.
Bad design? I.E., cartridge too powerful for the designed rifle & magazine specs? Or rifle designed too weak for the cartridge specs? (Not necessarily the same thing)
PS-What’s that black spot/indent on the case head?
The indent is from the firing pin, it’s a rimfire cartridge.
That, my dear Mr. Woodman, is a blowout.
All the more reason not to buy a new cartridge until it has been out for several years.
Why do I want to give Remington my 597 HMR for $200, when it worth $300 to $400. New 597’s in 17 HMR are still listed on gunbroker.com for $400. If Remington wants to buy back my gun, they need to offer me what it is worth.
@Danny – By issuing a buyback (not a recall-for-repair) Remington will eventually destroy the resale value of the 597. It’ll take a bit for word to get out, but this isn’t an occasional jam, its a massive break-everything design fault.
It’s also a cover-your-ass move by Remington. If one of these blows up on someone Remington can not only say they sent out notices that its unsafe, but that they were such nice guys that they even offered to buy it back and pay for shipping.
ITS NOT THE GUN”S FAULT.
NOTICE
Ruger has silently discontinued 17hmr versions of there 10/22 and
1. DID not notice the public about it.
At least remington is stepping up.
ALMOST EVERY manufacturer of semi automatic 17HMR makers have stopped making these guns.
Including.
Excel Arms
Remington
Ruger
Magnum Research
HELL Federal, CCI, Remington, and Winchester has sent notices out saying, Do Not use THEIR 17HMR in semi auto firearms.
Its not the design of the gun, its the round.
The problem is excessive headspace. I had the same problem with my rifle. The first time, I thought it was an ammo problem and sent the empty case back to Hornady. The second time, the bottom of the magazine was shattered and the extractor was blown off.
I called the closest Remington repair center and told them that I had a 597 in .17HMR. His immediate response was “Has it blown out the magazine yet?” He claims that there is a known headspace problem, but they could fix it.
They set the barrel back, rechambered it, recut the extractor slot, and replaced the missing or broken parts. All of this was done under warranty.
I have fired half a box of ammo through it with no problems and there is no bulging of the empty cases.
Hey everybody if you look at the photo the shell has a Hornady stamp on the primer.
I also have a 597 in 17 HMR. I called Remington and they only offered $200 for a $350.00 rifle. I have shot less then a box of ammo on ground hogs. I will wear safety equipment and shoot it untill it blows up and find a good lawyer.
Oh, i don’t think I will ever buy another one.
Instead of offering me half of the value of my gun why don’t they give me a 22 mag barrel so can get some use out of what is now scrap. I don’t need the coupon I won’t be buying again from a manufacturer that won’t repair or offer market value.
I called them and I have around 500 loose shells and I was told because I did not have the boxes that the ammo originally came in they would do nothing for me. They would not send me boxes either. On top of that the ammo costs $15.00 and they were going to offer me $10.00. I am very upset that remington is handeling this error on their part with such neglet. They got our money why do they care now. I will make sure my hard earned money will not go to Remington for any reason.
Did none of you notice the post where its the design of the round, not the rifle? The rifle functions just like it’s supposed to. Sure, I’d be pissed too, but I’ve bought many things that were supposed to last longer than actuallity. At least Rem is buying them back. Go give your money on your next rifle purchase to someone who is not willing to be the bigger man.
Being the bigger man would own up to the problem. If there was not a problem with the RIFLE why are they buying them back. They are buying them back for a reason. They operate in an unsafe manner and are dangerous. They also would say send us your reciept of proof of how much you paid for the rifle and we will cut you a check. Not, offer you 60 percent of what you paid for it. When someone breaks my stuff or wrecks my truck I can assure you that I will ask for 100 percent of the repair cost not 60 percent. This is being the bigger man. Remington has really lost my money for good!!!
I smell a CLASS ACTION LAW SUITE
IF IT’S THE ROUND THEN PUT ME A .22 MAGNUM BARREL ON IT AND TAKE .17 HMR OFF BEFORE SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS.
“CLASS ACTION”
THIS SHOULD NOT COST THE CONSUMER FOR IT WAS HIGHLY ADVERTISED
I bought a Rem. Model 597 in .17 HMR for my son’s 11th birthday present three years ago. I paid c. $380 for it (including tax). We put probably around 750 – 1000 rounds through it–around 80% of them fired by my son. I was never particularly impressed with this rifle. My son loved it when he was 11, but hasn’t shot it much for the past year and a half or so.
I took it to the range two weeks ago along with a couple of my high-powered rifles just to make sure it was still shooting straight. I was shooting from sandbags and the 5th or 6th shot blew out the magazine. The shell case was split just like the one in the photo above; the blowout was much bigger, extending about halfway around the rim. I got two good-sized plastic splinters in my hand from the plastic magazine and the powder residue that blew out the ejection port didn’t feel too good on my cheek either.
A few days later I took the thing in to my local gunshop. I told the gunsmith there (who’s the one I usually deal with) what had happened and told him I wanted to get rid of the gun. I was just glad my son hadn’t been firing it when the thing exploded.
He looked it up and couldn’t find it in his computer database. He found the 597 in other calibers, and, probably based on that, he told me he’d give me $210 for it in trade. That sounded reasonable for a used (though not much used) gun with no magazine, so I accepted his offer. Then a few days ago I was in the store again, and he told me he’d discovered the 597 in .17 HMR had been recalled. Then I Googled the Remington recall and found this thread.
A few points, then: 1) Remington’s buy-back offer represents $10 less than what a gun dealer who is unaware that the thing has been recalled will offer for a gun that has blown out its magazine. So you could say it’s a pretty lousy buy-back offer, but you could also say that it’s about right, since you wouldn’t be able to get much more for the gun by selling to someone else. Either way, Remington is not doing anybody any favors.
2) If you read Remington’s recall notice (which I also found when I Googled the thing), you’ll see that it does not admit that there is anything inherently wrong with the round OR the rifle. It says Remington has been “notified” by its “supplier” of 17 HMR ammo that the ammo is unsafe for use in semi-automatic rifles. So Remington offers to buy back its ammo. Then it says, essentially, that because it’s recalling its .17 HMR ammo, it’s also recalling its Model 597 rifles in .17 HMR. But why recall the rifles when the problem is the ammo? This is classic CYA legal language, pure and simple. I was in fact shooting Hornady ammo in my son’s rifle when it blew out the magazine.
3) probably the primary fault was the round, but if the magazine had been made of metal instead of plastic, everything would have probably just blown out of the ejection port. I don’t know if this would have been better or worse.
4) Anybody out there who is planning to sue Remington needs to remember that when you sue somebody, if you win you get damages equal to the value of your loss. In my case, I lost the magazine on my rifle. You can also get damages for pain and suffering. What’s two plastic splinters in the hand worth? $1? $10? $100? If somebody loses an eye when his M 597 blows out its magazine, it will be worth suing over–but do you really want to lose an eye just to make a point? You can also get punitive damages if the person or company who injured you knew about the potential for injury but did nothing about it. Remington has covered that base with its recall and the CYA language referred to above.
5) Other stuff that came up when I Googled the recall suggested that the .17 HMR round just isn’t suited for use in semi-autos. I had a S&W M647 that I owned for a few years then got rid of because the round did not impress me. I like the flat trajectory of the .17, but I remember being able to shoot tighter groups with a .22 Mag when I was a kid than I could shoot with the .17 now. Since I don’t think I’m much worse of a shot now than I was then (I’m definitely a little worse), I think the difference was the gun and not the caliber. Still, I’m going back to the .22 Mag because I don’t think the .17 will still be around in 15 years.
6) I’ve been shooting for over 40 years now and I’ve had any number of misfires, a number of split cases, and some other freaky stuff, but I’ve never had a a blowout like this, and I don’t think I even know anybody who has in a factory-loaded round.
7) Because Remington’s handling of this mess–they did pretty much the bare minimum they could get away with and save themselves from legal liability–I’m never going to buy another Remington gun. This is my second bad experience with Remington. I’ve never had a bad experience with the 7 or 8 Winchesters I’ve owned, the two Savages, or the Marlin. And I’ll only buy Remington ammo when there’s no other choice. If Remington wanted to step up to the plate here, they would have offered replacement value so that you could go buy yourself another gun that’s just as good, not the value (or almost but not quite the value) of your used Remington with its blown-out magazine.
Man, this thing smells like the 5m.m. rimfire magnum all over again. There is not a cheap fix. Remington had a huge financial mess over this. It amazes me that a lot of gun mfg’s jumped on the 17 HMR way too early. Some custom gun builders had to order two or three chamber reamers because the original blueprints for the cartridge were huge compared to the finished ammo. Blown cases near the extractor cuts are not uncommon unfortunately. Remington had to start somewhere with the buyback or safety recall or whatever you call it. It is far from over. I am sure the lawyers decided which way they would go to minimize their loss.
Class action suit sounds fine to me.Its to bad the $250.00coupon must be used to buy another Remington rifle.Remington will lose alot of business,maybe they think we will forget.
Don’t know if it’s worth the paper it’s written or the stamp to mail, but I wrote lengthy letter to Remington CEO, Theodore H.Torbeck. Told him my views of being f***** over by Remington on this mater. Own six additional Remingtons, four rifles and two shotguns. Let him know I would never purchase another Remington and was going to spread the word when I could to all that would listen about how it dealt with its customers. Maybe if everyone would write him, maybe he’d get the general idea of maybe they should fall back and rethink this mater. I like the the idea of class action suit as well if that was to get started. Address follows
Theodore H. Torbeck, CEO
Remington Arms Co., Inc.
870 Remington Drive
Madison, NC 27025-0700
I talked with Volquartsen. They are continuing to ship 17 HMR semi auto rifles. They say that their tolerances are closer and their extractors are far superior to remingtons. I can attest to this. My Remington 597 in 22 Mag jammed repeatedly until I : 1. replaced the factory plastic magazine with the somewhat better metal one and 2. had Volquartsen replace all of the extractor parts with their own. After disassembling the 597 I was dismayed at the all the plastice and cheap springs. This rifle is headed down the road. I hope that remington takes it right up their *** when this recall is over.
I had no idea of the recall until this thing blew out when my wife was shooting it. I was actually trying to buy a new magazine for it. I thought it was just a freaky thing. How much will it cost to fix it or will I be better off to give it back to Remengton and of corse give then up to six weeks to send me 60% of what it should be worth so I can go buy another remington gun, “NOT”
My 597M remington blew up a couple of weeks ago and yesterday I called Remington trying to get parts to repair it and found out about the recall. I got mine from a dealer before the same gun was out in the stores for allmost a year. I’m told I cant get any parts, and if I keep it, it will just be a wallhanger. I have allways considered it a collectors item. Now if I send it back, they will give me a $250.00 coupon toward the purchase of a Remington product,,,,no thanks, I will never purchase anything produced, or marketed by Remington. My gun will allways be an expensive reminder of the fact that this company will screw the consumer!!!! Although I have a very good friend attorney, who will be looking into the possibility of a lawsuit. Thanks for nothing Remington.!!
I own 2 model 597 Remingtons in 17HMR and both guns failed exactly like the one pictured . I will tell you this both guns were inspected by myself and a gunsmith { I am a machinist } and we both came to the same conclusion that the 597 design was a poor choice for this caliber. The action is a spring rail design that was to weak to handle such a powerful cartrage as the 17HMR . These guns were purchased when Remington first offered them in 17 HMR before anyone even knew that there was a problem with the rifle. Both guns were sent back to the factory and Remington replaced them with no questions asked. The only thing Remington did to both guns was to replace the rail springs with stronger ones which leads me to think that Remington already knew of this problem possibly from their own test results . Both of the rifles have had at least 500 rounds fired through them with no more probems. I do not know if this was the correct solution to the problem but I guess Remington figured there might be to many legal problems out there so they discontinued the rifle.
Does anyone know where to purchase these rail springs? I’m not about to give up this rifle for $200.00 voucher for another Remington, if there is any chance of salvaging the rifle.
even if they can straighten out the rifle will rounds even be available down the line or is this going to be a long road to nowhere.I to have many remingtons.I dont think I will ever buy another if they dont take this Bull by the horns and deal with it properly.Long time fan.
I have not had this problem as of yet with my 597 but I don’t think I’ll take the chance. It’s disapointing to say the least looking at the miserable offer Remington has made to buy back a very expensive gun. I am a hunter safety instructor and will make sure many parents and kids know what kind of company they will be dealing with if they choose to buy Remington.
I own a 597 in 22 mag..I wish that I didn’t..it is a cheaply made gun.
Voquartsen Custom replaced all of the factory extractor parts with their own (machined instead of stamped) and the gun has finally stopped jamming. Volquartsen is continuing to produce their 17 mag autoloader
because with their tolerances it is a safe rifle. That quality and lack of mass production comes at a price however.
I’ve owned a .17 hmr for about 4 years now and have got to shoot about 300 rounds through it in that time. I’ve not had any of the problems listed above but none the less I will likely call Rem for a buy back. PROBLEM: I paid more for the rifle when I bought it. While I think their request that I buy another rifle with their coupon is perfectly acceptable (Remington has some good guns out there) I can not find a comparable Remington rifle for this price. (Agree Remington?) Also, the ammo the last time I checked was $18 a box so….uh… how is $10 dollars a deal? The ammo isn’t bad, your rifle is. What will you do with the ammo other than shoot it up in a bolt.
Class action just makes attorneys money so theirs no reason to go there. BUT if Remington is the proud american company they say they are do the right thing.
Hey everybody, this whole thing just really upsets me with Remington not fully solving the problem. The new 887 is just another bad gun. Don’t take my word for it just try to take one apart and TRY to put it back together. I am really disapointed in the actions of the company and will no longer back them in any way. I too am a Hunter Safety instructor and will do my best to inform people of the promblem and let them choose themselves what to buy.
I’d be interested to know if anyone who has seen the problem had a gunsmith fix it, and if the problem resurfaced.
Thank you all for sharing your experiences. I like the gun and will be looking into some the options laid out here.
Regards,
Jeff
See my comment 1-September. I had 597 fixed for free under warranty. I don’t know if this is still covered under warranty because of the recall.
It seems to me the majority of posters here are all part of a collective group of consumers caught up in this controversial issue over the Remington 597-17 HMR rifle. I too, purchased the Remington 597, laminate stock, bull barrel for a heafty $595.00. Unfortunately, it was only about 8 months ago. Remington is telling me what a fine rifle the 597 is, and there is no problem with the rifle, it’s the amunition that has created the problem.
Well then, how about getting together with the amunition manufacturer and design a cartridge suitable for shooting in the 597. Obvisously, the current round is entirely too hot.
No, that makes too much sense! Instead, Remington wants to offcer you and I a meassly $250.00 for the purchase of another Rmington product. Well then, what if I don’t want another Remington?
Lawman
Anyone know if you could use Remington “voucher” towards a Marlin firearm since Remington owns Marlin Firearms?
Lawman,
I went down this path with Federal/CCI and both maintain the ammo meets SAMMI specifications and the problem is in the design of the gun – semi-autos.
As I understand it, remjunk has attempted to modify an existing platform to handle the .17 HMR (and .22Mag) and have come to the conclusion that it is not up to the task.
Apparently all this platform is good for is a pellet gun.
So, Rremjunk has sold us a bill of goods and now feels justified in wanting us to eat the loss and throw good money after bad on a new gun from them for the privilege of owning a 597.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth for remjunk.
The old saying goes…you get what you pay for.
I went cheap and got cheap.
Well Remington has screwed a lot of people on this mess. They can not fix or won’t fix it. Nor can they offer a fair price to buy it back. I will buy one more Remington only because I am being forced to with the coupon. However it will be the last Remington product I will ever buy. Nice job Remington. Should be proud.
Dear Ted,
If you don’t fix this the “right way” I will not EVER again sell another Remington product in my store. I don’t care who blames who, if you knew about the problem and are STILL shipping me 597s there is no excuse. DO THE RIGHT THING or we the people will….
I wonder if these guns will be worth more than $250 as historical curios after Remington goes under? Will we then refer to a company that “goes under” for stupidity as they got “17′ed” or “597′ed”?
Been in contact with Remington several times without any sucess on a better deal. Won’t sell .22 Magnum barrel replacement and won’t allow to use “voucher” towards a Marlin firearm that they own. Think I’ll keep cleaned and fire as “single shot” until least I’ve used up the 600 rounds of .17 HMR I have already bought.
I think it is both the rifle design AND the ammo. Here’s why. I own a Remington modle 506T in .17 HMR. About 18 months ago, I bought a whole brick of Remington brand ammo. I shot 15 rounds out of the first box and 5 of them split just like in the photo above. Contacted Remington and after sending back the first box (including the split cases), they agreed to reimburse me for the entire brick. Sent me prepaid mailing label. I finally got the check about 10 weeks later. The whole fiasco took probably twice that long. One final note: I’ve shot Federal, CCI and Hornady ammo in that 506T with no problems noted.
Can’t find any reference to a “model 506T”, is it a Remington?
If you go to buy any of the ammo there is only Hornady on the shelves at Bass Pro. They have recalled the Remjunk and Winchester. The Bolingbrook, IL store had some left if anyone needs some before it too late and it maybe gone for good.
Typo in my previous post. It’s 504T, not 506T. Sorry if I caused confusion.
I purchased a 597 about 5yrs ago. I havn’t had these problems yet but if I put over 4 rds in the magazine the rifle jams most of the time. It shoots alright but not worth the money I paid for it ($445). I bought a Henry 17 and it is has much better quality. The Remington felt like it had sand behind the bolt out of the box. A $200.00 coupon won’t go very far on a new rifle plus all the shipping hassle and why would I buy a Remington anyway? I Ain’t very happy……………..
I’m is the same boat as the rest of you. . . . .anybody out there have anything good to say about a Remington’s Model 5 in 17 hmr.That may be my only recourse in this situation.. . . . . ain’t too happy with this deal.
I simply plan on bringing my own action in small claims court in Texas( don’t need a lawyer) to recover the retail price I paid. If enough folks bring these actions and make the fight in many courts throughout the country, this may get the idea across to Remington that having lawyers in 50 states may be too expensive a proposition. Since retail was @$595 plus tax they may rethink the rebuy price after they add in a couple of hours of attorney time for each claim. Their own recall notice will sink their boat and I suspect that they were aware of the problem long before the Remington ammo manufacturer told the Remington gun manufacturer about it. That letter should be fun to read.
Interesting that in Remington’s ethics policy it says: “No amount of profitability is more important than the reputation and goodwill of the Company” I guess them words is just that…..words.