Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK, here's the scoop. A couple of weeks ago I bought a supposedly new FN SPR A1 rifle from a company called CMMG. Right off the bat, I was rather put off by the bolt as it looked like it had been used quite a bit. Even the extractor had very obvious wear on the front surface from contact with the rim of cartridges. Certainly not what I would expect in a new gun, even on that was test fired.

Well the icing to the cake was when I put the bolt into the receiver and worked the action. What the hell? Make one hell of a racket. I thought I had grit or sand somewhere in the action, so I pulled the bolt out to look it over. Well, apparently the bolt has been stamped with the serial number EXACTLY in the postion where it will ride across the bolt stop every time the action is worked. Now this isn't some el cheapo rifle! So what in the world is this?

To top this, I just got an email from a representative from FNH-USA who is saying that all of their SPR rifles have the bolt stamped in exactly that same place. My question: is this TRUE? If it is true, people don't think that this is unusual and accept that? I am just being especially anal about wanting a buttery smooth feeling action on this gun like others that I have.

Frazzled brain cells want to know.....


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Well, actually, several manufacturers stamp their bolts there, including remington. Now, the engravings look fairly deep, but it really shouldn't affect the smoothness of the action. I would be looking else were.

The wear on the bolt looks a bit odd... but it does depend on the amount of test firing it supposedly had. But the wear pattern looks a bit weird. The SC rifles get test fired, and bolts worked, and the teflon coating does wear a bit, but its a "smoother" wear. The wear on that bolt face area just looks a bit weird. Not sure though, could be normal for FN rifles to ship new that way.

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Take it to an FN rep in your area and ask him if it is new. Have him check the serial for previous ownership, etc.

My buddies MK23 he just bought turned out to be used (for new price), suffice to say his lawyer scared them enough so he now has a new MK23 along with some other toys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I triple checked, and it is DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that the engraved serial number on the bolt is making the racket as it runs over top of the bolt stop in the receiver as I move the bolt back and forth. I understand that the FN SPR is based on the Winchester Model 70 action, so I pulled out two model 70s that I have in the vault. Yes, they have the serial number engraved on the bolt, but it is on a surface that does not provide a bearing area as the bolt moved in the receiver. The action on my model 70s is smooth as silk and makes this FN SPR feel like a bargain basement Walmart special in comparison.

As far as taking it to a FN rep in the area, I'm just not going to do that. Gut feeling says "send it back" so that is what I am going to do. Of course CMMG is saying they are going to charge me a 15 percent restocking fee when I do that.

I have sent a couple of emails off to FNH-USA detailing this whole affair, but they apparently are declining to get involved. Now I have a number of FN FALS and even two of their FN FiveseveN handguns. But after this, and their complete lack of customer support, my $$ will never get spend on another FN product again. And as for CMMG, well, that 15 percent may very well wind up being a very bad PR blunder for them.

BTW, here's some more pics of the wear on the bolt.





If this is only from test firing, well I guess I have to wonder why it was tested so much......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Errr.... yeah, not only does it look worn, sure looks dinged up pretty good too.

I'm sorry to hear about the complications....

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
WOW looks like it has a good 500rds through it. It doesnt even look like the wear pattern is very equal either?

How much was it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Arghh! Well I have posted this same gripe-o-post on another forum, and someone indicated that it probably was not the bolt stop that is causing the rubbing noise I am hearing. I have to confess, that I just jumped to a conclusion that the piece of metal I was looking at was called that. Not being all that familiar with the proper terms and such, I claim ignorance... But in any event, here's a photo of the "thingamajig" that is rubbing against the serial number stamped into the bolt. First question is: what IS this thingamajig? Second question is: should it be rubbing on the bolt at all? It looks like it is pretty close to being flush with the top of that channel it is in in the receiver, so is there a simply fix that could be done to fix this problem?



Besides a Dremel, that is.... :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Return the product, or exchange it for a new one.

You may not want to, but do it anyway. If you paid for a new rifle of FN quality, you should get one. Call the BBB and let them handle the issue if a problem arrises.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Can you provide a picture of the "thinga-ma-jig" from a bit further out so we can see it in relation to the rest of the action?

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Here is a copy of the post from AR15.com

CMMG has been in contact with Rich since he received the weapon. . Rich had concerns from the get that the weapon sent was used. This simply was not the case. I had him forward the photos to us and we inturn forwarded them to FN.

The photos were examined by the director, deputy directory as well as this areas district manager. All three had the same conclusion that the marks were consistant with FNs break-in procedure and there was nothing wrong with the weapon.

CMMG has enjoyed a great reputation on the boards. We always do our best to take care of our customers. Unfortunately, we cannot make everyone happy all the time.

That said I would simply ask that people reading this post simply give us the benefit of the doubt. Readers can be assured that Rich is not being singled out or exploited. Rich has opted to make this a public matter and that is just fine. He is welcome to do it. At this point, we don't feel it is necessary to post the responses from FN unless Rich feels its necessary.

CMMG feels we have handled this in a manner consistant with the with what is proper. We have procedures for handling these kinds of problems and Rich has opted take this route when FN didn't give them the answer he wanted.

Situations like this are very unpleasant for us and I fully understand Rich expected differently. However, we are not running an inspection service. I am terribly sorry that Rich's expectations were not met.

CMMG offered to act as the go-between to make sure FN would take care of him quickly in the event the weapon was defective. We have tried to be helpful in any way we could be. Unfortunately this is just going to have to be one of those situations where everyone cannot be made happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
And likewise, here is my response from over there:

OK, here's the reply I got from FNH-USA.
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 6:48 PM
Subject: FN SPR


> Dear Mr. Zuchowski,
>
> My name is Ken Flood and I am the Regional Sales Manager for FNH-USA.
>
> I have read the emails you have sent to CMMG and I have looked at the
> pictures you sent. I also had the Director of Sales and Marketing look at
> the pictures and we do not see anything that is defective.
>
> Let me explain why you see wear on the bolt. First off let me say that I
> know CMMG very well, in fact they live 30 minutes away from me. I know them
> to be the most honest, ethical business people I have ever met. So when
> they tell me that the rifle was never fired while they had it, I believe
> them without question.
>
> The reason you see wear is because the bolt is hand lapped into the barrel
> extension and polished along with the races and internal safety parts. This
> is done by coating the bolt with valve grinding compound and physically
> opening and closing the bolt until it is smooth. The other parts are hand
> polished with a wheel. The SPR rifles are built in a special cell within
> USRAC and only a select few people are allowed to assemble these rifles.
> Then they are test fired and then shot for group. This process could take as
> many as 20 rounds. The test target is 10 rounds. I assure you that the
> serial number is in the same place on all the rifles. Quality control
> guarantees this.
>
> I can assure you that you own one of the best rifles produced and that it is
> indeed, a new in the box rifle. We therefore see no need to ship the rifle
> back to either CMMG or FNH.
>
> If you would like to talk to me in person please call XXX-XXX-XXXX.
>
> I appriciate your time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ken Flood
> Regional Sales Manager, FNH-USA
Please notice that at NO time did anyone say "Hey, ship it back to us and let us inspect it. If there is a problem, we will fix it or replace it." The statement I got, instead, was "We therefore see no need to ship the rifle
back to either CMMG or FNH." In other words, "tough luck, Chuck. Don't bother us.". I don't think it was unreasonable of me to expect FNH-USA to offer to at least look at the gun. Matter of fact, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to expect CMMG to at least offer to do something like this either.

So OK, I was in error thinking that it was the bolt stop rubbing against the serial number stamped into the bolt making that noise. But certainly SOMETHING was. Something unusual enough to get my attention about it. I have two model 70 Winchesters, several Savages and several Remingtons, and a couple of Barretts, all bolt action rifles and NON of them make this kind of racket. It's not like this is the first rifle I have ever owned, fellas.

Now with the new information, gained from some helpful individuals on this forum, that this is actually the SEAR rubbing against the bolt, perhaps that also explains one of the other things that bothers me about this rifle. The card enclosed with this gun (btw, WHY wasn't a manual included with it?), states that the trigger pull has been factory set to 4 - 4.5 pounds. THIS gun is nowhere near that! More like 8 pounds, if my trigger finger is accurate. Sorry but no, I don't have a trigger pull gauge. But comparing it to the 5 pound trigger pull that Barrett put on my model 99, I would say I'm probably pretty darn close with my estimate. Perhaps, just perhaps, this problem with the sear rubbing against the bolt AND the higher then normal trigger pull are all related? I am not a gunsmith, so take this with a grain of salt, please. But I don't think this is unreasonable to at least suspect such a thing as being likely.

As for CMMG's position in this, quite frankly just passing the buck to FNH-USA is not appropriate, in my opinion. I bought the gun from THEM, they made the profit on the sale, and they are responsible for the customer support that comes with being in business. That is called "taking responsibility". And it is the mark of a good company. Saying "Hey, we just take your money. Take your problems to the manufacturer", in my opinion, falls far short of that mark.

On FNH-USA's part, OK, I can see that procedure with hand lapping causing wear marks, but holy cow Batman! You do that BEFORE you blue or coat the bolt, not afterwards! So don't tell me they also mill the bolt face afterwards as well? Well why wasn't the bolt face on the gun I got showing milling marks then? Just a couple of inconsistencies here that bother me.

So I am sending back this DEFECTIVE gun. I am certain CMMG will keep that 15 percent "restocking fee", which in my opinion, is unwarranted, based on the facts I have seen and presented. But since they will have the gun AND my money, I guess they hold the upper hand, now don't they?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,894 Posts
Well, it looks like we have one of those "no body is really wrong and nobody is really right" situations.

Rich, you certainly have every right to ship the rifle back, and for that kind of money, you have the right to have expections of quality..... buying a rifle (or anything for that matter) sight unseen can be a gamble.

CMMG sounds like they really do care, but they also do have to run a business and they do sell to a lot of customers. It REALLY is hard to please everyone. Perhaps a compromise could be reached.

Rich, if you talked to CMMG and let them know your expectations for the rifle were just not met and the rifle is still new (unfired) perhaps you could pursuade them to give a full refund MINUS shipping expenses for the sake of keeping at least your relationship with CMMG positive, as it not their quality of work that you were not satisfied with.

Its just a thought...

MEL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I think I was pretty clear about my disappointment with that rifle. And I indicated to CMMG that I was willing to go the route of sending the rifle back to FN for them to "fix or replace" in order to resolve the issues. That in itself was indication enough that I was willing to keep the rifle if the problems could be remedied. When this all fell apart, and the choice became (1) keep the rifle "as is", or (2) ship it back, my choice was clear.

The fact that CMMG is stating that they will charge me a 15 percent restocking fee. despite they have this statement on their website
Non-defective returns are subject to a 15% restocking fee.
for some reason bothers me. What exactly constitutes a "defective return" then? I guess I am a bit puzzled about the definition of "defective" in this context.

Anyway, FedEx picked up the gun about an hour ago and it is on it's way back to CMMG. I would hope that they would at least look over the gun when they get it and see what I am talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
January 6, 2005

I would like to take the time to briefly explain the action we will be taking. This will be posted on all the boards Rich has posted on.

First off, I would like to acknowledge that this is really a no win situation and this reply may sway some and not others. This is one of those unfortunate events that demands a line be drawn in the sand and some line up on one side and some on the other. We would simply like to clarify and give the reasons we believe we have taken the proper course of action.

Rich received his weapon just as we went on vacation over the holidays. We received 2-3 emails right off the bat. He was concerned that we knew he had a problem right off the bat. The tone of emails from the get go was accusing and demanding.

This is not unusual. We get email like this from time to time because in this business problems come up. People have every right to be upset when the product doesn’t meet their expectations. Customer service is about working a suitable compromise. Obviously time is not something we can give the customer back but we work very hard to make the situation right. Almost every time a resolution can be reached and the hostilities diffused.

In this instance there was no diffusing the situation. From the first email, all responses amounted to ultimatums, demands and timelines. I do not intend to post the emails unless Rich cares to do so but we feel that really weighed in on the final decision that we made.

Over the course of the emails we were never given the benefit of the doubt, it was always assumed that we sent a used weapon. Immediately he went to the boards to rally support and he(or anyone we have dealings with) has a perfect right to do this. Again, there was no benefit of the doubt extended by Rich and immediately CMMG is the bad guy. There were some who extended the benefit of the doubt knowing that all the facts hadn‘t come out. And we are most grateful for those that responded in that fashion.

As stated above the subject of Rich’s emails were ultimatums, demands, and timelines. This never changed throughout the duration of our dealings. Quite frankly we got rather weary of the phrases “unacceptable” and “you will”

During the course we did everything we could to act as a go-between with the manufacturer. Rich was unable to get any answer from FN but we made contact and follow up contact. The simple fact is that since he did not get the answer he wanted from FN he continue to make a case in the court of public opinion. He has rallied support to pressure us to do what he wants us to do.

For this reason and the ones mentioned above(without going into specifics) we will do what we said we would do, no more and no less.

I fully expect there to be opinions on both sides of the issues. Those who have been in business and have customers will likely see it our way and those who have been burned online will likely see it Rich’s way. This is unavoidable. I wish it were not the case but it is going to be the reality of this unfortunate situation.

Rich will receive a refund of the weapon minus shipping and minus the 15% restocking fee. We received an email notification with the RA# and we will get his refund out when his weapon arrives.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
john, his percieved additude aside, wouldnt it be prudent as a buisnessman to at least check the rifle out when it gets there. If it does have an issue, and your still denying him the customer service that he requires then i might tend to agree with his assesment.

All, im saying is that if the rifles really broke, he should get one that isnt. Reguardless of his additude, if a person pays for something, they should get what they pay for.

Spade
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Well I will just post the emails I sent to CMMG and let the cards lie on the table face up.
----- Original Message -----
From: WebSlave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Interested in a FN SPR rifle


Hello,

Picked up the FN SPR from my FFL guy today. For a new gun this has quite a bit of wear on the bolt. The extractor also shows signs of having seen it's fair share of cartridge rims. Are you CERTAIN this is a new and unused gun? The scope mount looks like a scope has never been mounted on it, but I really can't figure out why that bolt looks like it does on a gun that has supposedly only fired 7 test rounds.

Secondly, there is no manual in the box. I am sorry, but I am not about to fiddle around trying to figure out how to put that bolt into that rifle. I probably have a Winchester model 70 manual around here somewhere, but nonetheless when I buy a new rifle, I do expect to get the manual along with the rifle.

All I got was a plastic bag with a target and a rounds fired log.

I would appreciate your comments on these issues.
----- Original Message -----
From: WebSlave
To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Cc: Gary McGehee
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


Please reference invoice #1118 for the FN SPR A1 which I received on 12/23/04 through my FFL holder, Gandhi Arms in Tallahassee, Florida.

This merchandise in unacceptable to me. All indications (excessive wear on the bolt, beat up box it came in, and a date of 3/14/03 on the rounds fired log enclosed with the gun) indicate a gun that has been around far too long. And I believe I know why. Although this gun came without the manufacturer's original manual, I have two model 70 Winchesters that I could reference. When I installed the bolt, I was quite astonished at an excessive amount of chatter while working the bolt. Not the usual buttery smooth and silent action I am accustomed to with quality firearms. Not at all. So upon inspection I discovered that the serial number stamped into the bolt is exactly where the bolt stop in the receiver rides on the bolt itself. So the chatter I head is caused by the bolt stop rubbing against that serial number. Obviously, this has been done MANY times before I ever received this gun based on the obvious wear trail I see on that bolt. Looking at the extractor, it is also obvious that it had been used enough times so that the bluing is worn away on the front of the blade of the extractor. This certainly couldn't have happened from only the 7 rounds logged in the log from back on 3/14/03. So my only conclusion can be that this gun is NOT new at all, but is a used gun and has likely been passed from hand to hand several times to cause the wear problems I have noted and the condition of the shipping box.

This is clearly unacceptable to me. I will spend the money to get what I want, but I expect to get what I paid for. This did not happen in this instance. How many people have you sent this firearm to and had it returned to you? Probably because they didn't like that chattering noise working the bolt either, I suppose. For a sniper grade weapon, this it outrageous.

I am formally requesting to return this rifle back to you for a full refund as being defective and unacceptable. I realize this is Christmas and I likely will not hear back from you until early next week, but I want this down on record that I have filed this claim with you well within the industry standard of a 3 day inspection period.

Please contact me as soon as possible so I can get this matter resolved. I have to admit that I am pretty agitated about this as this was to be a Christmas present for myself from my wife.
----- Original Message -----
From: WebSlave
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Interested in a FN SPR rifle


Hoping to hear back from you SOON about that rifle I got from you. Invoice #1118.

I have taken a few closeup photos of that bolt showing the wear I mentioned in a previous email if you want to take a look at them:

http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear001.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear002.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear003.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear004.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear005.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear006.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear007.jpg
http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear008.jpg

I spoke to my FFL guy (Gandhi Arms) and he is out of town this upcoming week. I left the outer shipping box with him, so I won't be able to pick that up until January 2nd, if you need that for me to ship the gun back to you. I still have the inner box, and could probably find a way to pack it securely enough to ship back to you without that outer covering. In any event, I will need to show some documentation to Gandhi Arms to verify that I am shipping the gun back to you so he can update his records accordingly.

I will be away some of this upcoming week myself, so if you need to talk with me via phone, I will be unavailable until sometime Tuesday afternoon. But I would like a best effort to get this wrapped up as soon as possible.

Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CMMG" <[email protected]>
To: "WebSlave" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


> Rich,
> Let me first say I am very sorry that the rifle is not
> what you were expecting and I am going to ask you to
> be patient in getting this resolved.
>
> FNs last run of SPR A1s were made in the early part of
> 03. This weapon came from Arnold MO(FNs distribution
> center) approximately 6 months ago. The weapon is new
> and has only been factory test fired.
>
> That said if there is an issue with the weapon(factory
> defect) this will have to be handled through FN. I
> have all their contact info and will be happy to
> coordinate getting this resolved with either Bucky
> Mills or Rick DeMilt(deputy director and director)
>
> I really hate to hear this and will do everything I
> can to make it right.
>
> John
----- Original Message -----
From: "WebSlave" <[email protected]>
To: "CMMG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


> John,
>
> I had hoped for a better reply from you concerning this problem. My
> impression is that a company that makes a profit on a sale incurs the
> responsibility of correcting problems within the sale. This bolt on this
> gun cannot possibly be new. I have posted photos on my own message board
> and will post the same photos on other message boards to get as many
> opinions as necessary to strengthen my case. I am getting ready to walk out
> the door right now for a kind of mini-vacation.
>
> But I would like to make this as black and white as possible. I did not get
> a new gun, which is clearly evidenced by the wear on the bolt. The fact
> that the serial number was engraved on the bolt right on a riding surface
> where it contacts the bolt carrier, making one hell of a racket when the
> action is worked, is either a defect in design, or someone screwed up at the
> factory. In either event, it is defective and unacceptable. If this is the
> way that FN makes their guns, then I am no longer interested in owning their
> products and wish to have my money refunded for this item. If this was an
> error on their part, then YOU, as the seller to me, needs to make this right
> and replace the gun with a non-defective item.
>
> In any event, I think it is fitting and proper that you, as the seller, do
> whatever is necessary to resolve this problem. I am hoping we can do this
> in an amicable fashion and not develop any bad blood between us. But quite
> frankly, I am not spending $1,400 on a headache and defective product. I am
> sure you can appreciate my stance in this situation.
>
> Please do whatever is necessary to resolve this. I am willing to pay for
> quality merchandise, but I FULLY expect to get what I pay for.
>
> Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "CMMG" <[email protected]>
To: "WebSlave" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


> Rich,
> I will assure the weapon is new. All weapons coming
> from FN are factory test fired.
>
> I will do everything I can on this end to make it
> right. I am going to forward this email to FN. If
> you could, forward the photos and I will get them
> forwarded to FN.
>
> We are manufacturers of products and when something
> goes wrong we do back the merchandise when it is
> defective.
>
> In the case of the FN rifle we have to let FN deal
> with the defect. Again, I will do everything I can to
> make this happen. If it isn't right I am sure they
> will replace it.
>
> I really do want to be accomodating in this matter, I
> want you to get what you paid for.
> John
----- Original Message -----
From: "WebSlave" <[email protected]>
To: "CMMG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


> John,
>
> I hear what you are saying, but I have to go with what my own two eyes are
> telling me about this gun being new or not. Here's the links to those
> photos again:
>
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear001.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear002.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear003.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear004.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear005.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear006.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear007.jpg
> http://www.armslocker.com/pics/fn_wear008.jpg
>
> I need to have this resolved SOON, because I have my own schedule for
> available time that this needs to meet. I could have bought this gun from
> other places at a cheaper price if I had been willing to wait for
> availability.
>
> My opinion is that I bought this gun from you, so this is your baby. I
> really don't care what FN says about it. I just want what I paid for or my
> money back. There are no other solutions to this problem that will be
> acceptable.
>
> I hope you don't take this as being unduly harsh, but I have been defrauded
> before on purchases I have made, and I do not intend on allowing that to
> happen again.
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Zuchowski" <[email protected]>
To: "CMMG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Unacceptable merchandise on invoice #1118


> John,
>
> I will be returning this gun to you early next week via UPS. I have to pick
> up the outer covering box from my FFL guy before I can do this, and he is
> out of town until Monday.
>
> To recap, I am returning this gun because of an unacceptable condition of
> excessive wear showing on the bolt, which is clearly indicative of the gun
> NOT being brand new as it was sold to me. A further problem is indicated in
> that the serial number stamped into the bolt of this gun is in an area that
> rides over the bolt stop in the receiver, which will eventually cause
> excessive wear on the stop as well as making an unacceptably amount of
> chatter when working the action.
>
> Two, and ONLY two solutions are open to you to resolve this problem.
>
> (1) Send me back my money IN FULL upon receipt of this gun.
>
> (2) If you will verify that the serial number impression on the bolt was a
> fluke and does not exist in another FN model, will accept one of the two
> following:
> (a) An identical model gun as the one that was sent to me, but in ABSOLUTELY
> new condition with no wear showing on the bolt. Plus a refund of $100 to
> reflect the price drop you are currently showing on your online price list.
>
> (b) A fluted barreled version of this model, as long as it is also a 24 inch
> barrel. If the fluted barrel is not available in 24 inches, then only (a)
> applies here.
>
> I had hoped you would have been good enough to take the bull by the horns
> and accept responsibility for this unsuitable merchandise, but it appears
> you are trying to point blame to the manufacturer or someone else. That is
> not acceptable. I inspected this gun immediately upon receipt and contacted
> you immediately upon determining the above mentioned flaws. Any reputable
> dealer would make good on standing behind the merchandise they sell. I hope
> this can be resolved amicably, but please be forwarned that I WILL file
> charges of fraud, if necessary, with the authorities if I get resistance
> from you and settling this complaint with this purchase.
>
> I am on a semi-vacation right now, and will only be home every now and again
> through the weekend. I should be home all day on Thursday if you need to
> speak to me in person about this. But please note, my mind is made up about
> what has to be done about this situation.
>
> Thank you.
>
That is I believe all of the emails I sent you in relation to this problem, plus the one reply I got from you included as reference.

If you believe that your statement that "The tone of emails from the get go was accusing and demanding", then so be it.

And as for this comment:
From the first email, all responses amounted to ultimatums, demands and timelines.
How so?

And in response to this comment:
Immediately he went to the boards to rally support...
No. That is not true at all. I posted on my own message board originally to get people's opinions of what they thought about what I was seeing. And I then posted on other message boards to get a wider audience to get more input on this situation. Quite frankly, John, if you (as CMMG) had simply done the right thing by offering to have the gun returned to yourself or FNH-USA to at least inspect it, then I would not have had to pursue opinions elsewhere.

So those are the cards on the table. Anyone is free to interpret them as they see fit. I cannot force CMMG to return my full refund, even though they plainly claim they will in the case of sending out a defective product. All I can ask that they do is at least inspect the gun when they get it and see what they think. If there is no problem with that gun, then chalk it up to my being a bit pickier about what I get then other customers they have had. But if they agree that the noise that the sear (which I had erroneously thought was the bolt stop) rubbing against the serial number on the bolt is in fact a defect, then I would hope they would do what any other reputable company would do. Stand behind your products.

Will you at least do that, John? I don't think that is asking too much, do you? If you say that this rubbing of the bolt against the sear is normal for the guns you sell, then that is that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
Have to agree with rich z that cmmg should have at least offered to take a look at it.

I had a problem with a remington rifle and remington said to ship it back no questions asked just in the event that something could be wrong with it.

Could have had better customer service. I have to side with rich on this one, his emails were not that bad for someone that just spent that kind of money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well, sorry about the delay getting closure on this, but better late then never I guess.

I sent the gun back to CMMG and did receive a refund of the amount minus their "restocking fee". The only word I heard about their inspection of the gun upon receipt was that this was normal for that rifle and was not considered defective. Not that I expected them to say anything else but that, mind you.

In any event, at the next local gun show, I found a gorgeous stainless heavy barrel Remington 700 (some sort of military overrun or something). The bolt works in the action smooth as silk without that irritating racket the FN made. Can't say this gun shoots better then the FN would have, but I got a gun I am much happier with and have some extra money left in my pocket afterwards.

I have paid more for lesser lessons......
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top