[Leigh]

Originally Posted by T***10m

What's really going to get entertaining is IF FF&F is able show paperwork that proves the gun is new....

Easy enough to prove as they should keep their invoices from their distributors.

However, that doesn't mean it wasn't monkeyed with AFTER the LGS received it from their distributor.

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by cglaspel

^^^ This sums it up very nicely! Much appreciated post LampShadeActual. I am now just trying to figure out why FF&F BS'ed me and going to see how they make it right. I definitely will not be doing business with them after this. Atleast now everyone knows about their business practices.

Sidenote- The girlfriend is very happy with me. After I spackled/painted the living room wall, I was charged with touching up other areas that needed re-painted as well. lol.

Alls well that ends well, and it sounds like you're satisfied with the outcome.

The issue that begs attention now is the misrepresentation by the dealer that the damaged Glock was new merchandise. I don't know what the statutes in your state say about such mischief, but I suspect the commercial code deals very specifically with such practices.

Because damage to the gun's primary safety system resulted in a near-tragic AD, some action against the dealer is warranted, in my view. The circumstances in your case point to negligence for selling a damaged firearm as new merchandise. The dealer must have some level of responsibility under the law to know the condition of merchandise offered for sale (new, used, stock, modified, working or not, etc.).

Selling a used gun as new is one matter, which could have been an honest, but unlawful, mistake. Knowingly selling a used gun that had been tampered with by a prior owner or a store employee as a new firearm (implying that the gun was safe pursuant to manufacturing QC standards) is quite another matter.

If someone intentionally broke the law, they should be dealt with quickly and as harshly as possible. A lawyer would know if the mischief was a matter to be pursued.







This is

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by PhotoFeller

Alls well that ends well, and it sounds like you're satisfied with the outcome.

The issue that begs attention now is the misrepresentation by the dealer that the damaged Glock was new merchandise. I don't know what the statutes in your state say about such mischief, but I suspect the commercial code deals very specifically with such practices.

Because damage to the gun's primary safety system resulted in a near-tragic AD, some action against the dealer is warranted, in my view. The circumstances in your case point to negligence for selling a damaged firearm as new merchandise. The dealer must have had some level of responsibility under the law to know the condition of merchandise offered for sale (new, used, stock, modified, working or not, etc.).

Selling a used gun as new is one matter, which could have been an honest, but unlawful, mistake. Knowingly selling a used gun that had been tampered with by a prior owner or a store employee as a new firearm (implying that the gun was safe pursuant to manufacturing QC standards) is quite another matter.

If someone intentionally broke the law, they should be dealt with quickly and as harshly as possible. A lawyer would know if the mischief was a matter to be pursued.

It seems to me that some people are just too willing to get lawyers involved in things. That's one of the reasons that our legal system is so screwed up and why things cost so much -- everyone covering their ass for liability.

Every sporting goods store that I've dealt with for as long as I can remember (i.e. for at least a couple of weeks) has had a "no return" policy on firearms. I don't remember if it used to be this way or not since I never really gave it any though since I never have even considered returning a firearm after I bought it.

The fact is that there are a lot of items that we buy that are listed as "new" when in fact they might have very well been previously bought and returned by another customer. Why should we treat firearms any different? We want the leftists to quit creating (unconstitutional) laws that discriminate against firearms (vs other tools that could also be deadly in certain situations), but here some of us are wanting to sue the store when possibly they resell a firearm that was returned to them by a customer. I might not know the best solution here, but I'm fairly certain that when you get lawyers involved, both parties end up losing.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

but here some of us are wanting to sue the store when possibly they resell a firearm that was returned to them by a customer.

Only when they resell it as new. Used is used. They lied
That's also called fraud.

Worse yet the pistol was unsafe, someone could have been killed.

[Engineer]

Sorry to hear about your experiences at Fin, Feather and Fur. I have shopped there when they were in their old building before they moved into the big one right next to I-71.

Definitely get in touch with the owners. My last interaction with them was positive. Many, many years ago I called them to see if they had a SAR-1 in stock and was told yes by the sales associate. I drove down from Cleveland only to be told that they hadn't had any in a few weeks. Wrote the owners and informed them about their salesman that was too lazy to actually check stock and they responded with a letter of apology, a gift certificate and a hat - hopefully you get the same level of attention from them now.

Fin, Feather and Fur is a pretty big store (especially the Ashland one) and they do move a lot of guns:



Nowadays I do most of my shopping at the Cleveland store and when I buy a firearm, they usually they go out back and pull it out of the box, still in the wrap. Used guns at the Fin are usually segregated to a different cabinet.

Again, sorry to hear that you may have been sold a used gun as new - I wish you luck in piecing the puzzle together and figuring out if that was indeed the case.

[Alter-Ego]

THE HORSE IS DEAD!!!! STOP RIDING IT!!!!

[Chigurh]

Alter-ego, you sure look like one.
Is that a picture of Fins, Fat, Feathers? If so, it looks like they are all show. Like Gander Mountain. Tell them maybe they need to take a gander at your law firm, for selling you a harmfully damaged used firearm, passed off as a new one.
OP, get back on the phone with Glock and go higher up. You need serious documentation that this gun was trifled with, and that's no trifling matter. They have a minimal obligation to document what they observed and corrected, even though they are not liable for what seemingly occurred.
Document, document and then do it some more. Get it from the astute armorer that saw the issue. As much as I hate to suggest it, you probably need to lawyer up.
There is more than free stuff from a dispicable (love that word) gun shop at stake here.

[tonyparson]

Does your receipt you got with the Glock say new or used? Ive bought new Glocks and the receipt didn't say it was new or used. I'm just wondering how hard its going to be to prove they sold you a gun saying its new but in fact it was used. And can you prove the gun was sold to you like it was. I'm sure they will say it was fine when it left the store and you myst of messed with it and screwed it up. It's going to be an uphill battle.

[jeanderson]

So somebody screwed up the trigger? Suddenly I'm less confident in the trigger job I did on my G23 - minus connector, NY1 spring, smooth trigger. I might be re-installing the stock trigger, spring and connector.

Better to have larger groups than a hole in my wall, or my leg, or my ...

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by T***10m

As for a lawsuit, i'm pretty sure you have to show someone was harmed.

My confidence in buying a used Glock has been harmed.






.

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by jeanderson

So somebody screwed up the trigger? Suddenly I'm less confident in the trigger job I did on my G23 - minus connector, NY1 spring, smooth trigger. I might be re-installing the stock trigger, spring and connector.

Better to have larger groups than a hole in my wall, or my leg, or my ...

If you perform the safety checks, including sear engagement (yes I said 'sear'), described in the armorers manual you will in every likelihood be ok. If you don't know how, get a good armorer to check it.

Your solution is equally valid - plain old stock for a CCW is (IMO) a good idea. I can shoot just as accurately with my stock trigger on a 23 as well as my 34, but a bit slower between splits (more PF in the .40 than the 9mm).

A friend made master in IDPA with a box stock 19, thumb break holster and WWB.

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by tonyparson

Does your receipt you got with the Glock say new or used? Ive bought new Glocks and the receipt didn't say it was new or used. I'm just wondering how hard its going to be to prove they sold you a gun saying its new but in fact it was used. And can you prove the gun was sold to you like it was. I'm sure they will say it was fine when it left the store and you myst of messed with it and screwed it up. It's going to be an uphill battle.

The price should be a good indication of whether then gun is new or not. A used gun would not be at "new" pricing.

[SJ 40]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

If you perform the safety checks, including sear engagement (yes I said 'sear'), described in the armorers manual you will in every likelihood be ok. If you don't know how, get a good armorer to check it.

Your solution is equally valid - plain old stock for a CCW is (IMO) a good idea. I can shoot just as accurately with my stock trigger on a 23 as well as my 34, but a bit slower between splits (more PF in the .40 than the 9mm).

A friend made master in IDPA with a box stock 19, thumb break holster and WWB.

{ If you perform the safety checks, including sear engagement (yes I said 'sear')},that is after all the function that the cruciform provides in the Glock design. SJ 40

[LeMat]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

A friend made master in IDPA with a box stock 19, thumb break holster and WWB.

Kudos to him. If more folks concentrated on the their shooting instead of accessorizing.......

[tonyparson]

Originally Posted by Engineer

The price should be a good indication of whether then gun is new or not. A used gun would not be at "new" pricing.

Its still going to be an uphill Battle. No lawyer will take the case on consignment. He will have to pay the fees out of his pocket and hope and pray he gets the money back. It's gone to be hard to prove the gun was sold to him like it was.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by Engineer

The price should be a good indication of whether then gun is new or not. A used gun would not be at "new" pricing.

Not necessarily... I've been looking for a G20 and I've seen the new ones going for $525 and the used ones going for the same amount (although not necessarily at the same place).

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by clarkz71

Only when they resell it as new. Used is used. They lied
That's also called fraud.

If the gun had never been fired, it's quite possible that it could still be classified as "new". For example, cars are classified as "new" even if they have been driven thousands of miles, as long as it has never been registered in that state.

Originally Posted by clarkz71

Worse yet the pistol was unsafe, someone could have been killed.

That is correct, but it doesn't make it fraud nor does it necessarily make the company guilty of negligence.

Just think how many other items are sold at stores, then returned, and still sold as "new".

And what sort of "damages" could the person even claim anyway? A couple of bucks for some sheetrock mud and a few more bucks for some matching paint? Maybe even a couple more bucks for the gas to get tot he home improvement store and a new holster? Maybe a couple of bucks to ship the firearm off to Glock, but the store could claim that he should have brought the gun back into the store, so that might not be reimbursable. It will cost money to file a lawsuit, even in small claims court where you don't need a lawyer. It's not worth the trouble.

At worst, unless you have evidence to prove that the firearm was previously sold to another individual who will admit that he did modifications to the firearm and that the firearm might not have been put back together correctly afterwards, the company can claim that they received the firearm in that condition from Glock. No company has 100% quality control, so the judge or jury might very well side with the company. The company could also claim that it could have been the buyer who made the modification and that might also be enough doubt that the judge or jury would not find for the plaintiff in the case. Of course, the company could counter sue and the buyer might even get stuck with the company's legal bills if the judge or jury finds for the company. All in all, there are a lot more potential problems with pursuing this via legal channels than there are with just chalking it up as a learning experience and not doing business with that company again.

The OP stated that he had owned the firearm for a month and I believe that he either said or maybe just implied that he had been carrying it all that time. He also stated that he had had no problems with it during this time. I would assume that this means that he has been firing it during this time. Surely someone wouldn't start carrying a firearm without getting a bit of range time with it, would they? So, everything works great for a month... Even if the firearm was returned by a customer and the store gave it an functional examination, it's unlikely that they would have noticed a problem with it. You can't expect a store to completely disassemble a firearm after someone returns it if it's obvious that it has never been previously fired. Sorry, but I don't think that it would be appropriate to pursue legal action against the gun store. There is not enough evidence to support the assumption by many here that the company sold a defective firearm either through intent or negligence.

But feel free to go ahead and sue for any perceived slight... Just remember that you were warmed that both parties lose when you get lawyers involved in something...

[Engineer]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Not necessarily... I've been looking for a G20 and I've seen the new ones going for $525 and the used ones going for the same amount (although not necessarily at the same place).

I agree, but in this case we are talking about comparing within a specific store within a recent timeframe. Fin's prices are pretty fixed unless they have a sale or if you cashed in a birthday discount coupon (which would be reflected on the receipt)

[LampShadeActual]

The Ohio Attorney General's Office is who you should get up with.

Info: http://www.ohiolemonlaw.com/ocll-site/ocll-cplaw.html

Contact Info: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/

[Riverkilt]

Wow! 22 pages so far. I too thank the OP for standing up and taking the flack and passing on the information on the incident.

I'm now reading Paul M. Barrett's new book, Glock, The Rise of America's Gun. The OP will for sure enjoy Chapter 12 "Ka-Boom" about how Glock has handled ADs.

Seems lucky to get their help on this. If it is a used gun the/a previous owner may have registered it with Glock...and as previously mentioned the case bag should have the born date...or the serial number would show about when it was made.

I too just purchased a new Glock 26 Gen 4 and got a quick lesson in hot brass to the face and "not our problem" from Glock customer service. Is now a Glock/Apex....

Just sayin, bad out of the box happens a lot...no matter what others may believe.

Again - good on ya for sharing the incident. Thank You. Gotta go look at my SERPA holsters now...

[INEEDMILK]

Originally Posted by cglaspel

Ok, talked to a Glock rep today. Glock replaced multiple parts. They informed me that it looked as if their was a trigger job done to it at some point in time. No other info from them on the issue though. I definitely did not do this...so it is for sure used. They said I should have my pistol back in 2 days though! So that is a plus.

So at this point in time I think I need to begin dealing with Fin Feather Fur in Ashland about selling me a used weapon as new.

I'm sorry, but this story still seems suspect. I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it is starting to seem more and more like bull****. Had the issue been holster-related I would have been more likely to believe it...

You say on page 5, "Also I had taken this pistol out a few days back and put about 150 rounds through it without any issue."

I want to you explain to me how you fired 150 rounds through your 23 without noticing that something was drastically different about your new Glock. And don't say "I thought it was just because it was a Gen4" like you said before. If the trigger was as light as you say, wouldn't have that been a cause for concern?

In your original post, you said that you inspected the Glock after the AD incident and it "seemed normal". You then say on page 2, "Also have field stripped and checked everything on the glock and it all seems to be perfect."

A trigger job that has removed so much material that a tiny bump can cause the pistol to fire would surely have been noticeable AND you would be easily able to recreate the incident. There is no miraculous angle that could have caused the gun to fire. The trigger is either so light that it either fires from being bumped, or does not.

So your story is that someone bought the gun from the store, did the .25 cent trigger job but did too much, then installed the firing pin safety spring sideways, then returned the gun, and then it was sold as new? And that is assuming that the partially tensioned striker still has the force to ignite a primer, which is debatable at best.

And then you fired at least 150 rounds through it without noticing anything different about the trigger or action?

How did you fire 150 rounds of .40 through this gun and not notice that the trigger was faulty?

And how did the gun fire if the firing pin safety spring was bent?

How was the firing pin safety able to move out of the way for the striker to engage?

Originally Posted by tonyparson

Its still going to be an uphill Battle. No lawyer will take the case on consignment. He will have to pay the fees out of his pocket and hope and pray he gets the money back. It's gone to be hard to prove the gun was sold to him like it was.

Exactly. 99% of stores have a no-return policy on firearms for EXACTLY THIS SPECIFIC REASON. Liability.

I think the OP bought a new gun, did the .25 trigger job, took too much off and decided to neglect it until it shot a hole in his wall.

[00Glazz]

Originally Posted by INEEDMILK

I'm sorry, but this story still seems suspect. I've been reading this thread from the beginning and it is starting to seem more and more like bull****. Had the issue been holster-related I would have been more likely to believe it...

You say on page 5, "Also I had taken this pistol out a few days back and put about 150 rounds through it without any issue."

I want to you explain to me how you fired 150 rounds through your 23 without noticing that something was drastically different about your new Glock. And don't say "I thought it was just because it was a Gen4" like you said before. If the trigger was as light as you say, wouldn't have that been a cause for concern?

In your original post, you said that you inspected the Glock after the AD incident and it "seemed normal". You then say on page 2, "Also have field stripped and checked everything on the glock and it all seems to be perfect."

A trigger job that has removed so much material that a tiny bump can cause the pistol to fire would surely have been noticeable AND you would be easily able to recreate the incident. There is no miraculous angle that could have caused the gun to fire. The trigger is either so light that it either fires from being bumped, or does not.

So your story is that someone bought the gun from the store, did the .25 cent trigger job but did too much, then installed the firing pin safety spring sideways, then returned the gun, and then it was sold as new? And that is assuming that the partially tensioned striker still has the force to ignite a primer, which is debatable at best.

And then you fired at least 150 rounds through it without noticing anything different about the trigger or action?

How did you fire 150 rounds of .40 through this gun and not notice that the trigger was faulty?

And how did the gun fire if the firing pin safety spring was bent?

How was the firing pin safety able to move out of the way for the striker to engage?




Exactly. 99% of stores have a no-return policy on firearms for EXACTLY THIS SPECIFIC REASON. Liability.

I think the OP bought a new gun, did the .25 trigger job, took too much off and decided to neglect it until it shot a hole in his wall.

To be honest at this point in time, If you somehow are still skeptical about this. Then there is nothing I can do or so for you to believe. As I have stated multiple times, I have not messed with this gun at all. If you want to continue to play detective and speculate etc thats fine. I really couldn't care less. I am just truly amazed that you really truly believe that I would go through all this trouble to fabricate something just for the hell of it.

It makes me very curious as to why you are very paranoid and think that its some big mystery... It really isnt quite that hard....as I have stated, I obviously was sold a used gun as new, PO messed it up and I am left with the aftermath.

No the pistol did not feel much different besides the fact that it was a lighter feeling trigger. I took it out to the range 2 times and fired a couple boxes through it for functionality etc and thats it. Did not have any issues whatsoever.

Yes when I took the pistol apart to clean it I did not notice anything wrong with it. I DID NOT put it under a microscope and search every nook and cranny to make sure everything was perfect because as far as I knew, this was a BRAND NEW GUN. Why would I??

My guess is the PO messed this up slightly, and my limited amount of rounds/carry possibly made the issue worse. This is not my only carry gun and definitely not my only range gun. So I hadnt taken it apart and micro-checked everything. That and I am not a Glock Armorer nor am I mechanically inclined to do trigger jobs etc.

Once again I would not waste my time with all of this for no reason...I am just a regular guy that bought a gun advertised NEW and ended up with a messed up Used gun instead, which then had an AD.

Feel free to keep speculating and trying to say I am BS-ing for the fun of it?

[tinstar-13]

Certainly glad no one was injured. A long story short. I did not like glocks, tried 2 of them and sold them. My department transitioned to glocks, sent me to Glock school. bought a gen 4 19. Had all kind of problems with it as someone was going to fix it up with trigger bars, springs, and connectors. Gun would not shoot. Replaced with GLOCK parts back to original. No problems. Had to carry the 19 in the front pocket of my overalls one day, tripped and flew up in the air, landed on my right front side. gun did not go off. Glocks are made to take a licking and keep on ticking. I feel your problem was either as your original update, used glock with after market parts, or possibly the holster. ' I LOVE GLOCKS.......IF GIRLS WERE GLOCKS, I WOULD KISS THEM ALL........"

[00Glazz]

I apologize to the rest of you for my somewhat agitated last post, I am just getting sick of these people continuing to be skeptical and saying im bullsh%$$#%^ you all for the fun of it. I mean come on, quit wasting my time with that. I have no reason to fabricate this.... I just don't get people.

[clarkz71]

Originally Posted by cglaspel

To be honest at this point in time, If you somehow are still skeptical about this. Then there is nothing I can do or so for you to believe. As I have stated multiple times, I have not messed with this gun at all. If you want to continue to play detective and speculate etc thats fine. I really couldn't care less. I am just truly amazed that you really truly believe that I would go through all this trouble to fabricate something just for the hell of it.

My guess is the PO messed this up slightly, and my limited amount of rounds/carry possibly made the issue worse. ?

I know for a fact there are gun shops that take in guns
on trade and if they "look" new, they'll put them out as new.

Say I buy a new G17 gen4. I get home and read about all
the BTF and eratic ejection problems. I say screw this and
I take the gun back to the LGS. Is he going to give me 100%
refund or full value to trade for anther gun? No, because
it's now used gun. No different then buying a new car, driving
down the road 5 miles and coming back to the dealer.

They can't sell it as new now, it's had it's first owner.
Only the first owner gets a new car, or gun

I for one believe the OP (cglaspel) that he was sold a used gun
as new and that the first owner modded the gun.