User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:00:50 AM EDT
[#1]
Wrong picture ..the sku is for a rail cover ...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:01:01 AM EDT
[#2]
SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 is for rail covers. looks like a mistake
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:02:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Are you guys serious. I just bit the bullet a purchased thinking it was troy sights. We will see when they arrive. Why are some of the prices what a troy rear sight would cost then?
Quoted: SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 is for rail covers. looks like a mistake |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:04:51 AM EDT
[#4]
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:22:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:24:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell Product Description
Troy Rear Tritium Folding Sights TRITIUM is a form of hydrogen that emits a continuous light source where using batteries or electricity is not possible. Target acquisition is made possible in low or no light conditions. - No limited sight orientation due to low light conditions - Front post is centered between two tritium points of reference to allow for proper alignment - Flat Dark Earth Note: Sight is designed to work on same plane rail systems only. Will not work with a railed gasblock that is higher or lower than the receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:25:43 AM EDT
[#7]
It says list price 165.00, it has a picture
 of the rear sight, the description says folding rear sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:33:00 AM EDT
[#8]
tag to see what OP really bought...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:34:17 AM EDT
[#9]
enjoy your new grips bro
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:34:44 AM EDT
[#10]
in for result
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:36:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell Product Description
Troy Rear Tritium Folding Sights TRITIUM is a form of hydrogen that emits a continuous light source where using batteries or electricity is not possible. Target acquisition is made possible in low or no light conditions. - No limited sight orientation due to low light conditions - Front post is centered between two tritium points of reference to allow for proper alignment - Flat Dark Earth Note: Sight is designed to work on same plane rail systems only. Will not work with a railed gasblock that is higher or lower than the receiver. Yes, I can read So if someone was selling this: 2012 Hyundai Accent SE The biggest news for the Genesis sedan comes from the addition of an entirely new performance model: the 5.0 R-Spec. This model features a brand-new 5.0-liter V8 that boasts 429 horsepower and 379 lb-ft of torque, making it the most powerful Hyundai engine ever produced.
To set it apart from the standard Genesis sedans, the R-Spec comes with unique 19-inch wheels with a premium machined finish, Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 summer performance tires, dark chrome headlamp inserts and unique R-Spec sport transmission, suspension and steering calibration settings. 
for $10, 500. Would you buy it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:36:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Fellow basement dwellers I will keep you updated.
It already shipped.  Should arrive sometime next week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:38:13 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(?  ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:39:39 AM EDT
[#14]
Remember when Amazon had PS3s for $30 each? So out of the hundreds here that ordered one or four ,how many of you geniuses actually got one for that price? None? shocking
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:41:32 AM EDT
[#15]
So their are two vendors selling at this price optics planet and Metroplex Trading Company.
Is it possible that both of them made the same mistake? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:41:48 AM EDT
[#16]
tag for outcome
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:47:28 AM EDT
[#17]
List Price: $164.00
Price: $34.57 You Save: $129.43 (79%) Hell of a typo here too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:47:45 AM EDT
[#18]
I got a great price on a Bushnell Elite Scope from amazon many years ago. I'm pretty sure it was an error on their part, but they honored the price.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:50:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Pic is wrong sight for Item model number: SSIG-FBS-RTFT-00
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:50:47 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Pic is wrong sight for Item model number: SSIG-FBS-RTFT-00 omg nobody knew |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:55:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Enjoy your new rail covers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:56:21 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:57:17 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:58:58 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: So their are two vendors selling at this price optics planet and Metroplex Trading Company. Is it possible that both of them made the same mistake? It's certainly possible that both are selling you airsoft knockoffs  I'd say it's unpossible that dealer cost on those sights is anywhere near $35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:59:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
... The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.So you have never seen a retailer place the wrong item for sale in their circular, only for them later to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we can't sell you _______ for $y.yy"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:01:06 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.So you have never seen a retailer place the wrong item for sale in their circular, only for them later to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we can't sell you _______ for $y.yy"? Yup, it happens. No said said it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:03:10 AM EDT
[#27]
The description is for a folding sight,that pic is a fixed sight. So actually out of the title, pic, and description none match up with each other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:06:28 AM EDT
[#28]
I contacted Optics Planet and let them know of their mistake (what any honest ADULT would do)
I also informed them that the ad has made its way onto internet forums, and to brace themselves for the upcoming temper tantrums when people try to scam them out of $120 worth of product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:06:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.So you have never seen a retailer place the wrong item for sale in their circular, only for them later to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we can't sell you _______ for $y.yy"? Yup, it happens. No said said it doesn't. Then what are you trying to get at? Do you expect amazon to sell the sight for $35 or do you expect them to say whoops, we made a mistake and cant honor the price? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:11:14 AM EDT
[#30]
FYI price is down to $18.99 from optics planet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:12:01 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
FYI price is down to $18.99 its $35 with shipping |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:14:18 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
FYI price is down to $18.99 from optics planet LOL fuck that |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:21:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Does it come with a pressure washer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:26:33 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pic is wrong sight for Item model number: SSIG-FBS-RTFT-00 omg nobody knew Yes SSIG-FBS-RTFT-00 is for the folding tritium sight, not the one pictured. Not talking about the rails. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:28:41 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.So you have never seen a retailer place the wrong item for sale in their circular, only for them later to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we can't sell you _______ for $y.yy"? Yup, it happens. No said said it doesn't. Then what are you trying to get at? Do you expect amazon to sell the sight for $35 or do you expect them to say whoops, we made a mistake and cant honor the price? Either one. What I do not expect is for someone buying it to be stuck with rail covers and out $35. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:30:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:33:30 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:33:58 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.So you have never seen a retailer place the wrong item for sale in their circular, only for them later to say "Sorry, we made a mistake, we can't sell you _______ for $y.yy"? Yup, it happens. No said said it doesn't. Then what are you trying to get at? Do you expect amazon to sell the sight for $35 or do you expect them to say whoops, we made a mistake and cant honor the price? Either one. What I do not expect is for someone buying it to be stuck with rail covers and out $35. LULZ. Are you trolling? It is the buyers responsibility to know what he is buying. Amazon does have a return policy. here |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:35:48 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. Again, this price is so outrageously low, it caused a thread to be created, no? It's well below what a reasonable person would believe to be cost, no? Then the buyer knew or should have known that there is some sort of error in the advertisement. You may not like it, but that's how this sort of thing works. You don't have to be a mind reader. You merely have to be capable of basic critical thinking. If your argument is that you lack that ability, good luck getting your sight or rail cover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:37:30 AM EDT
[#40]
It's probably counterfeit Chinese airsoft shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:40:20 AM EDT
[#41]
optics planet has the 3pk of rail covers for that price. that is obviously a screw up.
they show the sight for. 163.99 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:43:13 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. Again, this price is so outrageously low, it caused a thread to be created, no? It's well below what a reasonable person would believe to be cost, no? Then the buyer knew or should have known that there is some sort of error in the advertisement. You may not like it, but that's how this sort of thing works. You don't have to be a mind reader. You merely have to be capable of basic critical thinking. If your argument is that you lack that ability, good luck getting your sight or rail cover. What is reasonable? Selling things far below list price is common especially on Amazon. Search things like Invicta Watches or go on Steep and Cheap. Shit sells for far less every day. If OP gets a rail cover, he can ship it back on the seller's dime and get his money back. Blaming a buyer for a seller's fuck up is absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:47:28 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. Again, this price is so outrageously low, it caused a thread to be created, no? It's well below what a reasonable person would believe to be cost, no? Then the buyer knew or should have known that there is some sort of error in the advertisement. You may not like it, but that's how this sort of thing works. You don't have to be a mind reader. You merely have to be capable of basic critical thinking. If your argument is that you lack that ability, good luck getting your sight or rail cover. What is reasonable? Selling things far below list price is common especially on Amazon. Search things like Invicta Watches or go on Steep and Cheap. Shit sells for far less every day. If OP gets a rail cover, he can ship it back on the seller's dime and get his money back. Blaming a buyer for a seller's fuck up is absurd. Every intelligent poster in this thread has made mention of the fact that the SKU is not for the sight. Also that the descriptions within the advertisement are for both the sight and the rail covers. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that something is wrong. It is unreasonable to assume this is a sale and the contradictory wording within the ad is only there for fun. Notice how nearly everyone in this thread is reacting by saying "something is wrong" or even "that's the wrong SKU" or even yet "that price is way below cost?" Those are reasonable responses. "I'm gonna buy this now and scream bloody murder if they don't give me this sight for $36" is unreasonable. Again, you may not like it, but that's because you're being dishonest. Not because you genuinely believe Amazon wants to sell that sight for $36. Admit it. Do you really believe they intend to sell the sight for $36? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:53:57 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. Again, this price is so outrageously low, it caused a thread to be created, no? It's well below what a reasonable person would believe to be cost, no? Then the buyer knew or should have known that there is some sort of error in the advertisement. You may not like it, but that's how this sort of thing works. You don't have to be a mind reader. You merely have to be capable of basic critical thinking. If your argument is that you lack that ability, good luck getting your sight or rail cover. What is reasonable? Selling things far below list price is common especially on Amazon. Search things like Invicta Watches or go on Steep and Cheap. Shit sells for far less every day. If OP gets a rail cover, he can ship it back on the seller's dime and get his money back. Blaming a buyer for a seller's fuck up is absurd. Every intelligent poster in this thread has made mention of the fact that the SKU is not for the sight. Also that the descriptions within the advertisement are for both the sight and the rail covers. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that something is wrong. It is unreasonable to assume this is a sale and the contradictory wording within the ad is only there for fun. Notice how nearly everyone in this thread is reacting by saying "something is wrong" or even "that's the wrong SKU" or even yet "that price is way below cost?" Those are reasonable responses. "I'm gonna buy this now and scream bloody murder if they don't give me this sight for $36" is unreasonable. Again, you may not like it, but that's because you're being dishonest. Not because you genuinely believe Amazon wants to sell that sight for $36. Admit it. Do you really believe they intend to sell the sight for $36? If we are talking about honesty, do not misrepresent what I am saying. I do not know if they are intentionally selling that sight for that price. I don't even know what sight they are selling since the pictured sight is not selling for $165 to begin with. I am saying that the seller is responsible if they sell the OP a set of rail covers for $35. They can not send them and not charge him, or he can send them back at their cost and they can refund his money. As for the SKU, expecting the buyer to identify items by SKU is unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:57:55 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The description says it is for the sight. I would be raising hell if I got anything different. I would certainly save a screenshot. Why? The title says: Troy Grip Desert Tan Picatinny SCOV-BRC-30FT-00 oh right, not getting a $165 rear sight for $35 because of a misprint is a reason to raise hell The description and the picture both indicate a sight. That isn't a misprint.. and mispicture(? ) Might be a fuck up, in that case it is all on the seller.No it's not. The buyer knew or should have known there was an error. It isn't the buyer's duty to be a mind reader and uncover the real reason behind a seller's price. Again, this price is so outrageously low, it caused a thread to be created, no? It's well below what a reasonable person would believe to be cost, no? Then the buyer knew or should have known that there is some sort of error in the advertisement. You may not like it, but that's how this sort of thing works. You don't have to be a mind reader. You merely have to be capable of basic critical thinking. If your argument is that you lack that ability, good luck getting your sight or rail cover. What is reasonable? Selling things far below list price is common especially on Amazon. Search things like Invicta Watches or go on Steep and Cheap. Shit sells for far less every day. If OP gets a rail cover, he can ship it back on the seller's dime and get his money back. Blaming a buyer for a seller's fuck up is absurd. Every intelligent poster in this thread has made mention of the fact that the SKU is not for the sight. Also that the descriptions within the advertisement are for both the sight and the rail covers. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that something is wrong. It is unreasonable to assume this is a sale and the contradictory wording within the ad is only there for fun. Notice how nearly everyone in this thread is reacting by saying "something is wrong" or even "that's the wrong SKU" or even yet "that price is way below cost?" Those are reasonable responses. "I'm gonna buy this now and scream bloody murder if they don't give me this sight for $36" is unreasonable. Again, you may not like it, but that's because you're being dishonest. Not because you genuinely believe Amazon wants to sell that sight for $36. Admit it. Do you really believe they intend to sell the sight for $36? If we are talking about honesty, do not misrepresent what I am saying. I do not know if they are intentionally selling that sight for that price. I don't even know what sight they are selling since the pictured sight is not selling for $165 to begin with. I am saying that the seller is responsible if they sell the OP a set of rail covers for $35. They can not send them and not charge him, or he can send them back at their cost and they can refund his money. As for the SKU, expecting the buyer to identify items by SKU is unreasonable. I'm going to stop here, but you don't know what "reasonable" means in this context. And I didn't misrepresent anything. You have zero understanding of how contract law works in this type of transaction. Please look up "mutual mistake." It's not like I pulled out of my butt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 12:08:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
optics planet has the 3pk of rail covers for that price. that is obviously a screw up. they show the sight for. 163.99 lettuce be reality, they don't have ANYTHING |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 1:49:01 PM EDT
[#47]
I assumed the product was being discontinued because of lack of sales or maybe the retailer was liquidating this item.
My intent was not to "rip off the company" I remember someone posted a link to a handgun camera(don't remember the specific name) but it retailed for somewhere around $500.00 and was being discontinued and sold for somewhere around $100.00. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 1:51:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: I assumed the product was being discontinued because of lack of sales or maybe the retailer was liquidating this item. Really? Because I would assume it probably costs the company at least $35 to MAKE this product.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 5:09:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I assumed the product was being discontinued because of lack of sales or maybe the retailer was liquidating this item. My intent was not to "rip off the company" I remember someone posted a link to a handgun camera(don't remember the specific name) but it retailed for somewhere around $500.00 and was being discontinued and sold for somewhere around $100.00. 
don't you think if the troy sights were being discontinued you would have read it on here first? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/6/2012 5:17:46 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
