AK Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - In Range from AIM (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/12/2009 6:06:27 PM EDT
|
Hey guys this is my first post finally found a suitable email account. I appreciate all of the advice and knowledge on the boards. I recently bought a In-Range from AIM. Has anybody that bought one had extensive scuff marks on the furniture? Mine's beat up pretty badly. I've had the gun for about a week now and after seeing some of the guns posted there furniture is in a lot better condition than mine. I haven't contacted AIM but I'm thinking about it. What would u do. I'd post pics but camera is down. I'll try later.
Thanks, Mike |
| Mine is the same way. It has some wear on it for sure, oil didn't help anything. I talked to In-range and he said for some reason TGI repackages the kvar stocks. They told me they brought it to TGI's attention a long time ago and they decided not to do anything about it. |
My TGI has some scuffs as well.... Shoot the piss out of it and understand it's a tool... that's what I'm doing with mine. At first I wasn't happy with the finish but after thinking about moly coating it I have decided against doing it... (Thanks Rube for your valuable insight into the process) I'm just going to make it a woods shooter destined to get dinged up.. but I will enjoy it none the less! I will post pics of my first hog taken with this varminter
|
|
Quoted: have you wiped it down with a oily rag? they were shipped to inrange in cardboard and most had cardboard scuffs that wiped right off with a oily rag, try it, if that doesn;t do it, IM me Bryan, with all due respect, if the only thing these scuffed stocks needed was a 30-second wipe-down with an oily rag, then why was that not done before being sent to the end buyer? I've now seen several threads where people have stated they bought an In-Range gun with a scuffed stock. This is a problem, because when you buy an In-Range product, there is a certain quality expectation, and that expectation includes a stock that looks like what a new stock should look like. My In-Range rifle was supposed to have been here today, but for some reason it didn't arrive. When it does arrive tomorrow, if the stock is scuffed and a QUICK wipe with an oily rag doesn't fix it, I'm not even going to leave the store with it. If the stock is scuffed, then the rifle should never have been shipped, and it will go right back from where it came without me taking possession of it. I'm not going to pay $35 in transfer and background-check fees only so that I can ship the rifle right back the next day. SOMEONE (either TGI, In-Range or AIM) needed to put their foot down, and fix this issue before shipping rifles to end users. ETA: Check out the stock in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=122497 . That stock ain't what a new In-Range rifle stock is supposed to look like. And I know some of you think, "Who cares, big deal?". Well, for those of us who are also collectors and not just shooters (and who also don't appreciate being sent defective rifle components), in fact it IS a big deal. The rifle in that picture should have never been shipped to the end buyer with the stock looking like it does. I'm glad he was happy with it. If that was my rifle, I'd be pissed. |
| its my knowledge that In-Range has nothing to do with these stocks aside from putting them on the gun. the stocks are not an IR product and therefor they had no control how scuffed they get prior to arrival. the problem/prevention of the scufffed stocks has been addressed by IR with the supplier and a solution to preventing this in the future has been found....thats what i have heard |
|
Quoted: its my knowledge that In-Range has nothing to do with these stocks aside from putting them on the gun. the stocks are not an IR product and therefor they had no control how scuffed they get prior to arrival. the problem/prevention of the scufffed stocks has been addressed by IR with the supplier and a solution to preventing this in the future has been found....thats what i have heard Well, that's a good thing...for future buyers. But that doesn't really help the people who already ordered one. And the fact that they understand these chewed-up stocks are a problem and unacceptable in that condition, only makes it all the more outrageous that ANY rifles with scuffed stocks got shipped. Instead of doing the right thing and replacing the chewed-up stocks with new ones, they just sent them to customers anyway, presumably hoping that only a few people would complain about it. Sorry, but I work too hard for my money to accept a rifle that even the manufacturer itself knows is not acceptable. IF I get a rifle with a scuffed stock tomorrow, it's going right back on the UPS truck. (And at this point, I'm not too hopeful that my stock will look any different, given that several people seem to have received scuffed rifles. If by some miracle of God I got an unscuffed one, I will immediately report that here. But if it IS scuffed, you'll certainly hear about that too.) |
you're absolutely right! you should be disgusted if your $600 museum quality piece arrives with a scuffed stock.  by all means you should send it back and perhaps get the 'real deal' $600 WASR10 from a cpl months ago and be much happier about it. AIM has stated numerous times that they would fix any problems, afterall it is just a butt stock that can be changed or swapped out, never mind the outstanding quality of the rest of the weapon right? so send it back, if i can come up wiht the extra cash id be glad to buy another considering the quality of the build.
|
|
Quoted: you're absolutely right! you should be disgusted if your $600 museum quality piece arrives with a scuffed stock. by all means you should send it back and perhaps get the 'real deal' $600 WASR10 from a cpl months ago and be much happier about it. AIM has stated numerous times that they would fix any problems, afterall it is just a butt stock that can be changed or swapped out, never mind the outstanding quality of the rest of the weapon right? so send it back, if i can come up wiht the extra cash id be glad to buy another considering the quality of the build.Carbineking, no one said anything about a museum quality piece or WASRs. Well, no one except you. (Why do so many people on Arfcom love strawman arguments?!?) All I said was that a brand new rifle, advertised as having brand new furniture, should in fact show up with brand new furniture that does not show signs of defects. I also said that if that rifle is knowingly sent out in any lesser condition than advertised, then yes, that presents a little bit of a problem for the companies involved. If you really find that to be an unreasonable opinion to hold, then I would conclude you have low standards. Which is fine. You are absolutely entitled to have lower standards. But you really should not be surprised that some people want exactly what they paid for and what was advertised, the first time it is sent to them. But, your low standards aren't entirely a bad thing. After all, if it wasn't for people like you, half the companies in this industry would have gone belly-up years ago!
|
| and if it werent for whiners such as yourself, perhaps you'd realize these AK's are indeed a tool and are far from a factory build. but i suspect soemone as yourself will simply hang a firearm behind glass and never use it as intended anyway, so that gives you the right to chastise, criticize and whine. i hope you do send your gun back so someone that can enjoy and will appreciate gets it. anything else you need to be corrected on, please send me in a PM in order to keep this thread relatively clean. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
have you wiped it down with a oily rag? they were shipped to inrange in cardboard and most had cardboard scuffs that wiped right off with a oily rag, try it, if that doesn;t do it, IM me Bryan, with all due respect, if the only thing these scuffed stocks needed was a 30-second wipe-down with an oily rag, then why was that not done before being sent to the end buyer? I've now seen several threads where people have stated they bought an In-Range gun with a scuffed stock. This is a problem, because when you buy an In-Range product, there is a certain quality expectation, and that expectation includes a stock that looks like what a new stock should look like. My In-Range rifle was supposed to have been here today, but for some reason it didn't arrive. When it does arrive tomorrow, if the stock is scuffed and a QUICK wipe with an oily rag doesn't fix it, I'm not even going to leave the store with it. If the stock is scuffed, then the rifle should never have been shipped, and it will go right back from where it came without me taking possession of it. I'm not going to pay $35 in transfer and background-check fees only so that I can ship the rifle right back the next day. SOMEONE (either TGI, In-Range or AIM) needed to put their foot down, and fix this issue before shipping rifles to end users. ETA: Check out the stock in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=122497 . That stock ain't what a new In-Range rifle stock is supposed to look like. And I know some of you think, "Who cares, big deal?". Well, for those of us who are also collectors and not just shooters (and who also don't appreciate being sent defective rifle components), in fact it IS a big deal. The rifle in that picture should have never been shipped to the end buyer with the stock looking like it does. I'm glad he was happy with it. If that was my rifle, I'd be pissed. For what its worth, my Bulgarian plum furniture was shipped to me in bags from apex, and it had some scuffs on it, but big deal? Its just going to get them anyways, plus I think the material or just how they are finished promotes this to happen - other plastics dont scuff like that. Anyways - when they are shipped in cardboard boxes to the person I am sure thats when they could or were scratched, so whats the point of the guys at AIM cleaning them up if its just going to happen again on the way there? |
| the stock like that one in the picture is the EXACT kind that cleans up with a oily rag, if it doesn't call me, the reason i didn't oil them up is they come in a new soft case, which will be nasty if i do that. honestly, i would rather not carry these anymore, its easier to sell surplus stuff for me than to make $60 that i do on these. |
|
Quoted: Just wanted to point out that the rifle pictured on AIM's website has a scuffed stock, if that's what you got then you got what was advertised. That advert also says, "New US made K-VAR Plum synthetic furniture." Can you honestly tell me that if you ordered a "new US made K-VAR Plum synthetic furniture" directly from K-var itself, and it showed up all scuffed, you would actually keep it instead of sending it back? I wouldn't. |
| I was a little bummed about the stock, but I will shoot the piss out of this rifle so it doesn't bother me to much. I may eventually replace it with a black set anyways. The plum is cool and all....but I like my guns evil and black. Also threw around the option of throwing a side folder on. |
|
Quoted: and if it werent for whiners such as yourself, perhaps you'd realize these AK's are indeed a tool and are far from a factory build. but i suspect soemone as yourself will simply hang a firearm behind glass and never use it as intended anyway, so that gives you the right to chastise, criticize and whine. i hope you do send your gun back so someone that can enjoy and will appreciate gets it. anything else you need to be corrected on, please send me in a PM in order to keep this thread relatively clean. What does being a "tool" or a "factory build", have to do with receiving new furniture that actually looks new? (That's called a "non-sequitur". You're now 2 for 2 on the logical fallacies. Congrats! Learn that at Harvard, did ya?) And what gives me the right to "chastize, criticize and whine" (otherwise known to most reasonable people as "wanting what I paid for"), is that I paid for "new US made K-VAR Plum synthetic furniture", and I expect to recieve that. Again, I find it more than a little peculiar that you're actually arguing that I should not get what I paid for. What an odd position to take. Tell me, if you bought a new car today, and it had a big ol' scratch down the side, would you just shrug your shoulders and conclude, "Oh well...it's a tool. It's just gonna get scratched anyway." Or would you complain to the dealer, on the basis that a new car should not have that type of defect? Well, given your low standards, I suspect I know how you would answer that question. But I also know how other people would answer it. And most would NOT be ok with it. And rightly so. But as I said before, you are entitled to subscribe to low standards. Just don't expect that other people will set the bar as low as you apparently do. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
and if it werent for whiners such as yourself, perhaps you'd realize these AK's are indeed a tool and are far from a factory build. but i suspect soemone as yourself will simply hang a firearm behind glass and never use it as intended anyway, so that gives you the right to chastise, criticize and whine. i hope you do send your gun back so someone that can enjoy and will appreciate gets it. anything else you need to be corrected on, please send me in a PM in order to keep this thread relatively clean. What does being a "tool" or a "factory build", have to do with receiving new furniture that actually looks new? (That's called a "non-sequitur". You're now 2 for 2 on the logical fallacies. Congrats! Learn that at Harvard, did ya?) And what gives me the right to "chastize, criticize and whine" (otherwise known to most reasonable people as "wanting what I paid for"), is that I paid for "new US made K-VAR Plum synthetic furniture", and I expect to recieve that. Again, I find it more than a little peculiar that you're actually arguing that I should not get what I paid for. What an odd position to take. Tell me, if you bought a new car today, and it had a big ol' scratch down the side, would you just shrug your shoulders and conclude, "Oh well...it's a tool. It's just gonna get scratched anyway." Or would you complain to the dealer, on the basis that a new car should not have that type of defect? Well, given your low standards, I suspect I know how you would answer that question. But I also know how other people would answer it. And most would NOT be ok with it. And rightly so.
But as I said before, you are entitled to subscribe to low standards. Just don't expect that other people will set the bar as low as you apparently do. I am sure this will fall on deaf ears because people like you just don't understand, but I will put it out there on the off chance that you will look at things from a fair, reasonable perspective. These rifles are an OUTSTANDING value. The pictures show exactly what kind of furniture you will be receiving, and even so, they are a great value. The only "NEW" rifles in the US are from Arsenal. So if you are a collector and expect a weapon that arrives in pristine condition you should have purchased this, plain a simple. Do you expect a WASR to arrive in pristine condition? No, because it is unreasonable to do so. The same holds true with these guns from AIM. Bryan has given an excellent value for the average shooter, and now he is reconsidering this because of picky customers who want something that is perfect, and want it for the bargain bin price. That is NOT reality. Basically if you expect perfection you have to PAY for it. Don't shop on a Pabst Blue Ribbon budget and expect to get Dom Perignon. |
|
Quoted:
the stock like that one in the picture is the EXACT kind that cleans up with a oily rag, if it doesn't call me, the reason i didn't oil them up is they come in a new soft case, which will be nasty if i do that. honestly, i would rather not carry these anymore, its easier to sell surplus stuff for me than to make $60 that i do on these. Bryan, instead of spending hours dealing with unsatisfied customers who have unreasonable expectations, perhaps you can add some sort of disclaimer about no returns unless there are functioning problems? Finish and furniture should not be covered in your warranty or customer service on rifles like these. I think a few irrational customers are ruining it for the reasonable customers, and I am sorry for that. Please don't let the minority of crybabies take the values you offer away for the rest of us! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: and if it werent for whiners such as yourself, perhaps you'd realize these AK's are indeed a tool and are far from a factory build. but i suspect soemone as yourself will simply hang a firearm behind glass and never use it as intended anyway, so that gives you the right to chastise, criticize and whine. i hope you do send your gun back so someone that can enjoy and will appreciate gets it. anything else you need to be corrected on, please send me in a PM in order to keep this thread relatively clean. What does being a "tool" or a "factory build", have to do with receiving new furniture that actually looks new? (That's called a "non-sequitur". You're now 2 for 2 on the logical fallacies. Congrats! Learn that at Harvard, did ya?) And what gives me the right to "chastize, criticize and whine" (otherwise known to most reasonable people as "wanting what I paid for"), is that I paid for "new US made K-VAR Plum synthetic furniture", and I expect to recieve that. Again, I find it more than a little peculiar that you're actually arguing that I should not get what I paid for. What an odd position to take. Tell me, if you bought a new car today, and it had a big ol' scratch down the side, would you just shrug your shoulders and conclude, "Oh well...it's a tool. It's just gonna get scratched anyway." Or would you complain to the dealer, on the basis that a new car should not have that type of defect? Well, given your low standards, I suspect I know how you would answer that question. But I also know how other people would answer it. And most would NOT be ok with it. And rightly so. But as I said before, you are entitled to subscribe to low standards. Just don't expect that other people will set the bar as low as you apparently do. I am sure this will fall on deaf ears because people like you just don't understand, but I will put it out there on the off chance that you will look at things from a fair, reasonable perspective. These rifles are an OUTSTANDING value. The pictures show exactly what kind of furniture you will be receiving, and even so, they are a great value. The only "NEW" rifles in the US are from Arsenal. So if you are a collector and expect a weapon that arrives in pristine condition you should have purchased this, plain a simple. Do you expect a WASR to arrive in pristine condition? No, because it is unreasonable to do so. The same holds true with these guns from AIM. Bryan has given an excellent value for the average shooter, and now he is reconsidering this because of picky customers who want something that is perfect, and want it for the bargain bin price. That is NOT reality. Basically if you expect perfection you have to PAY for it. Don't shop on a Pabst Blue Ribbon budget and expect to get Dom Perignon. I'll repeat this again for the learning-impaired: Yes, I know that the kit this rifle was built from, was not new. But we're not talking about the kit, are we? We're talking about the furniture. And the furniture was advertised as new. As in, "not used". Still with me? Good. Now, as has been established, the furniture has a defect. It has been claimed that an oily rag will fix the defect, but I've now seen three people claim otherwise. Yes, I might expect some possible defects on the kit, because as you correctly mentioned, the kit is not new. But the furniture IS new, and thus, it should not have defects. I'm shocked that you find this argument unreasonable. You are basically arguing that if I order a rifle with new furniture, I should not reasonably expect that rifle to show up with furniture in new condition. Uhhhhh.....ok.  And can you explain to me why - if this is not an issue at all - all involved parties have reportedly made efforts to fix the problem going forward? Because according to you, there is no problem to fix. Which, by logical implication, must mean that EVERYONE ELSE just "imagined" that there was a problem. Troy Sellars, TGI, AIM, the people who have complained about this...they are ALL imagining this! But you...you know better! You know there is no problem AT ALL. Everyone else is hallucinating, right? Yeah, not very convincing, guy.Everything else you wrote is irrelevent, and an obfuscation of the simple, entirely reasonable point I made about new furniture showing up in new condition. Especially irrelevent was your silly comparison of an In-Range rifle to a WASR. (Yes, in fact I DO have different expectations when receiving a WASR vs. an In-Range rifle. Most people would. Just like most people would expect new furniture, to look like new furniture.) Hopefully, this is all a moot point, as Bryan said he would take care of it. I'm assuming he will do that when I call later. I'll likely either need a new stock, or the rifle will need to go back. |
| I had purchased the rifle before the pics were placed on the website. Just wanted to point that out. I did not want to cause a circus by posting this. I buy from AIM because of quality products with outstanding customer service. Bryan responded and had a solution immediately. This is why I buy from AIM. I can't understand why users on this site start name calling etc... Yes I'm going to beat this rifle up but if there is a day when I need to sell it for my family what have you. I want the resale value to be there. In not angry with my situation, not whining, just want what I paid for and have seen on other rifles. |
|
Well hey, he's mostly right here. Yes it's a kit build, but it says clearly that the furniture is NEW US MADE K-VAR PLUM. If you purchased a NEW set of K-VAR plum (and I have, 3 times now), would you expect a set which is scuffed to hell? No way. Why should you expect that on a new rifle with NEW KVAR plum?
The ad should have said "Kit build with slightly scuffed k-var plum", but it does not, does it. Now if this were original plum, then by all means scuffed is good. But new US made furniture? No way. But one more thing I should mention, is that plum may LOOK scuffed when it isn't and thats where wiping it down with oil makes it look "right". I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about scuffs, dings, nicks, and scratches. Shiny spots do not count as scuffs. |
|
I am gonna play both sides here.
I bought a Bushy M4 A3 from AIM that was a complete pile of cosmetic garbage. AIM of course is not at fault, it would be Bushmaster in this case. I called Bushmaster to get their CS to deal with giving me a new rifle and they did just that. I thought AIM would have overlooked the rifle before selling it but they did not, that does not mean they are in the wrong IMHO. On the other side of the coin when I see someone buy something that is listed as new and it is everything but that I would be pissed off too, just because it's an AK does not dismiss the fact that it was sold as new and if it is fucked up then I am sure AIM will take care of them like they always do. But I find it amazing that some people want to argue over everyone's interpretation of what is new and what is not. If it was stated as new like it was, then it should be in new condition. I am a collector and a shooter, but by no means would I put something that is less than described into my safe if I was buying it because it was new. It is not like we are dealing with a surplus rifle that has been around for years, comon the stock is new fucking production and if it doesn't look new then why is everyone crawling up this guys ass 
Just because some of you have lower standards does not mean we have to stoop to your level and collect garbage. If the man wants a new rifle and that is what he knowingly purchased then he should receive just that. BTW StephenNW I like your scenario of buying a new car and it having a scratch on it, perfect example. AIM will take care of you regardless as I am sure you already know. |
|
Quoted:
the stock like that one in the picture is the EXACT kind that cleans up with a oily rag, if it doesn't call me, the reason i didn't oil them up is they come in a new soft case, which will be nasty if i do that. honestly, i would rather not carry these anymore, its easier to sell surplus stuff for me than to make $60 that i do on these. The picture posted is mine.. I would have preferred an unmarred stock set, but am not overly upset by the scuffing. I have wiped down the entire gun with CLP and the scuffs are still visible. I also bought mine before there were any pictures available. All that having been said.. Bryan was extremely helpful with my order and gave me a great discount on some surplus ammo and magazines. given the option i'd rather have that discount extended to some more ammo from Aim rather than an unblemished stock (: |
|
Quoted: Quoted: some people just dont deserve to own guns..out! So when are you donating all yours  And a BIG +1. And thanks Mykrowyre and Halflife for chiming in here. All I ever said, was that I want NEW furniture, to look like NEW furniture. The NERVE of me, right?!? It's amazing that the peanut gallery here acts like I might be the person with unreasonable expectations?!? WTF?!? And you're right Mykrowry...if people bought "new" furniture from K-Var directly, and it showed up looking like the "new" furniture on my In-Range, there's no way in hell anyone but a chump would actually keep that furniture and not send it back to K-Var. And yet, once that furniture is put on a rifle, people all of a sudden think it's ok for the "new" furniture to be scuffed. I think some of the folks on here must be UAW guys? 
|
|
if aim is taking care of everything then could everyone please take a seat and stfu. $250 bulgarian 74 kit + $200 professional build + $200 park and gunkote finish + $29 tapco fcg + 1 free k-var stock set with scratches = 1 super good fucking deal! let's not even talk about the $20 $15 $10 mag deal extended to us by bryan..... PLEASE! |
|
Quoted:
I am gonna play both sides here. I bought a Bushy M4 A3 from AIM that was a complete pile of cosmetic garbage. AIM of course is not at fault, it would be Bushmaster in this case. I called Bushmaster to get their CS to deal with giving me a new rifle and they did just that. I thought AIM would have overlooked the rifle before selling it but they did not, that does not mean they are in the wrong IMHO. On the other side of the coin when I see someone buy something that is listed as new and it is everything but that I would be pissed off too, just because it's an AK does not dismiss the fact that it was sold as new and if it is fucked up then I am sure AIM will take care of them like they always do. But I find it amazing that some people want to argue over everyone's interpretation of what is new and what is not. If it was stated as new like it was, then it should be in new condition. I am a collector and a shooter, but by no means would I put something that is less than described into my safe if I was buying it because it was new. It is not like we are dealing with a surplus rifle that has been around for years, comon the stock is new fucking production and if it doesn't look new then why is everyone crawling up this guys ass
Just because some of you have lower standards does not mean we have to stoop to your level and collect garbage. If the man wants a new rifle and that is what he knowingly purchased then he should receive just that. BTW StephenNW I like your scenario of buying a new car and it having a scratch on it, perfect example. AIM will take care of you regardless as I am sure you already know. No, this is like paying a used car price and expecting a new car. The rifle is $600 and comes with a case, so really more like $570 if the case is decent. If a consumer wants a pristine rifle, buy an ARSENAL and pony up. Even then, you may not get perfection. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am gonna play both sides here. I bought a Bushy M4 A3 from AIM that was a complete pile of cosmetic garbage. AIM of course is not at fault, it would be Bushmaster in this case. I called Bushmaster to get their CS to deal with giving me a new rifle and they did just that. I thought AIM would have overlooked the rifle before selling it but they did not, that does not mean they are in the wrong IMHO. On the other side of the coin when I see someone buy something that is listed as new and it is everything but that I would be pissed off too, just because it's an AK does not dismiss the fact that it was sold as new and if it is fucked up then I am sure AIM will take care of them like they always do. But I find it amazing that some people want to argue over everyone's interpretation of what is new and what is not. If it was stated as new like it was, then it should be in new condition. I am a collector and a shooter, but by no means would I put something that is less than described into my safe if I was buying it because it was new. It is not like we are dealing with a surplus rifle that has been around for years, comon the stock is new fucking production and if it doesn't look new then why is everyone crawling up this guys ass
Just because some of you have lower standards does not mean we have to stoop to your level and collect garbage. If the man wants a new rifle and that is what he knowingly purchased then he should receive just that. BTW StephenNW I like your scenario of buying a new car and it having a scratch on it, perfect example. AIM will take care of you regardless as I am sure you already know. No, this is like paying a used car price and expecting a new car. The rifle is $600 and comes with a case, so really more like $570 if the case is decent. If a consumer wants a pristine rifle, buy an ARSENAL and pony up. Even then, you may not get perfection. StephenNW scenario makes pefect sense to me, if not for you well then.......it is what it is. If it was advertised as new then it needs to be new, and as I said before you shoud accept the fact that some of us want what we have paid for regardless of price. All the extra freebies in the world don't make up for a stock in shitty cosmetic condition when it is suppose to be new. Some of us don't collect garbage....do you 
|
I can't shoot my rife right now because it is dark and raining outside...
I think StephenNW makes perfect sense and all the others who are not in his boat wanna play the role as if "this is what I would do if I were in his shoes", which none of them are. Truth be told the only ones who are getting butt hurt and acting a fool are those who seem to tell him there is nothing wrong with his rifle. It's one thing to talk about your money..... and a whole different ball game to tell someone how to spend theirs. I understand and know first hand that AIM is a great business no questions asked, and Bryan will take care you of course......but too many of you guys have your lips stuck to his ass. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am gonna play both sides here. I bought a Bushy M4 A3 from AIM that was a complete pile of cosmetic garbage. AIM of course is not at fault, it would be Bushmaster in this case. I called Bushmaster to get their CS to deal with giving me a new rifle and they did just that. I thought AIM would have overlooked the rifle before selling it but they did not, that does not mean they are in the wrong IMHO. On the other side of the coin when I see someone buy something that is listed as new and it is everything but that I would be pissed off too, just because it's an AK does not dismiss the fact that it was sold as new and if it is fucked up then I am sure AIM will take care of them like they always do. But I find it amazing that some people want to argue over everyone's interpretation of what is new and what is not. If it was stated as new like it was, then it should be in new condition. I am a collector and a shooter, but by no means would I put something that is less than described into my safe if I was buying it because it was new. It is not like we are dealing with a surplus rifle that has been around for years, comon the stock is new fucking production and if it doesn't look new then why is everyone crawling up this guys ass
Just because some of you have lower standards does not mean we have to stoop to your level and collect garbage. If the man wants a new rifle and that is what he knowingly purchased then he should receive just that. BTW StephenNW I like your scenario of buying a new car and it having a scratch on it, perfect example. AIM will take care of you regardless as I am sure you already know. No, this is like paying a used car price and expecting a new car. The rifle is $600 and comes with a case, so really more like $570 if the case is decent. If a consumer wants a pristine rifle, buy an ARSENAL and pony up. Even then, you may not get perfection. StephenNW scenario makes pefect sense to me, if not for you well then.......it is what it is. If it was advertised as new then it needs to be new, and as I said before you shoud accept the fact that some of us want what we have paid for regardless of price. All the extra freebies in the world don't make up for a stock in shitty cosmetic condition when it is suppose to be new. Some of us don't collect garbage....do you Nope, I don't collect anything, I use my stuff 
|
|
I can't really say anything about being picky because I sent a gun back, The stock finish was the least of my worries. That particular rifle had pretty noticeable FSB cant so I returned it and the one I got in return was very very nice. The stock has a few imperfections, but not that bad. I was not really worried about the stocks condition because this is a great deal regardless. However, I can definitely see where you guys are coming from about the stock situation. It does say "new" KVAR plum stock set.
If these threads keep popping up I have a feeling AIM will no longer carry these. If he is only making 60$ each off of these I doubt it is worth the trouble, Here are pictures of mine: 
It isn't that bad. I would rather have these in this condition than a mint crapco set. |
| the big problem i see is all 50 guns we have received have stocks like these, we all know the stocks are new production they were never issued, they are not cracked, they aren't chewed up, its just the material they are made of scuffs up like this. i can't change the material, i don;t put them together so i'm not sure why these don't look like the plum stocks you guys have seen from Kvar. i talked to kvar today and they confirmed they came from them. so we will go to tapco stocks after these batches, the material they use doesn't do this. Anybody not happy with there gun i will send a call tag to pick it up, and give you a refund, or you can trade out for a tapco stock set instead of the plum kvar set. |
|
Quoted: I can't shoot my rife right now because it is dark and raining outside... I think StephenNW makes perfect sense and all the others who are not in his boat wanna play the role as if "this is what I would do if I were in his shoes", which none of them are. Truth be told the only ones who are getting butt hurt and acting a fool are those who seem to tell him there is nothing wrong with his rifle. It's one thing to talk about your money..... and a whole different ball game to tell someone how to spend theirs. I understand and know first hand that AIM is a great business no questions asked, and Bryan will take care you of course......but too many of you guys have your lips stuck to his ass. Thanks. And as you will see in an hour or two after I eat dinner, the In-Range rifle I picked up today had more problems than just the stock. Against my better judgement, I took it home from my FFL to at least "give it a once over" before making any hasty judgments to send it back right upon delivery. But nah. I shoulda sent it right back. There are several problems with it. I will post a LONG post, with pictures, in a couple hours. P.S. I know that AIM is a stand-up business, and Bryan is a stand-up guy. I've done business with them before, and have been happy. But the rifle they sent me this time, should have never left their store. Like I said, I'll issue a new post in a couple hours with details. |
|
you guys are bitching about a scuff on the buttstock? Go buy some NIB Barbie Dolls..
seriously, its pathetic. No wonder some guys would rather close up shop. Isnt worth the hassle of dealing with the State regs, the feds/ATF to turn a few bucks per firearm. I have bought brand new furn sets DIRECT from ARSENAL and even they sometimes have "scuff" marks (as your pictures show)... most of the time its just a shiny spot on the plastic. |
|
Quoted:
you guys are bitching about a scuff on the buttstock? Go buy some NIB Barbie Dolls.. seriously, its pathetic. No wonder some guys would rather close up shop. Isnt worth the hassle of dealing with the State regs, the feds/ATF to turn a few bucks per firearm. I have bought brand new furn sets DIRECT from ARSENAL and even they sometimes have "scuff" marks (as your pictures show)... most of the time its just a shiny spot on the plastic. Yup. When you have a matte finish on polymer, any friction will rub into a smooth spot, which is what is happening with the KVAR stocks. The same happens with metal too. If the shiny spots REALLY bother someone that much a once over with a scotchbrite pad will return the spots to a matte finish. Sand blasting will also work. The TAPCO stocks are fugly in my opinion, and it's a shame that they are being considered over the KVAR stuff because of the nature of their texture. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't shoot my rife right now because it is dark and raining outside...
I think StephenNW makes perfect sense and all the others who are not in his boat wanna play the role as if "this is what I would do if I were in his shoes", which none of them are. Truth be told the only ones who are getting butt hurt and acting a fool are those who seem to tell him there is nothing wrong with his rifle. It's one thing to talk about your money..... and a whole different ball game to tell someone how to spend theirs. I understand and know first hand that AIM is a great business no questions asked, and Bryan will take care you of course......but too many of you guys have your lips stuck to his ass. Thanks. And as you will see in an hour or two after I eat dinner, the In-Range rifle I picked up today had more problems than just the stock. Against my better judgement, I took it home from my FFL to at least "give it a once over" before making any hasty judgments to send it back right upon delivery. But nah. I shoulda sent it right back. There are several problems with it. I will post a LONG post, with pictures, in a couple hours. P.S. I know that AIM is a stand-up business, and Bryan is a stand-up guy. I've done business with them before, and have been happy. But the rifle they sent me this time, should have never left their store. Like I said, I'll issue a new post in a couple hours with details. What a shocker you aren't satisfied 
|
|
Quoted:
There are already 40 posts discussing why some people are upset about the stocks. I understand completely, but I am not as picky about the stock as some are. I was more worried about a straight sight and a good finish. Furniture is easily replaced. Agreed, straight sights and a good finish are important. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - In Range from AIM (Page 1 of 2)
AK Sponsor