Yeah, it was from a dealer, but it was purchased at a show outside my normal "stomping" grounds and I don't recall his or his shop's name nor do I recall seeing him before. I didn't get the impression that was why they wanted the receipt though. The woman I spoke to said the amount I would be credited towards the new rifle would be based on what I paid on the SAR-8. I've been thinking about this alot, and I think I've come to disagree with that point of view.
I actually don't have a copy of their warranty in front of me, but I'm sure it states something to the effect that any defects in materials or manufacture will be repaired or the item replaced. They no longer have any parts to do the repair, and they no longer offer the gun so can't do a direct replacement. Since this is the case, I think I'm entitled to a like replacement from their catalog, whether or not I bought the defective gun as use. Here is the logic I am using to come to this conclusion:
- Both the SAR-8, when new, and the standard M1A are selling for approximately the same price.
- Because of the above, SAR-8 ~= M1A.
- If, instead of the SAR-8, I bought an M1A that had a defect that was for some reason unrepairable, I believe they would send me a new M1A without a problem. There would be no issues of me paying X amount of dollars between the price of a new M1A and what I paid on the used one.
- Similarly, if they still carried the SAR-8, and I had a defect that was unrepairable (say catastrophic failure of the receiver - if they still carried the SAR-8, I don't think a barrel replacement would be a problem), then I believe they would also replace by used (busted) SAR-8 with a new one without any argument.
It seems like the problem here arises out of the fact that the swap is for a totally new firearm. Because of this, they also need to offer a cash back option - after all, not everyone who bought an SAR-8 would be interested in the M1A as it is a different type of firearm. If someone was insisting on cash back, I can see where they would want the receipt - otherwise I could just make up an amount more than I actually paid. OTOH, according to their policy as stated to me so far, if I had known this going in, I could have sold it to a buddy for $2K, made a receipt, had him send it in, present the $2K receipt and get a refund based on that.
Since I would prefer replacement with a like firearm, of the approximate original value of the SAR-8, I think they should offer an even swap. For them to say that if the original owner sent the rifle in the same condition in, that he would get a new M1A without coughing up extra dough, but requiring me to put up an extra $300-400 is sort of silly - its the same rifle, and the warranty is not supposed to be different if you are the 1st or 100th owner.
I've also done some pricing research, and their numbers don't really add up to me... My price after BG check and tax was around $775. Woman at Springfield said the difference I'd need to pay would be $300-$400, putting their "price" on the M1A from $1075-$1175. Without much effort, I was able to find dealers selling these for $1025, and the Loaded model for $1200. So, Springfield is essentially "making" a profit off the value of my replacement, as it is obviously above even their dealer price, which I don't think is fair. I'd say their cost to build one of these is probably less than the $775 I paid for the SAR-8. Ignoring the receipt issue, if they are willing to write me a check for $775, for which their cost would obviously be $775, then they should be willing to send me a new rifle as well, being that their cost would most likely be no more than the amount of the check. However, on my end, it is a difference of just getting back what I originally paid (minimum level of expectation given their warranty) vs. getting a great deal on an M1A and being a very happy camper and extolling the virtues of SA far and wide.
Any more opinions on this? Am I being reasonable here, or expecting/asking too much? Is my logic flawed? I feel the receipt issue is really hurting me, as it is asking them to make two concessions instead of just haggling over the price vs. cost issues. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to find it, so I fear it is lost for good.
Please share your thoughts, all, as I intend to call back at some point today.
Thanks again,
Rocko