Defective pistol sold to me on GunBroker - Page 2

dogtown tom · July 25, 2014, 09:38 PM

Quote:

amd6547 If your "gunsmith" suggested epoxy as the only alternative, he is not much of a gunsmith. In fact, it makes me think he is responsible.

Nailed it.
All real gunsmiths use JB Weld.

peggysue · July 26, 2014, 04:31 AM

The gunsmith I use could fabricate new part pretty easy out of steel. maybe find a different one if yours can't fix it.

cjwils · July 26, 2014, 08:35 AM

Be careful about leaving negative feedback against the seller on Gunbroker. I did that once. Then, purely out of spite, the seller left negative feedback against me. He had previously given me an A+, which he changed to a D after I gave him a D (which he deserved, but that is a long story).

gyvel · July 26, 2014, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Be careful about leaving negative feedback against the seller on Gunbroker. I did that once. Then, purely out of spite, the seller left negative feedback against me. He had previously given me an A+, which he changed to a D after I gave him a D (which he deserved, but that is a long story).

I recently asked GB about maybe instituting a policy similar to eBay's regarding retaliatory feedback, and this is the reply I got:

Quote:

7/11/2014 4:39:23 PM
GBSupport1111 We will review a situations upon a users request.
7/11/2014 11:39:36 AM
How about considering a policy to prevent retaliatory feedback?

Which makes me believe they really don't give a rat's butt, but you can try contacting them about it.

Sid · July 26, 2014, 12:57 PM

I wrote to the seller yesterday morning and he did not respond. So late last night I posted a complaint. In the complaint you are limited to 200 words. So I just wrote that my gun smith had determined the pistol to be be defective.

This morning I received an email from the seller. He said that he would be willing to pay for the repair. I replied that the pistol could not be repaired and I wanted a refund. I am waiting to see what he does now.

It seems that the complaint was a wake up call for him. In the past he simply ignored 2 other emails I had sent him. This was because he had billed me a second time after he had received my money order several days previous and also because he had sent me an invalid tracking number. I don't know what goes with this guy. In the ad he also described this pistol as having a double action, which is nonsense.

Brian Pfleuger · July 26, 2014, 12:59 PM

You really need to post pictures, there are quite a few guys on this forum that I'd trust a lot more than a gunsmith that suggests "epoxy".

gyvel · July 26, 2014, 02:11 PM

Quote:

The ejector you listed is for an all steel Model 1934 and will not work in my pistol which has an aluminum frame. The 1934 has 2 slots milled in the frame and the ejector has 2 flanges which fit into these slots. This provides a really tight fit. My pistol does not have these slots and the sides of the ejector are broken off. It is loose and it moves around very easily.

I'd like to see how that is set up. I have a 948 which also has an alloy frame, but I need to dig it out to look at how the ejector is installed in it.

Skans · July 28, 2014, 02:31 PM

I'm really trying to understand how an ejector can't be replaced. I think it can be replaced....by a competent gunsmith. In any event if the gun was broken then the seller should simply accept the gun back and refund your money. If he doesn't, then you have 2 choices:

1. Accept his offer to pay for the repair and find a gunsmith who can do this (there's basically nothing on a gun that can't be repaired, unless its made of pot metal)

2. Tell the Seller he's a cockroach and then post his name here and on Sturmgewehr.com exposing him as a cockroach so others don't get burned like you did.

Salmoneye · July 29, 2014, 07:20 AM

Isn't the 'Puma' the Beretta Model 70?

If so, then the 'ejector' is not part of the frame...It is pinned in...

http://www.mek-schuetzen.de/Blueprin...ta_70_Auto.png

g.willikers · July 29, 2014, 08:31 AM

Now, thanks to that parts view, it's really sounding like you need a new gunsmith, doesn't it?

gyvel · August 1, 2014, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Now, thanks to that parts view, it's really sounding like you need a new gunsmith, doesn't it?

No. That parts view is for a Model 70. The guy has already explained that he doesn't have the Model 70 Puma. He has the older model Puma that is based on the Model 1935.

Brian Pfleuger · August 1, 2014, 03:11 PM

The 1934 ejector is no more an integral part of the frame than it is in the Model 70.

In this diagram, the ejector is part #37 and it's pin is #38.

gyvel · August 2, 2014, 02:27 AM

Quote:

The 1934 ejector is no more an integral part of the frame than it is in the Model 70.

In this diagram, the ejector is part #37 and it's pin is #38.

Which is exactly what I told the OP in post #8 (gave him the link), but he replied that his 1935 style .32 alloy-framed pistol has a different setup than the 1934 and 35 steel-framed guns. He specified that, while the steel-framed guns have locating slots in the frame, his does not and that the ejector was, in fact, integral with the frame

So I finally went out and dug out my 948 which also has an aluminum frame and the insertion of the replaceable ejector is exactly the same as on all other Beretta 34s and 35s.

I requested photos of the ejector setup, but, thus far there have been no photos forthcoming. Something isn't adding up here.

**4V50 Gary** · August 2, 2014, 04:45 AM

I think the gunsmith is no gunsmith. What's so hard about using a punch to knock out a pin or two and then insert a fresh ejector?

Salmoneye · August 3, 2014, 08:22 AM

I apologize for the erroneous info...

I was unaware that the alloy 1935 was called 'Puma' when marketed in the US...

gyvel · August 4, 2014, 03:26 PM

You know, Sid, posting some photos of the frame and ejector would help this thread immensely.

After looking at my .22 cal. 948 which uses the exact same frame as all the other alloy-framed guns, I'm starting to have trouble dealing with your claim that the ejector is an integral part of the frame.

Mosin-Marauder · August 4, 2014, 03:34 PM

I second the posting of photographs. Would help give us a better idea of what's going on.

Unlicensed Dremel · August 6, 2014, 11:57 AM

The answer is, it depends.

Did the seller, or did the seller not, make representations to you (written or verbal, but ideally written), that the gun worked "good", "fine", "well", "perfectly", or anything of the sort?

(1) If yes, then that's consumer fraud and is actionable *despite* the no-returns language.

(2) If no, then it's tough noogies / buyer beware, since the auction said no returns.

Well, I think in *most* states if not all 50 that is the answer. UCPA - Uniform Consumer Protection Act, as well as common law fraud (misrepresentation, known false, made with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain) will protect you if you can prove up the misrepresentation (and the other elements). The common law against fraud is definitely applicable in all 50 states, even if no UCPA.

gyvel · August 8, 2014, 02:26 PM

I think Sid has lost interest. He's posting in another thread about .25 ammo, but no response here.

I, for one, would still like to see some pictures of this integral ejector.

amd6547 · August 8, 2014, 03:13 PM

The OP never said the Beretta in question didn't work...just that his "gunsmith" said it was broke. He may have never even fired it.

July 26, 2014, 12:59 PM	#31
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	You really need to post pictures, there are quite a few guys on this forum that I'd trust a lot more than a gunsmith that suggests "epoxy". __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

July 29, 2014, 08:31 AM	#35
g.willikers Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 10,442	Now, thanks to that parts view, it's really sounding like you need a new gunsmith, doesn't it? __________________ Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”

August 2, 2014, 04:45 AM	#39
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,841	I think the gunsmith is no gunsmith. What's so hard about using a punch to knock out a pin or two and then insert a fresh ejector? __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

August 4, 2014, 03:26 PM	#41
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	You know, Sid, posting some photos of the frame and ejector would help this thread immensely. After looking at my .22 cal. 948 which uses the exact same frame as all the other alloy-framed guns, I'm starting to have trouble dealing with your claim that the ejector is an integral part of the frame. __________________ As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE

August 4, 2014, 03:34 PM	#42
Mosin-Marauder Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2014 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,320	I second the posting of photographs. Would help give us a better idea of what's going on. __________________ Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history! K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS. "You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..." William Tecumseh Sherman

July 26, 2014, 04:31 AM	#27
peggysue Junior member Join Date: May 20, 2014 Posts: 1,835	The gunsmith I use could fabricate new part pretty easy out of steel. maybe find a different one if yours can't fix it.

July 26, 2014, 08:35 AM	#28
cjwils Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2010 Location: Washington state Posts: 401	Be careful about leaving negative feedback against the seller on Gunbroker. I did that once. Then, purely out of spite, the seller left negative feedback against me. He had previously given me an A+, which he changed to a D after I gave him a D (which he deserved, but that is a long story).

July 26, 2014, 12:57 PM	#30
Sid Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 2009 Posts: 362	I wrote to the seller yesterday morning and he did not respond. So late last night I posted a complaint. In the complaint you are limited to 200 words. So I just wrote that my gun smith had determined the pistol to be be defective. This morning I received an email from the seller. He said that he would be willing to pay for the repair. I replied that the pistol could not be repaired and I wanted a refund. I am waiting to see what he does now. It seems that the complaint was a wake up call for him. In the past he simply ignored 2 other emails I had sent him. This was because he had billed me a second time after he had received my money order several days previous and also because he had sent me an invalid tracking number. I don't know what goes with this guy. In the ad he also described this pistol as having a double action, which is nonsense.

July 28, 2014, 02:31 PM	#33
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	I'm really trying to understand how an ejector can't be replaced. I think it can be replaced....by a competent gunsmith. In any event if the gun was broken then the seller should simply accept the gun back and refund your money. If he doesn't, then you have 2 choices: 1. Accept his offer to pay for the repair and find a gunsmith who can do this (there's basically nothing on a gun that can't be repaired, unless its made of pot metal) 2. Tell the Seller he's a cockroach and then post his name here and on Sturmgewehr.com exposing him as a cockroach so others don't get burned like you did.

July 29, 2014, 07:20 AM	#34
Salmoneye Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 2011 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,076	Isn't the 'Puma' the Beretta Model 70? If so, then the 'ejector' is not part of the frame...It is pinned in... http://www.mek-schuetzen.de/Blueprin...ta_70_Auto.png

August 1, 2014, 03:11 PM	#37
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	The 1934 ejector is no more an integral part of the frame than it is in the Model 70. In this diagram, the ejector is part #37 and it's pin is #38. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

August 3, 2014, 08:22 AM	#40
Salmoneye Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 2011 Location: Vermont Posts: 2,076	I apologize for the erroneous info... I was unaware that the alloy 1935 was called 'Puma' when marketed in the US...

August 6, 2014, 11:57 AM	#43
Unlicensed Dremel Junior member Join Date: February 13, 2014 Location: Flathead Valley, MT Posts: 2,187	The answer is, it depends. Did the seller, or did the seller not, make representations to you (written or verbal, but ideally written), that the gun worked "good", "fine", "well", "perfectly", or anything of the sort? (1) If yes, then that's consumer fraud and is actionable despite the no-returns language. (2) If no, then it's tough noogies / buyer beware, since the auction said no returns. Well, I think in most states if not all 50 that is the answer. UCPA - Uniform Consumer Protection Act, as well as common law fraud (misrepresentation, known false, made with intent to deceive, for pecuniary gain) will protect you if you can prove up the misrepresentation (and the other elements). The common law against fraud is definitely applicable in all 50 states, even if no UCPA.

August 8, 2014, 02:26 PM	#44
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	I think Sid has lost interest. He's posting in another thread about .25 ammo, but no response here. I, for one, would still like to see some pictures of this integral ejector. __________________ As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE

August 8, 2014, 03:13 PM	#45
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	The OP never said the Beretta in question didn't work...just that his "gunsmith" said it was broke. He may have never even fired it. __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now.