SGC 9mm - Catastorphic Failure - Almost lost an eye :(

[ovenpaa]

Whatever SGC choose to do now the damage has been done and some potential customers will walk away, the SGC 9mm has had a chequered history from the off and this incident must set some doubt in the minds of people.

[Blu]

Ovenpaa, I agree I don't think SGC thought this one all the way through, either that or they just don't care which in itself is also not very clever. Something like this will make it on to other boards and word will soon get around to leave SGC stuff well alone. On the other hand I can see SGC's point of view as well. They do say not to use reloads and they tell you what happens if you do.

Now look I mean no disrespect to phaedra1106 or anyone else, but. If I had been in his position this subject would never have come on here. I'd have dealt with SGC quietly first and awaited the outcome before I said anything on here or on any other forum. IMHO as soon as he published it here while it was happening, he was fecked. I'm sure SGC didn't much like some of the stuff they were reading.


Blu

[Chuck]

Always best to think through a complaint before making it. Never do it when angry.

[ovenpaa]

This thread has certainly been linked to a couple of other forums that I know of so the deed is done, I have no idea what happened to the rifle in the end.

phaedra1106?

[dromia]

Regardless of the ins and outs of what happened to the rifle and how it happened which in reality nobody really knows at best its educated speculation. it is how the supplier dealt with the issue, including the public airing here and other places, that is the key thing for me and tells me whether or not I'd wish to deal with the company in the future.

That is what reflects on the reputation, people will read about the company here and elsewhere and make their own mind up on such issues.

There are at least two sides to every tale and they all should be judged to form an opinion.

The stakes, phaedra has a gun to loose, SGC a reputation.

Ultimately which has more value?

Actions will always speak louder than words.

[Blu]

Dromia, I take on board what you write but if that were me I'd want that firearm back in the condition it was sent down.

Blu

[phaedra1106]

Just to clarify the current situation with my SGC LRA9.

I returned the rifle to the dealer I purchased it from on April 10th.

On April 30th they rang me to say that SGC had looked at it and were returning it to them and had refused to repair it blaming the damage on a problem with the ammunition.

On May 16th they forwarded a copy of SGC's "report", I was advised to take legal advice and to formally reject the rifle under the Sales of Goods Act (UK consumer protection law) as being unfit for purpose.

On June 7th I wrote to the dealer and formally rejected it, the dealer (Shooting Supplies) then wrote back saying they had received my letter and were looking into it.

On July 19th I received a second letter from Shooting Supplies, he did not reply to my request for a refund but instead had passed my letter to SGC and enclosed part of an email from Robert Clarke at SGC.

Basically it says that SGC rejects the Sales of Goods Act as it does not apply to them and even if I can somehow manage to find the missing Privi case and show to his satisfaction that it was factory ammo being used the rifle is still not covered by any guarantee/warranty as I have used home loaded ammo in it, from the point of the first home load being used all guarantees/warranties are void.

He also states that I have shown a reckless disregard for my own and other shooters safety, despite having safely reloaded and shot numerous calibers (including 9mm) for over 35 years.

On July 24th having taken further advice I again wrote to Shooting Supplies, I advised them that SGC could not reject the SOGA as it is law. Also that by selling reloading components to their customers, which if used would immediately void any warranty, SGC were being somewhat hypocritical at best. I also pointed out that no matter what SGC say my contract is in fact with Shooting Supplies and have asked them to let me know their intentions with regard to a refund, replacement or even repair.

There has been no independent report that I am aware of.

[ovenpaa]

Thanks for updating the thread and I really hope it works out for you.

[Sandgroper]

Just to clarify the current situation with my SGC LRA9.

I returned the rifle to the dealer I purchased it from on April 10th.

On April 30th they rang me to say that SGC had looked at it and were returning it to them and had refused to repair it blaming the damage on a problem with the ammunition.

On May 16th they forwarded a copy of SGC's "report", I was advised to take legal advice and to formally reject the rifle under the Sales of Goods Act (UK consumer protection law) as being unfit for purpose.

On June 7th I wrote to the dealer and formally rejected it, the dealer (Shooting Supplies) then wrote back saying they had received my letter and were looking into it.

On July 19th I received a second letter from Shooting Supplies, he did not reply to my request for a refund but instead had passed my letter to SGC and enclosed part of an email from Robert Clarke at SGC.

Basically it says that SGC rejects the Sales of Goods Act as it does not apply to them and even if I can somehow manage to find the missing Privi case and show to his satisfaction that it was factory ammo being used the rifle is still not covered by any guarantee/warranty as I have used home loaded ammo in it, from the point of the first home load being used all guarantees/warranties are void.

He also states that I have shown a reckless disregard for my own and other shooters safety, despite having safely reloaded and shot numerous calibers (including 9mm) for over 35 years.

On July 24th having taken further advice I again wrote to Shooting Supplies, I advised them that SGC could not reject the SOGA as it is law. Also that by selling reloading components to their customers, which if used would immediately void any warranty, SGC were being somewhat hypocritical at best. I also pointed out that no matter what SGC say my contract is in fact with Shooting Supplies and have asked them to let me know their intentions with regard to a refund, replacement or even repair.

There has been no independent report that I am aware of.

IMO, it seems SGC is trying to shut down your complaint by trying to 'tough it out.' To me, SGC is hoping you'll say "there's nothing I can do as they won't play ball", drop the complaint and chalk it up to experiance. That way, they don't have to fight, even if they win, a potentially damaging case. However, due to the handloaded ammunition issued the best you are hoping for is a moral victory.

If you have the PPU box that the round came from, you can still get the batch number etc. With that info I would still contact PPU, explain the situation and see what they have to say. At the moment you're on a hiding to nothing, so I can't see what harm it could do. Who knows they might even help you?

[saddler]

Small Claims Court may also be an option to consider

Some gun companies do think they are outside of the law...seems surprisingly, and sadly, too common these days!