I don't bring this up lightly...

[Ontario Hunter]

Not everyone is into gun lingo, but its worth throwing out some lingo that every buyer and seller should know and use to avoid misunderstandings. These words were not used so I'm not critiquing buyer nor seller, but consider this:

Mint - Never ever use this word. It means never handled, 100% condition as-new. All papers, boxes, handtags, etc. A brand new gun at cabelas in Remington 700 is 100% condition. When the box is opened, put on the sales floor, and sold, it becomes 98% condition which is the highest value in the price book.

NRA Antique - Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Fine, Excellent. (60% through 90% plus condition) These terms are defined and there are case study examples in the price books. These terms are used for guns deemed antiques by age. NRA Antique Excellent is roughly NRA Modern Good condition. You can imagine why you need to use very clear definitions and understand what those mean because 100 year old guns and 1 year old guns are scored by a different system.

NRA Modern - As mentioned, the price book stops at 98% condition. If you hunted your gun VERY carefully your gun is not NRA Modern 98%. It's probably 95%-97% condition best case. You have to be careful with this because the value of NRA modern 90% condition versus 99% condition is usually FIFTY PERCENT of book value. Words mean a lot and they need to match pictures.

Checked by a smith = A well known specialty gunsmith has declared the gun mechanically sound. Triggers, Ejectors, Bores are sound and safe for use. The stock has been inspected for latent defects. A drop test has been performed to ensure the sears do not fire if jarred. Safety works. The gun feeds and extracts some cartridge or dummy round (but maybe not yours!). Mechanically sound does not indicate a condition per se, it could be 70% condition and still be mechanically sound, it could be a 99% condition Sabatti new in box that is not mechanically sound.

New - See mint above. Don't use this word without disclaimers and parameters. If you're the first owner, it isn't new. It may be near-new and you can explain how little you handled and touched it while also defining what boxes and papers still remain.

Regulated - It means nothing without a target and load. Don't say it without supporting evidence, what you think is acceptable regulation is not the same as me or any other seller/buyer. Your near new, never fired gun regulated from the factory for Hornady DGS loads may not in fact be "well regulated" at all. Post a target and a load to demonstrate what it is, do not simply say "its good/excellent/perfect".

Disclose what work you have done or had done to the gun. Its totally acceptable to most guns to alter them, usually for the better. Give the buyer a chance to understand what the factory has done, versus what a slob smith has done, versus what a best-in-the-world smith has done that is better than factory. (e.g. an upgrade by JJ Peridoux is likely better than factory services)

Declare the inspection period. Custom is 3 days and non-firing. That means you have 3 days to return the gun to the seller, not three days to think about returning the gun. Tracking number to the seller in <3 days IS required. Non-firing inspection is the norm. If you buy a gun and opt to shoot it and it blows up in those three days, the onus is that it is 100% the buyer's fault. No seller can determine what load was used to blow up the gun so they can't be to blame. Thus, its pretty important to ask what load was used and then ask if you can use that exact load in a firing 3-day inspection period. A seller may or may not agree to that term so you must discuss that before purchase. Buyers blow up guns with negligence a lot more often than sellers deceive by selling unsafe guns. A member on this forum negligently destroyed a $30,000 double rifle because he was reckless and impulsive, putting a 106 foot-pound load into a gun that deserved a 58 foot-pound load. While both loads were SAAMI spec, it was a vintage gun made for only the former. 100% buyer's fault and he's lucky he's alive, but sadly he left the forum rather than taking the shame of openly discussing his bad choices and how he disregarded sound advice.

That's it. Just use definable words so you don't speak past one another. Don't make up definitions or you'll cause heartache.

Thanks. I'll never get into gun trading but that information was an eye opener. Trafficking in collectible guns is clearly more complicated than I ever imagined. Interesting. Never heard of "NRA Modern" till now.

 

[Wahoo]

I don't agree. If the gunsmith was only certifying perfect "function or accuracy" then that should have been specified in the advertisement. As I understand it, the ad quoted this gunsmith as simply saying the gun was "perfect." The implication is he thought it was perfect in every respect, including fit and finish. Perhaps he looked at it before it fell off a truck on safari?

The statement regarding the aforementioned gunsmith inspection is irrelevant in the discussion of the current situation at hand as that evaluation was performed when the seller purchased the item prior to the rifle acquiring the documented damage. Presumably this is also when the rifle was in the same condition as the photographs used in the sales add posted by the seller.

There is no statement made that I’ve seen that the gun was examined or inspected as part of the current transaction.

For clarity- in the original sales add posted by the seller it is stated “However I sent it to JJ Perodeau when I bought it and after his normal complete breakdown of the rifle, inspection and firing he proclaimed the rifle “perfect” his words not mine.”

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I think its only far that the wronged buyer gets to pick where any moneys would go, if there is any. Not anyone else.

Yes it is, I was only making a suggestion that it go to a good cause. There's been many threads on this forum going back well before even when you joined about PHs being killed or injured leaving them and/or their families in a bad financial spot. Ultimately it's not my decision to make.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The statement regarding the aforementioned gunsmith inspection is irrelevant in the discussion of the current situation at hand as that evaluation was performed when the seller purchased the item prior to the rifle acquiring the documented damage. Presumably this is also when the rifle was in the same condition as the photographs used in the sales add posted by the seller.

There is no statement made that I’ve seen that the gun was examined or inspected as part of the current transaction.

For clarity- in the original sales add posted by the seller it is stated “However I sent it to JJ Perodeau when I bought it and after his normal complete breakdown of the rifle, inspection and firing he proclaimed the rifle “perfect” his words not mine.”

Thanks for clarifying that!

 

[Tundra Tiger]

My opinion: I don't think "commemorating" or slyly demeaning someone has any place in this. I said my opinion is irrelevant (and it is), but it's not that different from many. I think Rare Breed made some mistakes in how he listed and sold it. I think there are also issues with the shipping that would have pissed me off. I think Franz, while probably well intentioned, made a mistake in airing it on here. I see mistakes on both sides. Perhaps there is a modicum of good that comes from this thread if someone learns something that helps them later.

Making a mistake isn't something that needs to be memorialized for all time, particularly if there wasn't any sort of malicious intent, and I don't believe there was. We all have flaws and we all make mistakes; I know I do. My guess? Both guys would probably be great guys to hunt with; I generally appreciate their contributions to this site. Here's hoping they work it out. In the immortal words of Red Green "Remember I'm pullin' for ya--we're all in this together." I'm pulling for both sides in this.

 

[275r7x57]

Yes it is, I was only making a suggestion that it go to a good cause. There's been many threads on this forum going back well before even when you joined about PHs being killed or injured leaving them and/or their families in a bad financial spot. Ultimately it's not my decision to make.

We are not in disagreement about the cause you suggested. I am just stating the fact that it is not your place to suggest in the first place.

 

[franzfmdavis]

Yes it is, I was only making a suggestion that it go to a good cause. There's been many threads on this forum going back well before even when you joined about PHs being killed or injured leaving them and/or their families in a bad financial spot. Ultimately it's not my decision to make.

It certainly sounds like a wonderful cause, and I have no objection to it. In fact, I don’t even mind the group collectively deciding where the money should go if @Rare Breed should ever address all of the points I proposed. What is personally more important to me, and I believe the collective, is acknowledging wrongdoing rather than relying on claimed reputation. Thereafter, implementing a site wide solution that will help prevent similar problems in the future.

Over the last 24 hours, I have received private communications from other AH members who have had problems during their transactions with @Rare Breed. It is certainly not my place to name them since they reached out to me privately, but I did inform them that I would be mentioning it on here generally to make the point in response to certain comments that sometimes airing this information publicly is useful to preventing future buyers from experiencing the same thing. Had I known what they experienced beforehand, I would have made different choices.

We owe it to each other at minimum, and I expect to be treated like any other person on AH regardless of seniority or status.

 

[rookhawk]

To shove my nose where it doesn't belong, I'd like to propose a peace accord with an agreement from buyer and seller that one or both of them might have been having a bad day when this transaction was unravelling.

It appears @franzfmdavis is offering the money he believes is due to a good cause.

If @Rare Breed likes that idea, here's what I'd like to offer free of charge.

@Rare Breed I'd open up my rolodex and my project management skills up to you. I'll warm intro you to affordable, qualified gunsmiths that would doll up that gun at wholesale/trade prices to sort out the stock, fix some minor metal stuff, check out and "Recertify" the gun, and put a nice orange pad on it. The net result is the gun will be more marketable and much more attractive, yielding a higher price when their work is complete. You won't pay retail for the efforts and I know which group of workers can pass the jobs back and forth cohesively and all in one region.

What say you?

 

[franzfmdavis]

To shove my nose where it doesn't belong, I'd like to propose a peace accord with an agreement from buyer and seller that one or both of them might have been having a bad day when this transaction was unravelling.

It appears @franzfmdavis is offering the money he believes is due to a good cause.

If @Rare Breed likes that idea, here's what I'd like to offer free of charge.

@Rare Breed I'd open up my rolodex and my project management skills up to you. I'll warm intro you to affordable, qualified gunsmiths that would doll up that gun at wholesale/trade prices to sort out the stock, fix some minor metal stuff, check out and "Recertify" the gun, and put a nice orange pad on it. The net result is the gun will be more marketable and much more attractive, yielding a higher price when their work is complete. You won't pay retail for the efforts and I know which group of workers can pass the jobs back and forth cohesively and all in one region.

What say you?

I’m not sure if you were requesting a response from me as well, but I am happy to discuss a “ peace accord” as you say. For my part, I previously laid out the three things that I thought would address all issues, but I am open to other suggestions.

 

[62flint]

I don't see why this is on a public post. Report it to the moderators and let them decide it. If you have a dispute (and this is a small dispute), find a way to work it out without demeaning the reputation of another in

Drama, sounds like school yard drama.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Drama, sounds like school yard drama.

Looks to me like taking it to the schoolyard was last resort.

 

[Tanks]

 

[franzfmdavis]

I most appreciate the use of Pepsi rather than Coke

 

[Ruraldoc]

Watching the thread to see if it can be worked out.

 

[HankBuck]

Drama, sounds like school yard drama.

@62flint - while I don’t know any details other then what has been posted by those involved ——I thought this has been a civil and constructive discussion so far. I also thought it was an unusual topic and rarely see this on AH but does not appear inappropriate and also the suggestions by many members has also been helpful and balanced.

 

[franzfmdavis]

@62flint - while I don’t know any details other then what has been posted by those involved ——I thought this has been a civil and constructive discussion so far. I also thought it was an unusual topic and rarely see this on AH but does not appear inappropriate and also the suggestions by many members has also been helpful and balanced.

I certainly agree that it is not a common topic that is discussed on the site, but it is a critical one in my opinion because the fundamental value of a forum like this is that it is based on a foundation of trust and honesty.

 

[DillonG]

I’m just here to eat popcorn and watch.

 

[318AE]

I certainly agree that it is not a common topic that is discussed on the site, but it is a critical one in my opinion because the fundamental value of a forum like this is that it is based on a foundation of trust and honesty.

Well, we’ve covered a lot of ground in seven pages.

Franz - please help me make sure I’ve got this right. The buyer was your brother in law, which I don’t think we’ve heard from in seven pages, and you were the broker or middleman in all this?

If we’re trying to move forward, I think a best practice to add along with in person inspections if possible etc, is to avoid intermediaries. I suspect at this point you may have wished you had just stayed out of all this.

 

[franzfmdavis]

Well, we’ve covered a lot of ground in seven pages.

Franz - please help me make sure I’ve got this right. The buyer was your brother in law, which I don’t think we’ve heard from in seven pages, and you were the broker or middleman in all this?

If we’re trying to move forward, I think a best practice to add along with in person inspections if possible etc, is to avoid intermediaries. I suspect at this point you may have wished you had just stayed out of all this.

@318AE yes, the buyer was my brother-in-law. I had noticed the ad and told him about it. Based on my perceived reputation of @Rare Breed, as well as a prior communication I had had with him regarding a reloading question in which he had been very polite and helpful, I vouched for him to my brother-in-law. That is also why I reimbursed my brother-in-law, the money that was not refunded because the transaction was based on my referral.

While I understand your point, and it would have saved me money in this instance, I have enjoyed helping people find and buy guns and have appreciated other people helping me do the same over the years. The wisdom and experience of others has been of great benefit to me in some of those transactions. Therefore, I do not want to take a general position that I’m going to avoid being the middleman or using others as help.

The hurtful issue in this for me is that based on all the information that I had about @Rare Breed, I “should” have been able to trust that this transaction would be done honestly. Had I known some of what I know now, I certainly would not have recommended him as a trustworthy seller.

I do think that the ultimate impact of this discussion will be a benefit for both buyers and sellers on this site. I also think that opportunities remain for @Rare Breed to clean this up.

 

[dogcat1]

Something I have done a couple of times, once in buying a $20k gun and when selling one - I flew to the seller to look it over and then agreed with the seller to send it to a well known gunsmith to look over - at my expense. If I bought it, then we split that cost, if I passed on it, I paid.

On a sale, I made the same offer to the buyer and we did the deal. We met in a parking lot at the Denver airport, he looked it over, I supplied a Pelican 1750 case to ship it back, he provided a certified check. Deal done face to face.

The oddest deal I have done is when buying from a broker - I made it very clear that I wanted 7 days to inspect and could return for ANY reason at my expense. If the gun was defective, he paid the return shipping. If I just changed my mind, I paid. It worked fine and I kept the gun. To this day, I work with the dealer a lot.

I don't know of anyone that buys a $20k car and does not test drive it. We should do the same with gun deals.....