Smith & Wesson for a return label. Kevin put in a comment that made me decide to take that post down until the damn thing was actually on the way back to the factory; something about “How does it feel, after to Olofson case, to now have an ‘unlicensed machinegun’?” I said “Not very damned good, thank you kindly”. Then thought a minute, and deleted the post. The reasons for which really piss me off; when an honest citizen has to have that kind of concern about some EffingBI agent deciding to use you to build his arrest record or something over something like this, it’s a very bad statement on some law enforcement people. No, I don’t think somebody at the FBI or BATFE is monitoring my electronic soapbox and waiting for me to let something slip; But Olofson wasn’t trying to do anything illegal- hell, went out of his way to demonstrate his good intent- and it got him time in a federal prison.
‘This’ is the next entry in the Continuing Saga of the M&P15-22. At the range a few days ago, I discovered that it had developed a new ability: it would occasionally fire two shots with one press of the trigger. Which is both a serious safety problem and a possible legal problem(see above). So it was unloaded and cased, and after I got home I called S&W. I got a guy in Customer Service, said I had a problem and needed to return it; he asked for the SER# and my name, and said “We’ll have a shipping label on the way.” Cool, I thought, they’ve got the records from the previous two returns and I’ll have it tomorrow or the next day.
Two days later, no label, so I called. Seems they hadn’t bothered to e-mail the label, they’d snail-mailed it, and the guy I talked to said “There’s no e-mail address on the file.” Wonderful. He took the address and said “You’ll have the label within 48 hours.”
Today’s 48 hours later and still no e-mail, but the snail-mailed label came in, so the rifle is on its way back to the factory, so I thought I’d replace the post I deleted and fill out the situation report.
By the way, I don’t know why S&W bothers giving an e-mail address for ‘Customer Support’, as they don’t seem to bother reading anything that goes there. When the first problem developed I e-mailed(figuring “Why tie up the line when this can get things going?”), and when heard nothing back the next day mailed again: still nothing, so I phoned. This time, after getting the shipping stuff started I sent one detailing the problems I’ve run into with this rifle, and so far- four days later- not even a “We have received your message” or a “Stop bothering us”. So I’d say don’t bother with e-mailing them, just call; at least they do answer the phones.
Aside from the specifics, you know what bothers me? It’s a friggin’ .22 rifle, and S&W can’t make it right? Why the hell not? I've got a .22 semi-auto that's more than 50 years old, and it still works fine, and I've seen many more; so what's the problem with a company like S&W getting this model right?
6 comments:
And there you have the reason my .22's are a 10-22 I paid $48.50 retail for brand new and a Marlin M60 I got for $15 from a guy who wanted a few beers more than he wanted his .22. I've had both more than forty years and both have always worked perfectly. Every damn time.
Gerry N.
Perhaps next time it comes home, get rid. You can let it become someone else's problem.
I've not heard of little browning 22s giving trouble (other then hot powder and cases down your shirt sleeve...)
If S&W can't fix the damn thing this time, I probably will; there's no excuse for the thing malfunctioning like this.
And they'd avoid a lot of this "What the hell's wrong with your company?" if they'd, oh, answer their damned e-mails or something? Actually make you think they give a damn?
Yes, my language is going downhill a bit, irritation does that to me at times.
If I recall correctly, what I said was that after the Olofson case, possession of a malfunctioning weapon that will discharge more than one shot with a single trigger pull puts you in violation of the law because the judge declared that the law had no exception for malfunctions. Then I linked to an Amicus brief on the topic.
Remember: It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
That was it.
What's that other saying, "It's not whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid enough.
Also, your paranoia has nothing to do with them being out to get you.
Gerry N.
Post a Comment