a plinkin

So TDR, what Volzfan said about it not being the best day, but when you get back to this (and hope it helps things get back to normal)...   Just a caution that reloading is addictive. Next thing, you'll be casting lead and mixing your own lube.   And if any friends or family members get interested, you'll find them pulling up chairs and having extended hangout sessions around the equipment, which is sometimes producing, sometimes not.   In full consideration, reloading is good.

Many thanks to all who replied; great community here. Apologies for just getting back now. While this story does have a happy ending -- the FFL sent a refund, minus background check fee -- it stands as an example of why it's important to clarify terms with any vendor (esp. firearms) BEFORE the purchase. Never again will either of us buy a gun without both a careful inspection AND a pre-agreement on refund if found defective. Before this experience, I'd have been open to the FFL's fix: Send back to the mfr. (Not speaking for the wife here!) But that's just not right. For a gun with potential problems, I'll buy used. When you pay for new, you should get new. Do have to note that before reading the comments here, I was done with Ruger. But apparently this lemon is not representative of their normal standards. After a Smith & Wesson (or others), I'll give 'em another look.       Don't know if you're a man of faith, but I believe in sometime divine intervention. And in any case, wives are a blessing. Not always in ways we prefer, or necessariy see, or fully appreciate, or...  but nonetheless. (Whew, pulled back on the stick just in time.)

Friends, I need some help. Does an FFL bear any responsibility if he sells you a new gun that turns out to be defective? We were at the gun show in Cleveland last weekend and the wife had a gleem in her eye for the .357 Ruger LCR. Next I see her, she's got the factory-sealed box tucked under her arm. RED FLAG! "Um, you didn't buy that without inspecting first?" I ask. She says she couldn't open the box until it was outside, then the pistol could be disabled at the door and brought back in, if needed. Those were the rules. Of course by then, it was bought. But we both soon forgot about it and drove away. After the bad experience with the last new Ruger she bought, can't believe it, but we did. So we get it home and find the cylinder release barely works. Flipping it over and inspecting with a loop, I find the slot in the retaining screw head partially stripped in both directions, and it's been staked. There are four LCRs in the extended family: None of them -- including a .357 -- look like this. Even if the gun worked perfectly, this is shoddy workmanship. Sold at a discount, even -- as a refurb or whatever -- this gun would still be a problem due to the marginal release mechanism. How does Ruger let a junker like this out the door packaaged as NEW?? Anyways, she calls the FFL (from whom it was bought) and he tells her to bring it over, which she does. Much to our relief, he agrees that it is defective. But when she asks for her money back -- since there are no replacement guns available -- he starts dancing around: It can be taken to a gunsmith and "smoothed out." It can be sent back to Ruger for rework. MORE REWORK? Gunsmith? For a NEW gun? WTH? Am I the one out-of-line here, thinking that "new" means "NEW"? Well, she let him talk her into letting him send it back. So in the meanwhile, for the better part of $600, she has nothing. And you don't even want to see her if they return it with that boogered-up screw assembly still on. So what I want to know is: In these kinds of situations, how firm is the ground under the buyer? Can a demand for refund be made, and a complaint filed against the FFL if it's not given? (And in the case of a return/refund, is there a standard way to unlink the buyer's name from the S/N of that gun in the state's database?) It's clear that at least some of the risk is borne by the buyer when the purchase takes place at a venue that prohibits pre-purchase inspection, but when the product is found to be defective (even when it's a gun), shouldn't the buyer be able to get a refund?  

A great forum: Where you go to ask a question and find the answer already there (and on the top thread even). In LCR, gave the .357 to the father-in-law and .22 to the wife on the same day ~three weeks ago. Both love 'em. Wife REALLY loves hers. (Or maybe men don't let on as much?) So the .357 is a surprisingly pleasant shoot, reliable, no problems at all. The .22 is just fun. (...for the few cylinders of 500 rounds gone through it she's let me shoot.) Father-in-law gets his CCP in two weeks, wife this week. The problem is with her FTF rate, consistently ~5% with each of Remington TBolt, Win Wildcat and Mini-Mags. Of the FTFs, about half have noticeably lighter firing pin marks. So I came here this evening to ask if others had this experience, but it's clear the answer is 'no' -- and this gun needs to go back for some work. Thanks for the help.

We get an extra father in this life, but only one mother. The Lord comfort you in knowing the loss is only temporary.

Great point. Reagan, who set the standard, had not only the will, but the political experience and the eloquence to both present and defend his positions. And that will was driven by an unshakable, deeply-held moral conviction. A large segment of the electorate, myself (and probably a majority here) included, yearn for such a leader. We want the total Reagan package, someone who will shake things up and set the country back on course, discharge the public debt, guide us in the return to an age of greater freedoms and personal responsibility. Unfortunately, at least the perception is, no such candidate is in the race. Yet ANY in the Republican field would be better than the incumbent. Alas, here is yet another election where I'll probably be voting more against the other party than for my choice. But if scumbama wins a second term, Lord help us.

No women on TGO? Shall this pass without reproof? Agreed!