Oh BTW the 625 dollars for a replacement is rich very rich and falls right in line with those idiots
Exactly!, As stated it's a cheap stock. the least CS could have done is sold the customer a new stock at the discounted price of $30 which would have cost them nothing and made the customer relatively happy.
When my friend called he didn't think the stock would be replaced under warranty as it was 10 years old...but one can always try... What bothered him was the snide remark by the CS rep...
When he called B&C to order the replacement he told their CS rep what had happened and was assured that their stock could be used with a biod.
The only reason my friend was using one was at the suggestion of the guide who it sounded like recommends them to all his hunters.
If you can not deal with reality, reality will deal with you....
I have shot thousands of rounds out of rifles on Harris Bipods, thousands. I have never seen a stud fail except the boat-paddle Rugers where the woodscrewd would pull out of the stock in hot weather.
My last few McMillans have an EXTRA stud specifically so that you can use your bipod without removing the sling. I have use bipods with MPI, MicMillan, Ruger, Winchester, Savage, Brown Precision, Bell&Carlson and Ramject or whatever they were called; these are just the synthetic stcoks. I have used them in countless wooden stocks. This is completely unacceptable. The CS comparing it to running the stock over is also unacceptable. The bipod is a common accessory and if they didn't want you to use it they should have stated such. Running it over is obviously abuse.
I guess I am shocked at how many of you defend Beretta in this case. Wow.
The mistake you are making Dennis is that you are thinking Sako makes their rifles to accept a Harris bipod...they make their rifles to shoot with or without a sling, and they supply them without provision for attachment of a bipod. Further, such attachment of an aftermarket device is solely at the risk and discretion of the purchaser.
Now if the company specified that the rifle were to be used with such a device you would have some standing, as it is you have none.
That is retarded. Bipods are commonly put on rifles. It is reasonable for a manufacturer to foresee customers putting them on there and should build rifles accordingly.
This is 100% Sako's fault. Even a $300 RAR will rock a bipod.
Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
I have shot thousands of rounds out of rifles on Harris Bipods, thousands. I have never seen a stud fail except the boat-paddle Rugers where the woodscrewd would pull out of the stock in hot weather.
My last few McMillans have an EXTRA stud specifically so that you can use your bipod without removing the sling. I have use bipods with MPI, MicMillan, Ruger, Winchester, Savage, Brown Precision, Bell&Carlson and Ramject or whatever they were called; these are just the synthetic stcoks. I have used them in countless wooden stocks. This is completely unacceptable. The CS comparing it to running the stock over is also unacceptable. The bipod is a common accessory and if they didn't want you to use it they should have stated such. Running it over is obviously abuse.
I guess I am shocked at how many of you defend Beretta in this case. Wow.
The mistake you are making Dennis is that you are thinking Sako makes their rifles to accept a Harris bipod...they make their rifles to shoot with or without a sling, and they supply them without provision for attachment of a bipod. Further, such attachment of an aftermarket device is solely at the risk and discretion of the purchaser.
Now if the company specified that the rifle were to be used with such a device you would have some standing, as it is you have none.
That is retarded. Bipods are commonly put on rifles. It is reasonable for a manufacturer to foresee customers putting them on there and should build rifles accordingly.
This is 100% Sako's fault. Even a $300 RAR will rock a bipod.
That is irrelevant, the company is not making their rifle to accommodate bipods, evidenced by lack of inclusion in the owners manual (the same manual that doesn't include a lengthy expose on how to insert the barrel into your mouth)...and the company is not responsible for what the purchaser does outside the provisions the firearm is speced for.
It is reasonably common for people to suicide in cars...good luck holding the manufacturer responsible for what some dill does with the product, nor is it reasonable to expect firearms manufacturers to be held responsible for people being shot with the firearms those same companies manufacture.
At some point we all have to take responsibility for our actions...and stop looking for a free handout.
Furthermore you cannot even reasonably expect the manufacturer or seller of the bipod to be held responsible for the damage as the onus is on the purchaser of the product to ensure the firearm attachment is speced for the product.
I find this so damn maddening, it just ticks me off. Sako prefers to lose a customer, while acknowledging there is no warning which shouldn't be necessary btw. You can use a bi pod with a savage, ruger cheapest, but not a sako costing twice as much? All for a stock that would cost sako about $30 to replace? Stupid
I find this so damn maddening, it just ticks me off. Sako prefers to lose a customer, while acknowledging there is no warning which shouldn't be necessary btw. You can use a bi pod with a savage, ruger cheapest, but not a sako costing twice as much? All for a stock that would cost sako about $30 to replace? Stupid
For supposed capitalists you lot seem to have real difficulty getting off the tit.
Furthermore you cannot even reasonably expect the manufacturer or seller of the bipod to be held responsible for the damage as the onus is on the purchaser of the product to ensure the firearm attachment is speced for the product.
You should work for Beretta,you would fit in perfectly.
Furthermore you cannot even reasonably expect the manufacturer or seller of the bipod to be held responsible for the damage as the onus is on the purchaser of the product to ensure the firearm attachment is speced for the product.
You should work for Beretta,you would fit in perfectly.
Excellent retort. I love it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Jerry you just posted multiple times in a thread where I (and others) stated multiple times how bad Beretta CS service is.
2mg-
You ? might ? be right ? ? ? I know you were telling us their CS was ....poor.
Tomorrow I will re read that thread to see what I ? might ? have missed or what didn't sink in. Jerry
2muchgun -- You still with us ?
I just RE read that WHOLE thread, "Tikka Experience". Guess what ? In ALL 18 PAGES <<<YOU>>> were the ONLY 1 to mention Beretta CS.
AND you didn't mention CS until P 16
This thread is where I've heard the MOST criticism of Beretta CS and it seems justified. I'm really NOT trying to say I told you so. I wanted to double check for myself.
Furthermore you cannot even reasonably expect the manufacturer or seller of the bipod to be held responsible for the damage as the onus is on the purchaser of the product to ensure the firearm attachment is speced for the product.
You should work for Beretta,you would fit in perfectly.
No thank you, the company has nothing that I am interested in...and I wouldn't take a new Sako or Tikka if it were given to me.
That stock is obviously a POS and should be replaced gratis.
Position shooting with a sling strains the fugk out of the front stud as well. To claim it can handle one and not the other is horse schit.
Travis
I agree. Back in the day when riflemen knew how to use a sling for shooting, rifles commonly had barrel bands to take the pressure of a tight sling.
If the OP's buddy had used the sling stud for its intended purpose, that rifle would have lasted for several generations. Don't blame the manufacturer for a failure of that nature when subjected to the usage it was put to.
Any fool would have examined the structural integrity of his fore arm before bolting something like a bipod to it, right? Right? To not do so, and then blame the stock maker for a failure related to that is ludicrous and narrow minded. On the other hand I agree that their response was uncalled for. They could have at least told him to take a hike in more friendly terms.
"You can lead a man to logic, but you cannot make him think." Joe Harz "Always certain, often right." Keith McCafferty
