Beck
AH elite
I want to share a poor experience I had with guns.com with everyone. On November 28th I ordered the below .338 Sako from guns.com. The post only included the two photos below, but the listing included "certified used" and "used/very good" designations. Guns.com claims that if a rifle is certified used their gunsmiths have put the gun through some kind of 10 point inspection, and used/very good apparently means "normal wear".
When the rifle arrived the front site was falling off, and there were several dime sized chunks taken out of the laminate stock. When I say chunks, I don't mean "indentations" or "scratches", one hole nearly penetrated the entire stock.
I immediately exercised their "no questions asked return policy" which only applies to their certified used guns. I returned the rifle in mid December, and they reposted it for sale on December 29th. I just received my refund today almost 45 days after it was returned, not a huge deal, but a little bit vexing. They also charged me a $310 restocking fee, which pissed me off. The restocking fee is clearly stated in their return policy, while annoying I suppose this is fair. But now the truly disturbing part: https://www.guns.com/used-guns/p/sako-85-l?i=534073 if you look at that link they are using the same vague photos, and the description of the gun "certified used" and "used/very good". To me this posting of that rifle is misleading, that gun is not in "very good" condition. I've bought at least a dozen used rifles over the years, and that .338 arrived in by far the worst condition of any of them.
Lessons learned, for me at least, I would never consider buying a used gun from Guns.com without receiving more than their typical stock photos. I would also never buy a gun that didn't carry the certified used designation as it carries with it a no questions asked return policy.
Conjecture: It seems to me that they list these guns with misleading photos, and a return policy that ensures they make a profit even if the gun is returned.
When the rifle arrived the front site was falling off, and there were several dime sized chunks taken out of the laminate stock. When I say chunks, I don't mean "indentations" or "scratches", one hole nearly penetrated the entire stock.
I immediately exercised their "no questions asked return policy" which only applies to their certified used guns. I returned the rifle in mid December, and they reposted it for sale on December 29th. I just received my refund today almost 45 days after it was returned, not a huge deal, but a little bit vexing. They also charged me a $310 restocking fee, which pissed me off. The restocking fee is clearly stated in their return policy, while annoying I suppose this is fair. But now the truly disturbing part: https://www.guns.com/used-guns/p/sako-85-l?i=534073 if you look at that link they are using the same vague photos, and the description of the gun "certified used" and "used/very good". To me this posting of that rifle is misleading, that gun is not in "very good" condition. I've bought at least a dozen used rifles over the years, and that .338 arrived in by far the worst condition of any of them.
Lessons learned, for me at least, I would never consider buying a used gun from Guns.com without receiving more than their typical stock photos. I would also never buy a gun that didn't carry the certified used designation as it carries with it a no questions asked return policy.
Conjecture: It seems to me that they list these guns with misleading photos, and a return policy that ensures they make a profit even if the gun is returned.
