1.) Original emails do not feature bold and underline highlights. Those were added to quotations.
2.) Three dashes (---) indicate that text has been deleted for clarity. This has only been done in quotations from Ron's B.O.I. post and his 12:24 PM (2nd) Sept. 20 email.
Ron Robinson attempted to resolve a problem with an airgun just delivered by the freight company without first contacting me to discuss the matter or obtain authorization. Three days later, Ron contacted me for a resolution without disclosing his repair efforts. As one who is a longtime airgun aficionado, author of airgun books, and has a very extensive history of buying and selling on the Yellow Classifieds, Ron undoubtedly knew he was obligated to notify me at the first opportunity.
After two email exchanges and with no alternative but to disclose his tampering, Ron finally addressed the matter halfway thru a tortuous 12:24 PM Sept. 20 email. Those words are:
(Quote): Otherwise in love with the rifle, this is the point when I made the decision to try to correct the problem fully cognizant of my own credo, "You screws, you lose"; meaning I never expect to return an airgun after I've worked on it. (Unquote)
Like a loose cannon careening wildly to and fro on a ship's deck, essentially the same statement appeared 5 times throughout the Sept. 20 email. Ron's "credo" is nothing more than a personalized re-statement of a universal code of ethics that applies to situations like the one at hand. Although Ron did his very best to suggest otherwise with a B.O.I. post relying exclusively on hyperbole and insinuation, the airgun had issues that I knew of when it was shipped.
In retrospect, I realized that I might have avoided this state of affairs had I not overlooked obvious cues offered by Ron's Sept. 3 email, which states:
(Quote): Very cool Myro. I'll get the postal M.O. off Tuesday. Wish it could be sooner, so I could get the rifle sooner!
P.S.- I think my BOI feed-back speaks volumes. (Unquote)
Other airgunners simply indicate they are on the B.O.I. Without giving that postscript any meaningful thought, I simply replied:
(Quote): Your B.O.I. feedback is very impressive. I email a tracking number when the gun ships. (Unquote)
Ron's Sept.19 email was limited to the following words:
(Quote): The HW100 arrived Friday, but the clips won't install, remove or rotate. Any suggestions? (Unquote)
I immediately realized the problem Ron described would have been evident immediately upon trying to operate the airgun, not something that would have taken three days to materialize. For the scenario Ron presented to be plausible, he must have attempted to repair the HW100. His failure to discuss that activity was conspicuous by its absence. Such a minimalist approach is not unusual when one is after a solution in search of a problem. In that context, Rons "Any suggestions?" query is like putting the cart in front of the horse.
Aware there was much more to the matter than Ron revealed, my reply was also exploratory in nature, but withheld nothing and went directly to the heart of the matter with the following statement:
(Quote): The gun did not have a magazine installed when you received it, both magazines were shipped in the accessory package that also included the charging hardware. From your statement, "the clips won't install, remove or rotate", one can conclude that you installed a magazine in order to observe that it won't rotate and can't be removed. (Unquote)
I knew from experience that individuals with the hubris displayed by Ron's self aggrandizing statement regarding his B.O.I. feedback do not yield to prompting by others unless absolutely unavoidable. Predictably, Ron continued to withhold revealing his repair efforts from me, his 10:21 AM Sept. 20 email simply stated:
(Quote): It's not a user issue.
I think it probably should have been shipped with a magazine in the gun, the box probably got dropped on its end, and the cylinder-gap in the two-piece breech closed slightly from the force of the impact.
Not gonna try to explain it further by key-board. Please send your phone number or call me at --- --- ----. (Unquote)
Rons magazine in the breech theory not only is completely irrelevant, the suggestion as it relates to me is patently disingenuous!
1.) The BEEMAN/WEIHRAUCH Owners Manual does not have instructions to ship the HW100 in the fashion Ron suggested. If it did, Ron would not have waited three days, but notified me immediately! 2.) The retailer I purchased the airgun from shipped it to me without a magazine in the breech. Both magazines were included in the accessory box intended for that purpose.
3.) Shipping & Receiving personnel from another major airgun retailer informed me all HW100s arrived from the manufacturer and were shipped to customers in exactly the same manner.
4.) Although he raised the possibility of shipping damage, Ron made no reference to the shipping carton or materials displaying evidence of it.
Ron's suggestion was nothing more than an ill conceived and deliberate distraction intended to shape the subsequent discussion.
Ron's request for a telephone conversation is reminiscent of a well known strategy to avoid an evidence trail when unforeseen obstacles to a hidden agenda arise. Had Ron presented his concerns credibly rather than attempting to manage the process in a circuitous manner, I would have immediately suggested a telephone call to sort the matter out.
In my experience, those who persist in withholding relevant information or purposefully introduce distractions into the discussion have no credibility. Given the circumstances, a phone call was out of the question. My reply offered Ron his alternatives with the following words:
(Quote): Using the keyboard, you've done an exemplary job of painting a picture that leaves little or nothing to the imagination. If you think I'm missing something, please feel free to go back to the keyboard and finish the job. --- It's that simple! (Unquote)
Ron Robinson's 12:24 PM Sept. 20 Email
I noticed both magazines had a bit of scoring on the raised faces as I examined them while reading the owners manual, and thought it odd that a virtually new HW100 would have such marks on the magazines. Before mounting a scope, neither magazine inserted without coersion, and both bound noticably when rotated (especially as the reference marks approached top-center). They were both also stubborn to remove; one a bit moreso (on all counts) than the other. I applied a bit of moly-lube to the friction faces, which helped a little. However, upon mounting a scope, neither magazine would insert at all; as if the cylinder gap in the breech had closed from tight to impossibly tight.
Studying the mechanicals, I saw the breech is a (pretty simple) two-piece design connected by two bolts. Otherwise in love with the rifle, this is the point when I made the decision to try to correct the problem fully cognizant of my own credo, "You screws, you lose"; meaning I never expect to return an airgun after I've worked on it. So while you don't have to worry about me asking to return the gun (having now worked on it), I'm not gonna be shy about speaking my mind and voicing my opinions. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance. If I'm right, shame on you. Only you know the truth, and I have no recourse.
Trying some logical fixes to correct the too-narrow cylinder gap, the only relief from the problem came from not tightening the two screws joining the two halves of the receiver beyond barely snug. That worked only until a scope was mounted again; whereupon the cylinder again became to tight to install. I'm now going to put it in the hands of a professional.
If the rifle worked fine for you, then it's logical to deduce the cylinder-gap got squashed together somewhat in shipping (probably from the package being dropped on its end, as freight-handlers are prone to do). The cylinder-gap in the receiver couldn't have been squashed together if there had been a cylinder in it. My guess is new HW100 are shipped with a cylinder installed; I'll find out.
As mentioned before, because I've worked on the gun, you're off the hook. However I find it odd that both cylinders were noticably scored before I ever tried to insert them; and your story about purchasing such an unsuited-for-iron-sights and imminently-designed-for-scoping rifle as an HW100 for "an open sights project" I find not only unbelievable but an unbelievably CONVENIENT pre-emptive explanation for such an issue as I now face. To paraphrase, I don't believe you sold a rifle without issues; and if so, the issues result from shipping the rifle without a cylinder installed.
P.S.- I'm curious about this "iron sights project that went south". (Unquote)
Imagine that! With the exception of the most talented fiction writers, never in a million years could an average person craft such a tirade as to capture its entire living essence in the last breath. Ironically, Ron's two initial emails regarding the matter portray an individual who is focused and has the self assurance of someone who has repeatedly traveled down a familiar road. On the other hand, the desperation is palpable in Ron's Sept. 20 email as the narrative blindly flails away with competing absurdities in an attempt to arrive at any accusation that had the potential to resonate. Although Ron undoubtedly understood my words very well, his B.O.I accusation that my emails were "vague" could only be the result of a decision to follow my own script. The intent was to deny Ron a roadmap to navigate by.
By the time Ron wrote his 2nd Sept. 20 email, he undoubtedly understood his Sept. 19 email had locked him into the scenario of having tampered with the airgun. Definitely not a neophyte, Ron knew that when an airgun is damaged by the freight company, the only recommended course of action is to contact the seller immediately instead relinquishing any possible recourse as a result of engaging in unathorized refair efforts. In a transparent attempt to negate his unwitting blunder, Ron's 2nd Sept. 20 email, the third about the matter, raised the specter of dishonesty by beginning with the allegation I shipped a defective airgun. Hastily conceived last ditch offensives can be problematic in unforeseen but predictable ways. For example:
1.) Ron's 2nd Sept. 20 email begins with the words:
(Quote): Okay. I noticed both magazines had a bit of scoring on the raised faces (Unquote)
Well into the narrative, one finds a description of two entirely different magazines:
(Quote): both cylinders were noticeably scored (Unquote)
*** Here's the easy uncluttered comparison: "a bit of scoring" vs "noticeably scored"
Ironically, one of the two magazines Ron described was an unused factory fresh spare. After testing for function, I misplaced one of the two magazines that the HW100 came with. Unable to locate that magazine later, I shipped the spare instead. I've since found the missing magazine, which is in pristine factory fresh condition!
2.) Ron's 2nd Sept. 20 email describes the HW100's functioning in the following manner:
(Quote): Before mounting a scope, neither magazine inserted without coersion, and both bound noticably when rotated --- However, upon mounting a scope, neither magazine would insert at all (Unquote)
The structure of that narrative does not lend itself to an obvious comparison that can be highlighted, but the only conclusion possible is that both magazines went into the breech. As with the magazines, the narrative of Ron's subsequent B.O.I. post characterizes the functioning of a distinctly different HW100:
(Quote): The HW100 --- would not accept either magazine when I received the rifle. After correcting the problem (receiver cylinder-gap was too narrow), tried two different scope and mount combinations (Unquote)
*** Again, here's easy uncluttered comparison:
"both magazines went into the breech" vs "would not accept either magazine"
So, according to Ron's Sept. 20 email both magazines inserted, albeit with difficulty, but without correcting the problem. According to his B.O.I. post, neither magazine would go in until the problem was corrected.
That's perfectly understandable, fabricated evidence can never be reliably repeated with any degree of consistency.
Ron's magazine in the breech theory appears twice in his 2nd Sept. 20 email. The first version boldly states:
(Quote): My guess is new HW100 are shipped with a cylinder installed; I'll find out. (Unquote)
Whether or not Ron actually made an attempt to find out is unknown, but I did. An Oct. 12 email from the MANUFACTURER confirms the practices my preceding narrative outlined. That email states:
(Quote): We ship our mod. HW 100 always without a magazine in the gun in the packing box. The 2 magazines are in the extra box included in the packing box together with the charging probe and the bleeding nut. (Unquote)
Ron's 2nd Sept. 20 email also validated my earlier decision to decline his invitation for a telephone conversation. Unless I submissively deferred to the agenda that unfolded before me, a phone conversation would have unquestionably exposed me to accusations not easily refuted without referring to text communication. I learned the value of documented evidence long ago.
Normally very patient, I was thoroughly disgusted with the entire affair and yielded to the temptation for instant gratification by sending Ron a Sept. 22 email with a thinly disguised provocation just to see what came back. Those words are:
(Quote): Your email only confirmed that the keyboard is my friend, not yours. Thank you! (Unquote)
Ron's Sept. 22 email stated:
(Quote): To answer your earlier question, yes, you are missing something. What you are missing is that I will post my experiences on the BOI whether you discuss the problem with me or not. The question is, are you gonna man-up and respond, or just ignore the issue and hope it goes away? It won't. If ignored, it will only fester. I can see you would like to avoid all responsibility through non-communication, which won't read well on the BOI. Are you gonna call me, or send me your phone number so I can call you before I post feed-back tomorrow? (Unquote)
Instead of making good on his "tomorrow" ultimatum, Ron delayed for six days before posting negative feedback.
After reading Ron's 2nd Sept. 20 email, one would not only have been extremely na´ve, but every bit as foolhardy for engaging in a conversation with an individual who would commit such an incredibly bizarre diatribe to text with no more thought than it takes to step on a cigarette butt! Who else would invoke the "you screws, you lose" credo while vividly demonstrating it was just convenient stagecraft by simultaneously pursuing an agenda that violated that very principle? Ron's "are you gonna" entreaties are simply breathtaking! Evidently it never occurred to Ron that waiting to win a big lottery might be time MUCH better spent. In other words, pigs would first grow wings and fly away or I would take to drinking my bathwater before giving him the slightest consideration other than to respond to an unwarranted negative B.O.I. post.
Ironically, there is a very sharp contrast between how Ron addressed me and his narrative in the public domain, where he articulates his point of view concisely and fluently. Ron's demonstrated ability and his status as a published author are evidence that, had he only wanted to or had circumstances permitted him to, Ron could have used the keyboard to present any legitimate concerns to me in a comprehensive manner. Such a scenario assumes an appropriate response.
Drawing A Bead On Other Airgunners
(Quote): P.S.- I'm curious about this "iron sights project that went south". (Unquote)
Anyone with legitimate concerns would never undermine them with such innuendo. That provocative postscript to Ron's 2nd Sept. email came immediately after deriding the prospect of outfitting an up market PCP with open sights. If that rhetoric is indeed a genuine reflection of Ron's point of view, one wonders why he wasn't more cautious before purchasing the HW100 by at least questioning me instead of simply checking my B.O.I. feedback. With sarcasm that mirrors the aforementioned postscript and captures the unbridled rhetoric of his email, Ron's B.O.I post begins with the words:
(Quote): The HW100 he posted as "purchased new for an open sights project" (say what?) ---. (Unquote)
Such gibberish has no place in a B.O.I. post, but as luck would have it, flies in the face of projects featured in a few Yellow Forum posts and Airgun Classifieds ads for top shelf open sight equipped PCP's.
Leaving No Stone Left Unturned
Not content with confining his attack to me, Ron lashed out at other innocent parties with the following statement from his 2nd Sept. 20 email:
(Quote): If the rifle worked fine for you, then it's logical to deduce the cylinder-gap got squashed together somewhat in shipping (probably from the package being dropped on its end, as freight-handlers are prone to do. (Unquote)
How possible is it that on more than one occasion, freight company personnel have shown Ron where the bear does his business in the woods?
JK's Airgun Forums, moderators, and administrators are not responsible for any problems that may occur from reading or using content posted on this forum, as they are the exclusive responsibility of two parties: the person who posted it and the person who acted on said posted information.Use of our forums by people under 18 years old is allowed only with legal guardian(s) present.