Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Problems with Rossi Youth Rifle 223
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1220008" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>Why shouldn't he be able to shoot anything? It's not like it's military hard-primer ammo.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He can back it up. He can sue them for a defective product if they don't make it right.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not. Nor is the lower thresshold of action I recommended as a possibility - just threatening to do so. But sometimes they are the right approach. Maybe one more time back with failure to fix before threatening action. But it sounds like they are being obtuse to him, and something needs to get their attention - they should have tested the rifle *before* sending it back to him the first time, given the known problem. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the big company will screw over the little guy every time if they don't complain and demand a good quality product. These things are made in Argentina, where labor is cheap, and they sell a ton of them - they should work well, even with a low price.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Semi-autos can be finnicky on feeding. That is acceptable in some cases. Failure to launch is unacceptable - sounds like a too-short pin.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but this ain't military ammo (is it?)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. Failure to fire is unacceptable, and represents a defect, and most certainly makes the gun "bad".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He doesn't want perfection; he simply wants it to FIRE <strong><em>standard</em></strong> ammo, and not risk injury from a hangfire. Not asking too much is it?</p><p></p><p>If there's one thing I'm convinced of, it's that WE the consumers must start to, and keep on, demanding quality merchandise, and demanding that companies back up their products. They're getting shoddier and shoddier, and the warranties & service are also getting shoddier & shoddier, as time goes by. It's a trend we must resist.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>EDIT: Please throw out my entire post here if this was military ammo with hard primers: I thought that you meant commercial .223 ammo from Federal, with 55 grainers - <em>that is implied since you said .223, not 5.56x45.</em> <strong>Which is it - commercial target/hunting .223 rem ammo, or Federal-made 5.56x45mm .mil ball ammo? </strong> If the former, then my posts makes sense. If the latter - then I agree with ssgrock - you can't expect it to necessarily shoot hard-primer .mil ammo - wholly different specification of primer hardness there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1220008, member: 7123"] Why shouldn't he be able to shoot anything? It's not like it's military hard-primer ammo. He can back it up. He can sue them for a defective product if they don't make it right. It's not. Nor is the lower thresshold of action I recommended as a possibility - just threatening to do so. But sometimes they are the right approach. Maybe one more time back with failure to fix before threatening action. But it sounds like they are being obtuse to him, and something needs to get their attention - they should have tested the rifle *before* sending it back to him the first time, given the known problem. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the big company will screw over the little guy every time if they don't complain and demand a good quality product. These things are made in Argentina, where labor is cheap, and they sell a ton of them - they should work well, even with a low price. Semi-autos can be finnicky on feeding. That is acceptable in some cases. Failure to launch is unacceptable - sounds like a too-short pin. Yes, but this ain't military ammo (is it?) I disagree. Failure to fire is unacceptable, and represents a defect, and most certainly makes the gun "bad". He doesn't want perfection; he simply wants it to FIRE [B][I]standard[/I][/B] ammo, and not risk injury from a hangfire. Not asking too much is it? If there's one thing I'm convinced of, it's that WE the consumers must start to, and keep on, demanding quality merchandise, and demanding that companies back up their products. They're getting shoddier and shoddier, and the warranties & service are also getting shoddier & shoddier, as time goes by. It's a trend we must resist. EDIT: Please throw out my entire post here if this was military ammo with hard primers: I thought that you meant commercial .223 ammo from Federal, with 55 grainers - [I]that is implied since you said .223, not 5.56x45.[/I] [B]Which is it - commercial target/hunting .223 rem ammo, or Federal-made 5.56x45mm .mil ball ammo? [/B] If the former, then my posts makes sense. If the latter - then I agree with ssgrock - you can't expect it to necessarily shoot hard-primer .mil ammo - wholly different specification of primer hardness there. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Problems with Rossi Youth Rifle 223
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom