The long and the short of it involves 2 air rifles purchased in 1 week in mid November totaling over $4700.00. The first arrived defective and ultimately had to go back to the vendor, AOA for a 3-4 week (likely) warranty visit. I chose a refund as my general philosophy is to choose a vendor that does not require you to keep a broken gun and seek warranty (neither diagnostically or sending it to the distributor/mfg). That difficulty was handled well and as expected by HPP.
I soon discovered that the second rifle had a significant leak that I could not diagnose any leakage from both listening with a stethoscope as well as leak testing fluid on all that I could access, to no avail. I spoke to Tom at HPP and he spoke of the valve between the tank and rifle to be the likely problem and I was not operating it correctly, I assured him that it was NOT the valve and I have checked it in every way possible. He said he was going to call Skout (it was a Skout Evo). I notified him after additional testing and charging with air that I did not want him to contact Skout as I decided to send the rifle and accessories back.
At that time Tom had an absolute meltdown. He then gave a list of dubious reasons that I could not send it back and even asserted that sending it back was "NOT AN OPTION at this time". This was puzzling to me as I wrote back and made multiple points including citing chapter and verse of the Return Terms and Conditions. I knew and made the point that he really had no authority to command the situation as he was doing. When I shot back the email that correctly cited why he was wrong things began to change. I also got an uneasy feeling in my gut. I went to the website and found where he had based his authority on...the NEWLY posted Return Terms and Conditions.
That same night Bill Gardener, the owner of Skout, called me and explained that the rifle had to come to the shop. After talking to me for 3 minutes he knew that it was neither me nor the "valve" that was causing this significant leak. Bill sent a call tag.
At this same time Tom knew I was on to his tricks and he also issued a call tag as well and admitted the website was changed but did not apply to me. (Of course, he already tried to) The original policy allowed any rifle to be sent back for defect but if it was found to not be defective, the seller had a healthy remedy of a 15-25% fee that would be levied on the one who returned it. Now I had a choice to make as to who would most likely give an honest appraisal of the rifle. I chose to send it to Skout as my trust in Tom was shattered.
This was a blatant attempt to change the rules during a dispute. Yes, during a policy dispute he actually changed the policy posted on the website and tried to use that new authority on me.
Since receiving the rifle back from Skout, I have tried to reach Tom to talk about this situation. The whole experience was tainted by what happened. Buying a high-end air rifle is a process and this process was tainted and ended sadly. I have since sold the rifle.
Tom has chosen to not even respond to my last email that might have avoided this public discussion. Ghosting me seems to be Tom's solution to what happened. Yes, I have email proof for every assertion I have made here.
I soon discovered that the second rifle had a significant leak that I could not diagnose any leakage from both listening with a stethoscope as well as leak testing fluid on all that I could access, to no avail. I spoke to Tom at HPP and he spoke of the valve between the tank and rifle to be the likely problem and I was not operating it correctly, I assured him that it was NOT the valve and I have checked it in every way possible. He said he was going to call Skout (it was a Skout Evo). I notified him after additional testing and charging with air that I did not want him to contact Skout as I decided to send the rifle and accessories back.
At that time Tom had an absolute meltdown. He then gave a list of dubious reasons that I could not send it back and even asserted that sending it back was "NOT AN OPTION at this time". This was puzzling to me as I wrote back and made multiple points including citing chapter and verse of the Return Terms and Conditions. I knew and made the point that he really had no authority to command the situation as he was doing. When I shot back the email that correctly cited why he was wrong things began to change. I also got an uneasy feeling in my gut. I went to the website and found where he had based his authority on...the NEWLY posted Return Terms and Conditions.
That same night Bill Gardener, the owner of Skout, called me and explained that the rifle had to come to the shop. After talking to me for 3 minutes he knew that it was neither me nor the "valve" that was causing this significant leak. Bill sent a call tag.
At this same time Tom knew I was on to his tricks and he also issued a call tag as well and admitted the website was changed but did not apply to me. (Of course, he already tried to) The original policy allowed any rifle to be sent back for defect but if it was found to not be defective, the seller had a healthy remedy of a 15-25% fee that would be levied on the one who returned it. Now I had a choice to make as to who would most likely give an honest appraisal of the rifle. I chose to send it to Skout as my trust in Tom was shattered.
This was a blatant attempt to change the rules during a dispute. Yes, during a policy dispute he actually changed the policy posted on the website and tried to use that new authority on me.
Since receiving the rifle back from Skout, I have tried to reach Tom to talk about this situation. The whole experience was tainted by what happened. Buying a high-end air rifle is a process and this process was tainted and ended sadly. I have since sold the rifle.
Tom has chosen to not even respond to my last email that might have avoided this public discussion. Ghosting me seems to be Tom's solution to what happened. Yes, I have email proof for every assertion I have made here.
