I think the bottom line is, these rifles were misrepresented from the outset as something they are not. The safety issues are just the icing on the cake, albeit also a far more serious issue. Whether Marstar/John was aware of either of those problems at the outset or not, the fact remains that even once both were clearly proven, the only response given were a couple smart replies to minor sideline posts, followed up by roaring silence on the actual pertinent issues. All the while the rifles continued to be sold and the thread was being monitored by Marstar as it progressed, so it isn't as though they can plead ignorance after the fact either.
It's nice there's a guarantee. Yes, people should read about it. Clearly though, it's not what it seems either as shipping refunds may/may not be given apparently at their discretion (and are not being issued here according to those involved). That aside, having a guarantee return system doesn't absolve Marstar of selling a misrepresented and dangerous/defective product. Whether they knew or not at the start, again, once the problems were brought to light the official response or rather lack thereof just shows Marstar doesn't care about their customers and is content to let things continue on as long as they get paid. A reputable company, at the very least, would post a public acknowledgment, suspend sales, and contact those involved about "incorrect" ads and potentially lethal safety problems. The consumer has a reasonable expectation that advertising will be true, that they will receive the product that is advertised, and that it will be safe to operate. We have laws about those things for a reason. Those defending Marstar here seem to think it's fine for a company to sell dangerous, misrepresented items via false advertising and as long as the people who happen to find out can send them back, it's all good. Everyone else who gets fooled (or maybe injured too), oh well, that's their problem I guess. After all, how dare they assume they'd receive a product that actually matched its description and was safe to operate?
All legal considerations aside, just ask yourself, is that the kind of company you want to deal with and support with your business?
It's nice there's a guarantee. Yes, people should read about it. Clearly though, it's not what it seems either as shipping refunds may/may not be given apparently at their discretion (and are not being issued here according to those involved). That aside, having a guarantee return system doesn't absolve Marstar of selling a misrepresented and dangerous/defective product. Whether they knew or not at the start, again, once the problems were brought to light the official response or rather lack thereof just shows Marstar doesn't care about their customers and is content to let things continue on as long as they get paid. A reputable company, at the very least, would post a public acknowledgment, suspend sales, and contact those involved about "incorrect" ads and potentially lethal safety problems. The consumer has a reasonable expectation that advertising will be true, that they will receive the product that is advertised, and that it will be safe to operate. We have laws about those things for a reason. Those defending Marstar here seem to think it's fine for a company to sell dangerous, misrepresented items via false advertising and as long as the people who happen to find out can send them back, it's all good. Everyone else who gets fooled (or maybe injured too), oh well, that's their problem I guess. After all, how dare they assume they'd receive a product that actually matched its description and was safe to operate?
All legal considerations aside, just ask yourself, is that the kind of company you want to deal with and support with your business?
Last edited:
