T97NSR Barrel flaw Vote

what would you do?

  • return rifle for refund

    Votes: 62 30.0%

  • return for replacement barrel

    Votes: 52 25.1%

  • accept the fact there is a drill hole in the barrel

    Votes: 60 29.0%

  • accept a credit or free something

    Votes: 33 15.9%
  • Total voters
    207
Status
Not open for further replies.
sewktbk said:
And this is why I never buy rifles when they first come out, even when its supposedly a proven platform.
Click to expand...

Replace rifles with pretty much any new consumer item and I totally agree.

Since there is a cryforum for everything it doesn't take long to see what is slightly flawed to straight up garbage these days.

but,

The internet has become a place for first world whiners with disposable income to cry 24/7 on.

So, these threads take priority now. :(
 
theSHARK said:
I guess you didn't read or comprehend the statement from the manufacture stating that the damage was caused when they broke drill bits off in the gas port and had to press them out creating a "slight impression" in the rifling.
Click to expand...

I read and comprehended it. I also talked to a tool and die maker and a machine shop owner, and they said that explanation is bunk and the impression was caused by operator error (drilling too deep).
 
Ar180shooter said:
I read and comprehended it. I also talked to a tool and die maker and a machine shop owner, and they said that explanation is bunk and the impression was caused by operator error (drilling too deep).
Click to expand...

x2 same im starting to feel ripped off cause my 699$ norc ar only has one gas port and no other drill holes in the barrel..wait and all my other semi's are feeling left out too .. its getting so my t97 has to sit off way away from all my other rifles so not to get ridiculed.
 
Last edited:
Hitzy said:
why not? Not like there are high labor costs, and the gun is mostly plastic, with some simple aluminum and steel parts. Would be a very cheaply manufactured gun. NS probably paid less then $100 a unit for these.
And making reference to it being half the price of a Tavor would be ok if it was a Nork Tavor clone.....but its not. Maybe they should have cloned a Tavor instead of rushing this flawed POS to market...lol
Click to expand...

because the t-97 isn't a milsurp. they are specifically manufactured for export sale and the NSR and eventually NRR are specifically manufactured for civilian use in Canada. These aren't rifles cobbled together by the millions during wartime, these are built from machines that had to be retooled and adjusted from their original design to specifically meet our requirements, people staffed to assemble the different parts our version required. There is no way these will cost anything less than 800. These in my honest opinion should cost no less than any other low end AR. Lets face it this is a low end rifle derived from a military service weapon, and the price reflects perfectly what a low end modern service rifle should cost. the Fit and finish is to be expected to be garbage. Not only were they intended to be low end the originals were intended to serve in the military, they don't need to be nice and they don't need to be perfect, they just need to serve their purpose, and from what i've seen of them this gouge does not change that.
 
Ar180shooter said:
I find it hilarious that you think specially produced semi-only T97's should sell for what surplus SKS's and SVT's sell for.
Click to expand...

Evil_Edie said:
because the t-97 isn't a milsurp. they are specifically manufactured for export sale and the NSR and eventually NRR are specifically manufactured for civilian use in Canada. These aren't rifles cobbled together by the millions during wartime, these are built from machines that had to be retooled and adjusted from their original design to specifically meet our requirements, people staffed to assemble the different parts our version required. There is no way these will cost anything less than 800. These in my honest opinion should cost no less than any other low end AR. Lets face it this is a low end rifle derived from a military service weapon, and the price reflects perfectly what a low end modern service rifle should cost. the Fit and finish is to be expected to be garbage. Not only were they intended to be low end the originals were intended to serve in the military, they don't need to be nice and they don't need to be perfect, they just need to serve their purpose, and from what i've seen of them this gouge does not change that.
Click to expand...

Jahhhhaaaaahaha IF these cost $800 a unit to manufacture in China NS would not be making a dime importing them and they would lose money....really.
How much do you think a Glock 17 costs them to manufacture in Austria where wages are actually normal compared to rest of the world? I'll give you a hint....its under $100. Beretta M9 sells to the US GOV for $260 and its made in the USA and includes profit margin for Beretta.
Sure its a pistol vs a rifle but the amount of labor is probably close with the Glock vs T97, and waaayyy more with Beretta as there are considerably more machine steps involved there. Material cost difference would be minimal. If anyone thinks these cost more then $100 a unit to make in China do some research.
 
Ar180shooter said:
Yep. I plan on picking up a T97 when the next batch comes in. Despite these minor issues, they seem to be quite good for what you pay.
Click to expand...

I doubt the next batch will be any different.
If NS doesn't care enough to stand behind their import do you think they actually care enough to contact the manufacturer to have them increase the QC and then pay more for the increased cost of having them correct the issue?

Canada Ammo is getting my money, they've already stated they are putting together a list of improvements that will be implemented on their version.
 
Hitzy said:
Jahhhhaaaaahaha IF these cost $800 a unit to manufacture in China NS would not be making a dime importing them and they would lose money....really.
How much do you think a Glock 17 costs them to manufacture in Austria where wages are actually normal compared to rest of the world? I'll give you a hint....its under $100. Beretta M9 sells to the US GOV for $260 and its made in the USA and includes profit margin for Beretta.
Sure its a pistol vs a rifle but the amount of labor is probably close with the Glock vs T97, and waaayyy more with Beretta as there are considerably more machine steps involved there. Material cost difference would be minimal. If anyone thinks these cost more then $100 a unit to make in China do some research.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they cost $800 to manufacture in China, and they do cost more than $800 for dealers. You also have to realize that part of the reason the M9/Glock are so cheap is a mix of sheer numbers produced and high volume government contracts. The T97 is a specialty product, produced in small numbers for our market. There is also more machining involved in producing the T97 than something like a Glock.
 
cr5 said:
I doubt the next batch will be any different.
If NS doesn't care enough to stand behind their import do you think they actually care enough to contact the manufacturer to have them increase the QC and then pay more for the increased cost of having them correct the issue?

Canada Ammo is getting my money, they've already stated they are putting together a list of improvements that will be implemented on their version.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of speculation there...

Now that this issue has been brought to NS's attention, I believe special attention will be paid to ensuring it does not happen in future batches. As for NS not standing behind it, there's not much they could do short of replacing the barrels, and without parts on hand, and given the defect is not impacting function, it doesn't make business sense to replace them.
 
Ar180shooter said:
That's a lot of speculation there...

Now that this issue has been brought to NS's attention, I believe special attention will be paid to ensuring it does not happen in future batches. As for NS not standing behind it, there's not much they could do short of replacing the barrels, and without parts on hand, and given the defect is not impacting function, it doesn't make business sense to replace them.
Click to expand...

Just as much speculation in your opinion.

Your right though, I don't expect them to replace every rifle since it doesn't make the rifle any less safe or less accurate.
Most reports are that it is actually quite accurate for a battle rifle. Maybe one and a half gas ports is a new accuracy enhancing trick ;)

I wouldn't be happy about it if mine showed up like that but come on guys, is it really that big of a deal? Does it really affect anything?
 
So I assume everyone here who says suck it up buttercup would also do the same thing if they bought a "BNIB" firearm on the EE and found a mark in the bore not disclosed by the seller?

Or would you contact the seller and say WTF?

Would you pay the exact same for this gun used as one without the mark? Or do you think it might just affect the future resale value of it or the potential pool of buyers willing to overlook it?

Of course you would expect it to sell for less than one without the mark, and less people would be interested in it, so it is natural it should either come from the Vendor with the "full disclosure" of the flaw and let the buyer decide, or come at a discount and disclosed as being "blemished" or "grade B".

Does anyone honestly contend they would chose one with this mark/blemish/flaw and pay the same price over one without it if they had the choice?
 
jdman said:
not everyone is like that. i still dont see anything in mine....what about "yours"? did you buy one yet, or do you still just like to ##### about something you dont own?
Click to expand...

Yes i did.

For 800$. Unfired. Shipped.

umad ?
 
I could care less about my rifles over drilled hole.

Seriously. I don't care about it and my rifle is effected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom