Williams customer service?

[runnin an gunnin]

The following is an email I sent yesterday to Dwight.

"Dwight,
Approximately first week of Oct. I contacted my FFL Dealer friend (Jim L. ******) and had him place an order for qty. 1 Williams Arms Combat Elite FAL receiver. He left town for 15 days for a hunting trip we both had whole heartedly expected to see the package received in shop at his time of return as there was people still working the shop to have received the package. The receiver needless to say was not there.
Jim called in regards to the whereabouts of my receiver and was told that there was a delay and the receiver was being shipped within the next couple of days. A few weeks later I decided that I wanted to purchase a second receiver for yet another FAL project and had him order a second one and to find out where in the blue hell my first receiver was.
Jim called your company last week, Tues. I believe, and raised hell to the whereabouts of my receivers. The person on the phone told him that Williams had run out of receivers and was just pulling more off from the production line and the 1rst receiver was ready to ship within the week and that they would sell the 2nd receiver but the original cost of $195 was no longer valid and after he pointed out they were screwing me over they decided to sell the 2nd receiver due to the Williams screwup.
This is what I call piss poor customer service. A wait over a month for a receiver? I urge you to find out where my ordered receivers are and remedy this situation as quickly as possible. And if they have not shipped yet I would consider next day air a proper way of shipping as this wait for a receiver is assanine!
Feel free to contact Jim ****** (FFL) at 417-***-4959 during his business hours of 5-9 Wednesday through Friday and 12-6 Sat.

Thank you for your efforts in advance to remedy this situation,

David Skinner C&R FFL
**** ********
************, MO 64050
816-***-**** & 816-836-5598

PS If neither myself nor Jim ****** has heard from you by Friday, tommorrow, I will continue to phone, email, fax, whatever it takes to solve this dilema!"

Ok I got a little crazy with the *s but you all know why.

I hope this is not Williams standard routine of customer service but right now I'm feeling a little "serviced" so to speak!

[EMDII]

Please see here:

Receiver shipments- (http://www.l1a1.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015481)

You may not have been aware WAC was revising shipping dates based on feedback from the FAL Files concerning LS dropout and other minor QC issues.

And since Dwight hasn't answered in less than 24, I suppose he deserves a garroting mas publica?
:p

C'mon man, I've had a custom rifle take a year, and this here is new production. I've had a FAL buildup take several months from a quality builder.

Did you try writing Dwight/George before yesterday? If so, how/when did they respond? I agree you've got a right to be anxious, but there are probably several hundred receiver orders at WAC. You may not actually be #1 on the list.

As for pricing changes, that is an issue I'd lkike to see resolved, especially if the order was placed/received based on the old price list.

Patience my ass? Not at all. Some good things take time. Hopefully, yours will be well worth the wait.

[runnin an gunnin]

Ted,
I am not trying to mass garot :D Dwight or his company. I am merely wanting to find out if everyone is in the same boat.

Now c'mon Ted, you would be a little pissed, let down, anxious etc. if your receivers were taking over a month to ship. Hell I could have had my FFL buddy just order Gear Logo Imbels for a mere $43.50 more from Dealer Wharehouse or Sarco and I would have already had them and assembled by now! :eek:

And yes Ted .. my dealer has contacted them numerous times before I wrote Dwight yesterday. I just felt that the due attention might be paid by the owner as the person who talked to my dealer friend on the phone seemed less than concerned or friendly about the matter! :p

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: runnin an gunnin ]

[Dwight]

Mr. Skinner:

I instructed our sales department to cancel your order immediately, and to refund your purchase price of your sale today. Unfortunately, your receiver was shipped yesterday via 2nd Day Air by Federal Express.

Your tracking # is 79170521 1784.

p.s. Jim Duryee, your FFL Dealer was notified via telephone on Wednesday, the 14th of this month at 1121 hrs PST that your receiver was being shipped yesterday.

Have a nice Day!

Dwight E. Williams

['TUDE]

runnin an gunnin....Been there, done that.
Went through the same thing.
In defense, it is a nice receiver. Will be barreling mine today.

[Wiggins]

I understand runnin an gunnin's frustration over this. I ordered my receiver from them a week or two after him, and I asked about any possible lag time (specifically addressing production time) between when the order was received (with payment and FFL) and when the receiver would ship; even though their ad at the time said that the receivers were "in-stock for immediate delivery." I was told that they would ship immediately upon payment. I also was told that "the ad in SGN was a misprint and the rec. really costs $225 now" story, but I agreed to pay the higher fee. I just talked to them and it appears that my receiver was not one of the ones that shipped yesterday, and that it should go out Monday, just like they have said that it would go out the next week every week since I placed my order. This is a particularly sore point for me because I wanted to assemble my FAL over Thanksgiving break (a situation that I explained to the woman I placed my order with), and now it looks like I will have to wait until Christmas (I leave for home in the Seattle area Tuesday and my receiver will be coming into the Spokane area around Saturday if it actually ships this time). The woman I have been talking to on the phone has always been polite, and tried to be helpful, but all I really want is an honest answer (whether she intentionally gave me misinformation or not I don't know) as to when I will get my receiver, even if that answer is "We don't know." I understand that every business has supply/production problems at one time or another, and if you cannot deliver a product on time then say so. I would have been more than happy to wait however many days it will take to get my receiver if they had been upfront with me about this, but as it stands, it will take one hell of a good product to get me to order from them again.

Kyle

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Wiggins ]

[cadillac]

Must be I'm just lucky. I have been talking to WAC since they first announced they would be producing the alloy receiver. I've placed orders. I've consistently received great service (& great products!). I ordered a QD mount on the website last night - it shipped today. Lori, the sales receptionist, has always been an absolute sweetheart to me - of course I've always been civil and polite in my dealings with her too. I will continue to do business with WAC.

Yes, I too waited several weeks for a receiver. They told me of the problems which were being corrected and the delay which would result. I could have asked for a refund - which they would have happily provided, but I chose to wait. And I am glad I did. It was worth the wait. I've waited much longer for much less from others.

My experience has been good. But like I said, maybe I'm just a lucky guy...

[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: cadillac ]

[EMDII]

I understand the frustration. I also understand what fielding, recalling, revising, ad reissuing a new product means. This really is rocket science, not VW Magazine.

I believe if you'd kept abreast of postings here you'd have seen the progress, or lack thereof, firsthand. And I agree that knowledge is comfort. Are your wrong? No. But WAC is shipping (fill in the blank) orders, and may have a bit of a customer service overload. Perfect? Never. But I surmise that trying to keep abreast of this Board, several hundred customers, and your particular order, is pretty tough to do. Like the old Tapco complaints, customer service excellence is a target you keep shooting for.

Sorry for your personal ordeal. I hope your receiver is all you wished. You could have had an IMBEL, but you made an informed choice (I hope) about a product that was still in development when you made the order. As I said, I've sat and fretted about custom orders, FAL builds, and car loans. Got the same T-shirt you do, really.

If there's a next time for you, try your own phone. Your FFL buddy has lots going on too. Really. I sub at a friend's store, and you'd be amazed the calls he gets in one day.

Respectfully-

[Ken]

Damn, I find myself agreeing with cadillac again. If you have trouble with WAC you must be doing something wrong. Lori is a sweety and always seems to know when things are to be shipped, within a few days, anyway. If you don't like their customer service, have you tried Sarco or some of the real customer oriented companies? There are some real losers out there but WAC is not one of them. If you had to wait, like I dd when I returned my first receiver, the workmanship of their product makes it all worthwhile.

[Sophicles]

I had a long wait but that was right after Dwight stopped all shipments untill the problems were rectified. I didnt mind one bit in leui of this. I would much rather have waited then to recieve a faulty product. Still waiting on my lower so Ill post reviews on how the whole smash performs.

[Wiggins]

Lori is a sweety and always seems to know when things are to be shipped, within a few days, anyway.

I agree with you on the first point, but I can't agree with you on the shipping times.

Kyle

[runnin an gunnin]

Dwight,
I just got ahold of my FFL and he had just got the receivers in his hands a few moments ago.
My apologies to you and your company as it seems I hit a VERY sore nerve! But all my frustration could have been avoided if WAC had told my dealer right away that there would be a wait instead of "in-stock and ready to ship"! I am picking the receivers up tommorrow and I hope they are everything I hope they will be .. that said I apologized but do still feel that customer service was less than satisfactory for this order.
If all goes well with these two receivers .. I will look forward to ordering more in the future provided you have not blocked my dealer from ever ordering again :D!

David Skinner

[Gavin]

ED
"I believe if you'd kept abreast of postings here you'd have seen the progress, or lack thereof, firsthand"

its not the customers responsibility to try and figure out what a manufacturer is up to by following a board. When a manufacturer says "It will be shipped monday" it SHOULD be - and if it isn't then the manuf. should inform the customer that the future may bring delays. You are being totally unfair to "runnin" - he has a valid compaint. No one flames people for bitching about Sarcos f-ed up shipping times, and this is absolutely no bloody different.
Gavin

[EMDII]

I think I've been quite sympathetic about the issue. I would have handled it differently. That's all. And I agreee, WAC might have a burgeoning need for a larger customer service system.

I'm just glad he got his receivers. And I hope he finds they were worth the wait.

OBE- overtaken by events!
;)

[Nachoman]

I've sort of had a schizophrenic experience with Williams. It will probably take 6 weeks to get my receiver replaced, but a lot of that has to do with the BATF regulations, more than William customer service. It is frustrating, but having been in bleeding edge technology, I know it takes some time to get new products introduced to a market. I still have a lot of faith in the company to do right by their customers. I hope if nothing else, through the heat Dwight has been having to take, he realizes he has a real gem in Lori, and is compensating her accordingly.

[runnin an gunnin]

BTT :p

I know Ted will probably move this over to vendors now.

All you who firmly stood behind WAC ... where you at now in regards to the service you have gotten? :eek:

[xtremerange]

Last time I ordered a DSA receiver, it took two months for them to get it to me. During those two months they gave me a bogus expected ship date twice. In the end the sent the wrong receiver as well.

Also heard that Entreprise got a few weeks behind in their shipments as well.

Not a DSA or Entreprise bash. Merely pointing out that the shops in the US that make receivers are small organizations that have limited production capabilities.

[cadillac]

This is not a commentary on any safety issue still under investigation. But...

...as far as customer service goes I have had only good experiences with WAC.

1)My wife, FALicity, ordered a Combat Elite (custom SN) from WAC. It arrived as promised.

2)I ordered a WAC dust cover/scope mount. It came right through. It's a beauty, and so far all my rings fit perfectly - but I'm only using US made parts.

3)We've got a WAC ultra-light lower coming now. I expect the same beautiful production quality that I've seen on all the other WAC products we've received.

I spoke to Dwight just before Christmas. I spoke with Lori last week. They were closed for over a week for the holidays but, other than that, my calls always get answered and I've never been treated with anything less than respectful courtesy. But as I've said before, that's also the way I treat them.

As for the WAC receiver, I think the jury is still out, and I'm waiting.

As for the good/bad judgement of not putting the upper through more stringent trials, &/or not enclosing some type of warning against pounding oversize locking shoulders into place, OR whether they should only have sold them as complete rifles or barreled assemblies... well maybe, but you can all make your own decisions about that.

Your experiences may have been different than mine. I only know about mine.

Hindsight really is 20/20.

[larphred]

My experiences are a few months old but still, methinks, pertinent. I have spoken with Lori and Dwight on the phone. They have always been polite, courteous, and friendly. Dwight has been patient and gone to the trouble to explain many technical aspects to me, myself being a novice. My products were shipped on a timely basis and delivered on schedule.
As for the potential problems introduced by DSA, I'm being patient. I occasionally shoot my WAC receiver built G1 with the WAC scope mount. When I don't shoot I look at it--it's so damn beautiful. Mostly, I shoot my other FALs. Most of us have other FALs, don't we. Let's shoot them and hold on to the WACs until the jury is in. That's my attitude, for what it's worth.

[Wiggins]

My feelings about them are still pretty much as stated above. I think they will lie to your face to make a sale or pacify a customer. Which rings to a question I've been wondering about for a while. When the test results come back is their any way they can be verified? WAC claims they are being sent to HP White for testing, but will we have to take his word for it that the tests will be performed, and the results will be as Dwight will claim?

Kyle

[cadillac]

Wiggins

Sounds like you are both unlucky and unhappy. That is unfortunate. However, to answer your question: Yes. If WAC has testing performed by H.P. White, and if WAC chooses to release the results, credible confirmation of the information should be available. Now, let's wait to see if the tests are performed, and if the results are released to the FAL-buying public. We really should know pretty soon.

I really want to know the whole story, the truth, as objectively as possible, before I reach any absolute conclusions. I don't want to base my decisions on emotion or speculation or hopes and wishes. That means I'll have to wait a little longer. So be it.

[MagicAnimal]

Never have ordered anything from Williams, but have had the two month wait for my STG from DSA. And i wasn't shy about yapping at them on the phone about the delays. With that said, i knew what i was getting and it was definitely worth the wait. Since merely cleaning the piece taxes my mechanical abilities ( which are pretty much non-existent)my hat is off to you folks who can actually put these things together!

[screech-fnfal]

cadillac
But now you experience a failure - thank God no injury resulted. You, using a properly assembled rifle; using some of the same ammo that sits in our safe. Now it won't matter what any additional independant testing determines. We planned a LW build for my wife, FALicity. Now I could not ever feel safe letting her fire a Combat Elite LW.
I agree, I would never let my wife shoot a WAC Combat Elite. It does not matter what any more tests show, they will go KB, you just do not know if it will be at round 50 or 1000!

[Sailor553]

Speaking of HP White; it's been close to two months. Dwight, where are the tests results?

[cadillac]

Screech-FNFAL

I did say that. But as I've said repeatedly since I made that emotional response to news that a friend might have been hurt: We now know that we don't yet have all the info.

If it turns out that a WAC Combat Elite can't be safe, then I'll never touch one, nor will I want my wife (or anyone else's) to use one.

But if it turns out that the failures were do to exceesive force &/or improper procedures used during assembly, or to unsafe (post manufacture) modifications made to the receiver by someone other than the manufacturer, or even (and this is NOT an accusation) intentional outcome rigging of previous tests, ie; a gun built to fail, or tampered (super loaded) ammunition, etc., then I will have to reconsider ALL the information, including any additional tests performed, before reaching any final conclusions.

Making long term decisions on emotions of the instant can be foolish. Likewise, refusing to acknowledge that a serious problem might exist, and failing to take adequate short-term precautions until all the facts are evaluated would be equally foolish.

So, as I've also said before, if that means I'll have to wait a little longer. So be it.

That, to me, seems the only intelligent and prudent course to follow.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: cadillac ]

[Nik]

Cadillac,

Its incredible to suggest that DSA, FWRA (formerly one of the staunchest supporters of WAC) and the full-auto guy were all incompetent or built their respective rifles with the intent of having them KB. Furthermore, there have been additional failures that we don't know about as posted by GG when he first left WAC. Finally, in the FAL's long and distinguished history no one has produced an aluminum receiver. I think the conclusion to be drawn from all of this is pretty clear.

[idsubgun]

Nik,

Quit using logic. ;)

Everyone has their opinion, mine is they are junk. I won't risk injury or death because of a few ounces lighter.

There have been a lot more KB's, like Nik states, that haven't been brought to light. Contact GG, and ask him how many he has seen. Call Dwight and ask how many are in his safe.

These are the ones I've heard about:

Oly's KB (yes, these were made by Williams).
DSA's KB.
Mark Powell's KB (crack).
Several in Dwight's safe.
The FA one.

How many do you need to prove the point? The one that scatters and blows someone's face off?

[screech-fnfal]

idsubgun stated, "Everyone has their opinion, mine is they are junk.
idsubgun is 100% correct.

AND: WAC customer service sucks, AND the only 2 people who work there are both liers :mad:

[WildBillGW]

Hi all,

I posted earlier on this subject about my repeated e-mails and phone calls to Dwight & WAC. Just wanted to update you all and let you know the entire amount for the receiver & top cover/scopemount has been refunded to my VISA!

Thanks Dwight, sorry about your troubles! :(

A lightweight fully functioning receiver would have been a nice basis for a build...

[screech-fnfal]

WildBillGW, That is good news, I have been waiting since November w/promises from WAC to credit my card for $388. I have a dispute with WAC/MasterCard well under way, maybe they are waking up. :eek:

[cadillac]

Nik

Everyone is entitled to form their own opinion - including you, and including me, and I expressed mine here.

But don't put words in my mouth that are not mine.

I've said here and I'll say again: WAC receivers may be crap. But until we know exactly why they failed we can't be sure exactly what the problem is.

Most importantly, until the exact problem/cuase/flaw (choose the word that you prefer) is known, nobody will know how to improve or correct it.

You said- Finally, in the FAL's long and distinguished history no one has produced an aluminum receiver. I think the conclusion to be drawn from all of this is pretty clear.

Well, I for one don't believe that a light weight receiver is impossible. Maybe the Combat Elite as we currently know it isn't the one, maybe it is - but I don't know the whole story yet. I do know that 100 years ago most people had never seen electric lights, telephones, or indoor plumbing; 50 years before that most people would have thought you crazy if you'd suggested the possibility; not long before that you might have been burned or drowned for even thinking out loud about it!

The advances in technology and metal sciences in recent decades are phenomenal. No doubt there are still hurdles to be cleared but to refuse to accept the possibility of progress is "Dark Ages" thinking. The fact that something never has been doesn't mean it never can be.

No doudt some of the WAC receivers failed, but others are still out there working perfectly. Why? I do not recommend that anyone shoot a WAC receivered FAL at this time. But we must find out if the failures are a result of design flaws, manufacturing inconsistencies or assembly problems. Or else the solutions(s) will never be found.

As to accusing anyone of anything. Re-read my post. Neither of the individuals you mentioned, Mark P. of FWRA (btw- I think Mark knows me well enough to not interpret my remarks as any kind of slander against him. Besides, I believe that his rifle was assembled by someone else) or the full-auto guy (as you decribe him, I don't know him or his name) could possibly have had extensive experience with aluminum FAL receivers. Hell, nobody has - they're brand new! It does seem possible that some of the practices and techniques commonly used on steel receivers will not work, or may even damage an aluminum receiver. Wouldn't it be great to know for sure?! I never called them incompetent, nor do I think it. They just didn't, and couldn't, know.

True, Mr. Williams probably should have known. I sure wish he had. I wish the receivers had been sent with that information. I wish that the information had been posted to the internet and included in all of their ads! Or maybe they should have made (or will make) the receivers available only as barreled actions or complete rifles. Then again, maybe the WAC Combat Elite is just crap.

I really want to know. But I don't know - not yet. And I don't think you do either.

As to the "other" cracked receivers in the WAC safe, I have no first hand knowledge. I do not know anything about the circumstances of their assembly or their failure. Do you?

As for DSA, I am not accusing them of anything. I think they make great stuff. I certainly own plenty of it, and plan to own more. But they also have a reputation as ruthless competitors - and they know it. Unfortunately, because of that, their true motives might always be questioned - whether fair or not.

But motive aside, DSA could (should?) have done a couple of things differently and thereby removed any possible question about their own veracity and/or the validity of the tests which they had conducted by H. P. White - whose reputation and credentials are superb. 1) They could (should?) have had the receiver ordered and the rifle assembled by an independant third party with no direct ties to DSA; 2) they could (should?) also have had ALL the ammo for the test supplied and sent to H. P. White by an independant third party; 3) DSA really should never have had the receiver, the rifle, or the ammo in their possession prior to completion of the tests. And they should have known that, without being told by me or anyone else!

That said, I don't necessarily doubt the results of the test that DSA had performed. But becuase of their errors there will, unfortunately, always be room for speculation.

I think it is important that a new and extensive series of tests be conducted as soon as possible (immediately?!). We need to know if, why, where, &/or how the WAC receiver does or does not fail - so that if necessary and if possible it can be improved!

As I've said repeatedly now, I don't think that anyone should be shooting any Combat Elite receivered weapon at this time.

If we find out how to proceed safely to use the WAC CE, well great! And if we find that we cannot proceed safely then WAC should instantly issue a recall of the CE receiver, offering either full refund or replacement with WAC steel receivers - customers choice.

Even in the face of IDSUBGUN's comments to the contrary, I don't see much illogical in what I've stated here. But I will agree that much of what I've seen posted relating to the WAC CE problem has been more emotional (anger, fear, hate) than thoughtful or logical.

This thread started as a "Customer Service" post in the Reviews Forum. Certainly when a customer feels they've been lied to or abused the vendor has in some way failed in his responsibility. But as is typical of these WAC threads this one evolved into a general attack on WAC and its product.

So once again, until all the facts are in, I recommend extreme caution re: the WAC CE receiver.

But I've never been big on witch burning, and I've never believed that lynch mobs were the short cut to justice or that they did much to advance the common good...

...So I'll wait. Y'all can do and think as you choose.

That's my two-cents... er, emmm, maybe that's about a bucks worth ;)

edited because of bad eyesight :cool: Twice

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: cadillac ]
:)

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: cadillac ]

[Nik]

I'm not advocating Dark Ages thinking and that's not the case here. Aluminum has been readily available during most of the years that the FAL was produced. We're not talking about some secret, space-age material, but about plain old aluminum. I would find it hard to beleive that at some point during the 60s and 70s when the FAL was competing with the M-16, FN did not even think of making the receiver in aluminum. I also find it hard to beleive that Enterprise and DSA could not make a safe aluminum receiver but somehow WAC can. All WAC is using is a commonly available type of aluminum and not some proprietary alloy of its own invention. There's no cutting edge technology here.

[cadillac]

NIK

Perhaps you've made my point...
I'm not advocating Dark Ages thinking and that's not the case here. Aluminum has been readily available during most of the years that the FAL was produced. We're not talking about some secret, space-age material, but about plain old aluminum. I would find it hard to beleive that at some point during the 60s and 70s when the FAL was competing with the M-16, FN did not even think of making the receiver in aluminum. I also find it hard to beleive that Enterprise and DSA could not make a safe aluminum receiver but somehow WAC can. All WAC is using is a commonly available type of aluminum and not some proprietary alloy of its own invention. There's no cutting edge technology here.
...while WAC has not (to the best of my knowledge) claimed to have some proprietary alloy of its own invention, they have claimed that their product - material, process, finish, etc - were of superior quality and that their receiver would succeed when others had failed.

Well, you can't both be right.

They are the vendor. It's their product. And now it's time for them to put up or shut up.

If what I've learned recently is true, tests are currently under way. Exactly what tests, and by whom, I don't know. But with all the safety concerns, and with all the attention currently focused on WAC, I do hope that they are doing it right. They can ill afford any half measures. And they must not make the mistakes that DSA did. There is no room for doubt. They must directly and thoroughly address the issues or they will have failed.

I have always admitted my private hope that, somehow, a light weight alloy receiver can be a reality. But I won't let my private hopes cloud my judgement, any more than I'll pass judgement without all the evidence in - and I must say, I'm a bit surprised that at least a couple of attorneys seem so willing to do exactly that. WAC deserves the opportunity to answer the charges made against them. And we shouldn't have long to wait now.

So, for just a little longer, I'll wait.

BTW- Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't (at least in the US) the FAL competing against the M14? And wasn't that in the 50's? And as for the worldwide competition of the FAL vs the M16 during the 60's & 70's, wasn't FN selling the FAL while the US was giving away the M16 by the hundreds-of-thousands, if not millions? Really not much of a competition was it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on military firearms history, but if my understanding is correct and the "dawning of the age of the .223" was already an accomplished fact, then FN really had little motivation to chase the dream of a lighter weight .308 battle rifle.

Best regards,
John

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: cadillac ]

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: cadillac ]

[VoceNoctum]

I'd say the best mark would be comparing the timing of FAL Paratrooper models to the timing of aluminum alloys in common usage.

Also, FN did come out with an aluminum lower and reportedly (well, someone on here said it :-) tried and failed at making the upper out of Alum.

DSA also tried and failed, both with an all alum, and with an alum with a steel insert where the locking shoulder hole is.

I do believe there might be a method to use aluminum or some other lightweight material, but I also think more concessions must be made, like FAC's HK91 reciever.
At the least, I'd have figured a Type II or III, not a Type I, but I guess the failure isn't in those area's anyway.

[idsubgun]

By the time the .223 was accepted as the latest, greatest round and NATO wanted to standardize it's ammo, weapons, etc., FN was developing it's own .223, first the CAL and later the FNC.
The T48 was the rifle competing against the M14, and yes, it was during the 50's. But the FAL was also competing against every other rifle that came along during it's entire life span.
It's not fair to compare G3/HK91 and AR10 receivers to FAL receivers. The lockups of the G3 and AR are very different and don't get the full force of the round against the receiver like a FAL does.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: idsubgun ]

[Nik]

Cadillac,

I doubt very much that we'll ever have all the evidence unless WAC openly admits that the receiver is unsafe. Even if WAC's testing comes out OK, there will be those who question the results just like there were those who questioned DSA's test. Unless a truly independent and credible third-party tests the receiver, the safety issue will remain unresolved.

As for drawing conclusions from partial evidence, that's the way things usually are. Its rare to have all the evidence when you deal with human beings. Most often you have to make decisions based upon uncorroborated or partial information. While they laws of science may be predictable and sure, human beings are not.

[kfeltenberger]

IIRC, the same third party source that DSA had do the tests, H.P. White, is doing the tests for WAC.

[Nik]

What happens if one test says its safe and the other that its not? Which test should be believed?

[cadillac]

Nik

That's when the details become important - who prepared &/or provided weapon and ammo; just what pressures were involved; etc.

We all know that any receiver can be made to KaBoom! Knowing at what point a given receiver will fail is important, at least I think so. Alloy doesn't necessarily have to be as strong as steel, as long as it's strong enough to be safe.

If it is truly determined that WAC CE is safe and that failures are due to difficulty intrinsic to handling the alloy product during assembly, WAC may have to offer only barreled action &/or complete rifles.

We'll see soon enough.

No doubt there will always be differing points of view no matter what any tests might show. But that's pretty much true no matter what the subject under discussion.

I was entertained by something you said earlier... I doubt very much that we'll ever have all the evidence unless WAC openly admits that the receiver is unsafe. ...so, hmmmmm, let me see if I've got this right. The only way for the truth to be known is for WAC to agree with your pre-conceived notion :eek: :confused: Is that really what you intended to say? Does seem to ring just a bit arrogant, don't ya' think?

Best regards.
John

[Nik]

No John, its not arrogant at all. I'm not making an argument but stating a logical conclusion. If WAC offers a contrary test result there will always be criticism and questions of one kind or another. The DSA test aside, there are other reported failures. BTW a member named Circuits just reported a failure at 1000 rounds. The only way that the matter will get settled once and for all is if WAC admits the receiver is not safe.

I'm not suggesting that WAC admit anything. I'm merely pointing out that even if the H.P. White test comissioned by WAC exhonerates its receiver, the controversy will continue. WAC will get accused of exactly the same sorts of things that DSA did. Its simply a no win situation.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Nik ]

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nik ]

[idsubgun]

WAC receivers are junk and unsafe. To keep shooting one makes you a fool.
The receiver will eventually crack or come apart. Aluminum is not strong enough to hold the force put upon it from a .308 round. The entire force is directed to the locking shoulder and that is too small of an area to take it.

[screech-fnfal]

idsubgun, Thank you! Right to the point without a bunch of bull shit!

[Blag]

cadillac, face the truth. You got suckered by WAC. The WAC receiver is dangerously unsafe. No amount of pretending or rationalizing is going to change that fact.

And give it a rest with how DSA supposedly did something wrong by telling you about a danger that could leave you scarred for life.

The test DSA commissioned, conducted by H.P. White, was a perfectly valid test, and by now anybody with any sense would know it.

====If it is truly determined that WAC CE is safe ...====

LOL! I guess they're "safe" in the sense they haven't killed anybody yet (that we've heard about.) They're "safer" than an Explorer on underinflated Firestone tires, I guess. For what that's worth.

====We'll see soon enough.====

Anybody with any sense already knows.

There are none so blind....

[screech-fnfal]

Are you waiting for Williams tests results to come back? lofl! Dwight has lied about every issue. Most likely, he has not and will not test his receivers! :mad: He is still shipping them though. :mad: