Optics Planet and ShotLock/TruckVault both suck

[Whiskeywon]

Can you get someone on the phone? They'll resolve this in 5 seconds.

Opticsplanet has less people working the phones than my local police department. I’ll give a hint it’s one person. I’ve called them on the phone once and sat on hold for 45 minutes. It wasn’t even in the middle of the busiest seasons by any means just trivial June day. If it wasn’t for an exceptionally expensive item I’d have never waited that long for any potential savings I might have had.

 

[Wrench75]

I can return for a refund if I pay return shipping. So to be clear, I get shipped a clearly broken/defective product and they want me to pay to get my money back.

Sounds like you should call your AG.

 

[42!]

I'm unclear on one thing from the OP.
Are you returning it for a replacement, or are you returning it for a refund (you told them you don't want a replacement)?

The difference is, in the former case you are a customer who is dissatisfied, maybe you even recognize that Optics Planet isn't even the cause of the problem, and you just want it made right. In which case charging you additional shipping would be beyond any reason.

In the case of the latter situation, you've established that you will likely not be a future customer, and you want to return the product for a full refund. Which is much different than a replacement. They will likely see this as a "return" not a "replacement", and follow their policies for returns.

 

[teamRR]

Haha 42! we agree on something..

I think some of the bitching is basically failure to recognize "you get what you pay for".

I think I can get much better customer service via say a local shop, or online via Midway or Primary Arms.. but not for what I pay at OP, and OP allows backorder - so even when out of stock I get nearly a clearance sale price and eventually it does show. I don't even understand how they do it but I have been able to apply 15% coupons to stuff already 25% off list - really really cheap sometimes.

As far as Amazon, Ebay, there are definitely knock off listings for all sorts of stuff. Even have gone to re-order what was legit and noted something a little different in an add where they substituted a knock off product.

Amazon is on my shit list right now for nanny business. Was running low on 3m 60926 filters, ie like the ones for voc's, acid gas, not anything hospitals ever use (but it is shit that I am around so I need them).. they have basically blocked all such listings to re-direct them to medical personnel (who wouldn't use these anyway).. and a number of other basic things. I wish they would let 3m determine proper corporate responsibility as far as shipping orders, as they know who needs what and what is in stock, and stick to selling products that are available. Luckily Ebay is more of a free economy model and not everyone is gouging.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Not to mention, ridiculous price gouging continues unabated with Amazon marketplace sellers and Amazon happily taking their large "commission on those sales. I went looking for a particular pizza flour I use. If I find it in 1 Kilo bags, it normally runs around $3 or so per bag with free shipping. I came across one Market Place seller selling individual 1 Kilo bags for $28 (product + shipping).

Those predate any shortages or crisis, I always figured it was some sort of money laundering or PO scam, not simple price gouging.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I wish they would let 3m determine proper corporate responsibility

3M does not exactly have a good track record on this if you are talking PPE allocation.

 

[Broc]

The return policy is return for free for any reason for up to 30 days on qualifying items. I am not returning "for any reason" but defective product. Very different. They can fight the CC company now...

So, you are getting your money back from the CC and keeping the product? Or did you at least ship it back?

 

[Snora]

Opticsplanet has less people working the phones than my local police department. I’ll give a hint it’s one person. I’ve called them on the phone once and sat on hold for 45 minutes. It wasn’t even in the middle of the busiest seasons by any means just trivial June day. If it wasn’t for an exceptionally expensive item I’d have never waited that long for any potential savings I might have had.

I had a problem a few years back about an order and the person that answered the phone was helpful and fixed my problem immediately.

 

[CrackPot]

So, you are getting your money back from the CC and keeping the product? Or did you at least ship it back?

The purpose of the dispute is to get them off their ridiculous "you pay for shipping" position. It worked. I got email from customer support referencing my dispute and saying they would take it back no charge and refund me. The stick worked.

 

[teamRR]

3M does not exactly have a good track record on this if you are talking PPE allocation.

What is the history on that?

In this situation I'm not sure Amazon should be regulating these things at all, but they ought to be able to differentiate between what is pertinent. For instance rubber based half masks actually collect then drip and spray moisture from your breath - unless a patient is already dead nobody is using these or the filters for them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What is the history on that?

In this situation I'm not sure Amazon should be regulating these things at all, but they ought to be able to differentiate between what is pertinent. For instance rubber based half masks actually collect then drip and spray moisture from your breath - unless a patient is already dead nobody is using these or the filters for them.

See the news reports about 3Ms policy regarding continued export of masks when they are needed in the US.

 

[42!]

The purpose of the dispute is to get them off their ridiculous "you pay for shipping" position. It worked. I got email from customer support referencing my dispute and saying they would take it back no charge and refund me. The stick worked.

But you said return was free on qualifying items, but this item didn't qualify. And you are returning it, not exchanging it. So the return shipping charge was well within their policy. But you essentially held their property hostage for the shipping cost. They may have given in, but I don't see your "stick" approach as ethical.
To determine if it's right, turn it around. Let's say you sold and shipped something to someone (they pay via credit card) with the condition that if they didn't want it they would send it back on their dime. They tell you sorry don't want it but I'm not paying to ship it back and I've pulled the money back on the credit card. You are now out the item and the money. You would probably give in and pay the shipping because any other action would cost way more, but I doubt you think it was right.

If this was an exchange of a defective, sure it's all on them.

 

[dcmdon]

So maybe I am not telling anyone something they don't already know.

Purchased a shotgun wall mount from optics planet. Product is from ShotLock (same company as TruckVault). Product arrives. Step one is you open the manual lock override to install batteries. Unfortunately the manual lock is rattling around inside the mechanism. Easy enough to manually push up the release bar with a screw driver and open the device. 4 screws later the problem is clear. The posts that the lock mounts to were not affixed to the frame of the device. Not sure how they are supposed to be adhered, press fit, adhesive (I hope not), spot weld. But they are not attached to the lock went rogue.

I reach out to ShotLock support. They say to return to optics planet for exchange or refund. I contact optics planet. They say fill out an RMA form. You may know that optics planet has a 30 day return policy FOR ANY REASON with free return label "on qualifying items". Apparently this is not a qualifying item. I can return for a refund if I pay return shipping. So to be clear, I get shipped a clearly broken/defective product and they want me to pay to get my money back.

ShotLock also contacted to let them know that Optics Planet is not going to be a good path here. Optics Planet contacted to make it clear I am not paying for shipping for a defective product.

Let's see if either steps up to stand behind their product. Otherwise I will be doing a charge back.

What happened to good customer service?

Call your credit card company and start a dispute. Once the cc company charges them back for the entire purchase, they will play ball.

You did pay with a credit card, didn't you?? Please don't tell me you are a debit card user. . . . .

 

[CrackPot]

But you said return was free on qualifying items, but this item didn't qualify. And you are returning it, not exchanging it. So the return shipping charge was well within their policy. But you essentially held their property hostage for the shipping cost. They may have given in, but I don't see your "stick" approach as ethical.
To determine if it's right, turn it around. Let's say you sold and shipped something to someone (they pay via credit card) with the condition that if they didn't want it they would send it back on their dime. They tell you sorry don't want it but I'm not paying to ship it back and I've pulled the money back on the credit card. You are now out the item and the money. You would probably give in and pay the shipping because any other action would cost way more, but I doubt you think it was right.

If this was an exchange of a defective, sure it's all on them.

Defective product. All on them. You are welcome to your incorrect opinion. 'Merika

 

[42!]

Defective product. All on them. You are welcome to your incorrect opinion. 'Merika

Defective product, it's on then to REPLACE it. It's not getting it replaced, that makes it a RETURN, different thing.

So if someone buys something from you and you ship it to them, then decides they don't want it, you're OK with giving all the money back AND paying for return shipping. I doubt you'd be OK with that, hypocrite.

 

[CrackPot]

Defective product, it's on then to REPLACE it. It's not getting it replaced, that makes it a RETURN, different thing.

So if someone buys something from you and you ship it to them, then decides they don't want it, you're OK with giving all the money back AND paying for return shipping. I doubt you'd be OK with that, hypocrite.

You are still welcome to your wrong opinion and incorrect assumptions. Dig dig dig. I am sure the hole won't get any deeper.

 

[42!]

You are still welcome to your wrong opinion and incorrect assumptions. Dig dig dig. I am sure the hole won't get any deeper.

At least I'm honest.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Defective product, it's on then to REPLACE it. It's not getting it replaced, that makes it a RETURN, different thing.

So if someone buys something from you and you ship it to them, then decides they don't want it because it was delivered in a non-usable defective state,, causing you to question the quality of the product, you're OK with giving all the money back AND paying for return shipping. I doubt you'd be OK with that, hypocrite.

FIFY

And, you have no information on which to base your conclusion that the OP would balk at making a customer who rejected an order because the product was defective.

 

[CrackPot]

FIFY

And, you have no information on which to base your conclusion that the OP would balk at making a customer who rejected an order because the product was defective.

No worries. Basement dwelling, introverted, IT pseudo-professional, keyboard warriors don’t bother me. They amuse me with how they find trivial, unimportant things to be life altering important. The personal attacks on my ethics are just the mad rantings of the uninformed. Let it continue so others too can be amused and saddened.

 

[42!]

FIFY

And, you have no information on which to base your conclusion that the OP would balk at making a customer who rejected an order because the product was defective.

I went with what he said, nothing more and nothing less. You are adding an additional condition which was never stated by the OP. It is always possible to come up with theoretical conditions that will change the situation. You say I had no information, and at the same time attribute your own statement to the OP.

And while the OP may question the quality of the product, he entered into an agreement where a return (not an exchange) would have a shipping charge. That was his decision. Was that a good decision? Not relevant. It was his decision. This is a risk inherent in the online order process, but no one forced the OP to do this. I do make one assumption, that the OP is intelegent enough to make his own decisions.