Is there a written or unwritten rule concluding who is responsible for the cost of a walnut blank that has serious interior defects making it unsuitable for a gunstock? The defects are not seen on the exterior of the blank.


Does one who works on guns ( a gunsmith or a riflesmith) have a duty to his (her) customer to report that he (she) has noticed a serious defect in the customer's gun before he (she) works on other parts of the gun as requested by the customer?

The owner and provider of the wood is responsible for hidden defects; the person making the stock can't be liable for that.
And no gun maker would proceed with finishing a stock once he learns of a hidden internal defect.
As for the question as I read it, if a gunsmith is tasked with repairing the safety, and finds the extractor broken, he should tell the owner about that.

let me clarify

A person buys a walnut blank from a dealer. He then sends it to his gunmaker. The gunmaker finds a flaw upon sawing the blank. Who bears the loss, the dealer, or the customer?

And, the customer sends an action for a replacement bolt. There is a small but serious crack in the action rendering it useleas. the gunsmith still installs the bolt handle and charges for that work?

Like dpcd said and I will add the owner/provider of the blank may have a little recourse with the blank seller if he has any return policy and if it meets any of it's condition. This is my opinion.

Steve......

I have found a couple of blanks that had a knot that was not showing on the outside. I was routing the blank and when the rotten knot showed up I stopped and returned the blank to the company. I only bought blanks from companies that would back up their products if not useable. Be honest with the customer and tell them what happened.

Reputable sellers of gunstock blanks will 'make it right' if a blank is not usable because of internal flaws.

How many times a blank changes hands before it gets turned into a stock should play into this. As well as how long the customer has sat on it. How bout the wood cutter taking responsibility for a hidden knot/bark pocket???? I've bought a few 2 piece stocks off GBroker. If I sell one to someone else and they have a problem with it, is it my responsibility to lose money? I can give them the # of the wood cutter. I bought 106 blanks green in 1996. A few checked while drying. Should I twist the nipple of the wood cutter and demand a reach around? I've still got some of the higher grade left. If I machine one tomorrow and find a bark pocket should I demand my $$ back? He might knot even be in the wood cutting business today.

Any stockmaker worth a darn can carve a plug to fit most any defect as long as it's not in a bad spot. Expect to pay HIM for HIS time. Ever count how many little footballs you can find in a Weatherby stock? Several very expensive English guns have carved plugs as well. Nobody seems to get their nickers in a twist over that.

I've machined thousands of blanks and I'm really proficient at getting every ounce of color, figure & layout out of a blank. All the time working around the visible knots. This is much easier using a duplicator or CNC to work around all this.

If I sold a blank out of my 106 green 20 years ago and they had someone turn it onto a stock while not paying careful attention to all the parameters involved. Who's fault is that?

If I sell a blank at retail to a client and they have me build a stock with it and it ends up with a HIDDEN defect, I would be happy to replace the blank with one of similar value.

I'd sure like to see some pics of this below:

quote:

Originally posted by Kolo-Pan:
serious interior defects making it unsuitable for a gunstock? The defects are not seen on the exterior of the blank.

KNOT just some hypothetical defect for argument's sake.

Z, the rabid dog makes his presence known. Why don't you just turn that stupid irritating stuff off?

re the stock, it's a matter of what the terms of sale say. For the price and the terms of sale go hand in hand. "As is where is", accompanied by a bargain price, means you assume the risk. "Wood is a natural product" disclaimer means you assume the risk. "Money back if not satisfied" is usually accompanied by a premium price, and in this case, the seller assumes the risk.

re the gunsmith, it's not reasonable to inspect a detailed inspection of the action or the barrel when asked to weld the bolt. It seems the customer is more familiar with his action so bears a lot of ownership of the problem. Unless said customer said "I want you to inspect the entire rifle before doing any work on the bolt" and you pay for the time spent doing so, you can't expect the gunsmith to inspect the entire rifle. Now IF the gunsmith noticed the issue before commencing work, one would expect him to speak up. But you cannot assume that he did (or demand that he should have).