View Single Post
Unread 05-01-2012, 08:37 AM   #36
Member
Bill Murphy
PGCA Lifetime
Member Since
Second Grade

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,637
Thanks: 6,835
Thanked 10,010 Times in 5,303 Posts

Default

I am a bit confused about the gun in question. Mr. Julia kindly gave us the catalog reference to the gun in question, if #1348 in the Spring 2009 catalog is the gun in question. Eric says the claim was made that the MBWT was claimed to be .030 and it turned out to be .015. The catalog states .017 and .019. Was the catalog wording changed? Did Eric call Julia's to get a confirmation of the .017 and .019? Why would anyone even think about buying such a gun in the first place? If Eric was told on the phone that the thickness was .030, why was the catalog description not changed? Maybe Eric will answer this question so we don't have to reread eight pages of forum text. This is not a gun most of us would give a second look, especially when it was described as having been redone and with bad barrels and a $6000 to $8000 estimate. Where did those numbers come from? I'm sure Mr. Julia's staff figured they had a sure "No Sale".
Bill Murphy is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Murphy For Your Post: