Comments: I have 8 years on AA. !st bad transact. There is NO misunderstanding here. Gun advertised as 3RD GEN when in fact it is a 2nd. TWO gunsmiths, Glock amorers, said they had never seen a bore as bad as this one. It is all but shot out. They both thought it must have been a range gun.

I think for my money I would stick with Mauser 98. I had an experience with someone awhile back that sounds a bit like this proto fella and it was just bad news from start to finnish with no satisfying him regardless of what you did. This guy says MOD98 did not question my reason for returning the gun because he listed a Glock generation 2 as a generation 3.  After I pointed out the discrepancy he told me he is a Glock Armorer, Really then if you knew this why did you bid? go figure???

  I thought a 3rd gen had a light rail on it? And then a three white dot sights being listed as factory night sights?

  I might not be able to distinguish everything when bidding but, when I win I will look it over with a fine tooth comb. I have not had a problem except when I was a newbie and contacted a seller when I was a high bidder about a problem and I should of waited and I would have been out bid. I have raised my hand and said thank you Jesus after I have been outbid. Sometimes it is because I did not read the description, though mostly it is an inaccurate description.

I would not have this problem with this firearm, as I do not like an  unsupported case in a .40 cal, as is the case with Glocks.

MOD98 put a HOGUE grip with finger grooves on a second generation in the photo making it look like a third gen to neophites Glock owners like me.  It was my first Glock but not my FFLs first.  Read my feedbacks.

human realize that Glocks have Polygonal rifling therefore the rifling is not as pronounced as conventional rifling. I would suggest a model 21, I first shot a first gen and was very impressed and now own a 3rd gen 21 with real trijicon nightsites. If you get trijicon sites leave them out of the light and they will last longer....... so I am told.

This was an incorrect listing. The bidder fulfilled all his obligations, and acted accordingly for a transaction that was improperly conducted and out of his hands. The buyer was forced to eat ALL financial repercussions of the SELLERS mistakes. If this is acceptable business for all of you guys. feel free to block me from bidding on your auctions, because I'm getting a little sick of some sellers feeling they are somehow exempt from reasonable business practices that most other industries give as common courtesy and because they like to retain business. Why should I pay $50+ for someone elses mistake? Negative feedback was fully earned in this situation

Proto, I would appeal that neutral feedback. I had to do the same thing for almost exactly the same situation....improper actions by seller meant my FFL could not accept transferm LEGALLY HAD to send the gun back, and both me and my FFL had to eat  both ways shipping. Seller did not refund ANY shipping at all, just the original winning bid of the auction. The moderators took down the neutral feedback promptly. Just because we are selling "guns" and we are all "good ol' boys" its ok for us to conduct business like amateurs and screw each other? Thats the attitude I get here.

I've also seen many sellers here think that its like a garage sale.... that I as a bidder am responsible for determining the type and condition of the gun, based on what you see. Ultimately this is true, but this does not take the responsibility of mislabeling or misidentifying auctions off of the seller. This buyer-beware kind of business went out at around the turn of the 20th century for all industries it seems, except this one. Whoever is selling an item. I cannot inspect for myself in person, I can only go by the often low-quality pictures and often innaccurate descriptions. YOU are making profits by listing and selling, and YOU are responsible for researching what you are selling and listing it correctly. This is true everywhere else you go...except swap meets and garage sales.

Really don't see how a Glock Armorer could mistake a Gen 2 for a Gen 3.But never the less,weather or not it was intentional,the seller should  man up and pay the shipping cost both ways--or suffer the Negative.

I firmly believe that if the seller had offered to eat the shipping both ways the buyer would have never left a negative.Also leaving him a neutral feedback is wrong,like a slap in the face for your mistake,not his,just eat the small auction fees,relist it and move on.

We all make mistakes,now and then,but it seems we all don't own up to them all the time.JMHO

I have only had to return guns a couple of times and have had to eat the shipping when I did. Prety much standard procedure. Not sure why everyone seems to be unhappy. Don't realy see a problem with neutral feedback on this one. There is an old saying that when a comprimise is made and both sides are unhappy, it was a good comprimise.