Forum staff declined to reopen the other thread, but were not opposed to me making a follow up post. If it hadn’t been necessary to start a public discussion to make contact with the company, I would just quietly wash my hands of LTT and move on. But as the discussion is already public here, it’s appropriate to post the outcome, and I’ll say no more about it.
LTT sent me a red dot plate with the wrong front sight. It was too short and printed 5” high at 10 yards. I provided documentation of the problem, including pictures of the plate, and a picture of the front sight with a mm scale next to it clearly showing the height. At this time it wasn’t clear if the problem was the sight, the plate, or something else.
When the LTT rep called me, he looked at the pictures and the notes from the gunsmith, and their consensus was that this was a case of user error: that I had installed the front sight incorrectly and it was cocked slightly upwards in the dovetail.
I re-explained that the gun was displaying symptoms of the front sight being too low, and that even if the installation error had taken place, the front sight being too high in the dovetail would produce the opposite effect of the documented problem. It was physically and logically impossible for their theory of user error to be the cause.
Even in the face of this explanation, the rep insisted that it had to be user error. It was at this profoundly retarded moment that I realized I was at a dead end. For some reason, they believed sending me a new sight would fix “my” installation mistake. I agreed to take the new sight only because I expected that they might pull the correct part from their stock this time. This is what happened.
The new sight is correct, with the proper height. The old sight remains inarguably wrong, except in the minds of the employees of LTT.
I will acknowledge one clear mistake on my part. The width of the dovetail base on the wrong sight was too small. It was tight in profile, but narrow side to side. In retrospect, this was an obvious clue, but I had assumed this was a deliberate “function over form” design choice, and didn’t document this aspect to LTT. Throughout all of this, up until the moment I opened the package with the replacement sight, it still wasn’t 100% certain where the problem lay: the sight, the plate, or something else. They already had the picture quantifiably proving that the height of the sight was incorrect, and by the time I realized that they might actually need even more information to conclude they had made a mistake, they had already let communication fall through the cracks.
I didn’t bother mentioning this during the phone call because the LTT reality distortion field had already proven so impenetrable that I didn’t think it would make a difference anyway.