Langdon Tactical follow up

[boing]

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.

[GJM]

Sorry you weren't satisfied. Here is my .02 worth.

I have know Ernest and Aimee for years and always had great experiences with them and LTT. I have done a bunch of things with LTT and found them to be consistent and responsive.

When you made your initial thread, I reached out to Aimee, and my understanding is they got to you immediately. The tone of this is pretty negative for someone that got their issue resolved. I work hard at not being "that guy," so the vendors I deal with feel good about giving me a high level of service. Sometimes that means being gracious when not every thing is perfect, because long term relationships involve some give and take on both sides. Especially so with custom work which has a high risk of not everything always being perfect.

[blues]

This isn't about you @GJM , it's about his customer experience. He's expressed what the issues were, why he was frustrated, where he may have overstepped or erred, and what the company did in response. Why not just let it stand on its own?

I'm sure they are fine people, and I certainly appreciate their experience and place in the market, but your relationship with them is completely separate from this matter. I don't think that EL or LTT needs anyone to protect them from this member's reporting what his experience has been.

That said, I think it was good of you to reach out to EL on the OP's behalf. And since the other thread was closed, it's good to hear how things were ultimately resolved.

My two cents...which I intentionally didn't offer in the first thread.

[BN]

I've known Earnest for 25 years and only know Aimee from speaking to her on the phone. They are "Good People".

[CCT125US]

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.

This nugget alone tells me your communication skills are sub optimal.

[vcdgrips]

Blues:

It is actually kind of about GJM since he was the bridge to:

1. Contact
2. Ownership of the Issue
3. Rapid Resolution

IMHO-The OP posted on PF precisely becuase he knew that LTT would eventually see it and/or it would be pointed out to LTT and/or somebody would have a direct pathway to LTT.

Commerce is a human endeavor. Ergo everybody makes mistakes and/or can do things better. The real mark of an outfit is how they make things right.

An outfit like LTT certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[blues]

Blues:

It is actually kind of about GJM since he was the bridge to:

1. Contact
2. Ownership of the Issue
3. Rapid Resolution

IMHO-The OP posted on PF precisely becuase he knew that LTT would eventually see it and/or it would be pointed out to LTT and/or somebody would have a direct pathway to LTT.

Commerce is a human endeavor. Ergo everybody makes mistakes and/or can do things better. The real mark of an outfit is how they make things right.

An outfit like LTT certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I think I already addressed GJM's participation in contacting LTT above, and I also believe that LTT is more than capable of handling the matter.

How a company deals with hiccups is a good measure of both character and progress.

The OP's communication skills may not be to everyone's taste, but that doesn't negate the legitimacy of his issue, regardless of everything else.

And that is my point.

[eb07]

I'm glad it was resolved. As a small business owner I understand I am not going to make 100 percent of my customers happy 100 percent of the time. Sometimes things happen. You just do your best to resolve the issues and move on.

[Clusterfrack]

Post deleted by request of OP

[Cory]

Two things can be true at the same time.
1) Ernest and Aimee are good people.
2) Their company is changing and capable of fuck ups.

I carry a Langdon M9, got to request a low serial LTT Elite when they first launched, and have been a fan of their stuff for awhile. I say that because I want to be clear that I'm not anti-LTT. I wear one of their shirts a fair amount. But. They aren't some magical company who is always flawless and beyond question. As they have grown it's beyond dispute that things have changed. More products, more employees, more innovation. And it's no longer a 1 man shop. With that there are more things to consider, more to oversee, and more to potentially go wrong.

For example, I think they fucked up with their Aridus Industries relationship. I read the posts Ernest made, I get why the choices were made and the stuff that they had to consider. There were more moving parts, more timelines, and more pressure to put out the product that LTT wanted. I still think it wasn't the way to go, still call it an Aridus 1301. Doesn't mean I'm not still an LTT fan, but I'm not blind either.

Now, it appears a customer had a problem and the employees at LTT stopped talking with him. He made a public post to draw the attention to get his problem solved. Which worked.

Heres the problem I have and it isn't really with Ernest or LTT: When other beloved companies here have an issue (ala JMCK) the community normally says "They'll take care of ya" because the company does that. And then the owner comes in and its over. We don't have a "how dare you" attitude, but rather a "they're good, they will get you sorted out" attitude. The signal to noise ratio here is really high, and I don't think we should be bias blind because of track record. Amazing reputations are built for a reason, and should be respected. But, they should also be re-enforced.

Here, the owner responded defensively as if beyond reproach. And some of the community as acting as if that company is beyond any question. But they aren't. Why is it "how dare you question or publicly say anything" so to speak? The guy wouldn't have posted here if calling and emailing had worked. I don't think acting offended was the best approach, not really my style. But it's also not my company, and my opinion on it is of little value. Les Baer isn't known for having an awesome personality, but he does just fine despite my thoughts.

I like LTT, I've bought from LTT, I will buy from LTT again. I have enormous respect for Ernest and his accomplishments, and the amazing 92 resurgence that I think he is 90% responsible for. He has been an awesome SME here as well. But the days of him being an active participant here are mostly gone. And if something goes wrong with his company and it's questioned (even if not true) it seems like there are better ways to respond. More bothersome to me, is the idea that any company is beyond a mistake. As a forum, we've really espoused the test it yourself and find out if YOUR gun is reliable mentality. Find out for yourself if this technique is viable, and go actually learn to develop skill. I think that is really positive. It's just odd to me that we don't have the same mentality here. I love Beretta guns deeply, but I'm willing to express frustration with the company at times. LTT is no different. Just because we like and respect the owner, like the products, doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to prove why they are a great option, or that they're beyond needing to prove they're the best.