Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Big Larry said
You did very well on the price. Just saw one on Guns Intl. pretty close to yours with the asking price of $1,595. I called and they would only come down $100. Big Larry
Larry, I look at new 52 listings on GB every day, & “sold” prices on Slowlocks run under $1000, usually no more $900, though as we all see on GB, there can be crazy exceptions when two yuppie know-nothings butt heads. They bring less than any other model, for good reasons. That price on GI is ridiculous unless it’s a very low serial in mint cond.; look back in a yr., & I’ll bet it’s still there.
[email protected] said
I enlarged the second pic of your action ( the one that looks straight down)… it does appear that a crack is forming… I do hope I’m wrong and that it’s wear, finish or lighting… what I’m seeing 1/3 the way from the corner, where the bolt locks, moving to the right and slightly down…
Hi I just read your post is this the area that you are referring too that may be cracked. I will have to take a closer look when I get home.
clarence said
Big Larry said
You did very well on the price. Just saw one on Guns Intl. pretty close to yours with the asking price of $1,595. I called and they would only come down $100. Big Larry
Larry, I look at new 52 listings on GB every day, & “sold” prices on Slowlocks run under $1000, usually no more $900, though as we all see on GB, there can be crazy exceptions when two yuppie know-nothings butt heads. They bring less than any other model, for good reasons. That price on GI is ridiculous unless it’s a very low serial in mint cond.; look back in a yr., & I’ll bet it’s still there.
I am very happy with this.. This would be my first 52, I gave it a little TLC and the action is very smooth again. There was some light mildew spots on the stock but a little Ballistol took it right off. This one I know is not perfect specimen but for a 1924 I hope I look this good at 98.
[email protected] said
[email protected] said
I enlarged the second pic of your action ( the one that looks straight down)… it does appear that a crack is forming… I do hope I’m wrong and that it’s wear, finish or lighting… what I’m seeing 1/3 the way from the corner, where the bolt locks, moving to the right and slightly down…
Hi I just read your post is this the area that you are referring too that may be cracked. I will have to take a closer look when I get home.
No, when there’s a crack, it’s on the left side of the rcvr where the locking lug bears. What’s in the circle looks like a a scratch or a hair.
Clarence… that’s not what I’m looking at. Enlarge the pic… the location where the “crack of doom” shows up… (I’ve owned a couple) there is what appears to be the beginning of the “fracture”…
[email protected] said
Clarence… that’s not what I’m looking at. Enlarge the pic… the location where the “crack of doom” shows up… (I’ve owned a couple) there is what appears to be the beginning of the “fracture”…
Not the circled area on the right side of the rcvr behind the bolt handle? (I did enlarge it.) If not, where exactly do you mean?
where typical “crack of doom” shows up… I took a screen pic. pen tip is just below what appears to be the formation of the crack… again, I hope I’m wrong for the owners sake. But if it’s any consolation, if it is cracked… I think it was good buy on the rifle. I would have bought it even if I knew the crack was there. It will still shoot fine… then there’s the dark side that says it would easily part out for $950..
[email protected] said
where typical “crack of doom” shows up…
OK, but that’s on the left side, directly behind the locking lug, no where near that circle on the right side. On the left side I do see a scratch above the corner of the abutment running parallel with the brl, which I don’t think resembles the typical “COD” (a term, by the way, that grossly exaggerates the problem). In photos I’ve seen of unmistakable “CODs,” the hairline crack is at an angle of about 45 deg. to the brl.
clarence said
[email protected] said
where typical “crack of doom” shows up…
OK, but that’s on the left side, directly behind the locking lug, no where near that circle on the right side. On the left side I do see a scratch at the corner of the abutment running parallel with the brl, which I don’t think resembles the typical “COD” (a term, by the way, that grossly exaggerates the problem). In photos I’ve seen of unmistakable “CODs,” the hairline crack is at an angle of about 45 deg. to the brl.
Just looked at your new photo with the pen tip, but still think it’s in the “wrong” place, which typically is at the corner of the abutment–exactly where the stress would be most concentrated.
I didn’t post the pic with the circle… yes, I agree that the horizontal line at the corner is a scratch, but above that, above the red pen tip on my pic, there appears to be an irregular line going down at a 15-20 degree angle, it is dark (in my experience, typical evidence of oil penetration in a crack) as far as “COD”… it’s what it’s referred to by most. Terms are terms… some yes, are grossly overstated ie: Government Intelligence
[email protected] said
I didn’t post the pic with the circle… yes, I agree that the horizontal line at the corner is a scratch, but above that, above the red pen tip on my pic, there appears to be an irregular line going down at a 15-20 degree angle, it is dark (in my experience, typical evidence of oil penetration in a crack) as far as “COD”… it’s what it’s referred to by most. Terms are terms… some yes, are grossly overstated ie: Government Intelligence
guys here are a few images of the action on my rifle after doing a good cleaning from all the years of gunk. I looked at these very closely and only see one mark but cannot imagine there would be a crack there, as this is a pretty thick part of the action, I would think.
your last pic with the circle… just above the circle is the “abutment”. This is where the bolt “cams” into. … the area is shiny in your last pic. take a pic focusing straight down onto this area…
[email protected] said I looked at these very closely and only see one mark but cannot imagine there would be a crack there, as this is a pretty thick part of the action, I would think.
You’re right–that (machining mark, or whatever it is) has nothing to do with the crack first mentioned by Big Larry.
Online
They came down on the price to $1,300 + tax. This rifle has the very early and scarce stock with the rounded pistol grip. Serial # 14xx. Ready to pull the plug on it, when I noticed a scope base on the receiver. Searching back in my feeble mind I remembered the very early rifles had no scope blocs and certainly not on top of the proof mark on the receiver ring. I almost screwed up and bought it. I am a purist, and I cannot live with a gun with added holes. So, I will keep looking for a very early rifle that has not been Swiss Cheesed. Big Larry
Big Larry said This rifle has the very early and scarce stock with the rounded pistol grip. Serial # 14xx. Ready to pull the plug on it, when I noticed a scope base on the receiver. Searching back in my feeble mind I remembered the very early rifles had no scope blocs and certainly not on top of the proof mark on the receiver ring. Big Larry
Larry, the very earliest regular production 52s had blocks, such as #3 shown in Houze’s book. Only the pre-production “sample” rifles were originally built without them.
First 52 I owned was 2nd yr production with the “dog’s hind-leg” stock you described. Bought it at a gun show knowing nothing about them, & so was shocked when I first fired it & discovered the cock-on-closing action, which I disliked so much I traded it off as soon as I could. Now, 50 yrs later, I wish I’d kept it as a wall-hanger, but because I’m a shooter first & everything else second, I had no interest in wall-hangers at that time.
What’s the number of that GI gun?
Serial #? 1,4xx and I have had a couple of these rifles over the years and none had blocs. Proof mark stamped at 12 O’clock on the receiver ring. If the originals you are referring to, had a bloc on the receiver, the proof may have been on the side. In any event, most M52’s had both blocs on the bbl. Check it out on GI. I do not know how to do links and I deleted it from my favorites. I am quite sure the blocs are not correct either. Big Larry
Big Larry said
Serial #? 1,4xx and I have had a couple of these rifles over the years and none had blocs.Big Larry
But were the brls tapped on those guns, if you remember? The early gun I referred to had blocks.
Big Larry said
Serial #? 1,4xx and I have had a couple of these rifles over the years and none had blocs. Proof mark stamped at 12 O’clock on the receiver ring.Big Larry
Larry, you were right about the earliest guns being block-less–they only became optional in mid-1920, according to Houze, & weren’t standard until 1924. Guns built before they became optional would have to have very low serials, below about #120, going by the serial chart. The #3 gun must have had its blocks added later, on the brl.
Found the GI gun, & by that serial blocks would have been optional. Still think that gun will sit in the rack a long time, unless the price is drastically reduced.
Optional or not. The bases appear to be of a different mfg. and like I said, they never put them on the receiver ring. Unlike the M75’s, the later M52’s all came with blocs. Single hole blocks for the early Feckers and the A5 came on the early rifles. Later blocs were the Fecker invention of the scalloped type. Maybe around 1935 or1936.
Remember, early Feckers had Winchester Grasshopper mounts as did the early Lyman 5A’s.
I don’t think the early rifles were D&T’d for scopes. Where’s SEEWIN when you need him? Big Larry
Big Larry said
I don’t think the early rifles were D&T’d for scopes. Big Larry
No, they weren’t below “mid-summer 1920” production, according to Houze; optional thereafter until 1924. Must have been a popular option, as my 1921 model had them.
I wonder if the person who mounted the block on the rcvr of that GI gun you almost bought had seen rear blocks mounted the same way on 1903 & 1922 Springfields, & thought that was the “correct” way to do it.
1 Guest(s)
