Beauty being in the eye of the beholder!

Tony

Cwright1016 said

How does one place value on these rifles? I’d like to get an idea. Knowing it’s shooter grade I wouldn’t expect much I imagine.
  

With one that has been altered, such as the one you have, Ive always quantified it by the total cost or value of original parts remaining if trying to establish a dollar value. 

However, if it offers you lots of fun, use, and not a lot of worry about throwing it behind the truck seat from time to time, what difference does it make.  The alternative would be to find a replacement barrel and magazine tube, provided it wont break the bank when rolled into the original purchase price.  

helidriver72 said
What about that screw in front of the loading port, its the only one thats blue??
  

Good catch... it is an obvious clue that it has been replaced.

Bert

How does one place value on these rifles? I’d like to get an idea. Knowing it’s shooter grade I wouldn’t expect much I imagine.

You have heard me say this many times.  Don't buy guns that you have not picked up. 

I feel this rifle was redone as a very good job, but a few things brought me to this conclusion, and I'll point them out without re re quoting the other posts.

The wood fit to the crescent metal butt plate is suspect. Besides some other areas of wood to metal fit, as the lower tang behind the serial number, and the screw where the gap in the radius is very evident. 

On the top tang, the Block "M", in model is rarely seen, but I thought a hole for a tang sight was in front of the word, "Model", on the second model rifle.

I did see some marks or blemishes, below the "M", in model, possibly from some re work and,  in the C.C.H. Not sure about that.

It's one of the better jobs we've seen in a long time, "IF", it's not correct and all original!

Tony

Bert H. said
The wood looks like it has been lightly cleaned up (but not refinished), but overall, that rifle looks correct (original).  The lightly chamfered corners on the muzzle were normal Winchester practice on the octagon barrels.
The seller does show a CFM research sheet (which is essentially the same thing as a factory letter).
Bert
  

Yes, I agree, the wood, at the very least, has been cleaned.  I suspected a light sanding, but maybe nit.

When I looked at the listing earlier, I did not see the CFM research sheet.  It either wasn’t part of the listing at the time I looked at it, or I somehow missed it.

The seller does show a CFM research sheet (which is essentially the same thing as a factory letter).

Bert

kujuak said
I have 71s with both the old Lyman and Redfield sights. I find the REDfield sight more "elegant" (aesthically and in the finest of the machine work) and more pleasant to use.
I am still leery of the bolt peep regarding robustness.It sits higher above the receiver and looks like it is waiting to be damaged when going into or out of a horse borne scabbard. But it sure is pretty!
  

My 71 originally had a Lyman 56W but somebody swiped it and substituted  a Williams FP-71. I have nothing against the FP line and have one on my Mountie but wanted to get back to factory on the 71. Swung out on any Lyman 56Ws but found an as-new steel Redfield 80, the 70 successor and the only mechanical difference is a button staff release (but also nasty little pins in lieu of the 70"s screws, sadly.) 

I liked it so well I found another one for my Miroku built 1886 Sporting Rifle. I paid through the nose for the first one because it was coded for the 86/71 receiver. I ve since discovered the :E/94 codes work just fine on the wider receiver, with only an insignificant loss of windage adjustment.