Register
Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
In addition to the forearm checkering not looking correct, it looks like the front half doesn’t match the back half. It appears that the butt stock is of a fancier grade of wood the the forearm. Opinions? Not sure why someone would beat on the receiver (above the serial number) either.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/740797206
Don
The beating on the edge of the receiver and the partial obliteration of some of the serial numbers is very unsightly. I don’t see how if could be repaired either. Yes, red flags for me too. Unfortunate that so much of what is purported to being collectable out there, is so questionable.
Very suspect. Have never seen a receiver chewed up like that.
In the last sentence lets you know your getting a deal compared to the
model listed on the Grove….
The forend wood looks refinished and as stated the checkering looks incorrect. I suppose the dinged up receiver was an attempt to tighten a loose gun. The gun is too late for warehouse records so that makes it possible to be mostly correct. The forend wood is the most troubling thing I see. It could be a replaced piece of wood due to a broken original. A standard octagon forend would have gaps along the edges of a thin octagon barrel. I don’t know if a round barrel piece of wood could be fitted and checkered. A look at the inside of the forend and under the barrel could reveal a lot.
THIS ALL STARTED WITH JUST ONE GUN!
G’Mornin.
My opinion.
At the time of the non-patent-dated tang change — around serials of 223XXX+- (Type 1A to Type 2,there were a stock of previously made barrels that were NOT marked with patent date info (the earlier tangs carried the patent markings). After the new tang style, installation of these older barrels on a Type 2 marked receiver would result in a specimen with NO patent information. Hence the additional patent marking on the barrel of the specimen seen in the photos.
There is another instance of this type of oversight, whereby guns were accidentally made with no model designation. These will be seen with a substitute Model designation stamped on the RIGHT side of specimens with the earlier marked (designated Type 5 and earlier barrel markings, and Type 6 tang markings).The right side of these Type 5 marked specimens with Type 6 tangs will be found with an abbreviated Type 6 barrel marking applied after the bluing. These may be found in the Late 700XXX to 1M range.
I am not saying that this is one of those. The SN# disparity is too great to be original. It appears that someone mated an earlier TD front end to a later receiver and tightened it up by disfiguring the receiver rather than using the correct method — now we have some decent parts but a lot of junk as well. The barrel is very early with the dovetailed front sight on a lightweight, the matting is correct and the buttstock is nice but the FE is bogus (IMHO).
All this info is in my Third Edition, likely available on a CD shortly. It has expanded to 126,000 words and 525 pages with about 700 color/bw photos — some new, some from earlier editions, Post-63s and Mirokus will be included. I’m exploring publishing as we speak — it will likely be my final effort.
Regards,
B
Sally has had this gun for sale on GB for a year or so. At one time it was at $4500.00. She recently took some better pictures and raised the price. I mentioned something to her about originality back when it was first listed a year or so ago. She really got bent and banned me from ever bidding on anything or hers for ever and ever. Peter
I have one word for that rifle “Frankenchester“.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
Eagle said
Sally has had this gun for sale on GB for a year or so. At one time it was at $4500.00. She recently took some better pictures and raised the price. I mentioned something to her about originality back when it was first listed a year or so ago. She really got bent and banned me from ever bidding on anything or hers for ever and ever. Peter
BOBR94 said
G’Mornin.My opinion.
At the time of the non-patent-dated tang change — around serials of 223XXX+- (Type 1A to Type 2,there were a stock of previously made barrels that were NOT marked with patent date info (the earlier tangs carried the patent markings). After the new tang style, installation of these older barrels on a Type 2 marked receiver would result in a specimen with NO patent information. Hence the additional patent marking on the barrel of the specimen seen in the photos.
There is another instance of this type of oversight, whereby guns were accidentally made with no model designation. These will be seen with a substitute Model designation stamped on the RIGHT side of specimens with the earlier marked (designated Type 5 and earlier barrel markings, and Type 6 tang markings).The right side of these Type 5 marked specimens with Type 6 tangs will be found with an abbreviated Type 6 barrel marking applied after the bluing. These may be found in the Late 700XXX to 1M range.
I am not saying that this is one of those. The SN# disparity is too great to be original. It appears that someone mated an earlier TD front end to a later receiver and tightened it up by disfiguring the receiver rather than using the correct method — now we have some decent parts but a lot of junk as well. The barrel is very early with the dovetailed front sight on a lightweight, the matting is correct and the buttstock is nice but the FE is bogus (IMHO).
All this info is in my Third Edition, likely available on a CD shortly. It has expanded to 126,000 words and 525 pages with about 700 color/bw photos — some new, some from earlier editions, Post-63s and Mirokus will be included. I’m exploring publishing as we speak — it will likely be my final effort.
Regards,
B
Bob,
Glad to see you’re coming out with a Third Edition. Let us know when it’s ready.
Thanks,
Al
1 Guest(s)
