Log In
November 11, 2012
Offline
What would be a good value for this rifle at auction if it hadn’t had the Redfield sight added?
November 19, 2006
Offline
Old-Win said
What would be a good value for this rifle at auction if it hadn’t had the Redfield sight added?
Based upon what it sold for, I would say the sight impacted it plenty. Actually, I like the rifle. To me, it looked like a very enjoyable shooter with many positive special features. I wouldn’t mind owning that rifle and I thought the price was quite favorable for what it was. I really dislike reblued finishes, sanded wood etc., but I could live with the addition of this sight. It would however greatly impact what I would be willing to pay. Had I seen it before the auction ended I would have felt tempted. I could see myself going to the next bid increment but not beyond that.
April 15, 2005
Offline
The Redfield receiver sight easily cut the value of that rifle in half, or slightly more.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 19, 2006
Offline
Bert H. said
The Redfield receiver sight easily cut the value of that rifle in half, or slightly more.
Bert –
I agree with you. In fact, I’m sure that’s why I was so attracted to this rifle (i.e. at the price it sold for). It has a detraction, but given I could personally still enjoy that rifle despite the sight, it was a fine deal in my mind. Another factor that should be considered in my comments – I really like the .32 special. That is not true of the majority out there.
May 24, 2012
Offline
You pegged it Steve as I see it, and Bert did, too, especially where the Red Book is concerned. The sight look like it’s been with the rifle from the start.
James
November 7, 2015
Offline
I like the rifle, wasn’t too sure about the checkering but no one else has mentioned it. I’m a big fan of receiver sights and the 32WS but bottom line; I don’t need another “shooter”, even a fancy one.
Mike
November 19, 2006
Offline
TXGunNut said
I like the rifle, wasn’t too sure about the checkering but no one else has mentioned it. I’m a big fan of receiver sights and the 32WS but bottom line; I don’t need another “shooter”, even a fancy one.
Mike
Mike – I agree with your comment and I’m in the same boat. However, I have quite a history of not needing another, “shooter” yet somehow they kept showing up here. Sticking to a bottom line… easier said then done. I don’t think I am alone here?
One of the problems of not being able to physically examine an item is that I tend to be overly cautious, and often miss a rifle like this one. With only the photos to go on, the checkering looked suspiciously worn compared to the rest of the rifle, and that was enough to stop me from bidding. The Redfield sight dropped the price to affordable (for me) and was something that doesn’t bother me at all; actually, a plus.
Soon after that auction’s close, I won an 1894 takedown in .32 WS that has (most likely) non-factory receiver sight holes. I now have a new research project to identify and locate the most likely period sight I can find. Thanks to the many forum members who provided invaluable information regarding what I should look for.
