Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Question about GB item for sale
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 378
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
June 26, 2013 - 4:44 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I would like to know what other members think of this rifle listed on Gunbroker.com
My thoughts are. The butt stock wood is not a good match to the forearm wood. There appears to be no swivel studs as mentioned in the description he has. THe Cody s/n search does not list shotgun butt, sling eyes or matted barrel. This s/n does not show up in ARMAX as having a matted barrel or engraved. ( maybe inscribed is not the same as engraved ). It does list an R&R so maybe some of these things were changed then. Just curious as to what others feel about this rifle.

Thanks
Paul

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=349898105

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2324
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
June 26, 2013 - 5:29 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Too many things do not match up on the rifle and the Cody information.

Michael

Signature-Pic.jpg

 

Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 11001
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
June 26, 2013 - 8:20 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Paul,

My take on it is this; The butt stock is original to that rifle (the fit at the tangs and rear of the receiver frame is perfect). Why the warehouse ledger did not mention the shot gun butt is a mystery. I suspect that the forend stock has been lightly refinished.

I have no idea why the seller mentioned sling studs, as the rifle clearly does not have them, and the CFM worksheet agrees with the rifle. Maybe he was thinking about a different rifle when he wrote the auction listing ad?

The roll matted barrel is definitely factory original work. Why it is not listed in the warehouse ledger entry is a mystery, unless it was added during the R&R.

The inscription with a name and date would not have been considered an "engraved" gun per se.

Bert

WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
Guest
WACA Guest
4
June 26, 2013 - 4:00 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Hi Paul, to me, way to many items that don’t match and require an explanation for it to be a good collector gun in my opinion. Interesting as a shooter and I love the caliber for sure. Peter

Avatar
Ontario Canada
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 584
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
July 2, 2013 - 2:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Actually for the price it went for I would have been a bidder here in Canada
I think it was a bargain even with the controversy

Phils-Schuetzen-compressed.jpg 

Avatar
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 264
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
July 2, 2013 - 4:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I agree. Worth the money just to get the matted barrel example. Winchester ledger notes were not made at the level of legally binding contract documents. I am sure like any other human endeavor there are errors.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: 1ned1, Henry Mero, [email protected], 86Win, Matthew Bezotte, Pwog
Guest(s) 107
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6556
TXGunNut: 5218
Chuck: 4706
steve004: 4361
1873man: 4339
Big Larry: 2360
twobit: 2324
mrcvs: 1785
TR: 1733
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12960
Posts: 113094

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1799
Members: 8955
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation