Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
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
Too many things do not match up on the rifle and the Cody information.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
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
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
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
1 Guest(s)
