Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters




sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Print sp_TopicIcon
Question about GB item for sale
June 26, 2013
4:44 am
Avatar
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 617
Member Since:
July 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall 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

June 26, 2013
5:29 am
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2410
Member Since:
March 20, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

June 26, 2013
8:20 am
Avatar
Kingston, WA
Forum Posts: 9316
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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

June 26, 2013
4:00 pm
Avatar
Guests

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

July 2, 2013
2:02 pm
Avatar
Ontario Canada
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 681
Member Since:
April 23, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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 

July 2, 2013
4:36 pm
Avatar
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 273
Member Since:
November 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

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: 628

Currently Online: Tony. R, AG
70 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)


Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 16

Topics: 6375

Posts: 51133


Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 851

Members: 8540

Moderators: 4

Admins: 3


Top Posters:

1873man: 3935

twobit: 2410

TXGunNut: 2062

Maverick: 1416

Big Larry: 1352

JWA: 1236

Wincacher: 1180

Brad Dunbar: 1055

clarence: 936

1892takedown: 838

Navigation