
June 26, 2013

48 bids at $2,825 and still going. Was hoping this would have been a sleeper with the false refinish assessment, but not so…Never a good deal on Gunbroker.

November 8, 2011

Trying to get to 5k. After a thorough review of the barrel markings, I convinced it’s a remarked barrel. The final piece of evidence, aside from the marking on the left side being slightly out of position, is a small remnant of the original caliber mark still on the barrel. Not easy to see but it’s there.

June 26, 2013

sb said
Here’s another issue. Compare the gunbroker gun’s marking position to a 1932 94 barrel in 32 WS. Look at where the markings are relative to the rear dovetail.
The top of the 5’s look a little bit too short and funky to me as well. If I were the winning bidder, the first thing I’d do is pull the forearm and check the caliber marking on the underside of the barrel. LSB has a 30-day money back guarantee.

November 8, 2011

deerhunter said
sb said
Here’s another issue. Compare the gunbroker gun’s marking position to a 1932 94 barrel in 32 WS. Look at where the markings are relative to the rear dovetail.
The top of the 5’s look a little bit too short and funky to me as well. If I were the winning bidder, the first thing I’d do is pull the forearm and check the caliber marking on the underside of the barrel. LSB has a 30-day money back guarantee.
I hope no one here bought it.

June 26, 2013

Also, check out the ramp front sight on the subject carbine vs. this other very closely produced 1932 carbine in 30 WCF. Notice there are no grooved provisions for attaching a sight hood on the early first-produced carbines, but there is on the “38-55” questionable carbine from around the same timeframe.
Here are the links to both carbines:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1091394002
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1091394002
Don
