Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
What does the forum think of this rifle?
I like it! I was sorely tempted today, except it went for more than I was willing to bid, plus being post 1898, you have to deal with the FFL PITA part.
It looks really nice. But for that price range, I would expect to see many more detailed photos, including barrel markings and close ups of wood to metal, etc.
Paul
Nevada Paul
Life Member NRA
I agree, put a few more pics up, lazy. Get your FFL 03, and that solves 1 problem.
Steven Gabrielli said
I agree, put a few more pics up, lazy. Get your FFL 03, and that solves 1 problem.
This has been great since I got mine a year ago but I’m still surprised at how many won’t accept it.
The rifle in question actually has a ¾ length magazine versus a ⅔ magazine. It is otherwise a standard ELW Rifle. The ¾ magazine length is the least common of the optional lengths. Thus far, I have documented just (15) Model 1886 rifles with a ¾ mag.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Jeremy P said
Steven Gabrielli said
I agree, put a few more pics up, lazy. Get your FFL 03, and that solves 1 problem.
This has been great since I got mine a year ago but I’m still surprised at how many won’t accept it.
Really? Once and awhile, but I’ve had it 3 years and shipped at least 27 buys on it NP.
I thought their auction estimate was low. Turns out I was right. Also, some bidders are actually on-site, and don’t have to rely on a couple of photos. An in-person viewing can go along way to confirm confidence in bidding.
Steven Gabrielli said
Jeremy P said
Steven Gabrielli said
I agree, put a few more pics up, lazy. Get your FFL 03, and that solves 1 problem.
This has been great since I got mine a year ago but I’m still surprised at how many won’t accept it.
Really? Once and awhile, but I’ve had it 3 years and shipped at least 27 buys on it NP.
Some on GB do not like it but they’re a little skittish I’m sure from past bad dealings. It’s ok though. It’s definitely paid for itself!
Bert H. said
The rifle in question actually has a ¾ length magazine versus a ⅔ magazine. It is otherwise a standard ELW Rifle. The ¾ magazine length is the least common of the optional lengths. Thus far, I have documented just (15) Model 1886 rifles with a ¾ mag.Bert
I stand corrected. Thank you!
November 7, 2015
Offline
Jeremy P said
Steven Gabrielli said
I agree, put a few more pics up, lazy. Get your FFL 03, and that solves 1 problem.
This has been great since I got mine a year ago but I’m still surprised at how many won’t accept it.
Jeremy-
As time goes on you may be able to convince sellers of the legitimacy of the C&R license. The BATFE understands our intent and has provided this avenue to facilitate our hobby. I seldom use mine but I won’t go to a show without it. I even used it for a purchase at an out of state big box store while my local store refuses to acknowledge it. I don’t need it to buy local so I don’t press the issue. Quite honestly I’d rather fill out a 4473 than log it into my book. I’ve also filled out 4473’s for antiques just to keep from ruffling feathers.
I don’t understand the prejudice of dealers against C&R holders. We hold FFL’s and in some cases purchase lots of firearms. Sometimes we don’t quite understand all the intricacies of firearms transfers but in many cases dealers don’t either. They should encourage our purchases.
Mike
Bert,
I wanted to correct the title of this thread for future reference to 3/4 magazine from 2/3 magazine, but couldn’t figure out how to do that. Can you fix this?
Also, this rifle sold for exactly what I believed it to be worth. In the $7000 to $7500 range, although I would have wanted to get it for less, if possible. The high bid was $6000, and, with buyer’s premium, paying by check, it’s $7050 before shipping and FFL fees. Now, that’s the maximum I believe it to be worth, and I didn’t feel like dealing with the FFL. If it was at $4000 or $5000 and seeking a bid, then I would have dealt with the FFL nuisance.
I watched this sell on line yesterday and thought it hammered at $6500. It was such that it was at $6000 and the next bid sought was $6500, not that it hammered at $6500.
I liked it. Was going to go over and see it but life got in the way again. Would have been a nice addition to my other ELW’s
TXGunNut said
Jeremy-
As time goes on you may be able to convince sellers of the legitimacy of the C&R license. The BATFE understands our intent and has provided this avenue to facilitate our hobby. I seldom use mine but I won’t go to a show without it. I even used it for a purchase at an out of state big box store while my local store refuses to acknowledge it. I don’t need it to buy local so I don’t press the issue. Quite honestly I’d rather fill out a 4473 than log it into my book. I’ve also filled out 4473’s for antiques just to keep from ruffling feathers.
I don’t understand the prejudice of dealers against C&R holders. We hold FFL’s and in some cases purchase lots of firearms. Sometimes we don’t quite understand all the intricacies of firearms transfers but in many cases dealers don’t either. They should encourage our purchases.
Mike
Yeah I agree and I’ve done the same with my local guy who xfers for me for $10, no biggie. All the kittish dealers have clearly been cheated before and they just ain’t havin’ it! Some of them get real nervous when I asked for it to go to a different address than on my C&R….the ATF allows shipping to another address if it promotes safety of delivery (which my work address does so very much), but hey some of them get cold feet. I understand and all….
1 Guest(s)
