Winchester 1886 45/70 (1895 Manufacture)
It appears to me as if this rifle has had the magazine tube cut down at some point. I'm not sure if it has a new bolt in it or not. The sights are new. The recoil pad has been added. It's in excellent mechanical condition with everything being very solid...no slop in the action at all. The screw heads are not buggered up on it either.
Any ideas on how to rate this one? Thanks! [:)]
Any ideas on how to rate this one? Thanks! [:)]
0
-
Unless someone could prove otherwise, you got a bubba-ed up gun there. Not an original
light weight, short mag gun Like I thought it might be. I think it best NOT to offer a "grade percentage". IMHO, when any gun is altered or customized, There is no grade, because it can not be compared to a NIB original. An altered gun sells on it's merits....some changes increase value---some lower value. again just my humble opinion.....0 -
ECC,
Just MHO, you have a 30-40% rifle, at best. You are looking at a maximum of $600.00 at best, and that is if it has a shootable bore.
Best0 -
quote:Originally posted by babun
Unless someone could prove otherwise, you got a bubba-ed up gun there. Not an original
light weight, short mag gun Like I thought it might be. I think it best NOT to offer a "grade percentage". IMHO, when any gun is altered or customized, There is no grade, because it can not be compared to a NIB original. An altered gun sells on it's merits....some changes increase value---some lower value. again just my humble opinion.....
I agree with you on the rating...I just need to figure out how to price it out. This would book at $1700 if it were in 10% condition. It's mechanically very sound...
tsr1965....30-40% would put this gun at $2500-$3000.0 -
watch this one....
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=2404549110 -
I strongly disagree on the 30-40% rating... it is a 0% gun. The gun grades out as NRA Antique "Fair" at best. The following is the laundry list of what is wrong with it;
1. The barrel has been cut down (shortened).
2. The magazine tube has been cut down (shortened).
3. The butt stock has been cut down (shortened), sanded, and refinished.
4. There is no remaining original finish (case color) on the receiver frame, lever, hammer, etc.)
5. The barrel has no bluing left on it that is visible, apparently stripped with steel wool.
6. The magazine tube appears to be devoid of any bluing, also stripped.
7. The sights are non-factory.
8. The original butt plate is gone, replaced with a aftermarket recoil pad.
As a "shooter", it is worth approximately $500. As a source of parts (essentially just the receiver/action), it is worth approximately $500.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
ECC,
Just MHO, you have a 30-40% rifle, at best. You are looking at a maximum of $600.00 at best, and that is if it has a shootable bore.
Best
IMO, 30 to 40% is generous....0 -
quote:Originally posted by babun
watch this one....
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=240454911
That is a much higher condition gun, and it is additionally a SRC with a factory original short magazine... there is simply no comparison between the two other than they are both Model 1886s.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
I strongly disagree on the 30-40% rating... it is a 0% gun. The gun grades out as NRA Antique "Fair" at best. The following is the laundry list of what is wrong with it;
1. The barrel has been cut down (shortened).
2. The magazine tube has been cut down (shortened).
3. The butt stock has been cut down (shortened), sanded, and refinished.
4. There is no remaining original finish (case color) on the receiver frame, lever, hammer, etc.)
5. The barrel has no bluing left on it that is visible, apparently stripped with steel wool.
6. The magazine tube appears to be devoid of any bluing, also stripped.
7. The sights are non-factory.
8. The original butt plate is gone, replaced with a aftermarket recoil pad.
As a "shooter", it is worth approximately $500. As a source of parts (essentially just the receiver/action), it is worth approximately $500.
All stuff that I mentioned...although the book says that the barrel length is correct. I imagine most of the finish is gone from 116 years of handling. Thanks for the feedback.
BTW Bert...could this be a Lightweight? The Lightweight model comes with a rubber butt plate...although I'm certain the recoil pad was added. Thanks again!0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
I strongly disagree on the 30-40% rating... it is a 0% gun. The gun grades out as NRA Antique "Fair" at best. The following is the laundry list of what is wrong with it;
1. The barrel has been cut down (shortened).
2. The magazine tube has been cut down (shortened).
3. The butt stock has been cut down (shortened), sanded, and refinished.
4. There is no remaining original finish (case color) on the receiver frame, lever, hammer, etc.)
5. The barrel has no bluing left on it that is visible, apparently stripped with steel wool.
6. The magazine tube appears to be devoid of any bluing, also stripped.
7. The sights are non-factory.
8. The original butt plate is gone, replaced with a aftermarket recoil pad.
As a "shooter", it is worth approximately $500. As a source of parts (essentially just the receiver/action), it is worth approximately $500.
All stuff that I mentioned...although the book says that the barrel length is correct. I imagine most of the finish is gone from 116 years of handling. Thanks for the feedback.
BTW Bert...could this be a Lightweight? The Lightweight model comes with a rubber butt plate...although I'm certain the recoil pad was added. Thanks again!
The book mentions a 22-inch barrel as that was standard for a factory Extra Light Weight Rifle... which the rifle in question is definitely not. Believe me, the barrel on that rifle has been cut down in an effort to mimic an Extra Light Weight. The Extra Light Weight Rifles were made with a black hard rubber (solid) butt plate.
To sum it up, the rifle you are looking at is a "bubbaized" POC[xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
quote:Originally posted by ECC
quote:Originally posted by Bert H.
I strongly disagree on the 30-40% rating... it is a 0% gun. The gun grades out as NRA Antique "Fair" at best. The following is the laundry list of what is wrong with it;
1. The barrel has been cut down (shortened).
2. The magazine tube has been cut down (shortened).
3. The butt stock has been cut down (shortened), sanded, and refinished.
4. There is no remaining original finish (case color) on the receiver frame, lever, hammer, etc.)
5. The barrel has no bluing left on it that is visible, apparently stripped with steel wool.
6. The magazine tube appears to be devoid of any bluing, also stripped.
7. The sights are non-factory.
8. The original butt plate is gone, replaced with a aftermarket recoil pad.
As a "shooter", it is worth approximately $500. As a source of parts (essentially just the receiver/action), it is worth approximately $500.
All stuff that I mentioned...although the book says that the barrel length is correct. I imagine most of the finish is gone from 116 years of handling. Thanks for the feedback.
BTW Bert...could this be a Lightweight? The Lightweight model comes with a rubber butt plate...although I'm certain the recoil pad was added. Thanks again!
The book mentions a 22-inch barrel as that was standard for a factory Extra Light Weight Rifle... which the rifle in question is definitely not. Believe me, the barrel on that rifle has been cut down in an effort to mimic an Extra Light Weight. The Extra Light Weight Rifles were made with a black hard rubber (solid) butt plate.
To sum it up, the rifle you are looking at is a "bubbaized" POC[xx(]
So if you were trying to get the most you possibly could out of it, would you just post everything you know about it with some good pics and start it at a grand? If I had the $$, it would be worth that much to me just for the history. Thanks again!0 -
In my opinion, $1K is too much for that rifle. I would list all of problems, and start it at $500. Anything you get over that amount would be a bonus. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments