Gunbroker 387817986

[TAXICAT]

When i first saw this seller wanted 2900.00

[Dick Hosmer]

Oh really? I certainly missed that, and I follow GB about every other day.

In that case, you really should have bought it - the rear sight is worth more than that!

The metal is probably right - the wood (as stated) is definitely not.

I've been corresponding with him for a while now - he agrees price is way too high, but seller (who is helping an elderly WW2 vet) doesn't personally own the gun. I don't know when price dropped from the $15K+ on the hang tag, but it went from $14K to $13K in just the last day or so. BTW, anyone who reads this - feel free to bid - "corresponding" was just that - I have no stake in this beyond scholarly interest.

[Pentz]

Sure looks like a "bitser". My eyes see clear evidence of sleeving of the muzzle on Photo 38. The top of the bayonet lug/band looks hammered and dinged up. Sideplate finish does not match the receiver. The front sight base stinks, imho, and there is the issue of the seam. Handguard and stock don't match. Buttplate and screws don't match, and the metal is proud of the wood. No cartouche/date on the stock? Other than that she's cherry....

[Dick Hosmer]

Hadn't seen the latest pics - I do share your concerns; it appears that taper changes, and that there may well be a sleeve seam on the face of muzzle. One thing we can agree on is that it is WAY overpriced.

But, I still say that I cannot see why the barrel would be sleeved AND have an ugly front sight, unless things got overheated when fitting the sleeve and the base came off and was then put back on clumsily?

Still no overall shot as requested, to give us a sense of scale. Note that nowhere in text or pics does he come out and say that barrel is 26" - perhaps it isn't?

[5MadFarmers]

Every angle I play doesn't stop in a good place.

Why replace the stock? The stock is impossible to find and there is no good reason to replace it. "It broke." Ok, so let's say it did. If they knew it was a rare gun they'd retain the stock as, even repaired, it's important. If they didn't know the gun was significant they'd not take the time to track down a pristine replacement and work it; they'd repair the old or install a butchered 2"x6".

Every angle I play doesn't stop in a good place.

The stock either broke or didn't exist. They knew the gun was something, or should be something, as they tracked down a nice stock to rework. If they knew that, and the nice replacement indicates they did, they'd either retain the old stock or fix it. "The stock broke. The gun is significant so we restocked it but you get the broken original."

Every angle I play doesn't stop in a good place.

[Dick Hosmer]

FWIW - the story from the seller (who is not the owner) goes like this: The rifle was acquired about 40 years ago from an individual whose kids had been using it to play cowboys & indians and who had destroyed the original stock, which is obviously long gone now.

Whether or not its' rarity was known at the time of acquisition is unclear, as is the date of the restock.

Since the timing predates Flayderman, I'm guessing that it was acquired simply as "a Krag".

Despite the appearance of the muzzle area, the seller has stated - very clearly - that the owner did NOT alter the sight or muzzle.

The seller is fairly knowledgeable, and supplied me - with virtually no wait - (anonymous) pictures of a gorgeous genuine BoOF rifle, 388784, which is only two numbers off one of mine. So, he pretty well knows (or should be able to figure out) what they have, or do not have, or perhaps I should say they certainly knew/know what one is supposed to look like.

As of now, at the price asked - it is not an attractive deal. Should the price come down significantly potential buyers will have to make their decision.

Let the chips fall where they may.