Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)

Riflechair

Riflechair

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
369   1   2
Location
BC
This is the bore of a rifle that was defined to me as "Excellent - As New" & "Mint+++++".

The grooves are frosty 15-20cm from the muzzle.
Running a copper brush up and down the bore in this area feels raspy
Rifling is slightly rounded and has irregular wear from running a cleaning rod up and down at the muzzle

Based on these three photo's
If you were defining bore condition to a prospective buyer how would you describe the rifling at the muzzle of this rifle?

This is a topic that is ALWAYS on the table and is very appropriate for discussion in milsurp forums.
I am continually asking prospective sellers to give me a proper description of the bore.
This can be a painful process with inconsistent results.

I think a sanctioned CGN procedure for describing bore condition on milsurps is required.
This has also been the root of numerous negative feedback for members and has caused admins a lot of hassle.
Can this hassle be reduced by providing clear expectations?
Certainly I don't think bore cleaning is very high on the priority list when trying to assess the bore (and it should be).

BORE CLEANING PAPER I PUT TOGETHER A WHILE BACK - SHORT PIECE ON BORE CONDITION

bore3.jpg

bore4.jpg

bore5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Poor by my standards. Looks like they "refurbished" it with some "scotch brite" & "emery cloth".

The barrel pitting is extreem. Did that come from EE? Did you try getting a refund?
 
Kernalvax said:
I tend to agree with a poor to fair rating on the barrel, worn crown, pitted, dark bore,

should we have a photo guide to bore condition with the major rifles? mausers, enfields, etc
Click to expand...

I think you may be onto something here. I think pictures would help but a procedure for assessing bore condition would also help. I'm seeing this far too often - I don't think it's intentional fraud I think it's simply ignorance of how to assess bore condition.

The EE has the NRA standards posted but apparently no one reads or refers to them.
 
Riflechair said:
I don't think it's intentional fraud I think it's simply ignorance of how to assess bore condition.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert but I think ignorance was taken to extremes here. Maybe the seller should produce some very close up photos and let the buyer decide. I sold an item recently and I said that it looks pretty good to me. I then took about a dozen close-up photos of the item from every angle and provided the link to the buyer. He then knew exactly what he was getting. Even then, if I sold something and the buyer was remorseful afterwards, I would be happy to refund the purchase price if they contacted me immediately and subsequently returned the item in the same condition.
 
Looks like a Mosin Nagant rifle. They typically blue the muzzle and polish the outer ring. I have had a few like this. It does have pitting in the grooves, the rifling is strong, well used and frosted. I would say The bore fair and not having seen the rest of the rifle Very good to Exe condition as I'm guessing you saw pictures prior to. purchase.

I use the NRA condition standards..

NRA MODERN GUN CONDITION STANDARDS:

NEW: Not previously sold at retail, in same condition as current factory production.

PERFECT: In New condition in every respect. (Jim's note - in my experience, many collectors & dealers use "As New" to describe this condition).

EXCELLENT: New condition, used but little, no noticeable marring of wood or metal, bluing perfect, (except at muzzle or sharp edges).

VERY GOOD: In perfect working condition, no appreciable wear on working surfaces, no corrosion or pitting, only minor surface dents or scratches.

GOOD: In safe working condition, minor wear on working surfaces, no broken parts, no corrosion or pitting that will interfere with proper functioning.

FAIR: In safe working condition but well worn, perhaps requiring replacement of minor parts or adjustments which should be indicated in advertisement, no rust, but may have corrosion pits which do not render article unsafe or inoperable.
 
Pblatzz said:
Looks like a Mosin Nagant rifle.
Click to expand...

Congratulations Comrade Commisar.
You just won a hundred ruples.

In my opinion the description is NRA "FAIR" (not "EXCELLENT" as this rifle was described).

"POOR" would indicate that the rifle may not be safe to fire as a result of heavy corrosion, incomplete parts, damaged parts or other issues that would affect it's safe operation.

Anyone have a minty Nagant Barrel they could sell me?
 
Riflechair said:
I think you may be onto something here. I think pictures would help but a procedure for assessing bore condition would also help. I'm seeing this far too often - I don't think it's intentional fraud I think it's simply ignorance of how to assess bore condition.

The EE has the NRA standards posted but apparently no one reads or refers to them.
Click to expand...

We're fortunate enough to have some seriously knowledgable folks here - why don't you (Riflechair) Smellie, Lou and a couple others get together and build us a guide? Do it via PM, present it as fait accompli and we live by it. Seems kind of silly not to make use of the resource at hand. We have a sticky for opening a 7.62 spam can, surely there's room for this?

Pblatzz said:
VERY GOOD: In perfect working condition, no appreciable wear on working surfaces, no corrosion or pitting, only minor surface dents or scratches.
Click to expand...

The definition below is off the NRA guide on our own EE;

VERY GOOD -
All original parts; none to 30% original finish; original metal surfaces smooth with all edges sharp; clear lettering, numerals and design on metal; wood slightly scratched or bruised; bore disregarded for collectors firearms.


.
 
Riflechair said:
In my opinion the description is NRA "FAIR" (not "EXCELLENT" as this rifle was described).

"POOR" would indicate that the rifle may not be safe to fire as a result of heavy corrosion, incomplete parts, damaged parts or other issues that would affect it's safe operation.
Click to expand...

I agree, Poor was something I first saw with century Int in Montreal, It was used that way to describe something in pittyful shape and unsafe (that's if the old chip is remembering right)
 
looks NRA good to me.

GOOD: In safe working condition, minor wear on working surfaces, no broken parts, no corrosion or pitting that will interfere with proper functioning.

it doesn't say no corrosion, just no corrosion that interfers with proper functioning.

if you think it is fair, and the seller things excellent, then good is also right in the middle.
 
The trouble with any kind of scale or objective standards is that they are always applied with subjective discretion, and people do see and judge the same thing quite differently.:yingyang: This kind of reminds me of the PER performance rating system in the military.;) I've seen some veeeery optomistic definitions of poor to excellent in both firearms and people over the years.:eek: Some folks do this deliberately. Others just are'nt able to tell the difference.

I see the terms "dark bore" and "forced matched" used quite often. What they mean to me is a fouled/pitted bore and a mis-matched gun.
 
I was dickering with this...

NEW: Not previously sold at retail, in same condition as current factory production.

As New: In As New condition in every respect..

EXCELLENT: Near New condition, used but little, no noticeable marring or dings of wood or metal, bluing perfect, (except at muzzle or sharp edges).

VERY GOOD: In perfect working condition, no appreciable wear on working surfaces, no corrosion or pitting, only minor surface dents or scratches.

GOOD: In safe working condition, minor wear on working surfaces, no broken parts, no corrosion or pitting. Will have surface dents or scratches on wood.

FAIR: In safe working condition but well worn, perhaps requiring replacement of minor parts or adjustments which should be indicated in advertisement, no rust, but may have corrosion pits which do not render article unsafe or inoperable.
Poor: Missing parts, Rust is or was present, Damage to firearm, Wear on finish and wear on metal from heavy use. Wood maybe cracked, rotten or ill fitting. May not be safe to operate.

Rating Blue wear by percentage of lost bluing.
100% - 90% Near New
>90% -80% -Very Good
>80% - 70% - Good
And so on...
 
Rotten deal, people are often terrible in describing the condition of guns. The often purposely omit details of problems or damage, and overestimate the condition.

I always strive to give a proper NRA style grading of the firearm. Based on the condition from the photos you provided, it is a FAIR condition. I'm sorry that you got bitten on the deal, contact the seller and see if you guys perhaps can't come to some agreement.
 
Pblatzz said:
I agree, Poor was something I first saw with century Int in Montreal, It was used that way to describe something in pittyful shape and unsafe (that's if the old chip is remembering right)
Click to expand...

I saw a "poor" enfield no1 at the last gunshow i was at, it was a poor 1917 lithgow sporter that had just a slight hint of rifling in the last foot of the barrel, it musta seen some hell of a load of cordite ammo in its day
 
I suspect that is a Mosin bore. If it is, it looks better than 90% of the M91/30 bores you are likely to see in Canada.

wartime M91/30 bores were never finish lapped to begin with, so tool markings and less than crisp rifling are hte norm even on some unissued guns. The ammo was corrosive and often minor pitting is to be found on otherwise decent bores.

If that is a Mosin, and I think it is, it is above average.

That being said, I think it is NRA "good" - no corrosion or pits affecting function.

For a Mosin, it is "very good".

On a general milsurps scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 7 to 7.5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom