ANTIQUE rifle market a little soft right now?

Of course, one individual sale of one specific firearm doesn't define the market, but this morning at a local auction I was able to purchase a very nice cartridge conversion New Model 1863 Sharps .50/70 carbine with a 6 groove barrel for under $2,000. Wood unrefinished and looks nearly pristine, cartouche and other markings sharp, a fair amount of case colouring left, bluing strong, no pitting in barrel.

Makes sense though, none of the younger kids want any of this ANTIQUE stuff. Ten years ago, I purchased a cartridge conversion like this one, with the 3 groove insert, in much weaker condition, for $2400 and that was a good price then.

Sad that this high quality stuff that was around during the Civil War is now being largely ignored.

Of course, these are not all that uncommon. When you walk around the local antique arms show, you see a fair number for sale at any given time. Few, if any, have the condition this one has, none have a price tag this low.

ANTIQUE = NO 4473!!!

I thought once, in 1999, that it made sense to start making antique as anything over 100 years old, so, by now, anything pre 1920 would be antique. But, of course, that never happened. It still makes sense to do it, however, now. But, the trouble is, what happens when firearms such as the AR 15 become a century old, as they are vastly different than anything pre 1920. Never mind that is that not Constitutional, not the intent of the second amendment to register and track firearms, which is what is done with post 1898 firearms.

We define as antique, an object greater than 100 years old. Except, when the Gun Control Act of 1968 came about, antique was anything pre 1899, so, the definition, at that point, was anything 70 years of age or over. If that had been the "definition" at that time, then anything that is pre 1949 would be considered as antique. Actually, it's now been 51 yrs since 1968, so it really would be pre 1950 by now.

It had to be age, with the reasoning you give. Obsolescence of available ammunition. Otherwise, if age were not considered along with this, it would have more sense just to make the cutoff 1900 as a year or two one way or another in that time frame wouldn't have made a difference.

Most Congressmen know so little about firearms, I'm surprised they would even be aware of the vast array of cartridges available and which could be considered obsolete.

Interesting. I like that there was an error, gaining us an extra year.

I did not know that a specific firearm determined the cut off. I just assumed they decided anything 70 years prior to 1968 was considered to be antique.

Do you have source materials/references for this as I would be interested in reading them and learning more.