1892 what do you think?

[andym79]

I was all set to buy a rifle from interstate it looked good.

A refurbished 1892 32-20. Re lined and re blued, full length magazine and octagonal barrel.

The photos looked good. Then I asked for some more.

Is this a turd rolled in glitter or am I being harsh?

Looks like it was blued to cover up some rusting!

 

[LT.Diver]

To each his own. I, personally, would not consider buying a re-blued gun. It might be a great shooter, and if that's all you're looking for than go for it. But its re-sale value has been considerably compromised.

 

[HOOfan_1]

guess that depends on how much they are asking....the receiver still looks like it is in pretty bad condition.

If they reblued it without polishing off the rust, I would stay the heck away from it

 

[andym79]

That is kind of what I thought, it looks like they have re-blued it and not cleaned it up first!

I bought a 1903 1892 in 38-40 a while ago and that had virtually no blue left, but it was rust free with very minimal pitting. It looks to me like they have tried to cover up. As I said a turd rolled in glitter.

And the receiver is the one part you want to be in good condition its the part you cant replace.

The asking price was $495. My 38-40 cost $645 but then its all original and shoots well.

I am not too concern about the bluing, its the rust and the damaged tang, who knows what has happened to that tang?

If you can make it out from the photo the writing stops a MOD and WIN.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If they reblued it without polishing off the rust, I would stay the heck away from it

That's exactly what they did -- look at the rust around the loading gate.

 

[bannockburn]

Very poor refinishing job. I would pass on this one.

 

[chicharrones]

Is this a turd rolled in glitter or am I being harsh?

The glitter fell off. No, I don't think you are being harsh at all.

 

[BCRider]

As posted already if it's a shooter you're after and you want a good shooter at a low price then I'd say buy it. But I sure would not be looking at paying anything like collector prices for this.

But I'd be worried that the rust on the loading gate is also inside the action. If it comes with a money back inspection period then fine. Otherwise if it's a done deal once it's shipped I'd likely look elsewhere.

 

[Float Pilot]

Too much sanding on the wood. The tang should not be showing so far above the wood line.

 

[Jackal]

rust on the loading gate

That could also not be rust at all. It could just be grime/old oil like on the lever. That junk accumulates in all those little recesses. Look at the screw heads, they have gunk in them too, just looks dirty to me. Personally, as a shooter its probably fine. It certainly has little to no collector value anymore.

 

[Dr.Rob]

If the price is right and you just want a shooter, sure. It will eventually need a new stock but with the amount already done to it, no big deal.

 

[andym79]

Just in case you couldn't zoom in on the photo here is a close up of the tang!

What the hell happened?

 

[rcmodel]

The picture is too dark to make anything out on my computer?

rc

 

[Jim Watson]

I doubt it matters with all the rest of the stuff going on here, but Winchester did not fit magazine tubes an inch short of the muzzle, either.

 

[mnrivrat]

Picture 3 looks like a before while the other three look like after bluing. The left side of the receiver looks to have been buffed heavily, while the right side in picture 3 shows no sign of buffing or re-bluing for that matter.

Also the stock looks a lot lighter in picture 3.

No doubt the stock shows an area at the upper tang that is gone.

Bottom line is I realy don't know what I'm looking at do to picture quality, and what seems to be a before re-finsh photo in picture 3.

 

[Lassen Forge]

That action was ridden hard (and apparently put away wet) by someone with a screwdriver and hammer and a bottle of cold blue that fancied themselves a gunsmith. The furniture at the tang looks like a baby's teething toy - my guess is someone tried to pry the tang from it (probably with the same screwdriver that munged up the action all around the screws), broke it, and was not willing to put it back together. The rust (and yes, it's rust) speaks for itself.

It's a sad end to a firearm the likes of which I happen to be partial to. It's good for either (a) a practice gun for a 'smith that wants to learn how to work on problems, or (b) a wall hanger in someone's man-cave that will be seen from 6'. Either way, I can't see paying 3 digits for it... maybe if they moved the decimal place over one spot, even then... no. Sorry.

 

[az_imuth]

IMHO...keep looking.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Two things:

Price dependent.
+
Can't really set a price or get on the bandwagon raggin' this one with those photos.

His number and those pics - I gotta say pass.

I know from flubbing photos myself how things can present begging for worst case scenario interpretation.

My take - a fella in this day and age taking such poor photos is either ****** or ****** **, neither is a good option.

I wouldn't likely pop on this without better pics or in hand inspection.

 

[MCgunner]

Nothing is a better looking rifle than the classic 92. Of course, an original is a might pricey, but iffin' ya want it and got the cash.....

I've owned this for 25 years, bought new and shoots great. It's in .357 magnum. I mean, it's an alternative if you just want a shooter, but it's not the REAL deal.