I would like to get a bunch of opinions on this. I was searching the net auction listings for a Marlin Model 99 M1 .22 semi-auto rifle made from about 1965-78. One of the "unique" things about this rifle is that it has a pretty great factory rear sight (adjusts for windage and elevation) on it mounted on the scope rail and not on the barrel. This sight is darn near impossible to find in gun parts supply systems and it probably trades at $50 or more when one is available. I believe the sight is prone to loss partly because of the way it fastens to the firearm. The gun itself, with sight, might be worth around $175 in nice condition. It is not all that common. Okay, so there is one listed on an auction site and there are photos. One remark by the seller is, "Look at the photos and buy with confidence." However, the rear sight is missing. The seller does not mention that. In a message to the seller I confirmed there is no rear sight.
My opinion is that this is not ethical and should be pointed out by the seller. I am not saying anything illegal is being done. I just think it is unethical. It is just the right thing to do to point out that the rear sight is missing. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?
My opinion is that this is not ethical and should be pointed out by the seller. I am not saying anything illegal is being done. I just think it is unethical. It is just the right thing to do to point out that the rear sight is missing. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?