We all like nice shiny blue and clean wood. But really, it may be a low or no round count weapon with significant wear. Would you buy it?
I see A LOT of sale descriptions stating typically less than 20 rds fired for hunting rifles, 2 boxes fired for shotguns, and less than 200-300 rounds for pistols. In reality, those are basically brand new weapons, with a bit of function testing.
Say the same round count. This time the weapon has a lot of carry wear, blueing at 60-70-80-90 percent, handles or stocks have rubs or dings, a few minor scratches in the metal.
Why not buy it? It's probably the better deal because of appearance, why are we hung up on appearance? Why don't we value function more than appearance in weapons?
Granted, I know that some, but not all weapons may pass from the used to the collectable catagory, where appearance counts. But this isn't about them.
Curious to hear some veiws. Peer pressure, preference, marketing, hopes of recouping at re sale, why not buy the worn one?
I see A LOT of sale descriptions stating typically less than 20 rds fired for hunting rifles, 2 boxes fired for shotguns, and less than 200-300 rounds for pistols. In reality, those are basically brand new weapons, with a bit of function testing.
Say the same round count. This time the weapon has a lot of carry wear, blueing at 60-70-80-90 percent, handles or stocks have rubs or dings, a few minor scratches in the metal.
Why not buy it? It's probably the better deal because of appearance, why are we hung up on appearance? Why don't we value function more than appearance in weapons?
Granted, I know that some, but not all weapons may pass from the used to the collectable catagory, where appearance counts. But this isn't about them.
Curious to hear some veiws. Peer pressure, preference, marketing, hopes of recouping at re sale, why not buy the worn one?
