In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Gun values for these guns (Pics Added)

big bearbig bear Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
edited December 2009 in Ask the Experts
Hey guys,
Wondering value for these guns. Have now added pictures thanks to you guys helping me with the instructions. Thanks alot!!I know the pics aren't the greatest but it's all I have. Hope it helps.Tried to give better descriptions this time. All guns have excellent bores. These guns were my Grandpa's and he kept them wrapped in old sheets with oiled pieces of cloth stuffed down the tips of the barrells.I tried to be critical, I want to sell these to fund a Remington R 15 so I'm hopoing for realistic resale prices.Thanks again for taking the time to check them out.

Springfield model 1903 with redfield sights Ser#412356 Stock very good no scratches, blueing looks good on barrell,action has blueing missing on bolt where it slides.(Sporter??)guns003.jpgguns005.jpg
Steyr Model 95 with no import stamp says m95 stamped on top #848n slight indent on stock to of receiver has a big "s" stamoped in it and a symbol with # 37 behind itguns009.jpgguns007.jpg
Winchester model 61 pump 22 ser#24588 Blueing missing slightly where slide action rubs, couple little scratches in stock, barely noticeable.guns016.jpgguns015.jpg
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,879 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    You can find the actual selling price of common guns by clicking on the Smart Search button at the top of the GB home page. Enter the key words, select COMPLETED AUCTIONS, select HIGHEST NUMBER OF BIDS FIRST. Disregard all auctions where the number of bids is 0. Look at the auctions & find photos of guns that look like yours.

    Neal

    EDIT: Your 1903 Springfield has a low number receiver, meaning it is considered unsafe to shoot. Value may be $50-100 for parts; photo is too fuzzy to tell any more.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • big bearbig bear Member Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks alot for the help. I'll try to post pictures this evening.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    Just for instance, on the Steyr 95: Carbine in 8X56R (most common) would start at about $90. Top end would be an M95M in 8X57 or an original long rifle in 8X50R, which would bring up to $300, more if really great shape.

    Needs a bore description. Matching parts or non? Wood condition? Bluing left? Etc. etc. Saying something is 'very nice' tells us little.

    You just haven't given us enough info on any of these. For example, "I have a 1968 Mustang, what's it worth? It's in nice shape." Hmm... what engine? Body condition? Modifications? Mileage? Etc. etc. You get the point.

    As they say a picture is worth a thousand words so I'd start there as suggested.

    Welcome to the forum.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • coledigger4coledigger4 Member Posts: 826 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Neal

    EDIT: Your 1903 Springfield has a low number receiver, meaning it is considered unsafe to shoot. Value may be $50-100 for parts; photo is too fuzzy to tell any more.
    [/quote]

    Not to hijack but, what would the reason be that could make the 1903 Springfield unsafe to shoot? Is it a design problem, age, or something else?

    Thank you for the information. Again, I learned something new, to me anyhow.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dcs shootersdcs shooters Member Posts: 10,969
    edited November -1
    The heat treatment on the early recievers was not right, and sre unsafe to shoot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • givettegivette Member Posts: 10,886 ✭
    edited November -1
    Below 800,000 is the accepted norm for 'unsafe' receivers
    as mf'd by Springfield Armory. There were receiver
    failures during WWI, and a few recorded until 1936.
    The US Gov't kept the rifles with low SerNo's in inventory,
    and at the beginning of WWII re-issued them.

    Logic: Better to have a few GI's have their face blown off,
    than recall the entire lot. Remember..this was at the
    panic phase of emergency arms buildup, very early
    in WWII. After the war [the low numbered receivers]
    made it into the surplus market.

    Yes, there are stories such as 'I've shot my
    low number rifle for years W/O any problems,
    but I was taught that a questionable gun is only
    as good as the last shot fired. The next shot is the one
    to worry about. Best, Joe

    EDIT: Text compression
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MPMP Member Posts: 265 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    These rifles were a lot less dangerous back in BC (Before-Computers). Now everyone parrots what others have said. The NRA suggested that a person shooting these use good brass, load only to factory pressure and have the headspace checked. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: "These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GuvamintCheeseGuvamintCheese Member Posts: 38,932
    edited November -1
    $700 +/- on the Winchester model 61 ( a grooved reciever would up the value). If its a .22 mag. $1500 +/-.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sandwarriorsandwarrior Member Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by MP
    These rifles were a lot less dangerous back in BC (Before-Computers). Now everyone parrots what others have said. The NRA suggested that a person shooting these use good brass, load only to factory pressure and have the headspace checked. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: "These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch."


    Not true. I've known about some of these being dangerous clear back when I was a kid in the 70's. My dad didn't think Mausers were safe. But his uncle, who was a gunsmith, knew which (most) Mausers were safe and which 1903's were safe. FWIW, the standard WWII load of 48 gr. of 4895 (back then they didn't differentiate) behind a 150 gr. bullet is well below the max for that rifle.

    As it is though, it's been sporterized and that takes away value. $300 as I see it compared to what has sold around here.
    The M95 is a unique rifle. That may increase in value. But as of late I see them going for between $100-$200.
    The model 61 is a really nice example. As noted by more Winchester Savvy people here $700? But, I'm guessing as I haven't sold one. but looking at the auctions I see mint ones getting bid up to $850. Yours looks nice but I don't know of any special options on it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • givettegivette Member Posts: 10,886 ✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by MP
    These rifles were a lot less dangerous back in BC (Before-Computers). Now everyone parrots what others have said. The NRA suggested that a person shooting these use good brass, load only to factory pressure and have the headspace checked. This question is not new, from Nov, 1932 American Rifleman, person asking if his low-number was still serviceable. Answer: "These older receivers are safe to use with any standard factory ammunition of old or modern ballistics, providing the cases are in good condition. There should be no grease on the cartridge or in the bore, and the breech space must be no greater than about .005 inch."

    Item in blue, above: If you are refering to my post (immediately above yours), the information I've gleaned originated with Col. Hatchers' findings after extensive tests through the '20's, an '30's. What I have posted was known to me at least twenty years prior to the birth of the internet.

    And I agree, the internet may tempt many folks to 'Pol-Parrot' reports, whether true, or not, but Not In This Case!! Thanks, Joe
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.