Used guns: such a deal

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

If it wasn't for used guns, I would hardly have any guns at all. It's funny though, some people avoid used guns like I do rattlesnakes. A friend recently related an incident he experienced at a little party. The host showed him a couple of handguns, but was very proud they "had never been fired and never would be." They weren't rare, irreplaceable ones, just common guns. What's the point in that?

I don't understand such an attitude because I take pride in the wear I personally put on my guns as long as I haven't done something stupid to wreck them (which I have on occasion). Since I intend to put wear on my guns, then it doesn't bother me a bit if someone else gave them a little head start. Again with the proviso they haven't damaged them stupidly. Little stupid things don't matter much such as burred screws. Screws are easily replaced.

Big stupid things do count, like drilling extra holes in the gun somewhere or carving one's name or initials in the stock or--worse yet--scratching them in the metal. Again, though, some carving can be absorbed if the gun is sufficiently historical. I have an original Sharps Model 1874.45-70 on which someone carved their initials in the side of the stock. I can live with it since the rest of the rifle is in excellent condition for one 130-years old and one that shoots exceedingly accurately. Some scratching in the metal can be excused if it doesn't show, say under the grips. But, extra dovetails, divots from hammer blows, filed off appendages, rasped wood, and so forth are signs a particular firearm has been owned by an idiot.

Look

What's the first thing most people do when looking at a used gun in a gun store or gun show? They open its action up and look into the barrel. What are they looking for? The condition of the bore, of course. The problem is you really can't see much with the naked eye. A barrel can look mighty good to the naked eye and still not be that great. For instance, once when visiting gun'riter, Rick Jamison, he casually commented most old rifles have pitted barrels even if they look good. He was making his observation from experience in looking into rifle barrels with the aid of a bore scope. Since I had along a couple of my vintage Winchester lever guns I debated with him, saying the barrels in my samples were excellent. To which he simply gave me a look through his bore scope into my rifles' barrels and sure enough there was plenty of minor pitting. It just wasn't visible to the naked eye.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

On the other hand, barrels can show some obvious roughness and still be fine shooters. Once I bought an original Sharps Model 1863 percussion carbine complete with Civil War martial markings at a Montana garage sale. Its bore looked like a sewer pipe and I nearly sold it right away just to turn a buck. Then on a whim I ran a cleaning patch down the carbine's barrel to find that most of the sewer looking stuff was dried oil mixed with dirt and dust. The bore actually was a little rough but much better than I had thought especially for a black powder firearm almost 150-years old. I still have it.

Take A Chance?

Let's carry this barrel condition thing a little further. Back in 19841 had a deep desire for a Winchester Model 1894 rifle in .32-40. At a Bozeman, Montana, gun show I found one very decently priced, but a bit rough around the edges. Worse yet, the grooves looked dark albeit the tops of the lands were still bright. That darkness in the grooves is a sign of many tiny pits. I bought the Winchester anyway, and it may just be the most accurate Winchester levergun I've ever shot--with both jacketed and cast bullets.

The darkness of the barrel matters not a whit. Here's another example; the first ever vintage Winchester lever gun I bought was another Model 1894 rifle, this one a .38-55. Looking down the barrel, I could see many long dark lines that looked like scratches and nearly didn't buy this otherwise fine rifle. Still I took a chance and at first opportunity showed it to an extremely knowledgeable antique gunsmith friend. He said, "Don't worry about those. They are just forging flaws in the steel the same as on the outside of the receiver here." Whereupon he pointed to some lines on the left side of the Winchester's action. You could see them but they couldn't be felt. That .38-55 is probably the second most accurate Winchester lever gun I've owned. Many vintage Winchesters have those same lines on both receiver and barrel.

Conversely, an acquaintance once bought a bolt-action .22-250 varmint rifle. The barrel looked fine and it shot fairly well--until he gave it a good electronic cleaning with an Outer's Foul Out. Then he could see the barrel was eroded for a substantial portion ahead of the chamber. The eroded area had been full of copper fouling. His rifle didn't group nearly as tightly afterwards.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Clean Thoroughly?

For the past half dozen years I've been adding WWII bolt-action rifles to my collection. Many of them, such as the US Model 1917s actually date from 1918/1919 with the most recent ones being in the 1943/1944 time frame. Their barrels have been fired with copper jacketed bullets for six to nine decades and most likely have never had all the copper fouling completely removed. Do I get after them heavily with copper remover? No way. Upon buying one I'll give it a decent cleaning and then shoot it. If it groups appropriately considering sights and ammunition used then it just gets standard cleaning from there on. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the proof is in the shooting and not in what you see in a barrel.