When I am purchasing a new weapon I expect it to be without scratches, wear, and signs of abuse. A cylinder ring and signs of firing on the cylinder mouths is ok/acceptable.

When I am purchasing a pre-owned/used weapon I expect a few scratches, signs of wear, and firing marks. If the weapon has not been abused, it is acceptable.

I also realize that not all Weapons have spend their existance in a bureau drawer, not handle, or fired less than 12 rounds in a non-smoke temperture controled environment.

Do I have the correct outlook?

Except for the cylinder ring and signs of firing on a "New" gun, I agree with you outlook.

__________________
Age + Treachery = JohnnieB

Yes you do.

__________________
Sure you did

Sounds reasonable to me. "Course, I don't have to worry too
much about the new ones. TACC1

We had a similar discussion a while back and I was accused of having the attitude of a car salesman. To me, once a gun has been toted out of the store it is a 98% piece. It is used, period. I would not call a gun that has been fired a 95% piece either. I do not buy firearms to look at, nor do I think of them as investments; I buy them because I want them and will use them. I have bought some ratty looking guns that cleaned up well. Guns that had pitting and rust, parts in a box, blood stained guns, guns that took a tumble from a moving vehicle.

"Abused" guns can be resurrected (S&W repaired my #63) or a bargaining chip (Ruger offered a tremendous discount to replace one of theirs). A good many of my handguns came from a LEO store and were former stolen/recovered; training/evaluation; duty; evidence or confiscation items.

I have cut back recently, but am negotiating on a #19-3 trade-in piece right now. It has some finish wear, more of a shooter than anything else.

The factory fires the gun, at least three rounds, so one can expect some tell-tell powder marks; but, when you get a brand new gun, you don't expect it to look like 300 hundred rounds just went through it without cleaning, looking like well used one. Once I ordered a new one through my dealer, and that's the way it came, I rejected it of course - the dealer called S&W and questioned it, the response: "It was fired more than usual as we had to make some adjustments; We don't clean guns before they are shipped".

Pete

The last new S&W revolver I bought had powder burn residue on 2 cylinders, and no visible turn line.

It looked to have been wiped down with a lightly oiled rag before being wrapped in the brown paper and placed in the cardboard box. It looked like what I thought a new gun should look like.

Why... yes you do sir.. a reasonable outlook to say the least..

__________________
SWCA #2306
DAV in honor of POP

I am getting to where I don't know what I'm really getting unless and until I pull the sideplate and examine the parts under magnification for signs of amateur gunsmithing. Of late I have come up with a M24-3 that needed a trip to the factory for a new hammer and trigger, and a M19-5 that needed the same. Both via the classifieds here. I chose to believe the sellers really didn't know, but I'll never quite be sure. Much more of this and I'll be totally paranoid.

I really need to start dealing with sellers who allow 3 days' inspection up front and a right of return.

Jimmy,
I feel that same way you do.

Rule 303

I agree with your thinking. I never encountered the wailing about the "turn line" until I started reading here. I'm still amazed.

As to buying used over the web, I would not even consider a transaction unless the seller agreed to a reasonable inspection period. If he would not, there has to be a reason, and that reason is almost certainly going to be unpalatable to the buyer. Conversely, if you order a gun and can't bother yourself to get to the dealer to inspect it in a day or two, I would not blame the seller for considering it a done deal. Fair is fair.

Yes you do. Have you bought a *new* gun only to find it wasn't so?

Good Morning, ridewv:
No, I haven't purchased a "New" weapon that turned out to be not "New".
I was concerned that my "Expectations" might have been wrong.
The great concerns over "A Turn Line" and "Powder Rings On The Cylinder
Mouths" started me to thinking I might be in the wrong state of mind.
Jimmy

Jimmy,

Nothing wrong with your state of mind, all I was trying to say is that turn lines on the cylinder and powder rings on the cylinder mouths ought to raise a flag on a “New" gun.
Maybe not a Red Flag, but at least a Yellow one. It’s a matter of how much is too much rather than whether the signs of firing exist or not.

My personal belief is that anything more than powder residue smudges on some, but not all, of the cylinder mouths or anything more than the slightest hint of a turn line needs to be questioned if the gun is being sold as "New". Pete (oldfella) expresses my feelings on the subject better than I can and gives a good example of them being applied.

I’ve only bought 5 “new” revolvers in my life and none showed signs of anything more than the normal test firing and sight alignment, but if any had, I would have wanted to know why, just like Pete did.
On the other hand, I buy shooters rather than safe queens, so it usually becomes a moot point within hours of delivery anyways.

John

__________________
Age + Treachery = JohnnieB