Another new unturned & unfired USFA.

[Buckaroo Lou]

Man, I just don't get it. These folks are advertising their firearms to be unfired and unturned. Look at the photos of the cylinder and tell me if those aren't powder burn rings on every chamber. Do they think we are all blind? Sorry, I don't mean to be beating a dead horse. It is just hard for me to understand why someone would make such a statement and then post photos that show their add to be absolutely untruthful. Plus it is an Italian parts firearm to boot.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=405265686

[Major 2]

Were they not required to test fire the gun , and provide a ballistics file to the law and as I recall, pack two empty casings as proof ?

Or has the BATF ruling been resented  

[Coffinmaker]

Well .......... I don't know guys.  Lemme see, the frame shows some wear at the cylinder bushing interface, the locking bolt notches in the cylinder ALL show skuff marks from the bolt, the bushing in the breach face shows wear marks and the cylinder face shows blast marks.

It's his lie.  Let him tell it.  P. T. Barnum covered the situation nicely.

Coffinmaker

[Advertising]

[GaryG]

The fired case was only required for NY & MD.  Guns shipped to a distributor were supplied with a fired case.

[Major 2]

Thank you Gary, I remember the requirement, seems I'd seen some sold that way, , but not in in Gun-shine State so I figure it was maybe regional/State or repealed as unenforceable 

[Buckaroo Lou]

I apologize if by posting this I have offended anyone. It was not my intent to stir the pot. I was taught to believed that honesty is always the best policy. I suppose there could be more here than meets the eye though it is difficult for me to see it.

[Fox Creek Kid]

There is fouling as well on the front, bottom, inside edge of the frame window. As well, in '98 they were still using Uberti Parts.

[Coffinmaker]

Nope.  No apologies necessary.  I don't/didn't have a dog in this fight.  Just added some observations from the photos and I really don't like folks that misrepresent what they are trying to peddle.
I'd also like to share Thea opinion, based on observations from 16+ years of smithing on CAS guns, there is nothing shameful with the old USPFA guns built from Uberti parts.  Those guns are very well made even if I consider them to be a high end Uberti.  Still my opinion those guns were better built than Colt.  The USFA guns are even another step up.  That said, those guns were/are some over priced.  I've owned some and still own two.
At the original prices for USFA and Colt guns, the buyer/shooter shouldn't need to put another 150 bucks in the guns to make em user friendly.  Just my opinion.

Coffinmaker

[Buckaroo Lou]

I concur with Coffinmaker concerning his assessment of USPFA's, that they are very nice and a step above Uberti's and the probably then produced Colts and that USFA's made with US manufactured parts are a step above the USPFA's. I'm just not willing to pay the prices I have seen numerous USFA's made from foreign parts sell for. For that matter I am not willing to pay what I have seen many of US USFA's sell for. Otherwise I would be the proud owner of a Bisley model.  I wonder sometimes if the buyer is aware there is a difference. I know I didn't at first. The Blue Book of Gun Values currently does not make a distinction. I have the feeling future editions will, but then again maybe they won't. I am thankful that the ones I do have I was able to acquire at the current Blue Book values.