JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Weighing back in... No, I don't know why.

One of my fav caliber is 41Mag (the caliber, not the guy ;)). If I was looking for a woods gun, wanted to add to my collection, or just have a toy:eek:, I would jump on the ammo because I wouldn't have any brass for reloading and that would make a nice start. Course, I can always buy brass.

BDL. All the way.

22-250... a fine round. Tears up chucks, if you can find any, and 'yotes. Oh, also barrels. But .223 is so cheap to buy and fun to reload. I do miss my Ruger #1V (one shot, one kill) in 22-250

wm_1875565.jpg
 
...start a separate thread wondering why all yer listed stuff in that thread isn't selling. probably
at least you'll get more visibility that way
When I felt like I didn't have enough likes, I started a thread about "How to get likes" and ended up with 500 extra likes just from that thread! I think this thread is genius!

An MK40 not selling, though? A heavy carry 40 just isn't in demand.
 
I've re-read this thread, and if it's been discussed i can't find it, but...

I've found that seldom can I sell a rifle "including" the scope, unless I'm giving the scope away for nearly free. Folks look at the bottom line, and doesn't include the scope. Then...When I've sold the rifle, I mention to the buyer that there is a scope, mounted, for extra cost if they're interested. Almost always, the answer is no. I buy more guns than the average person, and I also never buy a rifle including a scope.
 
The market is very soft. Its taken me a long time to sell some decent items, and I've gotten killer deals on things that are more "tacital" recently.

I also think that location/price has a lot to do with it. West of the Cascades, 22-250 might not be ideal for the price per round when a .223 would do the job just as well. But on the east side 22-250 is probably more desirable. As far as price, in the last few years I've bought several 788's in assorted calibers for around $300-$400 depending on the scope. Absolutely one of my favorite rifles.
 
Thanks for all the replies. I've been wheeling and dealing in guns for a couple decades, but am new to the area and every area is different. I'm not one who gets emotionally attached to vehicles or firearms for the most part, and mainly just wanted to make sure none of my prices were ridiculous. I'll look into some consignment options, and maybe I'll see an upswing in the spring if nothing has sold by then. And, I don't HAVE to sell them, so they aren't listed at have to buy prices. I also realize they aren't trendy, and a lot of fans of each probably already own one.
Be careful doing the consignment road. Get everything in writing and make sure that your minimum price is included. I got cheated when the gun I had on consignment sold for less than agreed and he threw in a $25 magazine free that was a separate deal if the gun buyer wanted an extra mag. It was a 120 day agreement and it was over. I was about to go pick it up when he called and said he sold it. He got his commission, but I will never do business with him again - his and my loss.
 
Yeah, I think I paid about 400 for it. Scope mount was around 25, scope was 200ish, smithing was around 125 or so,if I recall correctly. Throw in a hundred or so on ammo, and I'm basically giving the scope and smithing away. But, I think it's like selling a used vehicle you've modified - the buyer probably doesn't care.
 
Right now seems to be a buyers market for sure, especially for ARs. Ive come to the point where ive updated all of my ads to accept trades because from what ive noticed only the steal of a deal ads are closing quickly. Its been a battle for me with all this temptation but its so hard to say no to a good deal. :cool:
 
The memory I have of the 788 in 22-250 that I had was that it was rough and poorly made. Perhaps others have the same impression. I wouldn't even consider buying one again when I can get a Savage model 10 for about the same price new no optics.

I suspect it will go to a bargain hunter. Hope that is useful, even if it isn't the most welcome opinion.
 
always good to check gunbroker to see what stuff is actually selling for on a national level.

I'd say as a whole if something isn't selling there are 2 obvious reasons:

1) You aren't willing to sell it for what someone who has looked at your post is willing to pay for it

2) The person(s) who is/are willing to pay for what you have as much as your asking for haven't seen your post yet.

Those are really the only two explanations.

As previously stated, we also aren't in a sellers market and people have been dropping serious money on brand new guns while we have had rock bottom prices as a result of the Trump effect, when new gun prices sky rocket back up, used guns will be more appealing to buy again. If you have a "niche" caliber or gun though it takes a special buyer to even have the option to sell.

I know my biggest issue with any used gun is it needs to be exactly what I want for less than I could buy new, otherwise why wouldn't I spend a little more to get something exactly the way I wanted it when most the time we are talking about a hundred dollar savings, used vs old.
 
Having to add another $25-50 to the cost of a firearm, just to make a legal transfer (because of BGC laws) has curtailed my buying.

BTW, it's exactly what the LIBERALS wanted. And sadly, many gun owners also fell into that trap.

Aloha, Mark
 
Having to add another $25-50 to the cost of a firearm, just to make a legal transfer (because of BGC laws) has curtailed my buying.

BTW, it's exactly what the LIBERALS wanted. And sadly, many gun owners also fell into that trap.

Aloha, Mark
I've talked to several guys that think its 'no big deal'. It basically amounts to a tax. It doesn't go directly to the government but they get 'their cut' of this new found revenue stream. I don't see where it says FFL's don't pay tax on this money.

Any gun manufactured after xxxx date if sold in WA or Oregon is an illegally acquired firearm. Easy way to make some felons. And firearm registration marches on.

It's a good thing socialists and communists have never used this agenda to round up people and murder them.........
 
I've talked to several guys that think its 'no big deal'. It basically amounts to a tax. It doesn't go directly to the government but they get 'their cut' of this new found revenue stream. I don't see where it says FFL's don't pay tax on this money.

Any gun manufactured after xxxx date if sold in WA or Oregon is an illegally acquired firearm. Easy way to make some felons. And firearm registration marches on.

It's a good thing socialists and communists have never used this agenda to round up people and murder them.........

I disagree.....that it's "no big deal." Adding this fee/tax is IMHO, Un-American. The 2nd A says "....shall not be infringed."

So? They and/or maybe you too, think taxing the 2nd A is nothing?

OK, Ok, ok.....say that I wanted to buy a .22LR single shot rifle at $100 from a private owner. Next, add in the transfer background check fee.......so now it's costing me $125. Well, I already own several guns and have a CCW. But, I need to go through another background check and pay a $25 BGC fee (25% tax) to exercise my 2nd A rights. WOW, this should make the liberals happy and make the world safer?

Then, what happens when......the Govt starts to dictate how much the FFL should charge? Like a user fee.....you know, to recover the cost to set up this system. Right, and the cost of the fee (tax) could also be used to discourage firearms ownership sufficiently so as to exclude the poor ________ (feel free to add a racial minority if you like). So, how about a $100 BGC fee? Sounds like, "common sense and it's reasonable" too. Disagree and it's because you have no common sense and/or you aren't a reasonable person. Rrrrright. But then again, to some liberals when it comes to gun ownership by private citizens.........maybe a million dollars might be what should be charged for a background check. Or maybe the world would just be a safer place if only the Govt had all the guns?

Then, if taxing guns can be done (in spite of the 2nd A) I wonder when it will become the norm to tax the, "Freedom of Religion?" Or any of the other rights mentioned in the US Constitution.

Humm......say that you wanted to go to a Church (or whatever your particular religion calls it) and so you must first undergo a background check, before you're allowed to attend. Reasonable right? The Govt needs to make sure that a would be terrorist won't be getting ideas to bomb a public gathering through his/her Church/Iman/Pastor, etc.... Right....it's only a background check with a fee attached. Everyone needs to pay (that is if you want to go to church, legally). Oh well, you have to suck up.....it's only a tax.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
I saw a movie once, that showed what happens when the Govt (and only a TRUSTED FEW) has all the guns. It was called......

"Schindler's List"

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
If you could magically transform whatever you're whining about into a Remington Model 600 Mohawk in .35o Remington Magnum, it'd probably sell.

juuust probably, git on it
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top