Minor Enfield revolver rant

gyvel · March 5, 2014, 01:56 AM

Bringing up a point about the latest American Rifleman: In the "I have this old gun" feature (usually on the very last page of the mag), the writer has misidentified a No. 2 Mk 1* as a No. 2 Mk1 revolver and assigned a value of $1200.00!!!!

Even an original, unmodified No. 2 Mk1 SA/DA is not worth anywhere near $1200.00, whether RAF marked or not, at least not in any universe that I am aware of.

chiefr · March 5, 2014, 10:02 AM

Perhaps the big bores, but have never seen 38s that high that I can think of even in mint condition. Last one I saw at a gun show was $300.

Then again, there was a plain common Type 38 Arisaka on GB with a start price of $3900.00 and "buy now" at $4000.00

gyvel · March 5, 2014, 10:33 AM

I can understand somebody "fishing" for the sucker on GB, but you would think a writer for the American Rifleman would know better.

I guess now we better get ready for a spate of Enfield .38 revolvers with ridiculous asking prices. The irony of it all is that those were considered the "bottom of the barrel" in the heyday back in the 60s, and were advertised for $12.88.

chiefr · March 5, 2014, 05:39 PM

I have to agree.
Not like the American Rifleman, but I learned long ago it is best to be skeptical when reading gun mags.

Can think of several articles saying how great some product is only to find real problems when you get your hands on one. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the Bren 10 debacle.
The latest was when the editor of Guns & Ammo used the world " Regulated" in the Second Amendment as an argument for gun control. Cancelled my subscription shortly after.

James K · March 5, 2014, 08:07 PM

The gun clearly has the "*" added, showing it was converted to the Mk 1*. And he says the gun was made in 1933 when it is marked 1937. Does anyone actually look at the guns any more or do they just make stuff up?

If the gun were an unaltered Mk 1, with that pre-war date, it could well be worth what he says, or very close.

Jim

gyvel · March 6, 2014, 10:53 AM

It's not the first time for this "Old Gun" feature in AR, either.

One writer wrote in about what was apparently a Bannerman or Sedgely bastardized 1917 Enfield rifle ("Frankenfield"). The author wrote up the article, gave some ridiculous value to it, and proudly put a photo at the top of the page of a Remington Model 1934 Honduras contract 7mm rifle.

I'm beginning to think that maybe they don't always get a picture with the inquiries, and just use whatever is handy from their file cabinets.

AR used to be THE go-to source for accurate information about guns, ammo, reloading, etc. What's happened?

gyvel · March 7, 2014, 10:26 AM

Well, it didn't take long: GB now has some guy with a No.2 Mk1* advertising it as a RARE No.2 Mk1 with a buy-it-now of $999.00 and using the page from the Rifleman as "proof" of "rarity" and value.

James K · March 7, 2014, 09:46 PM

If he will buy mine at that price, I will reluctantly(?) let it go.

Jim

March 5, 2014, 01:56 AM	#1
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	Minor Enfield revolver rant Bringing up a point about the latest American Rifleman: In the "I have this old gun" feature (usually on the very last page of the mag), the writer has misidentified a No. 2 Mk 1* as a No. 2 Mk1 revolver and assigned a value of $1200.00!!!! Even an original, unmodified No. 2 Mk1 SA/DA is not worth anywhere near $1200.00, whether RAF marked or not, at least not in any universe that I am aware of.

March 5, 2014, 10:33 AM	#3
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	I can understand somebody "fishing" for the sucker on GB, but you would think a writer for the American Rifleman would know better. I guess now we better get ready for a spate of Enfield .38 revolvers with ridiculous asking prices. The irony of it all is that those were considered the "bottom of the barrel" in the heyday back in the 60s, and were advertised for $12.88. Last edited by gyvel; March 5, 2014 at 11:12 AM.

March 7, 2014, 10:26 AM	#7
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	Well, it didn't take long: GB now has some guy with a No.2 Mk1* advertising it as a RARE No.2 Mk1 with a buy-it-now of $999.00 and using the page from the Rifleman as "proof" of "rarity" and value. Last edited by gyvel; March 8, 2014 at 04:45 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 5, 2014, 10:02 AM	#2
chiefr Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: AR Posts: 1,401	Perhaps the big bores, but have never seen 38s that high that I can think of even in mint condition. Last one I saw at a gun show was $300. Then again, there was a plain common Type 38 Arisaka on GB with a start price of $3900.00 and "buy now" at $4000.00

March 5, 2014, 05:39 PM	#4
chiefr Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: AR Posts: 1,401	I have to agree. Not like the American Rifleman, but I learned long ago it is best to be skeptical when reading gun mags. Can think of several articles saying how great some product is only to find real problems when you get your hands on one. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the Bren 10 debacle. The latest was when the editor of Guns & Ammo used the world " Regulated" in the Second Amendment as an argument for gun control. Cancelled my subscription shortly after.

March 5, 2014, 08:07 PM	#5
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The gun clearly has the "" added, showing it was converted to the Mk 1. And he says the gun was made in 1933 when it is marked 1937. Does anyone actually look at the guns any more or do they just make stuff up? If the gun were an unaltered Mk 1, with that pre-war date, it could well be worth what he says, or very close. Jim

March 6, 2014, 10:53 AM	#6
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	It's not the first time for this "Old Gun" feature in AR, either. One writer wrote in about what was apparently a Bannerman or Sedgely bastardized 1917 Enfield rifle ("Frankenfield"). The author wrote up the article, gave some ridiculous value to it, and proudly put a photo at the top of the page of a Remington Model 1934 Honduras contract 7mm rifle. I'm beginning to think that maybe they don't always get a picture with the inquiries, and just use whatever is handy from their file cabinets. AR used to be THE go-to source for accurate information about guns, ammo, reloading, etc. What's happened?

March 7, 2014, 09:46 PM	#8
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	If he will buy mine at that price, I will reluctantly(?) let it go. Jim