There’s been some serious eyeballing of those pictures and the gun has some problems. As in that design of reinforced lower receiver (the machinegun) wasn’t made until the mid 90’s.
And the receiver markings look like nothing John Norrell ever did at that time.
Yeah, I have to agree with Miles: That’s just about the shadiest “transferable” lower I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some pretty damned shady M16 configurations.
* The markings don’t look right because they were engraved rather than roll-marked.
* The receiver forging is clearly too new.
While the second may or may not be a problem on it’s own (Given the line the BATFE seems to have taken on the lower replacements done by Olympic, Colt, et. al. in the 90s), in concert with the first it’s definitely a huge point against that gun.
Frankly, if I were looking at it, I’d need a substantial discount to be willing to take that kind of risk.
September 11th, 2018 at 8:41 pm
There’s been some serious eyeballing of those pictures and the gun has some problems. As in that design of reinforced lower receiver (the machinegun) wasn’t made until the mid 90’s.
And the receiver markings look like nothing John Norrell ever did at that time.
caveat emptor applies.
September 11th, 2018 at 10:05 pm
Yeah, I have to agree with Miles: That’s just about the shadiest “transferable” lower I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some pretty damned shady M16 configurations.
* The markings don’t look right because they were engraved rather than roll-marked.
* The receiver forging is clearly too new.
While the second may or may not be a problem on it’s own (Given the line the BATFE seems to have taken on the lower replacements done by Olympic, Colt, et. al. in the 90s), in concert with the first it’s definitely a huge point against that gun.
Frankly, if I were looking at it, I’d need a substantial discount to be willing to take that kind of risk.
September 13th, 2018 at 11:37 am
Whoa. Pump the brakes. The listed is price is actually $22,700. Not $23,000. I just might be able to afford it.