|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 members (Replacement, 1 invisible),
298
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,463
Posts545,044
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
If a specific post was interesting or useful to you, we recommend that you Like that post. It tells the post author, and others, that you found the information valuable. Clicking Like is another way to let others know that you enjoy it without leaving a comment.
Log in to join the conversation and Like this content.
|
|
|
 Re: Now tight is to tight?
#614676
May 10th a 05:07 PM
|
| by greener4me |
| greener4me |
Another aspect for the new owner to consider when he comes to sell it - the nearer to "original" the more desirable will be the gun to a prospective purchaser.
I have some experience of buying and using vintage British wildfowl and pigeon guns. I do not buy guns that have been tinkered with. Bad examples? ---- William Ford chamberless wildfowl guns such as 10G -which were often the equivalent or better performance as an 8G......NEWBIE owner thinks that he can "improve" the gun by re-chambering it to 8G, etc. It never fails to perplex me how some johnnycomelately thinks that he can "improve" a product of a masterful gunmaker and barrel borer such as Ford.
|
|
|
|
|
|