[Ol' Relic]

It looks like a real refurbed PU. The scope was heavily polished and refurbed but not real unusual. How is the bore?

+1. Don't see enough to say 100% that it's real, but don't see anything to say it isn't. Unfortunately, though, the import serial looks like it may be a Mitchell (correct me if I'm wrong)?

 

[Ol' Relic]

I asked him and he confirmed that the import says MM Huntington Beach CA.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Pending more pics, I think it's a legit PU (some Michells are). The downer is that it may adversely affect resale value, as Mitchell has acquired a nasty reputation for humping Mausers. Plus most of the PUs they sell are repros and they don't differentiate between those and real ones like this rifle.

 

[Ol' Relic]

Thanks for the info Ol' Relic. He got it for 380.00 so either way, he's either got a nice PU sniper or a nice shooter....what other pics would you like and will have him send them to me

Well, if he got it for that price, I'll toast him with a tall draft Stella when I get to the restaurant the wife is driving us to as I type this. :laugh:

Detail pics of the bolt handle, scope base and both sides of the mount would be useful.

 

[Ol' Relic]

Looks completely legit to me, that's a wartime Izhevsk mount. He made out like a bandit on that deal-with the bore condition being what you said, I'd have bought that one if I'd run into it locally at, probably, up to $600 or so.

 

[Ol' Relic]

This thread has me wondering if my PU is a real , (original refurb).

. . . You kind folks mind telling me certain traits to look for to determine if it is "as issued" or otherwise.

Post up some detail pics of it.

+1, saddly true. The man (Mitchell) has no one to blame but himself.

Sometimes, things become just about the money.