[Reverend Mauser]

Saw one at a local place. Price tag said $399

Dated 1955.

Bolt and receiver match. I couldn't see any import mark

Bore condition was solid. Good, intact rifling without visible pitting, though darkish (maybe call it a dark grey). The metal looked good. There was some white metal where the bayonet goes over the muzzle.


One other thing I noticed was that the bayonet was left in the white.I didn't know if it should be blued or if it mattered.

 

[Artemus]

IMHO, Way high even if all 4 parts match. I recently got an all matching beauty (except stock) 1954 on GB for a bit over $200 shipped. Bluing likely wore off the bayonet, perhaps? PICTURES PLEASE!

 

[Stopsign32v]

IMHO, Way high even if all 4 parts match. I recently got an all matching beauty (except stock) 1954 on GB for a bit over $200 shipped. Bluing likely wore off the bayonet, perhaps? PICTURES PLEASE!

There is a difference in "matching" and "matching except..."

 

[Reverend Mauser]

IMHO, Way high even if all 4 parts match. I recently got an all matching beauty (except stock) 1954 on GB for a bit over $200 shipped. Bluing likely wore off the bayonet, perhaps? PICTURES PLEASE!

I didn't think to check the stock. The bayonet blade looks to have never been blued. Where it the joins into its base was definitely blued. (What I'm calling the base is what fits over the muzzle also extends into the lug and forms the pivot)

If I get that way, I can try to take pics.

 

[JMG]

I would say high for a T-53, check the receiver closely for the import mark, if it is navy arms, it will be extremely small!!!
JMG

 

[Stopsign32v]

If I get that way, I can try to take pics.

If its in NC it is already sold to one of my buddies.

 

[Miller Tyme]

The price is on the high side but if you want it and it fills a hole in your collection then go for it.