One of my pet peeves is all the BS offered and associated with evaluations of rifles bores. I understand that there are differences of opinion on what makes an excellent riflebore versus a sewer pipe.The very term excellent, fine, very good, good and fair seem to work reasonably well when evaluating antique firearms externally, but they leave alot to be desired when trying to qualify or quantify the condition of a firearms bore.
Some sellers and dealers rate a barrel bore on a scale from 1 to 10. Off hand that sounds reasonable except what are the criteria for assigning a number? If it is subjective it has very little credibility. Does anybody out there have any evaluation standard that is based on any objective standards? As it stands now buying an antique firearm on line or at an auction involves alot of finger crossing and evaluating answers to questions on condition since you can't actually evaluate the gun. In many instances. I think sellers or dealers deliberately are vague or evasive because they can't evaluate their own guns. Sorry for the rant, but it sure would be nice if collectors of antique firearms had some kind of agreed to standard. For some people bore condition may not be important, for me it is I shoot my rifles.

I've learned what at least one term means.  Evidently the term "shootable" means you can see completely through the bore.

Even NRA's official descriptions do not tell you a whole lot about the bore and when they do, they use terms like "good".  What the heck does that mean?  Maybe one thing to you and another to me. 
Phil

My point exactly guys. The NRA criteria doesn't spend a lot of time addressing bores. It shouldn't be rocket science. There will always be some difference of opinion on any grading criteria just like there is on coins but when the difference exists between honest brokers it is usually no more then one grade or less. No reason why the same can't be done for firearms. Hopefully this group of shooters and collectors can help spread the message that a reasonable coherent standard of grading bores needs to evolve.

I always love it when the seller says " It should clean up."   

If  it will clean up, then clean it up!

Kurt

Being a shooter not a collector I am suspicious of any antique rifles bore.  Some that may work with jackated bullets won't shoot well with cast.

Unless it proves otherwise I budget for a re-line anything pre WW II

Boats

Describing what the bore looks like i.e. brite and shiny with no pitting or shiny with pitting or dark etc is a hell of a lot better criteria for judging a bore then some abritary number asssignment or descriptors like nice or good or fine. Another term that drives me crazy when describing a firearm is " honest " as opposed to dishonest? It means absolutely nothing and guarantees no sale to me. I would have no problem buying or passing up a sale based on a description as to condition that addresses appearance, rust, pitting etc. At least you'd have a pretty good idea what you are getting.

As far as re-lining a bore that's great if the firearm was cheap or in dire condition but I'm not spending alot of money on an old rifle with a 100+ years of history behind it and basically reducing its' collectability to zero. If you've got lots of money go for it. I'm not that flush with cash.

I like the 1 to 10 myself, and I use that when I describe rifles I'm selling, along with specific commentary on what I see such as "roughness in the 4 inches in front of the chamber".  I consider anything over 8 to be accurate enough to use, a 7 might be okay in a .22.  I wouldn't shoot anything below a 3.  That's my criteria.  I also use the phrase "may clean better", when I describe what I consider a bore that's too worn to be accurate.  I sell those with the idea that it needs relined, rebored, or replaced, but if I haven't cleaned it, let the buyer know that it might clean better for guys that just want something that you can put a shell in and make it safely go bang.  I don't clean it, because I consider the bore to be too poor to be worth the effort.  I always sell rolling block military barrels this way, I consider them to be actions for rebuilding, nothing more.  Not worth the hour of effort for me to clean them, they won't bring any better money.  If they're dirty, they're also worn and pitted, with rare exception.

I always love to read the ads of fellows that describe the stock as "has a few safe dings and scratches, but hasn't been hunted".  Somehow safe dings are okay, but hunting ones aren't?

Also the term, "excellent bore, but dark".  What do they think makes the bore dark?  It's always rust!  If you clean it out, it's pitted and rough, not excellent.

dave

Uechi wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 8:05pm:


Unfortunately, "crappy bore" is even more undescriptive than a 1 to 10 system.  And, what it means to you is maybe not what it means to me.  Most of these guns are 100 years old, or more.  What one guy would consider garbage, another is quite pleased to have.  I have a Fields patent .450 express rifle that has what I would definitely think you would call a crappy bore.  I would give it a 4 out of 10, maybe a 3.  It is one of my favorite rifles, and gets shot regularly all summer.  It shoots under 2 inches at 30 yards, where the sights are regulated to.  It takes many patches to get the bore even resembling clean, and it has large pits (straight-pin head size) throughout the bore, with the muzzle much worse and the crown pretty pitted and irregular.  If this was a highwall, I'd spin out the barrel and rebarrel the rifle without even ever putting a shell into it.  In the context of an original and hard to get english falling block, I'm very pleased to be able to shoot it.

Many times it's not about making money on a gun, it's about trying to describe it accurately, so that the buyer gets a gun in the condition that he expected.  Buyers are optimists.  I've described guns as being poor bore, needing rebarreled.  The buyer gets it, and writes that they're pleased with the rifle, but disappointed because they had hoped to be able to shoot it as is.  I had one buyer that I sold a german schuetzen rechambered to, of all things, .32 special, return it because it wasn't in a 8.1 x something rimmed.  I told him that I had clearly disclosed it was in .32 special, and he said that he knew much more about these than I, and they didn't come in .32 special, so he was sure I was wrong until he checked himself.

dave