New Cimarron or Refinished Winchester?

[Reno1892]

Hello just joined, but of course I've been lurking around for a while. I'm about to buy a Cimarron 92 in 357, but today I came across an 1907 Winchester in 32-20 and due to it being refinished it's the same price as the Cimarron. I know they're both just shooters, but for the same price I'm thinking about buying the original Winchester. Neither will be appreciating, but I would think the Winchester will hold its value better. I'm I wrong? Thanks for any opinions!

[4t5]

Me personally would pick the Cimarron ,only because I love the .357 magnum cartridge .

[GunnyMack]

It's a toss up to me.
With the Winchester you get a Winchester . I like the 32-20 but strictly a reloading endeavor. Sure brass by Starline, maybe some factory.
The Cimmarron can be fed much easier, reloading and factory ammo by the bucket full on store shelves.

I guess you need to decide what is the most important, nostalgia for the good ol days or shoot ability.

Do you already have dies for one or the other,or both? That's another cost, as well as different moulds or purchasing bullets.

If strictly as a plinker the 32-20 wins in my book but as a hunting rig I'd go 357.

[JimT]

Get both! In 6 months you won't miss spending the extra money and if it turns out you don't like one of 'em you can always get most of your money back ............

[Steve in MO]

Get both! In 6 months you won't miss spending the extra money and if it turns out you don't like one of 'em you can always get most of your money back ............

That's the danger of hanging out here: everyone is an enabler! LOL

[Shasta]

I most definately would get the original. .32-20 is a great little round, but it does require being a reloader if you want a steady supply of ammunition. I use my .32-20 for NRA Lever Action Pistol Cartridge Silhouette shooting and it's a hoot to shoot.

I've not seen one of the Cimarron '92 rifles, but I do have a couple Cimarron 1873 Winchester rifles, one in .32-20 and the other in .44-40, that I also shoot silhouette with. These two rifles, while apparently well made, both suffer from soft metal in the mechanisms and soft screws. The .32-20 has worn out two hammers (sear notch wear) and one lever cam that left the lever hanging loose, and it now needs a new extractor. The .44-40 needs a new lever also. Mind you, I shoot them a lot so the wear is understandable, but I get no such problems from any of my original Winchesters.

Shasta

[Streetstar]

Im kinda in the buy both camp

One is a very cool heirloom caliber plinker and small game gun that may re-ignite a reloading hobby --- or at least have something on the wall with stories to tell

The other will be a capable somewhat modern commodity Italian gun --- that admittedly you will probably use much more often than the century old Winchester --- but they both are relevant and both have a mission

---

[geobru]

Neither will be appreciating, but I would think the Winchester will hold its value better. I'm I wrong? Thanks for any opinions!

I would go with the original if you can only afford one of them. You can buy a Cimmaron any time, but finding a 92 for a decent price is like finding a needle in a haystack. As far as appreciation goes, a tampered with Winchester won't appreciate as much as a pristine gun, but it will appreciate.

Case in point, in 2009 I bought a 1951 Winnie 94 for $300 that had pitting on one side of the receiver and had a crack in the forend that originated from a sling stud hole which I repaired. I bought it because it was made in my birth year and due to its condition, I didn't really think it would appreciate very much. In 2021 I was talking to a coworker about two 94s at the local gun shop. One was made in 1951 and priced at $850 in pristine condition, the other was $250 and had been in a fire and was parkerized. He was talking about buying the cheaper one. I told him I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole due to the possibility of fire damage to the metal. I told him I wanted to buy the other one but in order to do that I'd have to sell the one I already had for $500. He said he would buy it, so I sold that shooter grade rifle to him and bought the pristine rifle. When I looked into the market at the time the gun I sold him was worth $600. When I mentioned that to him he offered to pay me an additional $100, which I declined and just told him to enjoy the heck out of it.

Recently I bought a1903 model 1892 in 44-40 for $900. It had an extra hole in the tang where someone mounted the wrong tang sight on it, probably because that's what they had at the time. Without that hole, that rifle would've been priced at $1600. A few of years ago, a 92 with extra holes would sell for $700 while an unmolested 92 would be $1100 to $1200.

The point is that even shooter grade vintage rifles have appreciated in price after being pretty level for many years as new gun prices have increased. Buy a new gun and just like a new car that loses value when you drive it off the lot, a new gun loses value until the gun is either no longer made or the price of new guns increases and the value of the older guns appreciate.

SIxgun made a comment on this board years ago that investing in guns is like putting money in the bank. They always have a value.

In my humble opinion, the Winchester is a better investment even if you have to invest in a reloading setup. That's another story that opens doors to opportunities to own and enjoy rifles in less common calibers without having to pay through the nose for obsolete ammunition.

[LeverGunner]

I'd go with the original. Provided that the refinish wasn't horrible. If it's an older refinish job I especially don't mind it.

[JOG]

As long as the barrels not completely shot out, I would pick the real McCoy!
Winchester!

[jnyork]

Get both, even if you have to do without Starbucks for a month or two.