I would rather see a 50% all original gun than one that has been restored to 100%.The classic example were the Gettman guns.He had perfectly good high end original guns restored and cut their value in half.If it ain't broke,don't fix it.

The more i learn. The more i lean that way

Personally, I have some in 40% condition or so I will probably leave as is. My personal preference is to restore when there is something actually wrong with the gun (barrel dents, cracks in stock, oil soaked stock, etc).

The first gun is a good shooter as is.Dean is right about it having been rebrowned once.Look at the address and barrel steel line on the rib.It looks like it has been rerolled over.Other than that,the gun looks good if the bores are clean and it has good walls.

I'll second John on that

John, could you elaborate on the guns that you mentioned? Thanks.

I like that other gun but this is the one i prefer

That's a really nice one Kurt - I don't think you can go wrong with that one.
Meriden gun - late twenties to about 1930, no later I don't think. Made prior to Remington ownership.





.

And it's within my budget,barely

I don't know how large your budget is but if that second gun checks out well, it would be a much better choice than the first one. It's been said, and proven correct, buy the best condition and in the highest grade you can afford. Of course that is a statement aimed at collectors and investors but is good advice none the less.