Near mint colt sauer in 30 06, looking to put it up for sale.
Thanks for any info.

Given the common caliber, I'd try $1250-1400 but wouldn't let a solid offer get away.

Does it look the same as mine (barrels in 7x64 and .30-06).



If so, any price under 1500 is an offer you can't refuse...

Yes, it looks like that. it is a sporting rifle , I know they are high on GB , most of them are between 2000 to 2400.

Thanks

Looks a little different wood is a little different , doesnt have 202 on it, Sporting Rifle on the side.

Let me clarify my above valuation. First, I was valuing a COLT Sauer rifle. AFAIK Colt never put their name on a Sauer 202. The COLT Sauer's were models 90 or 92 which were last produced in about 2006. All that said, more research indicates they may have gone up a bit in value since I bought my last one. I'd say a value of $1400-$1600 would be more current as an ASKING price IF it is, in fact, a Colt Sauer.

All those $2000 prices on GB are just someone's pie in the sky hope number, unless they are for one of the rarer calibers for the cartridge size. Right now there is a damn nice .300 WM Colt Sauer at $1500 with a BIN of $1850 with a Redfield scope mounted. A .300 WM is worth somewhat more than a .30-06 so...........

Appreciate it, it is a Colt Sauer.
Will probably list it in that range.
Tried posting pics but couldn't figure it out.

Almost all of the CS's had pretty nice wood but if yours has extra nice it should add a bit of value.

Sauer 90 is a totally different rifle than the 202. The latter has a bolt that locks forward and directly into the barrel (barrels are interchangeable, BTW). The 90 doesn't offer barrel switch and has a non-rotating bolt which locks at the rear via spring loaded lugs.

quote:

Sauer 90 is a totally different rifle than the 202.

That's for sure, for one thing, they are better looking.

Hey Gatogordo,

I do indeed agree with you in terms of respective esthetics and concede that the 90 is a most elegant rifle. However, after having tested both rifles years ago, I did opt for the 202 for 3 reasons :

1. the 202 is a bit more accurate (.5 MOA vs. .75-1.0 MOA, with selected handloads) ;



2. as a handloader, I despise rear locking rifles as they are hard on brass (2-3 firings/sizings before the case shows signs of incipient separation) ;

3. I appreciate the ease of swapping bbls. with the 202, an advantage the 90 doesn't possess.

Andre:

As you know, I was just making a joke. Rifles that shoot like those that produced your targets are all beautiful, and that's no joke.

Tough to beat rifles that look really good and shoot great.

Thanks guys for your input.