Originally Posted By: L. Brown
If the 2nd guy who borrowed the gun didn't notice that bulge, he'd have to be blind--and he would have called Barnett's attention to it. Seems to me pretty certain that it happened the 2nd time it was loaned out....

I think this makes two, possibly, unfair assumptions. First, how come the seller can't be held to the same blindness standard. I'd be highly certain that the gun at least got wiped down for smudges and finger prints, as well as the bores, after the first shooter brought it back, and likely after the next borrower. To command the likely asking price, it had to present well on the table. And second, how do we know the bulge wasn't there before the two shooters.