Did Fifty Collectors Really Ruin 50 Early HRA Corrects?

[Charlie59]

According to the article in todays' GCA Journal, it happened! The article, about late SA Corrects with non SA parts, said CMP delivered 50 early HRA Corrects, with one or more SA parts(a legitimate variation) some time ago. It went on to say ALL 50 were returned, demanding HRA parts be swapped back on. Well, those rifles are no longer original, or correct, IMHO. I guess I'm not in the market for an early HRA now. Not only that, but the article went on to say that late SA Corrects also, with mixed parts, will possibly be given their own classification as being collectible! Does this mean mixmasters will be worth more than "origionals"? This article is a "must read" IMO!!


Charlie

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Rick Cummelin]

Glad you read our article.

FYI: What was related in our article was EXACTLY what we were told by people at the CMP when we were there. In addition, the article was sent to Orest for his approval before it was published. Yes, we expected some folks would be surprised by the article and indeed, some are.

Just be sure to keep any parts you remove from a rifle to make it "correct" as you may find out that the parts you removed were actually original & correct in the first place.

[Charlie59]

I'm not finished going over my riles yet, but I've started today! Many thanks for your article, which is being discussed on several forums now.

[Ramboueille]

According to the article in todays' GCA Journal, it happened! The article, about late SA Corrects with non SA parts, said CMP delivered 50 early HRA Corrects, with one or more SA parts(a legitimate variation) some time ago. It went on to say ALL 50 were returned, demanding HRA parts be swapped back on. Well, those rifles are no longer original, or correct, IMHO. I guess I'm not in the market for an early HRA now. Not only that, but the article went on to say that late SA Corrects also, with mixed parts, will possibly be given their own classification as being collectible! Does this mean mixmasters will be worth more than "origionals"? This article is a "must read" IMO!!


Charlie

Charlie,

Those who returned those HRA rifles are not "collectors/historians." They are "accumulators" and "tinkerers." It was all well publicized in the GCA Journal ten years ago and before CMP sold those rifles. They should be collecting paper doilies instead.

[Badger]

They should be collecting paper doilies instead.

Regards,
Badger

[Joe W]

I thought I had a pretty good idea as to the meaning of the terms "original" and " correct". The way I saw it, if a rifle is proved to be "original" then it goes without saying that it is "correct". If you have a mixmaster SA with the correct barrel and you replace all the non SA parts with period correct parts that would have been used duing the original manufacture, you now would have a "restored to correct" SA rifle. Take those early 4.66 HRA's that were assembled using some SA parts . These rifles being "original" were "correct" as they were. Now, had the original owner, not being aware that the SA parts were in fact correct, changes them out with HRA parts. Now he believes he has a "correct" rifle. He never knew the rifle had been "original" so that is no concern to him. Now, let's say many years later he still own's the rifle and become's aware that the SA parts were in fact correct. If he was smart enough to hold on to the "original" parts and was to switch them back he would again have a "original" rifle. On the other hand, if he had not kept the original parts he could still replace the parts using newly purchased SA parts. The rifle now would be "correct" but, of course, no longer "original".
This was the way I understood it until now. With these 5.3 to 5.8 SA rifles described in the GCA Journal I am now wondering if I need to redefine my thinking as to what is correct. True that it certainly appears that these SA's were assembled at SA with some other than SA, Elevation and Windage knobs, Safety's, and early Hammer Spring Plungers and some Grooved Handguard Clips. While I have no problem identifying these rifles as "original", are they truely "correct" ? When speaking of the early H&Rs I said that "if a rifle is found to be "original" it goes without saying that it is "correct" ". Now I am having second thoughts. If for some reason, during manufacturing, a "grooved" handguard clip is used on a few rifles, do you call that rifle "correct". I am thinking that it was no longer "correct" when the 'Grooved" clip was installed. "Original" yes, "correct" Maybe not.
I am starting to get a bit confused on this issue and not sure I am making any sense in how I am trying to describe my train of thought.

[Bill Hollinger]

That all makes very good sense Joe. I see just what it is you are saying. That could be said about a great deal of weapons made during WWII.

So, just about any rifle in serial number range ABC that used a grooved clip and had a grooved clip would be original and correct. On the other hand a rifle in serial number range XYZ that did NOT use the grooved clip but had a grooved clip because that was the only clip left in the bin at the time the rifle was finished would be original but not correct for that serial number range.

Wow, you have to stop and think the there would have been an over stock of parts and they would have been used up till gone but, that would apply to a very small number of rifles.

[Joe W]

That all makes very good sense Joe. I see just what it is you are saying. That could be said about a great deal of weapons made during WWII.

So, just about any rifle in serial number range ABC that used a grooved clip and had a grooved clip would be original and correct. On the other hand a rifle in serial number range XYZ that did NOT use the grooved clip but had a grooved clip because that was the only clip left in the bin at the time the rifle was finished would be original but not correct for that serial number range.

Wow, you have to stop and think the there would have been an over stock of parts and they would have been used up till gone but, that would apply to a very small number of rifles.

Thanks Bill, you said what I was trying to say in alot less words. Joe

[Rick Cummelin]

All this really makes one think about all the published "data" we currently think of as "chipped in granite" or "cast in concrete" when it come to "original & correct" doesn't it?

First we have original & correct rifles that are now having parts replaced to match old documented data, possibly written long before the collecting community had a clue as to what really IS original & correct. Then we have many collectors who have done the exact same thing for more years than I can remember, it makes me wonder if our entire philosophy of "original & correct" was assembled like a house of cards.

Personally, seeing what we saw has truly opened my mind to the concept of NOT swapping parts to "restore" but rather leave them alone or at least ALWAYS be sure to save any removed parts.

Sadly, I too am guilty of swapping out one or two seemingly incorrect parts for those thought to be correct, plus I never saved any of the removed parts.

Also, more & more data is discovered almost daily that blows the houses of cards down, or at least makes them quake.

[Bob Seijas]

FWIW, an original rifle is the grail for collectors like me who want "as manufactured" examples. If it was assembled with a grooved clip, that's the way I want it. "Correct" seems to me to be an arbitrary term that implies some standard of what somebody thinks should be on an average rifle of the period. It obviously changes as more information is found. Original is set in stone: it was made that way and that never changes.