Kev, Is that a Bren Mk1 sight drum? If it is, I'm off to check mine out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev G
Printable View
Kev, Is that a Bren Mk1 sight drum? If it is, I'm off to check mine out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev G
Let's not get too hasty in regard to saying the stampings on the No1 should be the only thing we talk about. All stampings are important as they may give more evidence to all the guns that they appear on. The post by Son on the eagle is great news for anyone with a open mind. I think we should all thank Son for this important evidence that something strange was going on and not just with the No1. This thread is not going to go away quickly as some may wish due to more and more evidence showing up daily. There seems to be a bit of paranoia here if something new shows up. Just because a boisterous small group call FAKE doesn't mean it is. I think the posting by Son brings a tiny big of legitimacy to the Enfield which is still on very shaky ground and I admit that. I would like to see the gun proved legit but am encouraged that people who really want to get to the bottom of this are doing lots of research. Just think if everyone would have stopped writing the minute it was called fake much of the facts that have been divulged would not be known to all who read this thread.
At the end of the day, shy of someone being able to show another rifle with similar markings to the Enfield in question that is less suspicious overall (i.e. not a result of a post-war rebuild program where the nazi marks somehow survived), I doubt anyone will be able to DIS-prove it's a fake.
In any even, enough serious questions exist about this gun, I believe the onus is on the people who believe it is legitimate to prove it with some form of documentable evidence. So far, all the solid evidence has either had no effect or a negative effect on this rifle's claims to legitimacy. That's pretty telling in itself, but no matter what happens, I suspect several posters here will never believe it's a fake - even if someone posted that they were the one who humped the rifle and showed photos of the stamps they used to do so.
To quote the experts on here and Gunboards "its a turd".
100% true. Some people believe what they want to believe. Perception is reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
NOT FOR THE SQUEMISH:
I was the foreman in a murder trial, where the suspect stood over the victim (a cab driver) and shot him [a second time] in the head, because: "He was still moving!". Security camera footage, the suspects sister (who witnessed the murder) testifying against her own brother, cell phone recordings, etc.
11 of us voted guilty and 1 lady voted innocent becasue she looked at the 19 year old gang member and: "I don't belive such a nice looking boy could commit such a crime."
Sometimes truth has a difficult time overcomming desire.
Absolutely right. There will always be enough people perfectly willing to force fit a scenario to even the most unlikely of objects...thus the humper/counterfeiter will always have a booming market.Quote:
In any even, enough serious questions exist about this gun, I believe the onus is on the people who believe it is legitimate to prove it with some form of documentable evidence. So far, all the solid evidence has either had no effect or a negative effect on this rifle's claims to legitimacy. That's pretty telling in itself, but no matter what happens, I suspect several posters here will never believe it's a fake - even if someone posted that they were the one who humped the rifle and showed photos of the stamps they used to do so.
So far, not one experienced collector/expert on WWII German weaponry has spoken out in favor of this rifle.
Not one other example of a known legit example showing anything resembling this marking scheme has turned up.
Nobody has disputed the fact that the Germans captured a lot of Allied materiel, and marked/used some of it, so documentation that they did is not really evidence of anything related to this particular rifle.
When someone brings a heretofore unknown historical object to light, the burden of proving it's authenticity lies with them. So far, nothing even closely resembling reasonable evidence has been presented on behalf of this rifle. "It could've happened this way..." does not proper evidence make.
An "interesting" interpretation of the various debates that this rifle has triggered to say the least...Quote:
Just because a boisterous small group call FAKE doesn't mean it is.
I just found the gunboards thread. Anyone know who mrfarb is? Here's a hint. If I'm not mistaken, he runs latewar.com and co-wrote the recent "Kriegsmodell" which is widely regarded as THE book on late war German weaponry. It has essentially supplanted the latter half of Backbone of the Whermacht.
Here's what he has to say as a purely German and German Capture rifle collector:
Quote:
I collect rework 98k's and "beute waffen", booty weapons as the Germans called them. These include French rifles, Belgian, Czech, etc. These booty weapons usually consited of weapons used within the country they were captured, and SOME went through repair depots and were marked. One thing remains pretty consistent- German marking procedures. I'll just tell you the markings on this rifle are not consistent with any known German doctrine in regards to booty weapons or standard infantry arms. The "waffenamt" on the bottom of the stock is fantasy, and not consistent with any I have seen. My take, if you bought this thinking it was original, I'd get my money back.
and:Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
`To quote the experts on here and Gunboards "its a turd". ´
With all due respect for the "experts" quoted above, I remain somewhat sceptical. I would look for a qualified opinion on e.g. Garands from a North American author and thus on Wehrmacht stamped Mausers from a German whose knowledge of the events during and after WWII I would expect to be more extensive and relevant (the German spelling of the author quoted above leaves much to be desired).
Having read through most of the above postings, it would seem that the Enfield could quite possibly be legitimate although there is no proof that it is. A collector would certainly need proof of verification to justify the purchase price or to make a profit on its sale.
Even if weapons with similar markings came to light, this would not be definite proof of authenticity.
But even if its commercial value is limited, it has provided the basis for fruitful discussion.
Good, well thought out argument there Villers but following that, it comes back to the old adage of '..............buy the rifle and not the story'. And I'm still not convinced. But it has been a much thought provoking thread.
What has bveen interesting too is that we have had many usually silent forumers coming out with opinions. And this is a GOOD thing. In the Army we say that EVERY Officer in the meeting MUST speak his turn and make his views known.
For me, the big kicker is when someone of Mr. Laidler's experience says this rifle would not have made it through an FTR program with all those dirty birds.
Any stories regarding how such a rifle 'could' have slipped through are just that. Stories.
It would also appear that two rifles, a Lee Enfield and an M44, have come from the same source with the same story and the same mark up.
If it looks like a fake and it quacks like a fake... well then... it's a fake.