Aside from the “muzzle compensator”, I like it. It's short and would be a good “truck gun”.
That’s what we call the guns we keep in our pickup trucks on this side of the herring pond. ;)
Printable View
Aside from the “muzzle compensator”, I like it. It's short and would be a good “truck gun”.
That’s what we call the guns we keep in our pickup trucks on this side of the herring pond. ;)
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
I note that it was sold as a curio and relic. To be eligible to be a C&R, the rifle has to be in original configuration. I don't think being hacked short would qualify.
I think, from reading the C&R regs that you are technically correct. This would make every "sporterized" Enfield out of spec for C&R sales. It would also mean every non-complete Enfield (barrel, receiver, and butt without forestock, handguards, etc.) was illegal. I haven't heard of the BATFE clamping down on this problem. Does anyone know how this issue is dealt with? I know collectors are not trying to skirt the law, but how closely is this clause in the C&R actually interpreted in the C&R Regs? If BATFE were too tight on the interpretation, it would severely limit the restoration of guns that have been Bubba'd and Butchered.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
Vincent, I've been thinking the same thing. I think it would look even better with a No.1 Nose Cap/Guard on the muzzle, making it look like a real "Bulldog Tanker."Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Here's a "musing:"
I was "given" (it cost me $35) a sporterized No.4 with a cut down barrel (the nose is missing nearly 2 inches) and all forestock furniture either cut down or missing. And the receiver's bridge had been cut off for a modern scope mount years ago. It's not worth much, and probably not worth restoring. I took it off a friend's hands and thought might just strip it for parts. Right now the thing sits far back in the corner of a closet, out of sight, out of mind. It seems uneconomical to restore it to original configuration, and with the receiver bridge missing, it will always be second rate.
Thus the gun seems either unworthy of retrieving (and left alone), or should be converted to something else -- like a "tanker" model: cutting down the barrel to 18 inches, narrowing the muzzle nose to fit a No.1 sight, putting on new front-end furniture, and carving the fore-end to fit a No.1 Nose Cap (to give it a "bull-nose" look).
This is something I've never contemplated with historic gun, but it would be "conversion" to a new use and look. Is this a crazy idea? or a creative idea? or a good investment? or a waste of time?
Everyone in Milsurps land has strong opinions -- I'd like to hear the pro's and con's before doing something (or nothing). Thanks
Seaspriter, What a coincidence you should mention making a "Bulldog Tanker" with a No.1 Nose Cap. Just a few days ago a friend asked me if I could make him the exact same thing.
Once the barrel has been cut down, it’s not economical to restore. So there’s nothing to lose in making a "Bulldog Tanker".
Personally I think it’s creative and much better than having it sit in the back of the closet.
Paul is spot on. It depends on how knowledgeable the ATF compliance inspector or CBP inspector at the port of entry is. Sporterized or otherwise blatantly modified Curio and Relic milsurp rifles are not importable either as they are required to be in original military configuration.
Here's a rifle up for sale in NZ, has a nice lengthy description.
SCARCE DEACTIVATED + SECTIONALISED 303 LEE ENFIELD | Trade Me