Printable View
JSNE I'm with you, enjoy your rifle, enjoy your shooting and ignore the nay-sayers. Rules and regulations are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
Its a great effort. The price of the real thing is ridiculous so yours is a realistic alternative.
Eddie
Personally I cringe every time someone builds a "fake" anything, be it a gun, car whatever. Somewhere down the road someone will probably get bent over and pay too much for a fake.
I agree that it saves wear and tear on a original but you can put a no drill S&K scope mount on a No4, use a older but good quality single power scope and it serves the same purpose. I have 2 legit, they are safe queens, a Savage with a S&K mount and period scope and it is a great shooter, good enough for me.
Eventually those who are masters at spotting a fake will pass and then the nightmare begins. It happens with M1 carbines all the time.
The original owner may be completely honest about something being a reproduction, doesn't mean squat once it leaves his hands.
I reckon that the builder is pretty skilled at producing what he could afford my T broke the bank and saw me in the kennel for a good few weeks (such is life) as I could not afford the 2, 3 ,4, 5 or six "T"s including a L42 some members have including the complete CES as all I got was the rifle. I should say that jsne if he ever decides to sell his work of art it will be sold as a faker and not a mcoy.
Now if China started to churn them out by the dozen then there would be cause for concern as my $57/Au Atlas clone bi-pod complete with ATLAS logo on it functions as good as the real deal priced at $350-400/Au and has survived 150 rounds to date of very stout loads in my 308 APRS. (42.3gns 2206H with a 168gn A Max)
I think some one pretty switched onto these things would be able to with judicious scrutiny pick this out as a faker POC it is really good to see just how talented and resourceful some of the members here are I mean he is not an armourer more of a tinkerer so good for him.
Keep us up to date jsne on progress as it is good to see.
Thanks, I went looking for the sticky, but found your post here instead: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post376760Quote:
Originally Posted by jsne
As per your original post here, I suspect some people are having difficulty believing that is a replica and not an original.
I think I can see where you reshaped the "bell" on the tube and squared up the "corners"?
Brilliant work anyway.:clap:
How did you engrave the numbers and lines on the slipping scales?
(I tweaked your photos a little)
First The Scales
The lines was set in my lathe. Peter Laidlers book about the No.32 scope tell how many clik there are between the lines.
So when the clikkerplate are with 84 teth. I calculate the Degree I have too turn and set a mark.
The numbers are don By the lokal Jeweler/Watch maker.
Then about the Fake discusion.
I wass the one hwo use the "FAKE" term in this thread.
And I can see someone dident like that.
But any rifle or What ever. Where you change a part or buy a part that is correct for the rifle, but not the part there was original fittet it is a Fake. (exept if it is done in military service or any FTR program) and even here if any doo an "back engenering".
To make you self a No4 T Replica is not worse than any other Replica or unautorisation sweep of parts. Exept if you doo it to earn Money.
Even here it will be a poor buisnese if you should calculate spendt time.
An other menber here are werry Lucky to find a original T reciever with a Barrel fore 20 bugs. He want to rebuild it with as many "original" parts as posible. But in the end it is a fake. Maby more than mine becourse you could clame it it a original, becouse it have a legit number.
No one here have said anything about he's rifle other than all think it it nice that the rifle is saved.
Dont understand me wrong I like he's project werry mutch and look foreward to follow the project
What I like most is when some guy come and ask if my rifle are a real T. and i said " no it is a replica" but I have don all by myself.
So I will never sell this one as a fake but be proud to tell about the project.
And of couse I will like to own a Original T. but this is not in my budget.
I hope yoy get the point (even in bad English:-)
JSNE
---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------
11111
Jsne,
Well said mate, in what appears to be "good English" compared to some on here :lol::lol:
You have clearly learnt a great deal from this project, and I am sure we all wish you well when it shoots on the range, and hope the guidance from those on this site have helped you in achieving it, and we all appreciate you sharing this interesting option on producing a 4T.;)
Maybe "Replica" is better terminology for this project jsne.............
wats dat u sed Gil!
Now Cinders thats good ENGLISH! :lol::lol:
I would agree that 'replica' better describes the situation here of jsne's rifle & scope. 'Fake' suggests a replica created with the intent to deceive (usually for monetary gain), at least, it conveys those vibes to me, even if it is not explicit in the word.
I also do not see any reason not to build 'replicas' if one is so minded to do, so long as it is not with the intent of defrauding. There are lots of reasons to do so; the high prices of originals, the desire not to wear out a rare original rifle, & so on. I also accept the concerns that some express that half a dozen sales down the line the rifle may be passed off as original, but whilst it is a serious issue I do not think we should start trying to demonise people who wish to make up rifles. We (supposedly) still live in free societies......
Most people who get burnt these days do so through their own laziness; there is ample high quality information on what real examples of desirable rifles should look like, both on line & in the standard texts, & to be honest, most fakes I see really aren't THAT good.
They fool people who couldn't be bothered to do their homework..........
Well said Roger.:thup: