Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

If anyone missed the "Phoenix" show at Bisley last weekend don't worry you probably saved yourself some time and money as there was not a great deal there for the Enfield collector, a couple of over priced 4T's one in a case, the normal collection of SMLE's and No4's and a few Long Lees. I did find a very nice "Envoy" serial no E40 that had been prepared by Fultons for the "Palmer" match in 1970 all nicely engraved "Palmer Match Bisley 1970", the only downside is that it has the magazine from E181.
We have all heard the phrase "Bullsh1t baffles brains" well on one stand there was buckets full of the stuff, I overheard conversations, not difficult as there were so loud, along the lines of,"when we get a rifle it is completely stripped, if it needs a new barrel we fit one we also fit new woodwork and anything else that may be worn". So now having destroyed most of the originality of the rifle they now apply a price tag that resembles a phone number.
This was all rather comical from where I was standing as brains won out over all the bull as nobody was prepared to part with their hard earned cash for a pretty rifle made up of parts that was now trying to be passed of as very expensive "original".
However one conversation did bring me down to earth when someone appeared with a Long Lee rifle, I think he wanted to try and make it more "original", you know the thing, "I have a rifle but this piece or that piece does was not match so I want to change it.
It appeared that the offending item this time was the bolt, this did not appear to be a problem for our team of experts apart from the fact that they said "we won't need to get it re-proofed as there are proof marks on the rifle and although there should be marks on the bolt and bolt head nobody really checks them".
It is an offence in the UK to sell or even advertise for sale a gun that is not properly proofed with very stiff financial penalties for those who get it wrong.
There is the more important fact that even though head space ect might be done there is no guarantee that a re-match bolt is safe until it is proofed with the rifle it is fitted to.
I am pleased to say that the individual returned his rifle to its slip and left which made Brains 2 Bullsh1t 0, in fact brains won out all round as I don't think they sold a thing to a member of the public all weekend.:madsmile:

Well stated Buccaneer. The Ethical Issue of Safety should always supersede the aesthetics. Somehow antique gun restoration has gotten confused with antique car restoration, where putting on upgrades and improvements is cherished and increases value, even if not original. This happens not just with Lee Enfields -- M-1 Carbines have the same thing: "mixmasters" being refitted with what would have been original parts with the proper stamps.

Safety in guns should always be paramount and never sacrificed.

But I'm also curious where is the line between authenticity and restoration? How about the replacement of a mundane L-backsight with a milled Mk1 sight? Or the replacement of a gouged plain lower handguard with a grooved one? etc. etc.

I'm having a Long Branch sniper restored. It was stripped of everything but barrel, receiver, and butt stock. What constitutes an "ethical" restoration. Where is the line between authenticity and restoration? Member's thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Well stated Buccaneer. The Ethical Issue of Safety should always supersede the aesthetics. Somehow antique gun restoration has gotten confused with antique car restoration, where putting on upgrades and improvements is cherished and increases value, even if not original. This happens not just with Lee Enfields -- M-1 Carbines have the same thing: "mixmasters" being refitted with what would have been original parts with the proper stamps.

Safety in guns should always be paramount and never sacrificed.

But I'm also curious where is the line between authenticity and restoration? How about the replacement of a mundane L-backsight with a milled Mk1 sight? Or the replacement of a gouged plain lower handguard with a grooved one? etc. etc.

I'm having a Long Branch sniper restored. It was stripped of everything but barrel, receiver, and butt stock. What constitutes an "ethical" restoration. Where is the line between authenticity and restoration? Member's thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks

---

Personally I have no problem with a restoration providing the owner admits to what was done to bring it back to "what it was". That is where things usually go south as what happens when the original owner decides to sell it? Will the next owner be honest or try to pass it off as original to some unsuspecting newbie?

It is unfortunate there isn't a site where honest restorers could publish what was done to bring a gun back to how it was when originally built. A serial number/model and pictures of the gun or whatever would be shown. Again the crooks would ignore doing it and again we are back to square one.

Good you are giving life back to a LB sniper, they are a great gun.`

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

It is unfortunate there isn't a site where honest restorers could publish what was done to bring a gun back to how it was when originally built. A serial number/model and pictures of the gun or whatever would be shown.

---

I'm with you on this. My personal solution, in lieu of a website, is to do a full documentation of "before" and "after," then print it out, roll it up like a scroll, and put it in the buttplate hole for posterity.

I recall a post from Roger Payne about a month ago where he cited a sniper rifle he owned that had changed hands and was being sold at a gun show, with new matching numbers stamped on where none existed before. In the near future this will be indistinguishable from an authentic gun. Guess there's no way to avoid a fake, except by purchasing a grungy gun that no one has monkeyed with. I've found this a good way to ensure a semblance of authenticity. Of my dozen Enfields, the average price has been between $300-325 USD, most of them never been touched since imported into the US years ago. Got some real gems that way.

I would totally disagree with your 3rd fromn last Para Buccaneer, starting 'There is the more.......' What you have stated is factually wrong. We used to fit (as in stone, adjust and correctly fit) new and even used bolts to rifles every day. To say that it could be unsafe is............., er.......... Anyway

And That's the UK Military. What about a US gunsmith doing it in the USA or Australia or NZ where they don't do proofing as such..........?

There's definitely a market for "restored" guns - I know a lot of people would pay a bit extra to have a "World War II rifle" which had been refurbished and was effectively "as new" again. The key thing is being upfront about it - it's one thing to refurb an old SMLE on the QT and pass it off as a rare unissued South African Special Forces issue rifle, it's quite another to openly acknowledge the rifle has been through a "Commercial Thorough Refurb". Just my twopenny worth, though.

There's also the other side to the story too............. Have you ever stood quietly by and listened to the pure, tripe and horse sh.........., er.......... What's the word I'm looking for again? Ah, yes, horse manure that flows from the dealers, traders and experts mouths when they're in full flow?

I learned all about Dublin Police and Zimbabwe Forces from these experts...........

I still insist that my .308 Win Enfield No. 5 Mk 2 is original Trucial Camel Corps ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What's the word I'm looking for again?

---

Some savoir faire expressions: "dung d'corps" or "l'experience de merdeux" or "c'est la vie des conneries"
or the Shakespearian: "King of Codpieces" or "execrable bowel" or "scurvy-laden scoundrel"

Good topic and one close to my heart.

I am guilty of rebuilding rifles and changing out bolts and other critcal parts. I am confident that I do it right and my work would pass inspection. With some projects I have started with little more than a barreled action, sometimes even just a stripped receiver.

I sometimes spend years gathering up the 'correct' bits to assemble the gun. All genuine antique parts makes the gun authentic, but not original. When I sell a parts gun, I make that quite clear to the buyer that it is a restoration and is a rework. I refurbish original rifles too. When they are complete they both look pretty much the same, rework and refurb. Very seldom will I refinish metalwork. When I do, I age it to match the patina of the rest of the rifle. That is my hobby, that is my craft, to remove the signs of abuse and neglect but retain the patina and honest wear of an aged original.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...m2hiqacc-1.jpg
One of these is an untouched original refreshed with BLO. The other two are complete parts rifles. One has a splice stock, the other started as a stripped receiver. I have sold all three and moved on to more projects.

I don't change or add serial numbers or markings. My rifles are not 'humped'

I have however, seen a few of my restorations appear on dealers' web sites at double or triple my selling price and some come with quite the description. Each time they sell, the connection gets further blurred and the description gets enhanced.

I now mark my rebuilds in an unobtrusive spot into the metal with my initials and a date. To most, it would look like just another process marking, but in years to come, I will be able to tell and direct others to the spot.

Sometimes I have a dilema. I have one happen this morning and have not yet decided what to do. I am assembling a Long Lee Enfield. By the serial number it is one purchsed by the Canadian Govt in 1896/7. I have a nice M&D marked butt for it. The butt plate out of the bins that fits the best is marked to the Governor General's Foot Guards. If I fit this up, the rifle will take on this identity. Nobody but me (and now you) would know that it's provenance is not as seen. So would this be considered a faked rifle?

I have butt stock discs that are also unit marked, but have never used.

Your thoughts?

I have a cavalry carbine that came to me with a family connection to Winston Churchill. I researched the unit markings and yup, it was in service with the 4th Hussars when he was a junior officer. A wild coincidence maybe, but should I pass this story along with the rifle? Should I document it and put a written slip into the butt trap? To me, I would sound like one of the bull shooters as described above and would probably hurt my credibility. If I don't and it was true, part of the carbine's history would be lost.

Winston shot at Hitler with it when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbour in WWI.