Originality. A few home truths

I’m sure that my views as an Armourer regarding ‘all original’ rifle are well known. I heard a good comment on this very forum the other day, that something can only be original ONCE…….. therafter, it ain’t. On that basis, anything that passed through an Armourers shop isn’t(?) original anymore. That’s because by definition, it only came through our hands because reportedly there was something wrong with it – and we fixed it!

The question of what is or what isn’t original parts is also a thorny question. All BSA, all Maltby or all Fazakerley………….. what a load of old cobblers…… What I’m going to say about the parts might not be what others say or tell you. And that’s true. But what I am going to tell you is what I learned during my research into the Sten gun and the two guns were similar in the logistics of assembly. Both were assembled at main assembly points but the component parts were made across the whole of the Country.

Hundreds of small machine and press shops made the various parts but while there was a master drawing that set the standard and criteria, these individual parts manufacturers were quite at liberty to obtain a ‘relaxation in standards’. The main reason allowed was so that they might make best use of their manufacturing processes or materials or take advantage of materials in stock. So, as an imaginary example off the top of my head…. If Acme Works at Balham had several rolls of steel tape in stock that was, say .012” too narrow across its depth for use as upper bands they could ask for a relaxation in standards. The matter would be investigated and approved under a ‘permitting order’. The same would apply to another Company with a similar predicament but the steel tape might be, for example, too thick. This time, same sequence of events but the permitting order would be granted subject to ‘….the outside edges being chamfered to eliminate sharp edges’

See what I mean? Next, how the logistics worked. If you want a fuller version, then it’s all detailed in the Sten gun book (and a jolly good read it is – and cheap too…………) but to précis it for today, here goes

As the thousands of parts were punched out, folded and fabricated, they were put into oily sacks and every week or so, the sacks would be collected by a Ministry of Supply contractor (it was usually the same ‘travelling inspector’ who would batch examine/inspect at the same time) and take them to the railway station. There, they all went by rail freight to a central collecting point in the Midlands known as the ‘collecting house’. From there, the factory progress chaser would telephone in with their needs and shortages. Say, Fazakerley might shortly need 1,200 trigger guards for tomorrow. So from the huge depots, thousands of trigger guards made anywhere in the Country would be sent by rail freight to the needy factory. IF they had surplus capacity of sears, then these would be sent to the collecting house and so on. Backsights, bands, trigger guards, axis pins with flat or rounded ends……… They just put on the rifle what they had made, had in stock or had sent to them. The day, month or year mattered not one jot!

The next question is this. Why is everything (well, pretty well everything) marked with the manufacturers name. The reason is that with VAST numbers/quantities being produced – not just small arms either – if a batch made by XYZ were being rejected at the assembly stage, the problems could be easily identified, the manufacturers told to get a grip of quality control and as the parts were generally subject to piece work, that amount could be deducted from their next account that was paid monthly by the Ministry of Supply accounts offices in Lime Street, Liverpool

You can see from this how I have to smile when I read of others who are looking at an all Fazakerley, or Maltby or BSA original. Come a bit closer lads, listen to me……. And repeat after me 100 times. T H E R E I S N O S U C H T H I N G

Thank You, Peter!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's see a dispute to that description!

Possibly true for WWII and earlier rifles. Especially considering No.4 Mk.I(T)s aren't original to the factory. There may be an Enfieldproduced No.4 or two that has all of it's parts (mine doesn't have an Enfield mag). And what of the NIW No.4 Mk.2 mummies? And the "A" suffixed WWII Fazackerlys that keep popping up in unreworked condition?

I reckon there are rare exceptions. -----So I'm a denier! And a contrarian! Otherwise, I'd quit looking for Enfields...

To be fair JM, I didn't mention the pre war Enfield mades - The UF55's, but how original. If they're still NIW, then who are we to argue? But as for the A suffix Fazakerly's, I'm afraid that they're as mongrel as the rest. A mix of parts from everywhere.................

I could never understand the typical - dare I say it, Garand collector's penchant for "all original". They define the word obsessive. I've seen them examine each and every bit on the rifle searching for the "correct" parts drawing numbers. Dare you show them an M-1 that has been in Korean hands and imported back into the USA!

Me? Well, I have SMLEs with BSA and Enfield actions with all manner of bits, usually Lithgow barrels, bands and wood on them, and a No4 MkII with battered furniture (cost me a whopping USD 100!!!). I'm happy to have them. To me, each little nick and dent in the furniture, each scratch, and each part changed during one of its many FTRs - or by some young Digger in a RAEME shop somewhere, is another mile stone, and a reminder of the history that rifle has served through and the men who achieved that history.

Ah, but the question remains are the mongrel parts that were installed when the rifle was first built? Hope springs eternal. But there ARE clues. Like Garands, one may have a rifle where all the parts would likely be found as built, and then there's the ones that have not only "the right parts all flying in formation" but matching condition to boot. Any signs of rebuild, and it becomes merely "correct". Very small numbers left, indeed! Too many otherwise idle hands post WWII. But impossible?

It's obvious that this is not going to go away, each to his own.
Good on you peter.

There's lots of clues that indicate Bigfoot exists too, I've spent more that the average amount of time in the woods and I ain't never seen his a**.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

There's lots of clues that indicate Bigfoot exists too, I've spent more that the average amount of time in the woods and I ain't never seen his a**.:D

---

I'd settle for a DNA sample. Hair, scat, bones, teeth, spit on a chewed up branch. On the other hand, No.4 parts, either loose or assmbled into a working projectile launcher aren't too hard to find. Given that you have 4 million chances in just WWII production alone, there's gotta be some hope a few weren't rendered down higgledy pigledy and put back together as Frankenrifles.

Outstanding Peter! You have just described operations at Ford Motor Company and any other auto plant. If parts come in out of inspection, Engineering gets paperwork to allow it or else it is sent back to the maker. If he can'[t fix it---he eats it or if it is a material out of color---he sends it to our competitiors.

Also there is the problem of "first in and first out" or "last in and first out." If new parts to a new specification are received, unless noted otherwise, they are thrown in on top of the old stock and over time the old stuff shows up on later stuff and drives the collectors crazy because of the obvious change of parts by "bad collectors out there seeking to make things right to their knowledge!" Also the famous, if there is a problem, a day or weeks run is set aside for later repair as time permits. So somethings don't go out in numerical order. The last month of a car model year program was when the planat sweeped the floor for obsolete parts to get them out of the plant and still get paid for making a car. I know of a Canadian GM car with the Canadian equivalent of Buick nomenclature on one side of the car and Oldsmobile on the other side. Yes the customer ate it and without a bottle of ketchup.

Wait just a minute! If we are designating "original" as "parts all from the same plant and made at the same time", then no, there's not likely wartime No.4s built just that way. But if "original" is "whatever was thrown together to make a working rifle at the assembly area and remains as such", then there's small chance of a few still intact. As a "for instance" I have a Winchester P'14 that is so original that it never left the factory until the 1960's. Known factory specimen. What are the chances? Dadgummed small. But it sits in front of me as I type.

ETA: Will go out on a limb here, and root through the rifle pictured below, and see of what it's made. Unless the light stock sanding :crying: disqualifies it from all original parts status. That's a Bubba, not an overhaul change. Won't report back in for over 26 hours, so y'all discuss away.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Lees031-1.jpg

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me, I'm glad to label myself a shooter rather than a collector. As long as its complete and serviceable then I consider myself lucky to own a piece of my ancestors proud military history. If one needs a rifle to be so correct then it must be so a monetary value can be attached, and IMHO thats the wrong reason to be its owner.
JUST MY OPINION, I'M ENTITLED TO IT AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!

I was under the impression all original meant the same as when it left the factory. Not all parts from one plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Lancer

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me

---

Very interesting thread and was Just waiting for someone to mention the A word, and I am in agreement with oldlancer but I,m a great believer in the old saying "every one to there own",

Understand Peter starting the thread, as I,m sure he has had all manor of questions regarding No4,s and what parts should I have on this and is this correct etc etc...........

As he has stated many times what was the nearest to hand was fitted etc and that was one rifle ready to go back into system, Simple.

But I dont think this ended with Enfields, for those with Blinkers on take them off and have a look at the other forums (even the Mauser one) you will see its the same story throughout the milsurp world, of course there are exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pablo

I was under the impression all original meant the same as when it left the factory. Not all parts from one plant

---

Pablo says it all too me, and going back to Breakyp,s comments regarding fords etc, I remember a Landrover 90 I had many yeas ago, and during its build and due to Lucas being on strike there was a shortage of Distributers, so LR used Bosch, so a Limited batch of LR,s 90 left the factory fitted with a Bosch Dizzy and points, possibly better quality but a pain in the ar** when trying to get points etc, It was only when I went to a parts place that you could buy almost any part etc for anything on four wheels that one of the lads behind the counter was a LR anorak and told me the story.

Moral of the story here is the future, say 20 years from now at a Landrover meeting ( I like them but not that much) you may have two people with the same LR 90 but a few weeks between build date, both own an original LR, with a different dizzy

Think it must have started with the old German practice of numbering each individual minute part which (in theory) would only fit the individual weapon. Loewe´s DWM initiated the DIN norm that made parts inter-changeable and any good gunsmith can improve on the reliability of a Luger with the help of a large barrel of mixed parts. But `fully numbered´ is still the benchmark for the market value of a `collector´s´ item. So it´s now just a confidence trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Lancer

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me, I'm glad to label myself a shooter rather than a collector. As long as its complete and serviceable then I consider myself lucky to own a piece of my ancestors proud military history. If one needs a rifle to be so correct then it must be so a monetary value can be attached, and IMHO thats the wrong reason to be its owner.
JUST MY OPINION, I'M ENTITLED TO IT AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!

---

And I'm not exactly British - more like generic -American. And can relate 100% !
Motivation is preservation / appreciation of something historic, and a minor key of monetary value.

Well, I’m the new boy on the block to the 4T business; but parts of this ’all-matching’ debate bemuse me.

Part of my bemusement comes from not being a ‘collector’ of anything and part of it, I think, comes from having spent more than 2 decades in the Forces.

Whilst I do ‘get’ why some people might like to have an ‘all-matching numbers’ piece of kit; I don’t get why ‘all matching numbers’ is somehow held to make a rifle more authentic.

Further to Peter’s points about the realities of distributed mass production I think part of this 'all-matching' thing may also be a mis-tune to the realities of military life. If we go to the ‘everlasting broom’ analogy; at what point do you tell a soldier using an issue broom that’s had the handle and brush replaced several times that he’s not actually using an issue broom?

If I move to another Land Rover analogy, over a hard life of use, a military landrover might have virtually every part replaced (well, I think the one exception to this is the ladder chassis itself, but I’m not REME! ) thus the actual landrover in military use in some grim place may almost literally not be the landrover that rolled out of the factory. I’m not clear why that could be held to make the vehicle less authentic. Certainly, no one tells the soldiers.

Moving to rifles, I can’t discern the difference. Break the stock, get a new stock. Smash the sight, get a new sight. Bend the barrel, get a new barrel etc. (I think the only exception is the relatively modern concept of the 'master component') All that stuff happens in peacetime, let alone conflict. At what point does the rebuilt rifle in the hands of soldier on the frontline cease to be authentic?

I think a point of view could actually be held that an ‘all matching’ rifle may have had a less interesting ‘life’ than one that’s been up and down the log chain a few times.

Just musings :)

All matching on a No4 amounts to bolt, receiver, maybe the mag and possibly some wood if marked. Anything else is unprovable - you can compare condition to the rest of the rifle but it's still intuition, guesswork etc and you may be wrong. For me as long as it's all authentic military parts which look like they belong together then it's good enough.

JM is right of course........... There will be one or two Enfields like the day they left the factory. Some at the bottom of the Atlantic or the Med and some of the UF55's still in the original wrapping. But for the rest, they're just a hybrid mix of parts - much the same as those at the bottom of the Atlantic!

What I am trying to tell you originality freaks is just how it was at the time according to my Sten research that must pretty well equate to No4 production and how life was afterwards, in the cruel and mean service world. If you have a wartime No4 and any FTR No4 including the 1/2's and 1/3's, then every mark/type part is acceptable. The only exception to the type of part fitted that I remember, that is well documented is that the Mk2 rifle must have a Mk1 backsight. For anything else, it's a free for all

And you're NEARLY right Black dog....... we DO frequently change Land Rover Chassis too

All up, this is a discussion about every individuals definition of a word. When asked these questions I use "original" to describe "as it left the factory" (allegedly, that is. Once again there will always be a grey area there particularly regards small parts)
And "correct" to mean it has all the right types of bits indicated by it's last marked condition (eg FTR, upgrade to * or /2 or such)

There will never be consensus within any single group of "collectors", let alone across the board of all collectors. Terminology that has no recorded definition (unlike the correct designations of the rifles as recorded in the LoC) will always be open for misuse.

Anyway, here's a pic of a Lithgow SMLE that was developed by a Base Level armourer for an undisclosed "special" purpose... (must be worth a fortune!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown Dog

Whilst I do ‘get’ why some people might like to have an ‘all-matching numbers’ piece of kit; I don’t get why ‘all matching numbers’ is somehow held to make a rifle more authentic.

---

I would think "all matching" and "all original" would be two different discussions. If I came across a 1941 Savage MkI T (Less Telescope) and the s/n's matched but some of the parts did not, I would buy it; however, if I came across the same rifle and the s/n on the bolt did not match, I would walk away from it unless it was being given away.

To your point though, I would have no problem owning a 4T with mismatched bracket and scope, as long as the bolt s/n matched.

Son mow the lawn it looks unkept.

My take on it, is that if a WW2 brit No.4 still has bright electro-pencil marks on the receiver (i.e. not refinished) and the barrel date matches the receiver and all the serial numbers are matching each other. I generally consider it to be "original" in terms of an example of a WW2 issued rifle.

If, however, the rifle has, for example, post-war F53 marked parts better found on a No.4Mk2, or has LB or Savage parts mixed in, or has a refinished receiver (blueing or suncorite in the electropencil markings) it's a sure bet it's been rebuilt and likely retains very few of the parts it was born wearing. This does not make it a bad example, it probably left service that way, but it is slightly less collectable to someone wanting a WW2 "as-issued" example.

I do not think we will ever get a consensus of opinion on the subject (you say potato, I say Solanum tuberosum...), as it appears there will be as many definitions of "matching", "original" and "correct" as there are Lee-Enfield collectors. There will always be individuals who like the idea of the rifle with all "original" parts from the factory (good job proving that with so many spares on ebay...), and those do define original as "the state the rifle was in when it left service", and many shades inbetween. I have fallen into the former category once or twice (remember the 1941 Long Branch I restored? Then again, I had a very good reason). I now follow Claven2's discussion, remembering that these rifles would go through replacement of damaged parts and refurbishments as part of service life, and this is part and parcel of the history of the rifle, so why should I bugger with it or think it is less valuable to me because it saw some action and got some scrapes? When you think about it, the L42A1 didn't originally leave the factory as an L42A1, and a Savage No.4T sure as heck didn't leave Savage in that shape. My go-to shooting Lee-Enfield is a 1944 BSA, FTRed in 1949, with matching receiver, bolt, forend and magazine from the time of the FTR, and I love that rifle. The 1941 Fazakerley No.4 Mk.1 I have been looking at (it did pass the head space check with a 0.638" long #3 bolt head - phew!) appears to be all original, except for the later variation upper band with the welded on lugs, the Mk.II rear sight and the Mk.II cocking piece, but I will never be sure that other parts have not been swapped out, and I will never be able to prove anything either way, so I do not worry about it.

Now I have finished rambling, I will go and finish waking up and have a cup of tea.

I don't think anyone with any reasonable degree of knowledge of the wartime MoS's decentralising of production would have been under any illusion that all the parts were made under the same roof. The same goes for Sht L.E. production in the Kaiser's War, in the later stages at any rate.

I'll have photos of the Fazackerly shown earlier for y'all to pick apart. A "practical exercise", if you will.

It surely lived a sheltered life, until it was sold off. Probably in a crate full of similar rifles that had been in QM stores their entire service lives. ("First in-last out", sort thing.) Out of 4000000 WWII No.4s I wouldn't be surprised that 4000 might survive more or less "intact".

The rifle of this study was doing pretty well, until some collector decided to "pretty up" the wood. I even have a culprit in mind, as he was notorious for sanding wood on virtually everything he ever touched, including almost "new" condition rifles of all nations. Hundreds of 'em! Col. Bill...Errrrrr- but he's long gone now.

A photo review of the Fazackerly is linked below.

Ignoring the sanding of the stock and upper handguard metal, see if you think this rifle is "original", "original except for...", or "parts is parts". Be suspicious, make me take more and better photos, pick it apart. Show no mercy! I'll attempt to defend the "client" when appropriate. Or throw it to the wolves when it makes sense. (I've a Savage that was "all Savage", but removed the two position rear sight for shooting purposes, and can no longer remember where the Mk.II sight went- so no photo fun there!)

Slide-show link:

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...view=slideshow

Album link:

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...20F%2010%2043/

Some highlights:


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Lees0311-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ees03111-1.jpg
Interesting surface texture on several parts. Sort of sandblasted, but with a near empty sand hopper...(?)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff008-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff018-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff002-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff016-1.jpg

Unaltered factory original rifles are out there. I've had a few through my shop in the past 20 years. I still have a Maltby ROFM 1941 and 1942 that are virtually new. The ROFM 1941 was out of Naval service. I think Savage and Long Branch No.4's can still be found from time to time in newish condition more so than their British made cousins. I have a few of those stashed away too. I have an all matching 1945 BSA/H&H No.4T with the grease wrappings still on the bands and nosecap. These rifles certainly don't have any stories to tell other than the inside of a store room someplace.

What was I thinking....

How about the 1942 NZ-marked Long Branch No.4 Mk.1* I picked up a short while ago. It looks like it has spent almost all of its life in storage. All parts are LB marked and, as far as I can tell, it has not been monkeyed with since it left Long Branch. Can I prove that it is factory original? No. Can I take a bloody good guess? Yes.

I have 2 '42 date Long Branch No.4Mk.1* rifles in the same condition and one Savage Mk.1*, all NZ owned. I have another South African owned Savage that's new except it was thrown around after being surplused and sports the handling marks in the woodwork to prove it. A damned shame but it's still a very nice rifle. One of my favorites is a well used but nice condition LB Mk.1* made in 1943 that's also NZ owned so they did use some of them but many were left unused and stored until released to the commercial market in the 1960's and later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

What was I thinking....

---

You were thinking about how nice it is IN the bandwagon, rather than being one of the heckling rabble on foot! Much less tiring. :)

Tiring- Two and 1/2 hours doing photo junk on the computer, and another hour or so actually taking pictures, KNOWING that someone else has a better example that'll just have to be posted...

Plenty of lithgows in Australia that have not been altered from new manufacture.

I agree with Peter, I'm often asked by owners wanting to have an 'all correct' L1A1 and there are others determined hunt for all B61 or E57 parts to put on their cloned L1A1 rifles made up from parts kits. I ask them to define what they want.... are they wanting their rifle to 'look' like it was when it left the factory or do they want to represent a certain period because the rifles changed and were altered during their service life according to the Bible, (EMER's / EMEI's).

I do have a factory original British 1961 dated Enfield L1A1, one of only 10 sent to New Zealand as being part of the Rifle Steering Committee (RSC). These rifles were the new Mark 2 Rifles utilising all the modifications/alterations determined by the RSC. In theory the L1A1 Rifle should of become the 7.62 mm L1A2 Rifle but it never happened. I can tell you the rifle doesn't have ALL this or ALL that manufacturer's parts on it. Its a mix of Enfield (D61) and Fazackerly (F60) made parts. These rifles were held as 'Control Rifles' and never messed with for their time in the NZ Army system.

The thing collectors/owners tend to overlook is that small arms are mass produced, they are assembled on a production line into which parts that are available are put into assembly bins, the asemblers take part A, add part B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J etc till they have a complete unit. They don't care if part A or B was made by manufacturer '1' '2' or '3'.

It's certainly the case for mass Base Workshop overhauls. I was talking to an ex National Service Armourer who was involved in the refurbishment program of the New Zealand Army's Sten Guns. All they did was disassemble the lot en-mass, checked the parts, cleaned, bead blasted, phosphated the parts and then re-assembled the lot by taking part A, B, C from bulk bins and ending up with a Complete Sten Gun, checked and tested and then preserved and put into storage. They didn't care who made what part so long as it functioned and within spec it was used. The Sten's are 'Original'................... for the Army.

So what is Original?

1) As it leaves the Factory door Originality
2) A certain specific period during the service life of the rifle Originality.
3) Sold out of Military Service Originality (before it modified/bubberised/upgraded/downgraded/ninjaed/converted)
4) flight of fancy Originality

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer............................

Ah, Demo......, but we're not talking of Australian Lithgow No1's

Anybody else out there willing to have their rifle photo scutinized?

All we need is one good example.

It makes for good discussion.

I still think that there's examples that were sold off or sent to foreign nations outside of UK MOD cantrol during the early post war era that may have never left their crates.
Current external finsh isn't a consideration, here. Just whether it's "as built".

Plenty of "losing side" weapons that remain original. Extremely few Garands and carbines, but they are out there. Maybe a few 91/30s, but most folk don't pay attention. Wartime M44s exist in original condition. Why is ONLY the No.4 exempt? ANd only British No.4s at that? Not Savages, or Long Branches, or even No.1 dispersal rifles. Hmmm?

I'll do some photos for you JM. I'm trying to update my newly formatted website and deleting/adding a bunch of rifles so a few more No.4 photos are no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer............................

---

Bugger. And I was having such a nice day....well, until I woke up...

With the help of Badger, (thanks Doug), here are a couple of NOS No.4 rifles as promised. One a British Maltby made in 1942.

Attachment 26691Attachment 26689Attachment 26690

The other a Canadian Long Branch made in 1942 with New Zealand ownership marks.

Attachment 26687Attachment 26692Attachment 26688

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer.....

---

I haven't been gloating, but I have been quietly enjoying the NZ-marked Long Branch I bought recently...so spill the beans, Peter!!!!! If I'm going to hear something I don't like, I'd like to hear it quickly :P

I'll let the pictures tell the story.

Attachment 26694Attachment 26695Attachment 26696Attachment 26697Attachment 26698Attachment 26699Attachment 26700Attachment 26701Attachment 26702Attachment 26703Attachment 26704Attachment 26705Attachment 26706Attachment 26707Attachment 26708Attachment 26709Attachment 26710Attachment 26711Attachment 26712Attachment 26713Attachment 26714Attachment 26715Attachment 26716Attachment 26717

Hal O'Peridol, the first concern is the serial number punched onto the bottom of the magazine. Not a Savage marking, or is it? Otherwise, that's pretty fresh!

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

Peter Laidler also left out Savages from his list. He only mentions Maltby (which probably never made an all Maltby rifle), Fazackerly, and BSA. So for the purposes of Peter's discussion, only Fazackerlys and BSA need apply. (Unless Brian Dick's Malbty is a highly surprising exception!)

(I had to read the fine print at the bottom of Post #1 again, lest we veer of track too much.)

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

I still think Maltbys could be included if we can agree on what sub contractor parts would be proper for a particular vintage. A certain date or earlier for inclusion in "original", but that's probably going to take MUCH more research! May never be provable either, as they were "original mixmasters".

Yep, the serial number was added later. There is a scratch on the follower where some pointy headed fool used a point headed tool to remove it, so that the number could be stamped into the mag. You can see the scratch just to the right of the rivet on the follower.


You`re right about only BSAs, Maltbys and Fazackerlys in Peter`s original post, forgot that part by the time I read through all 4 pages!

Savages really are mixmasters too, IIRC I read somewhere that Savage had well over 60 subcontractors working on the No4 contract. I have a feeling that may be the reason why we see different Savage`S` stamps.

Yah, but the collector's question is can a particular rifle be ascertained to have been built up at Savage (or whatever maker) with the parts that are now on it?

The Garand folk have spent years ciphering over parts production variants and time windows. Likewise M1 Carbines. (Which is a closer match to No.4 production.) Skinnerton does good work on the odd and obscure stuff, but the nitty gritty of wartime production remains murky. With reason!

However, I'm pretty sure that there ought to be some surviving original Fazackerlys out there with most or all Fazackerly parts. Buttplates will be an exception part. Possibly magazines. Sights? Not sure.

Peter laidler's original post is pretty specific, if you get right down to it. The BRITISH built rifle must not only be original, but composed of ALL parts from the same source. Fazackerly and maybe BSA. A mixmaster MAY be original and correct, but it won't fit within the boundaries of the good Captain's premise.

Hey, come to think of it, there were some Lithgows made with Savage parts! Fitted at the factory!

anyone care to guess?

Only thing I can think of would be sear, sear spring, mag catch, or trigger?

JM Thanks, Its refreshing to have someone with independent thinking in this forum. It opens up windows. To listen to two sides is stimulating. I like the exchange of thoughts

I'm in agreement with Peter and others that no NOS British No.4 rifles will be comprised of parts only manufactured at the ROF. The exception might be BSA which was the only commercial No.4 producer other than Savage in the USA but they too sport contracted parts like rear sights by Singer and Lyman on Savage No.4's. My uneducated guess just from examining hundreds over the years is that wartime and 1950 Long Branch rifles probably had the least amount of contractor parts installed. It would be an interesting and endless study to find out just how many component parts were manufactured directly at the Royal Ordnance Factories and SAL LB. Were parts contracted outside of Long Branch in Canada as they were from the gun trade in the USA by Savage? Did commercial outfits like BSA draw parts from regional depots in the UK too when in need? Interesting stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer............................

Ah, Demo......, but we're not talking of Australian Lithgow No1's

---

Still wating for Mr. Laidler to spill the beans on the NZ No4 Mk1*s. There hasn't been a new post on this thread for a week - sufficient time, I think...

I'll spill the beans this weekend. Very busy at the moment

Still waiting for beans to be spilled....6 months later, and I am still beanless - Mr. Laidler, please give us the beans!!!! (Delayed gratification is not my strong point...)

If I'd known i was that important I'd have come in earlier. There was a modification to Mk1* rifles that ensured that as the bolt was lifted out of the slot in the boltway track, the rear end of the extractor spring didn't strike the underside of a small projection under the bridge charger guide. For your interest, I'm sure it was EMER C-507 mod instruction 4 of July '51 if anyone has the detailed print!

All UK Mk1* and 1/3 rifles were modified at field, Base or FTR level and in NZ they were done too. While based at the big Ordnance Depot at Ngaruawahia in NZ, I found a couple that hadn't been done so took them over to the workshops and did them.

I'm not sure that any other nation would have even bothered with the modification. So in respect to the valuable and collectable NZ marked Mk1* rifles, I'd say that while anyone could stamp an NZ on one, not many would have even known about the modification or had the wherewithall to do it. That's one little identifying feature of the real McCoy. It's another feature to look out for to those who say that their rifle is brand new, never used all original etc etc. Look for the sharp edge under the bridge charger guide that will punch out the extractor spring from behind

There is only one truth. CONDITION, CONDITION. That is what I look for. And use my judgement. I buy the best I find. it is usually by blind luck .... gary

Gentleman,
Let me start by thanking Peter for continuing to contribute a wealth of information that would otherwise not be known in his absence. Having had the privilege of being turned loose in the Small Arms School in Warminster was an experience I will never forget and always appreciate.

After reading this entire thread, an obvious and long standing trend presents itself, which is, the lack of understanding the difference between a shooter and a collector. It could even be taken a step further to the absolute refusal of the aforementioned. It's almost as if there is an obsession with the obsession of a collector. Given this board is mostly comprised of shooters it stands to reason why most things are one sided and this topic seems to be mostly a confusion on the part of shooters.

The lack of understanding of anything in life is of course the spawn of "question" and it can be applied to everything. What I have read in this thread is just completely the opposite. The majority of the posts here aren't asking a question but are rather the "stating" of facts and supporting posts to the stating of facts to somehow point out that the only perceived reason why a collector would collect a rifle for doesn't exist therefore is pointless. The key word being " perceived " which is again, a byproduct of the unknown. There was even a poster who stated the only reason someone would want to pursue the acquisition of a all "original" rifle was because of it's monetary worth. Apparently, he's got it all figured out without so much as asking a single question. From where I sit, Bullshit. I've never in over 20 years bought a rifle worrying about what I could get out of it monetarily and have in fact paid much more for a particular rifle I wanted. Why? Steady now, here's where the confusion sets in... because I'm a collector and that is what a collector does, which brings us to the real question at hand. What do I collect rifles for and what do I look for in a collectible rife or rather, what do I consider to be collectible about a rifle. If that question had been asked of me the answer would be long listed so, to keep in topic of the thread, I'll address originality.

Originality: To suggest that collectors are unaware of the fact that most rifles are produced with outsourced parts is, to put it quite bluntly, asinine. For that matter, to suggest it of a shooter is quite the same. We have all been in this game for a long time and apart from the newcomers, I think it safe to say it's common knowledge. Given the fact of what we all know to be common knowledge, how could ANYONE, a shooter or collector, be confused about what the term "ORIGINAL" represents? If a particular situation exists, ie... rifles manufactured with outsourced parts, then by default we are left with only one option... as it left the factory. Which in short, would be my answer. As it left the factory.

I have a hard time understanding the confusion about this subject. In all that we have learned from each other which has shed a fantastic look into the mind boggling detail of the history of these rifles... why is anyone confused about the different aspects that draw us to them ?

"There was even a poster who stated the only reason someone would want to pursue the acquisition of a all "original" rifle was because of it's monetary worth."
If that wasn´t me ... it could have been. And if there´s no truth in the statement, please explain all those references to the "market value" of a "collectible" item and how the "market value" is reduced if some minute part is not marked according to the expectations of some "expert". This thread is of interest as a genuine expert has now revealed that many (most?) "original" weapons are very often a mongrel concoction of a seemingly endless collection of parts made by any number of manufacturers, some of whom no longer exist.

My No.4 was an abused homeless 71 year old gent who was in need of some restored dignity in the form of a caring home, a decent change of clothes, regular meals and some occasional exercise in a home free from further abuse.
Originality never really entered the equation but it is an interesting topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeDD

If a particular situation exists, ie... rifles manufactured with outsourced parts, then by default we are left with only one option... as it left the factory. Which in short, would be my answer. As it left the factory.

---

Forgive me for tweaking you just a teensy bit, but that would seem to suggest that only rifles in the wrap count? And anything that has been touched by Peter and his colleagues has been devalued?

Hello Villiers,

I'm thinking you may have slightly misunderstood the point of my post. Everything has a market value, that's a given. Market value of a certain item, whatever it may be, is affected by many things, condition, rarity, etc.. A rifle in it's "as left the factory" or "as built" status carries a certain "market value". Any deviation from that would lessen it's "market value".That doesn't mean I want it because of it's higher value...I want it because it is "as built". Peter's post is spot on for what it represents, an absolute fact of certain production circumstances. That circumstance does not translate to something not being " as built " or "as it left the factory" does it ? How could it possibly mean that ? Can you also explain to my why that would also translate to the only reason a collector would want such a rifle ? I've clearly pointed out I take no monetary consideration in the purchasing of rifles and I can hardly believe I would be the only one.

A rifle which has been assembled from a collection of parts that had been outsourced from different subcontractors and assembled at a given arsenal doesn't translate to it not being genuine or original, it's just a matter of fact to it's production and it carries a certain "market value", a far different story to say a 1942 Maltby which is now sporting a Fazakerley barrel, isn't it ? If you are in fact talking about a Maltby rifle sporting a Fazakerley barrel or trigger guard, etc, then I would have to say that those "minute parts" not being Maltby marked would certainly affect it's "market value".

Please, lets call a apple what it is... a apple. If we were to accept that a rifle couldn't be a genuine Maltby, BSA or Fazakerley as it leaves the arsenal because some of its parts may have been made by a subcontractor, then it should also stand to reason that every stamp collector has been mislead as to their stamp collection being genuine because I'm pretty sure the Post Office doesn't own a paper mill which would make every stamp just a cobbled up mess of ink on paper with no genuine originality to the Post Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Forgive me for tweaking you just a teensy bit, but that would seem to suggest that only rifles in the wrap count? And anything that has been touched by Peter and his colleagues has been devalued?

---

LoL, Patrick. I'm not feeling tweaked a bit and rather enjoy a good discussion.

A rifle in the wrap, as Peter suggested, is more than likely a 100% Fazakerely produced rifle which doesn't fit the argument. Now, if Peter were to say fit a rifle with parts that were subcontractor marked it would be hard to tell if it didn't leave the arsenal that way originally because that was how it was done, correct ? But, if Peter fitted a Longbranch marked bolt to a BSA rifle, well, I would have to say it didn't leave the arsenal like that originally and would certainly devalue it.

Isn't the real issue that we, as collectors, are trying to identify and preserve guns that demonstrate partial or (maybe) complete systems as they were designed and issued. This may be for our personal edification or for future generations. Total originality is less important than documentation via research that all or part of a gun conform to and exemplify some model or mark or illustrate an important modification, etc. For example, I have a nice MLE MarkI (1896, BSA) that has never been through a formal re-fit and, hence, allows one to examine a very important model. The fact that its bolt is not matching the action/ barrel serial number doesn't concern me. Another example is a Martini-Enfield that appears to have been originally converted (from a MH MarkII) at the Henry Barrel Factory then re-fitted (in some manner) at the Citadel in Egypt. Far fom original but a complete provenance is available through study and is a fascinating story (and shootable!). On the other hand, I recently posted a brief description of a 1903a3 on the appropriate forum looking for a bit of insight into its history and all I really found out was that it's NOT ORIGINAL!! I think responders were thinking I was trying to validate some $ value for it when, in fact, I wanted to decipher its past. If I have a point I guess that it is lets focus on the positive info that can be gleaned from a Milsurp and emphasize references and documents that allow newcomers to the pastime to start gaining independant expertise so that when all the old experts are gone there will be some new hands to preserve our treasures.

Ridolpho

David,

I have a slightly different view then you on this debate. You and I are east coast chaps, I very much doubt the shooting/collecting world we live in is all that different between NJ and PA. In the US east coast gun culture, up until about 6 or 7 years ago, Enfields were fairly cheap. As such in terms of how “serious” US collectors view the world, Enfield fans were seen as very much the bottom feeders. That has affected how collectors of Enfields view their prizes. Let me expand on that point:

The five areas of collecting (non-Enfield) that I know something about, based of the fellows I hang out with were as follows:

US military rifles: M1 Garand
US Military rifles M1903 and M1903A3
US Military rifles M1861 and 1863 rifles
Winchester Rifles (M70, post M1894 lever action rifles)
Kar98 K rifles and associated German rifles (G98, Kar98/40, G33/40, G24(T))

Now these areas were big money more then a decade ago, at least in relative terms. In the case of the Kar98K and Winchester rifles, it was common to have all matching examples, which over the years have seen their price go up to quite high levels. Ten years ago, when a correct Australian No 1 MK III was a 100 dollar rifle, a matching Kar98K rifle was a 500 dollar item. I have no idea what a correct Kar98K goes for today, but I suspect a really nice one is well over 1000 dollars to the right guy if it is the desired year and factory.

The same is true of all US rifles. A correct HR M1 or early M1 with pre 1941 features is a 1,250 dollar and up rifle, last time I checked. Likely they are more now. There is a vast difference in price between a mix-master with some early bits and one with all correct parts. The price differential is easily 2 to 1 and might be as high as 4 to 1. In the case of Winchesters the difference between a 100, percent and 98 percent rifle is very significant, at least in the selling price.

In essence the interest for all of these fraternities is to find a correct example of the rifle when it came out of the factory. This reflects the fact that for the most part the above rifles saw use by one army or user only. The collectors want to fill their collection with the best condition rifles in original condition that they can find, and a significant number of such rifles exist. This I am sure you know but I had to state this so that the next point is clear.

In contrast in the Enfield world, at least since 1997, when I first started to really check out the on-line world of Lee Enfield rifles (though my first experience with on line Enfield was Skip Stratton’s site around 1995) more interest was placed in the history of each rifle. Enfields saw reuse by many armies, it is possible to find a No1 MK III that saw service in three armies and up to 4 wars. As many of these rifles flowed into the country from different nations, a lot of effort went into deciphering the many issue markings that would tell a rifles history. The Mosin Nagant collectors are similar, for their sub 100 dollar rifles they are very interested in the issue markings and rebuild markings. A rifle that has evidence of issue in three countries is of great interest, even if the condition is less then pristine. That a rifle was rebuilt and is not original is of no big concern, the history was far more interesting and one that could be tracked through the stamped markings on wood and metal. For both of these types of surplus, there is no corresponding collecting basis for US rifles, issue markings were rarely if ever applied to the extent that they are with Russian, Finnish and Enfield rifles. These ugly rifles that were sold for very low prices and much of what tickled collectors fancy was figuring out what the various markings/features meant. That makes for a very different orientation between US and Enfield collectors.

Now the obsession with finding/verifying “correct” rifles in the US collecting fraternity also has to be seen in turns of the vast difference in price between a shooter and a collectable rifle. Because the gradual or not so gradual difference between the prices of original and “parts guns” the collectors of US arms and Winchesters started to really study the finer points. This was because of the obvious profit motive to be made by restoring parts guns to “original guns” (or arms that could pass as such). If you go on the gunboard forum site and look at the various fakes that have come to light with M1C rifles, Kar98K rifles, re-stamped wood for all US service rifles and Winchester rifle condition upgrades, you will realize that the fakers have really affected the entire market. Having the ability to tell what is correct and what a restorer has fashioned becomes and important part of guarding ones collection and ones wallet.

The same thing will gradually occur in the Enfield market as well, as the value of Enfield rifles climbs ever higher. There are already a few known folks that peddle “enhanced” rifles: one an author in Maryland and the other a well known dealer in New York. Gunbroker has seen a number of No 4 MK I T rifles of dubious vintage with some marking seemingly applied and others enhanced. Peter Laidlers books on the topic and recent discussions on these rifles, on this site have brought to light at least one fake Canadian rifle, with a Lyman scope and mount. The cost of unissued Irish contact and post 1954 No 4 MK II unissued rifles is still rising, what was a 500 dollar rifle 3 years ago now seems to be a 700 and up rifle. Imagine how closely Enfield folks would look at these rifles if someone started selling “enhanced” beat-up rifles that could ape the appearance of the new rifles?

Fortunately there are still many inexpensive Enfield variants that can be collected that are very unlikely to be faked at this time as the price is still too low. Any rifle less then 300 dollars is unto likely to be faked, the return on investment is simply too low. But rest assured in 10 or 20 years when the difference in a few parts or markings can change the price by 1 or 3 times, Enfield collectors will be having the same detailed discussions about what we see as common place rifles that US and Winchester collectors are having today. Sad as that is, it is the nature of collecting.

I think Ridolpho kinda got it right when he says: [the highlight/bold is mine for emphasis of a point] "Isn't the real issue that we, as collectors, are trying to identify and preserve guns that demonstrate partial or (maybe) complete systems as they were designed and issued."

I would like to say that (in my own opinion) that when i hear phrases like say, 'original condition' or many others as used in this thread, the way i myself tend to think of these words is the same as saying (in simpler terminology) that "the rifle is the same now (or today if you like?) as when it left the original armoury where it was created all those years ago . . ." if you can see what i am trying to mean here?

I mean to say, surely it would be much simpler to think of those words in the same way when refering to say, an Enfield that has lovingly been restored back to the format in which it was when it was first made - wether this would mean that it has several parts made by company A, B, or C; or in fact wether all parts were made by just company A?

I can understand the sentiments of both the thread, and it's reasonable arguments that have been posted thereby. Take my own No4 Mk1* - when i purchased it, it had a god awful cut short bottom stock, and no top timbers, no bands, no magazine, and for that matter, no fore or rear sights. But i am trying to return it once more to its former glory - i am doing my very best to obtain and order the parts that are considered or indicated to be the most authentic for this mark of rifle. It matters not that greatly to me who makes the bands for instance - but what IS important to me is that the bands i buy say, next year would be the closest possible match if the original spec ones were not available to me at that point in time. For all i know, in a years time, the bands i get hold of may well have been made by the very same company who made the original ones that sat upon the stock of MY rifle, but hey, they have simply been in storage for all those years?

Do you see what i mean folks?

To me, terms as used in this thread mean to me that a rifle can be termed to be in that state as when it left the armoury when it was made - contain various items it was made with at that time - the 'default' items, if you prefer.

Thats just my take on it, and my own opinion on it - it is up to you to reach your own conclusions i think?

Bye for now,
Terry

I have read through this entire thread and I am even more confused than I was when I started, and that's saying a lot.

I only own ONE absolutely unfired rifle, a Long Branch 1944 Number 4. It has no serial number and the nicest wood I have ever seen, but it has a Long Branch-manufactured British-pattern safety and that's the way it walked out of the factory. Is it original? Likely. I also have a few brand-new Long Branch Canadian-pattern safeties, but I don't think I'm going to start switching parts around.

To me, a Number 4 should have all Number 4 parts. It should have no Mannlicher parts, nor Berthier parts. I suppose that it might have Mauser parts if it's one of those which were converted by the Israelis but, otherwise, it should have all Number 4 parts. DEFINITELY no Vetterli parts!

I am starting, generally, with rescued junkers and a very limited budget. I try to keep English parts on English rifles, Canadian parts on Canadian rifles and so forth, but my SMLE Mark I*** does have an Australian barrel-band, a relic of my very first (rather ignorant) search for "original" parts. Oh well, it COULD have happened during the Great War, I suppose..... and the rifle likes it, so it stays.

As far as I'm concerned, if a troopie of the time when the rifle was in Service could pick it up and find nothing out-of-place about it, it should be good enough. It certainly was good enough to fight a war; it darned well ought to be good enough for me to shoot at a tin can.

I suppose that in "collecting" circles that makes me rather much of a heathen, but that's the way it is.

I thank you ALL for this most informative (if confoozin') discussion. If only we could do this around a table, with a keg of Dos Equis Negro!
.

Frederick,
We are not at all far apart on our views, I appreciate the time you have taken to post.

Perhaps I should have been more detailed in my posts but I was trying to stay focused on a particular issue which seems to be the question of what is considered "original". I just felt the thread was leaning more towards a point to be shown that no such animal exists because of the use in subcontracted parts so why bother to worry about it. Also, I was trying to shed some light to those who don't collect the mind set of a collector. Naturally, there will always be those who try to get over and I am very much aware of the rooted out suspects you mentioned, having 6 or 7 rifles from one of them. I was at no time trying to suggest that collecting "as built" rifles is the only way to go as a collector and I have many rifles in my collection that are very much beat up but contain certain markings I considered historically significant to own. One in particular is a Mk.III which has South African and Oster markings. It all matches except the bolt, which happens to have the correct number stamped on the top of the bolt handle but it is well beaten up and you can tell it's been there quite a long time. The fact that is doesn't have all it's original parts matters not at all to me. I have many others that fit this bill and am happy to own them.

SpikeDD, I wasn´t attempting to "get" at you! (you stated in your original posting that you are a "shooter ... like me). Of course the interest shown in this Forum is in maintaining and adding to the history of the weapons we own and collect. But I still believe that purely monetary interest often is a negative and corrupting influence that distorts and even sometimes falsifies what we are attempting to achieve. And Peter L´s contribution has shown how this attitude can lead to erroneous decisions as to whether a rifle is "genuine" or not.