Good Evening. Getting close to purchasing a Long Lee. However, the metal surfaces have been "cleaned" and the blueing is almost gone. Seller says no scratches and I am looking for a shop that can reblue to or near "OEM" standards. Thanks, Randy.
Printable View
Good Evening. Getting close to purchasing a Long Lee. However, the metal surfaces have been "cleaned" and the blueing is almost gone. Seller says no scratches and I am looking for a shop that can reblue to or near "OEM" standards. Thanks, Randy.
I'ld start by contacting Brian Dick here on this forum.
The original "bluing" was referred to as "browning". It was a "slow-rust" process which involves a lot of carefully controlled corrosion and "carding off". The trick was to get an even coat of "brown" rust and then gently remove that to the point that the darker "blue" appeared. (Ferric vs Ferrous oxides). Repeat ad nauseum until the correct colour and "depth" was achieved. Check the net for articles about traditional English gun-makers blueing processes.
Whacking it in a Du-Lite tank will give a nice finish IF the preparatory work is up to par. STAY AWAY from powered linishing belts and be VERY careful even with powered, stitched or loose cloth buffing wheels, especially if they are "loaded" with wax and grit. The trick is to keep "sharp" edges "sharp" and straight surfaces "straight" and free from "waves".
All of the above is probably why later models seemed to have undergone rudimentary external polishing or even bead-blasting and been finished with a "non-reflective" protective coating. The high-point, so to speak, of this was the finish applied to the No.4 and 5 series.
From a "tactical" angle, a nice shiny rifle could attract a lot of unwanted attention at just the wrong time. however, to the best of my knowledge, your rifle should be a nice, shiny (and deep) blue.
Du-Lite bluing will give the rifle the same shine that it has when going into the tank. I re-blued my no 1 Mk 3*. I first removed all bluing with rust and blue remover, then lightly buffed with Dremel tool. I did not use sanding discs or wheels. A brass wheel will get into tight places without over polishing. The only secret is to keep the same finish on the rifle. If it is dull, leave it dull and if it is very shiny keep it shiny. Mine came out better than you can imagine. No, I don't have pictures to post. Remember KISS (keep it simple stupid).
B
Unless the woodwork is absolutely mint, its hardly worth re-bluing the metalwork - the rifle will look terrible. Many of the Long Lees coming out of South Africa are worn down to the white in the metal, and have typical faded woodwork. The ones that are just cleaned and oiled tend to find owners who appreciate their originality; the ones that have been reblued just go around and around the auctions unsold - even the parts are no good for other restorations.
Firearms are just like any other antique where the rile of thumb is: "If in doubt - don't!"
As has been said, if you reblue your rifle you will destroy its value. I have lost count of the number of guns that I have rejected over the years because they have been refinished.
I agree with Beerhunter and Thunderbox. A worn silver patina can look very nice - indicative of the rifle having been handled over ~120 yrs. One circumstance which would justify re-bluing a Long Lee would be if someone else had done a truly awful refinish where nothing original remained.
Should have posted some photos for you to see what "cleaning" can do to a rifle. What say you folks now? Reblue or not. Thanks, Randy.
The answer is still not. Unless you wish to devalue the rifle.
Is it just me? Or do those markings suggest manufacture in the Khyber Pass region rather than Enfield? In your opening post you say "Getting close to purchasing..." - personally, I would walk away from this one...
See the post entitled LEC 1 1898 to show the general idea of how the Victorian crown and Enfield stamps should look.
Here's a real one.Attachment 35907Attachment 35908
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess that didn't sound right. I meant here is mine that I know is not a khyber pass rifle. Can we see more piccies? Please
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looking at the new pictures, in picture 3 it looks like the barrel has been shortened considerably, like one of the Australian range rifles. The front sight is not a typical CLLE sight either, as it should have curving sight protectors.
RobD has identified the rifle as a "khyber pass" type rifle and I agree with him based on the right butt socket markings. These are not worth risking your health if you want to shoot it. At best it's a wall hanger curiosity.
Not now it isn't. I was so fixated with the rebluing issues, I confess that I didn't look carefully enough at the pictures when they were posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
The markings look like they have been done with the metallic equivalent of a "John Bull Printing Set". (For those of us old enough to remember the latter.)
But you have to admire the craftmanship. Damn good copy!
Those markings are about as straight as a cork-screw as we say in England. I wouldn't even dip it into a tank of dulite for fear of wasting the dulite!
There are at the very least quite a few good bits on it. Are there any proof/inspection markings on the barrel or under the wood? It'd be interesting to see what's what with it. It certainly got the "native gunsmithing" treatment in Afghanistan or thereabouts, but if that thing is entirely home made, I'll eat it.
Hoping I'm not letting myself in for a case of severe indigestion here...
I agree... something doesn't look right ... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
Here's an MKL entry that might help ...
“Khyber Pass” Lee-Enfield No.I Mk.III* Rifle (click here)
Old thread ..
1898 lec 1 (click here)
Regards,
Doug
'7 COLT'?
Must have been issued to a Cavalry unit. :madsmile:
https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....5&d=1344721089
More likely to a Land Transport company of the Indian Army's Supply and Transport Corps.
My guess anyway.
On looking closely at the pics, it seems to me that the butt socket markings are very naive compared to the otherwise pukka rifle. It simply doesn't add up to a hand-made copy.
Shortened Long Lees were made for private purchase around the time of the Boer war, and were quite popular with British officers. I have some photos somewhere.
Now, the rifle in question has been converted to charger loading and the CLLE sight upgrade, but, apart from the naive markings, it could be a private purchase short rifle made pre-WW1. Alternatively, it may be a composite of rifle parts, some private purchase and some broad-arrow marked (like the butt plate).But not necessarily of Khyber Pass manufacture, apart from teh stamps on the buttstock...
I wonder if this is a rifle which has been "enhanced" in the bazaar? Can the rifle be dismantled to show the concealed markings?
Exactly! I'd also like to see an in depth photo study of this thing...could be very educational.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
I love threads like this - basically a scooby do mystery and at some point Peter or Warren will pop up and let us know that it would have been fine if it wasn't for that meddling Bubba / Achmed.
Ali Bubba & Sons of 666 Khyber Pass Road, Kabul, wish to make it clear that this is not one of their products. The crown is a joke and the lettering, irregular in height and spacing, is a disgrace to anyone who possesses a straight edge. And the poor lad who hacked out the "Co." didn't even have the right size of stamps to make a neat little superscript "o" with a stroke beneath it. Forgot the point after the A as well. Really, I don't know what they teach 'em these days! With the aid of photo-etching, there is no excuse for not getting the markings right.:lol:
Avoid cheap imitations! Buy only the real article - from Ali Bubba, purveyors of fine fakes to the undiscerning since the Brits first appeared with things that went bang!;)
--------------
P.S: I think RobD has the answer - a creative brew-up of parts, some original.
Here's a photo of Boers in 1901 with Gen. Jan Smuts and Gen Maritz in the western Cape. You'll notice how, by this stage of the ABW, many Boers were using British kit. The concession they make to not being mis-identified as British is to raise the right hand side of the slouch hat (vs left hand side if British).
The fellow sitting in front, second from the right, has a short version of the Long Lee, which I imagine would have been a private purchase item of a British officer, from whom he'd have liberated it.
Are we ever going to see photos of the markings on the rifle's action and barrel? I don't want this thread to be just a teaser. Solving this one will be very educational.
There is something seriously wrong with the markings on that rifle. They are not correct at all. They look hand stamped. Either the rifle was completely refinished at some point and then someone tried to replicate the original stamps, or else the entire rifle was made by hand, but it looks too good to be that. Any proof marks on the barrel or receiver? What do the numbers on the rearsight look like? That is one mystery rifle.
Sorry, I had only looked at the first page of the thread--didn't realize there were another two! Barrel is definitely way too short, and has the wrong front sight as mentioned. The rearsight markings and graduations appear correct though, although it is a target rearsight and not a standard ladder. Seems to be a mixmaster of correct parts and maybe incorrect parts, or it might have been a correct Long Lee which was thoroughly ground down, shortened and then crudely restamped. I would favour the latter, but I'm not sure I'd want to shoot it. Very odd.
Based on the buttplate tang stampings, I would say it was the 7th rifle dealt with in such a way--COLT clearly stands for Cruel Old Lee Torture, or maybe Cruelly Obliterated Long Tom ........
If I saw it at a gunshow for not too much, I would buy it just for interest and uniqueness.
Out of curiosity, what's with the markings on the left side of the barrel, and the oddball serial number stamped on the left side of the receiver? Are those importer marks?
Ed