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.

Don't feel toooo bad Englishman. EVERY weapon that ever left our Armourers shops or ANY Armourers shop across the Commonwealth was a 'parts' gun. Because by definition, they only ever came in because there was something wrong with them. And when they went out, they were fixed. Generally with parts, off the shelf. Ok, ok, so we accurately hand fitted them correctly. We weren't as careful as you about marking them of course. We tested them and off they went. That's the nature of the beast!

Don't know if this is relevant or not, but here is what I have done to prevent folks thinking my restorations are original.

On the interior of the forend, where it does not show, I put the following, done with a dremal tool:

restored, day-month-year.

In most cases this is sort of not needed, as with No1 Mk III the old serial numbers on the muzzle cap and forend indicate the rifle is a parts gun.

On some of the No4 rifles it would be hard to tell it is a restoration, other than the lack of a serial number on the forend.

In once case where I restored a badly mauled Navy arms L42A1 rifle, I used a solid front sight guard, not the one with the screw, as anyone who looks at it will know by sight that something is wrong. Take off the forend to look closer and you will see the restored marking.

Not sure what more you can do. In 500 years, if they are still around, a rifle restored within a century of the period of use will be an item of some value and appreciation, even if it is only a wall hanger. Of course that is predicated on the ideal that something will remain of western civilization and some folks will still have interest in the 20th century. It may well be that folks 500 years from now have no interest in such items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

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..........?

---

You are quite correct Peter but the rifle in question was staying here in the UK which means it is covered by UK proof regulations.
In addition any rifle that comes from overseas without proof marks that are recognised will need to be proofed before it can be sold or even advertised for sale, what an individual does with a personally owned weapon is entirely up to them.
You seem to overlook the fact that this is not the military where everything was done to a set standard and then inspected and signed for these rifles can by tinkered with by anyone who thinks they have the skill to do it which is why here in the UK if pressure bearing parts are changed the rifle needs to go for re-proof to PROVE that it has been done properly.

I haven't overlooked the facts and I appreciate that my technical background is military as opposed to commercial but once a rifle is in proof, it is proofed. The proof house don't check that commercial workmanship has 'been done properly' so far as I am aware........... I appreciate too that while the penalties would seem to be draconian, the wording of the antiquated legislation of the proof rules are soooooooo obscure and higgledy piggledy now as to be virtually unenforceable in a current Court. Just try getting them to Court to prove or disprove a point! Not my words I hasten to add. Indeed, it is said that some of the rules and reguilations have been made in-house to suit a need.......... Again...., not my words

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I haven't overlooked the facts and I appreciate that my technical background is military as opposed to commercial but once a rifle is in proof, it is proofed. The proof house don't check that commercial workmanship has 'been done properly' so far as I am aware........... I appreciate too that while the penalties would seem to be draconian, the wording of the antiquated legislation of the proof rules are soooooooo obscure and higgledy piggledy now as to be virtually unenforceable in a current Court. Just try getting them to Court to prove or disprove a point! Not my words I hasten to add. Indeed, it is said that some of the rules and reguilations have been made in-house to suit a need.......... Again...., not my words

---

As I have already pointed out an individual FAC holder can do what they like, however as an RFD I would not wish to risk loseing my license to trade because I had not followed the correct procedure no matter how antiquated they may appear to be.
If a trader wishes to stick two fingers up to the regulations with a see me in court attitude thats fine but you won't find me at the front of that queue nor any of the other RFD's that I have spoken to.
Without the correct proof marks in the right places a firearm is not "in proof" it is the accepted norm and wether we like it or not that is the way it is in the trade here in the UK.

Interestingly it seems safety isnt always the first thing. eg As an example, someone in a facebook group was really happy they had bought an original, unused 1943 LB as new, un-fired no4. Now the numbers of these that are starting to appear in NZ is well concerning. I just have difficulty believing there are front line guns from 1943 un-issued and now appearing and that it is genuine. I Q'd that but lots of ppl think its genuine and since its un-used and as-is from the factory there is no need to safety check it, oh boy. I guess its a function of them going from worthless to worth "doing up" that we will see more and more dis-honest ppl aiming to make a dollar off the gullible, Mosins and Finish capture, re-capture and re-re-capture now seem the latest forgery crazy that is farcical. What really concerns me however is how unsafe these maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssj

Interestingly it seems safety isnt always the first thing. eg As an example, someone in a facebook group was really happy they had bought an original, unused 1943 LB as new, un-fired no4. Now the numbers of these that are starting to appear in NZ is well concerning. I just have difficulty believing there are front line guns from 1943 un-issued and now appearing and that it is genuine. I Q'd that but lots of ppl think its genuine and since its un-used and as-is from the factory there is no need to safety check it, oh boy. I guess its a function of them going from worthless to worth "doing up" that we will see more and more dis-honest ppl aiming to make a dollar off the gullible, Mosins and Finish capture, re-capture and re-re-capture now seem the latest forgery crazy that is farcical. What really concerns me however is how unsafe these maybe.

---

ssj the No4 has never been NZs "front line" weapon, there were crates & crates of them (still new & unissued) sold off years ago, many ending up sitting in gun safes around the country, we have been seeing them surfacing for years, no real increase, in fact i would say i have been seeing less over the last few years.

What was NZ's front line weapon then 5th Batt? It was the front line weapon at my parent units at Ngaruawahia and Papakura while I was there as the L1A1 was creeping into service (Infantry excepted of course as they were fully L1A1 armed.....) I've said it many times but we did have many crates of new No4's - many hundreds in total - in 'the bond' store (the secure area) of the big Ordnance Depot there that we had to do the annual percentage check on. They were not marked NZ so far as I recall as they'd never been taken from the crates and by '67 were never going to be issued. I know Kim W, one of our now deceased, ex RNZEME forumers purchased a couple of brand new, unused No4's directly from Ordnance as did Den Phillips, one of our RNZEME Sergeants.

Were all these new No4's sold off?

Were all these sold off

I have not posted here for some time. A friend told me about this thread. I was at Bisley over the weekend and agree that it was not much to write home about.

I think I recognise the target for the OP's comments. It is one I was associated with for many years. However I would like it to be known that I have not been involved with that particular enterprise (or any other for that matter) since Dec 2013.

If these are the people selling restored rifles using newly made parts from their website, they're a joke. Can't believe the crap that's been posted there over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

If these are the people selling restored rifles using newly made parts from their website, they're a joke. Can't believe the crap that's been posted there over the years.

---

Another batch of "brand new" woodwork was delivered to them whilst at the show and I do mean brand new not "new unissued old stock" :runaway:

I believe some of the comments here are rather ingenuous. They fail to address the nub of the problem, which is; What do you do when a rifle is unserviceable due to missing/broken parts and replacement bits are just not available?

I see no difference between NOS parts and those made new. This especially so when the new-made parts are the result of many months of effort to get it right. Reverse engineering is not an exact art, it involves a lot of engineering intuition. Further, especially when re-manufacturing wood parts, obtaining acceptable material is very difficult.

Of course, when faced with an unserviceable rifle and no parts, we could bin it by turning it into a manhole cover. This would result in one less Enfield, but would satisfy the Messianic urges of the ultra-purists.

The words 'reverse engineer' to an engineer are the cue for a nightmare induced heart attack, believe me! Like Enfield Lock says, that by definition there's no drawings available (otherwise it wouldn't be reverse engineering...), no datums from which to start, centres which have to be accurately re-located, no known dimensions from which to work after the sample has suffered years of use and........ and.......

Another phrase is the well used '.......just copy this.........'

I heard those two words again and I'm just going to have to lay down in a darkened room..........

I agree with you Jim. I have been rebuilding Enfields to return them to serviceable condition for 35 years now (yes, frightening how time passes by, isn't it?!), & I have no argument with that at all. Indeed, as mentioned before Dave T & I bought about 140 partly stripped No4 T's back in the 1990's & we had a little cottage industry going of rebuilding them one at a time for about ten years, & still being able to move on the rebuilt rifles at a reasonable price by the standards of the time. We did get some tyre kickers moaning about parts not being 'as the rifle left the factory', & 'yeah, but you've rebuilt it!', but what the XXXX did they expect me to do with them, buy them to scrap them (as you alluded to)? A rebuilt but genuine rifle is less desirable to many collectors than one in pristine condition, but it is far better than not having one at all, especially when it is priced commensurately.

I think where criticism may be justified (& I'm speaking generally now, & not about any current outfit in particular), is the unnecessary replacement of parts just to make a rifle look 'better'. The late Ma Parker was a terror for doing this (bless her soul). I think perhaps she could justify her astronomical prices by stating that a rifle had had various new parts fitted & had been re-blued to new condition. Many a good honest rifle was ruined that way.

In short, my view is 'If you don't NEED to then don't. If you NEED to then do'. I don't think any fair minded person can then reasonably criticise you - at least not with any validity.

Heavens above Roger........... Rebuilding rifles is what we used to do on an almost industrial scale at our major workshops. Some of the ORP's (the Ordnance Repair Programmes) were just that, with hundreds going through at any one time. There was just such a programme with the last L42's after the L96's had started to trickle into service. Some of the tyre kickers looking for factory original - whatever that really is - ought to get out a bit more. Imagine the dispair when I read time and time again of a bolt that is 'not original' because I can see the remnains of another number underneath the ' matching' number.......... I mean....... It's like the oft mentioned saga of butt patching

Back to my darkened room...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Back to my darkened room...........

---

Ah, Peter, please don't stay in your darkened room for too long -- we love your posts, wisdom, humour, wit, and angst included ;-)

The question of what is the "right standard" for restoring a gun is one that will never be resolved, no matter how long we debate it. (Believe me, this is not just a question for gun restorers, it is a question that is similarly debated by antique furniture, auto, house, and boat restorers too. You could take all the debaters and stretch then end-to-end around the world, and they'd reach to no conclusion. (Peter, this means you may spend a lot of time in your dark room -- not something we want).

It reminds me of the debates that happened when I was restoring 300 year old houses. I'd have an open house for restoration friends who represented different "schools of thought" about what was the proper restoration approach (what era to restore back to, what authenticity of parts, etc.). These debates got so heated at time, I'd start to "bait the purists" whose philosophy, if taken to extremes, would have me living in an "authentic" 17th century home -- with a privy out back, no running water, no electricity to run my computer, and a wife who'd want me buried in the back yard.

I have my own "philosophy" and set of principles (which I won't foist on others, but will share):
1) it it's a gun, be sure it's safe if someone might shoot it in the future. If it's not safe, be sure it's marked unsafe.
2) like the armourer, use authentic parts, if available; if not available, use 1st class reproduction parts when and if necessary
3) all repairs and upgrades (like putting a better sight on a gun) should be authentic to the period
4) if the gun represents an positive evolution (i.e. a No.4 Mk1/3) retain the highest grade evolution, don't take it back to original,
except if the evolution was detrimental (such as a sporterized version), then restore to original. (believe me, this principle is always going to be controversial.)
5) if in doubt as to what to do: wait, do nothing, research, ask for opinions, and "let the gun speak to you."
6) more often than not, less is best, except when it comes to safety.
7) write a provenance of the gun -- where it came from, how I found it, and what I did to it -- so that a future collector isn't confounded, bewitched and bewildered
8) never present the restoration in a fraudulent way that would be considered a "fake" that was intended to deceive
9) restore a gun because you love the gun and the process of revitalization, not simply because it's a "money maker," (but making money doesn't hurt and isn't bad)
10) don't be afraid to take a really good restoration technique from one field and use it in a similar field if it serves preservation a hundred years or more from now.
11) spread the wealth of knowledge: share what you learned with others -- "collecting" doesn't mean "hording knowledge" -- which is why I love this Milsurps community.
12) graciously thank and acknowledge those who have contributed to your learning and your sources of insight.

This is my approach, and I'm sure everyone on this site has theirs. I find it useful to make restoration principles visible and overt, so that anyone who acquires a gun I've touched knows what went into it -- what it is, and what it isn't.

I think for many the dividing line between legitimate restorations and "fakes" is the re-serializing of parts. At least here in the US of A that seems to be the case. Sort of that I think most folks do not see an issue.

Being from the shooting side of the Enfield collecting world, adjusting the fine fits to get the rifles back to correct service bedding is something I have done many a time. To a purist I have messed with the rifles, but to me a rifle that is not adjusted for best accuracy is sort of an anachronism. Once a rifle gets to the point where accuracy is of no concern it is no longer a tool but entering the realm of a relic.

I actually know folks that think that cleaning the stock or adding linseed oil to a dry stock is altering a collectable arm. That is the true collectors and those folks by in large are not shooters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

actually know folks that think that cleaning the stock or adding linseed oil to a dry stock is altering a collectable arm. That is the true collectors and those folks by in large are not shooters

---

Well said Frederick. This is where Purists become Anal ("pure anal" -- sure sounds like an oxymoron). As a collector who is also, by profession a futurist, and by avocation an historian, I take a very long view on restoration -- from an artifact's origins, its current usage/utility, and what is going to happening to it 100 years hence.

The purely anal "preservationists" view (such as starving dry wood by withholding a nurturing drink of linseed oil) is both perverse and will actually result in the future degeneration of the artifact (which is not "preservation" but just a twisted "dust unto dust" approach to any future historian).

Frederick, I'm with you on this one -- a gun should shoot accurately. As long as the improvements don't materially alter the gun (drilling multiple mounting holes, chopping up stocks, etc.), then march forward stalwartly as the warriors did on the battle field generations before.

If we ask the question: "What will future generations think about what we did when we owned this historic weapon?" and can answer that question honourably with integrity, then we should not hesitate to take action to keep these weapons shooting accurately and properly maintained. I am delighted so many British Armourers, ardent collectors, fastidious researchers, and knowledgeable restorers have contributed to this website with their highest standards of excellence to keep the tradition alive for future generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Well said Frederick. This is where Purists become Anal ("pure anal" -- sure sounds like an oxymoron).

---

Sounds more like the title of a dodgy 'niche interest' film to me.........





Sorry for lowering the tone. My wife says I'm infantile & soooooo predictable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

In short, my view is 'If you don't NEED to then don't. If you NEED to then do'. I don't think any fair minded person can then reasonably criticise you - at least not with any validity

---

I could not have put it better myself :clap:

When I am rebuilding telescopic sights, where required I only ever use modern seals, lubricants. If I have parts remanufactured I don't even hesitate to do so - using modern materials too! And I would never, ever stake the turret screws over either!

Off the subject a tad but as Armourers, we would stake screws, bolts or nuts to keep them secure. Indeed, that's the very reason, say, band screws are countersunk. (Don't believe me....., just look...) So we could secure them with a light centre punch. I bet that nobody would be so foolhardy now!

I think all this has touched on a salient question, namely - at what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"?

Parts guns have their place, especially if the owner is fully aware of its status - but I also worry that 20-odd years down the track guns like that are going to end up on the market as "arsenal rebuilds"; not due to any deliberately misleading conduct but just because someone will come across an old rifle with a series of parts from different eras ("That's definitely not a WWII barrel and there's no way that wood is that old either, but the action says 1942...") and conclude that, well, obviously as parts wore out they were replaced - but without realising it was done (by a previous owner and not the military) 75 years after WWII ended, not 75 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Enfield

at what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"? Parts guns have their place, especially if the owner is fully aware of its status - but I also worry that 20-odd years down the track guns like that are going to end up on the market as "arsenal rebuilds"; not due to any deliberately misleading conduct but just because someone will come across an old rifle with a series of parts from different eras

---

Well stated Colonel. This is already a problem. I have two Enfields, both which were bought out of surplus after FTR by Parker Hale, which did upgrades and restampings on them. These were probably done in the late 1940s or 1950s. I cannot tell what PH did and what was an arsenal repair. Maybe this isn't a big deal for these guns, but it begs your question: what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"?

This is why the historian in me compels me to document all the changes to the gun and scroll it into the butt stock hole where the (typically) missing oiler and cleaning gear was stowed.

Exactly Colonel......... ALL, every last one of the weapons that pass through our large workshops are just that when they get to the Out Inspectors bench. Robbie Robertson, bless him! Parts guns. The only parts that stayed together were the barrel, body, bolt and fore-end. And without doubt, in some cases with some tired and worn/shot-out old dogs, it was just the body, the master component that was original!

I have mentioned many times before of No5 woodwork through the Ordnance system in the mid to late 60's was obviously converted from No4 fore-ends and butts. It's just something that is real life and we need to accept. I suppose that the current classic example is L42's with modified/converted No8 handguards! That's how they were....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

ALL, every last one of the weapons that pass through our large workshops are just that when they get to the Out Inspectors bench. Robbie Robertson, bless him! Parts guns. The only parts that stayed together were the barrel, body, bolt and fore-end. And without doubt, in some cases with some tired and worn/shot-out old dogs, it was just the body, the master component that was original!

---

Gentlemen, thanks for this dialogue. Captain, perhaps you and Roger and the Colonel and Brian and Buccaneer and Beerhunter and others have (at least for me) begun to use this thread to map set of standards that might move us past this hurdle of "what is" and "what isn't." Since a large number of Lee Enfields underwent some form of repair (sometimes extensive) and Nitro-proofing before going into civil ownership, then nearly every gun (with the exception of the unissued or unused guns) is more than likely to some extent a "parts" gun -- something has been replaced or repaired and tested.

Then let me propose (just a starting draft) what a simple "Milsurp Standard" for Enfields might be:
1) Refurbished/Restored to British Armourer's Standards for FTR (i.e. all parts within spec and 80% life expectancy)
2) No Serial Number finagling
3) Changes made only when needed or were normal in FTR (i.e. no extraneous changes, such as converting a regular issue gun to a sniper or Jungle Carbine)
4) Before and After printed documentation of the restoration

Those of us who restore guns can state: "RESTORED TO MILSURP STANDARDS established by British Armourers for the 21st century." As Colonel Enfield remarked: openly acknowledge the rifle has been through a "Commercial Thorough Refurb" ["CTR"]

Please add your thoughts.

This might evolve into a new thread on proposed "Milsurp Restoration Standards" that will be an informal certified Standard of Excellence that many of you already adhere to, but is not written down and codified for future generations. I know many of you have these standards in your heads, have been trained in applying them, and admonish us when we don't meet those standards. A short codification of the standards & general principles might be helpful (God forbid it shouldn't look like government regs or ISO standards). Sort of a 21st century version of the British Armourer's Manual. Captain Laidler's expert Knowledge Library could be the start of such a Next Generation Armourer's Restoration Manual & Standards of Excellence.

In the appendix we could put serial number data, deciphering Enfield markings, how to spot a fake, identifying types of wood, tips & techniques: when to use more modern techniques, such as using modern seals, lubricants, using Loctite instead of staking screws & nuts over, using BLO instead of RLO, etc.

Most of what I'm proposing is already in the Milsurps library of threads, but often scattered (with the exception of Captain Laidler's knowledge library.

What do you masters/experts think?

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination Sea Spriter. Not a term I would freely use. I prefer the phrase '..... just know a little bit more than the average Joe'.

I'll go ofdf one one of my tangents again. Well, it is a dreary Sunday here in Oxford...... ! was at a Crown Court a couple of years ago and listened to a couple of Barristers discussing the subject of 'expert witnesses' one was calling*. Very interesting......... There's the experts by definition of their trade or calling, those by virtue of their time served in a particular craft, the graduates in such fields as mechanical engineers, aeronauticss, metallurgists, wood experts etc etc...., you know the stuff. And there's the new 'subject matter experts' - whatever that is! And then there's the 'I've read a few/plenty/lots of books' experts. From what they said and my sisters time as one of them (now retired) I'll just stick to being 'knows a bit more than the average joe sort of people'.
* He was absolutely hopeless as it transpired.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination

---

Ah, the words of a true master. Humbleness is a sign of deep wisdom. Only a master knows how much he still has to learn, but is still willing to share his knowledge, understanding it is always short of full insight.

As an expert in a totally unrelated field to yours, I too acknowledge I have accumulated much knowledge but still have a journey of learning that will, unfortunately, never be fulfilled in the limited time I have in this life.

That said, the collective wisdom of those I think of as "experts" (your humble admonition acknowledged) is at it's zenith now. The next generation of Enfield enthusiasts will never have the experience base of those that are currently contributing. Codifying both technical knowledge and deeper wisdom will never be more opportune that this moment in time -- this is as good as it gets. I implore you of such great experience to take this idea of a Next Generation Armourer's Restoration Manual to heart. A decade from now we will be on the wane as age shows no mercy -- the march of time shows no compassion; opportunity is offered only to those who seek it and capitalize upon it.

I started this thread as a bit of a personal rant over what I perceived to be the destruction of a piece of history in able to produce a "pretty" rifle. A comment has been made to the effect that if a rifle does not shoot well then it is just a relic, buts that's just the point these rifles ARE relics and history books as well if you know what to look for, if you change things just to improve the rifles looks then you are bound to destroy part of it's history.
In general these rifles were never designed or built to be anything other than battle rifles capable of hitting a body mass at a reasonable distance when placed in the hands of your common crunchie, they can of course be made to achieve some very impressive results but they were never going to be tack drivers.
I fully appreciate the enormous lengths that some people go to to bring a "lost cause" back from the scrap heap but as Roger Payne has already said if something does not need changing then don't change it.
I have in my collection a 1904 dated Sht LE ConD MkII** N, it started life as a LSA & Co 1897 LE MkI, it has been fitted with a new barrel but that was only because the old barrel was in such poor condition the rifle would have failed proof which would have meant either de act or scrap and that really would have been a crime.The rest of the rifle remains as it was, the woodwork shows every knock and ding put there over the years by everyone who has every handled it but that is all part of its history, I would no more consider changing the wood work to improve its looks than I would take a sander to an antique table top to "restore" its original finish.
I hope that one day when my tempory ownership of this rifle passes to someone else that they see it for what it is, a quite rare and fairly battered old war horse that deserves to be looked after and not messed with as I suspect the people whose comments I overheard at the Phoenix show would have done.
Enjoy the history that is passing through your hands treat it with respect and hope that those who follow us do the same thing.

Talking of delelict things, I did the exact opposite. Not comparing like with like, but I purchased a totally rusted out fit for scrap 1969 Mini Cooper in 1983. Rebuilt it to new standard - eventually - over a 3 year period. But the notion that I would ever use cad plated nuts and bolts, cellulose paint or use anything else that would rot, tarnish or rust out in true BMC/Leyland fashion never even entered my head. All stainless steel nuts and bolts, same with the bracketry........, all stainless made new with modern paint too. As for the old Lucas (=Loads of Unconnected Crap And Solder) AC 'prince of darkness' alternator. Stripped and assemled in old casing but with modern guts machined to fit. Ain't original but it's already lasted longer than the original car!

OK, now it's my turn for a rant!

I shoot old rifles. Some of them very old. Some of them look like wrecks - on the outside. The insides are a different matter! Many would be sneered at by collectors. But they all work. I invest some time and trouble to achieve this, and share the methods with people on these forums.

If part is defective, I will repair it or (rarely) replace it with an original part. Basically, I will carry out what I regard as proper maintenance (like oiling a dry stock). But not pretty it up to increase it's decorative value. The aim is to keep the gun functioning as a gun, not as antique decoration.

Swapping out properly functioning parts merely to achieve an imagined "correctness" is IMHO falsification. Take a close look at the M1 (carbine and Garand) forums to see how the "numbers game" can become obsessive. Thanks to the efforts of the "matchmakers" there must be a higher percentage of "all original and correct" rifles around now than there were when they were in service use, as the matchmakers busy themselves to undo the work of Peter Laidler and his colleagues around the world.

Force-matching numbers on replaced parts is totally non-functional, and has the character of forgery, as it is the falsification of documentary evidence (the number). There is no excuse for this whatsoever.

I am not a collector. I am not running a museum. I am not saving them for posterity. Posterity is a person I am never going to meet, and will have to look after himself. But posterity will reap the advantage of the work I have done in making and keeping these old bangers operational, instead of just hoarding them.

Collectors who, with misplaced pride, write "I have just acquired my 99th 4T (or whatever)" are not doing anything useful for the shooting community. They are, again IMHO, being dogs in the manger and preventing 98 other people from being able to shoot one of these rifles.

And then they have the temerity to complain that prices are rising - when they themselves are the price drivers!

Sorry collectors, I know this is unfair to some of you who are serious students of the material, and hereby apologize to those who feel unjustly criticized. But all too many appear to be hoarders. And this is merely the opinion of a serious shooter, so you can ignore it!

Well said Patrick.

I too get rather angry with hoarders. If you have 5 or six different No 4Ts and can use them to illustrate the development of the rifle or any other differences that's fine but if they are otherwise basically the same then I agree it's just hoarding. Don't get me started on a certain gent who has too much money and just buys up Fosberrys so that he has the 'Largest Collection'. As to a 'Restored Standard' it's a lovely idea but will not happen when there is desire for something. The reason, because desire = money. Money = rogues. One just has to look at the Classic Car market over the last 40 or so years. Mark II Jaguars where the only Jag parts were the engine and VIN plates the rest being Daimler. A Multi million pound Bentley that became a multi million court case. Right through to fake cardboard boxes for dinky toys. This did lead to some of the auction houses and the FIA getting some protocols sorted out but that in itself pushed costs up. We could ask Capt Laidler and a few others to write the guidelines for restored / repaired rifles but unless you have someone who can verify or police the market you cannot enforce it. What you have to do is A) Not join in the Bright and Shiny Market B) Avoid the Bullshit Market C) Learn as much as possible from RELIABLE sources and most importantly d) Teach newcomers how to avoid A) and B) and who to trust when doing C).

Don't worry gents, when these so called hoarders die, there'll be plenty for everyone.

Unfortunately the B-----d is a lot younger than me :thdown::thdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Collectors who, with misplaced pride, write "I have just acquired my 99th 4T (or whatever)" are not doing anything useful for the shooting community. They are, again IMHO, being dogs in the manger and preventing 98 other people from being able to shoot one of these rifles.

And then they have the temerity to complain that prices are rising - when they themselves are the price drivers!

Sorry collectors, I know this is unfair to some of you who are serious students of the material, and hereby apologize to those who feel unjustly criticized. But all too many appear to be hoarders. And this is merely the opinion of a serious shooter, so you can ignore it!

---

Patrick, everything above this bit is spot on and I agree. To the above part quoted, I do not take offense. I will say though, if I have to replace a part, or, during a sporter restoration I have the choice of parts sitting in front of me in a draw....I'm going with the correctly "marked" one. If I don't have the choice, then so be it, it gets what I have on hand. Apart from re-numbering serial numbered parts, to include the un-fitted forestock, who cares if someone changes out a rusty or pitted band, trigger guard, etc...? If you own a Savage rifle with a glossy black F48 marked middle band and you decide to change it out for a Savage marked one, you would be wrong? How do you know the shop owner didn't swipe the original band for himself ? Or, a friend? No one could know that.

I understand the implied impact that's trying to be expressed here and to a degree... I agree with it. I wouldn't know where to draw the lines or rules but I imagine that can be worked out. I understand you are a shooter and accept the fact that you don't understand the idea of collecting. I think the word "hoarding" gives that away :) Does it matter if someone is a serious student of the subject or merely enjoys the collecting aspect of a given interest in order to have a large collection ? I think not, collecting rifles is the same as any other thing you can possibly think of that can be collected. A degree of care and maintenance is required for all collectibles and I know the same degree of fake and forgery goes along with it all. I think the first thing that has to between collectors and shooters is a better mutual respect and understanding.

As someone with a few Lee Enfields I have no problem with enthusiasts having multiples of any gun including T's. I have worked hard to find some and worked hard to be able to buy what I have. I in no way consider myself to be a hoarder, have always LOVED Lee Enfields and will continue to buy them when one I want is available.

I understand the thought of someone having too many in some peoples minds however I have had a few friends with unbelievable collections of guns/militaria. Both were good people and never overpaid for items, they just worked diligently finding what they wanted.

I am old, my son who is probably a more dedicated gun nut than I am gets all of them. His decision on what to do with them will not be my concern...LOL

David, our positions are not as different as you might think. Of course, "if I have to replace a part, or, during a sporter restoration I have the choice of parts sitting in front of me in a draw....I'm going with the correctly "marked" one. If I don't have the choice, then so be it, it gets what I have on hand." BUT to renumber that part is to falsify it. And functionally unnecessary. Ergo faking.

"If you own a Savage rifle with a glossy black F48 marked middle band and you decide to change it out for a Savage marked one, you would be wrong? How do you know the shop owner didn't swipe the original band for himself ? Or, a friend? No one could know that."

Of course no one can know. And undoing Bubba's work is perfectly legitimate. The Enfield No.8 that I recently used in a BR50 competition (beating about 100k-worth of modern high-tech in the process) was a sporterized example when I got it, already drilled and tapped for a scope. I fitted it out with original parts, and it is now a top-class rifle. But I am not pretending that it came thus from the factory.

My other No.8 (oops, what have I been writing about multiple copies!?!) is fitted with a No.4 butt-stock. It looks great, but I was worried that this was a bit of Bubba's work. Fortunately, Peter Laidler assured me that No.8s were indeed occasionally fitted out in this manner, so I have left it as it was when I got it, as there is no functional need to change it, and use it for shooting with the original sights. But it is a perfect example of the "arsenal? armorer? Bubba?" dilemma when confronted with obviously non ex-factory parts. Please note non ex-factory, not non-original. The butt is an original part, but did not leave the factory on that rifle.

So I think I do understand collecting. And the tendency to hoard. Serious collectors have made major contributions to our knowledge in the form of books and forum contributions. But I could show you a collection in a castle that contains multiple copies of the same types - and it is all suffering from rust, as the owner appears to be unable to care for it all. That really is disappointing. As to use of the word "hoarders", I stick by that. Acquiring multiple copies of the same type is hoarding, but the hoarders want to dignify their activity as collecting, and in this way are downgrading serious collecting.

So what is serious collecting? It would be interesting to hear a few viewpoints on that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

So I think I do understand collecting.
So what is serious collecting?

---

I would class myself as a "serious collector" but i cannot answer the question as i do not know the actual answer, i do know it's a forever evolving pursuit & it can be the smallest of details that will separate 2 of the "same type"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Acquiring multiple copies of the same type is hoarding, but the hoarders want to dignify their activity as collecting, and in this way are downgrading serious collecting. So what is serious collecting?

---

Excellent question Patrick. Let me throw out some possible distinctions:

"Collecting is the acquisition, accurate/authentic/ethical refurbishment, historical research, and sharing of knowledge of a variety of one or more "species" (e.g. Enfields, Springfields, Colts, Mausers etc.) Because collectors are interested acquiring both guns and wisdom, they tend to be collaborative in nature (hence being drawn to a website like this).

"Hoarding is the obsessive-compulsive acquisition of any species for the insatiable purpose of owning more and more and more, without the intent of restoration or sharing the results of historical research or knowledge." Hoarders, being obsessive-compulsive, often are paranoid, thus tend to be isolationists and seldom share their knowledge or wisdom with others.

"Faking is the purposeful changing of a gun's configuration with the intent to deceive another future owner for the unethical production of profit or fame." Fakers, because they are unethical, work in dark corners or, if public, engage in a false façade. When they gather knowledge, it's for the purpose of being a better defrauder.

Let me also say that there is not necessarily/inherently any division or contrary purpose between "collectors" and "shooters." Many of us are both (e.g. Fredrick 303 on this thread is an ardent researcher/collector and target shooter), or primarily one and secondarily the other. Many shooters are great restorers of guns because they know shooting was the purpose of the gun in the first place. There is nothing inherently contrary or contradictory between these two distinctions. It is only when a "shooter" is also a "bubba" that a problem arises.

BTW, there is, in my mind, a distinction between a "bubba" and a "bignorant." A "bubba" is an ignorant, egotistical bozo who insists on doing the wrong thing and resists any knowledge or insight that is contrary to their erroneous view of the world. A "bubba" is akin to being "stupid," whilst a "bignorant" is an individual prone to making big mistakes because they are ignorant, but well meaning, usually repeating the mistakes of a bubba who erroneously insisted they were doing the right thing. Bignorants typically perpetuate myths, but, upon being exposed to enlightenment, will humbly acknowledge their mistakes and reform to the straight and narrow path provided by more knowledgeable mentors.

The idea of having "Standards" is to create a difference between paucity/mediocrity on the one hand and superiority on the other to foster "excellence." Standards do not necessarily have to be "laws" that need "enforcement." The standards that would fit best in our situation are more like "Principles" of refurbishment -- principles are not like laws (each of which stand alone and independent); principles are guidelines that must be taken holistically, applied judiciously, and balanced to fit the unique situations that emerge with every restoration. Principles are far more flexible and adaptable to circumstances than laws.

What is important about having standards is that standards actually generate trust, reliability, and integrity in circumstances where ambiguity, uncertainty, ignorance, confusion, and paradox prevail.

I wonder if I am a hoarder? In my defence, none of my Boer Mausers are identical - their serial numbers are different...

Some very good definitions by Seaspriter. They certainly help me to clarify my thoughts. May I suggest that it is also helpful to distinguish between the parts and the whole? The word "original", for instance, is frequently used in an ambiguous sense. This results in awkwardness when evaluating some of the rifles photographically presented for our inspection and evaluation.

Starting point:
As made by the factory = original part
As assembled by the factory = ex-factory = original configuration of an original rifle
If configuration was altered = no longer original configuration or original rifle
If configuration retrospectively altered to match ex-factory condition = original configuration, but not original rifle.

Already it starts to get a little grey. I propose avoiding the loose use of "original", and sticking to "ex-factory rifle" to mean "as it left the factory". This refers to the entire assembly of parts, not the quality and condition of the surface finish, which will, in general, have significantly deteriorated by comparison with the "out of the wrap" condition.

However, as the primary function of an armorer is to ensure that the rifles function properly, the proportion of ex-factory rifles in this sense must inevitably decline in service. What bothers us is what happens to the guns after their service life has ended. And it is clear that after a while it is impossible to say in all cases who made an alteration. The "part of it's history" argument sometimes seems to be a cop-out to avoid making a decision, but is also often valid. Is the No.4 butt on my No.8 a "part of it's history" or the work of John Q. Bubba? In such cases, it is IMHO proper to leave it alone if you are not very sure.

So we then have:
Ex-factory = a rifle with all components in the same configuration as they left the factory, nothing having been replaced. Common in beat-up condition, but rarer and rarer in increasingly good condition.
Original configuration = all original parts from the same date/series and in the same configuration as for the rifle when it was delivered ex-factory, but not all from the same rifle, some or more having been replaced. Very common.
Non-original configuration = original parts used for replacement, but some from later versions/series. Very common in order to get an old banger working again.
Returned to original configuration = more and more common as the matchmakers continue their work, but this does not create an original ex-factory rifle. And the matchmakers seem to prefer to ignore the "returned" aspect.

Original part, but original number erased and new number applied = a forged number on what has thereby become a faked part. Very, very common in the world of Mausers and especially Lugers, where some people apparently "Buy the numbers, not the gun"and unmarked original parts from old factory spares stocks can be sold for a hefty premium. Saves having to scrub the old number before force-matching the new part, doesn't it?

Yes, it's all shades of grey. The only thread of logic that I have been able to follow to my own satisfaction is that alterations that are not functionally necessary can easily be the start of a progression of falsification through faking and forgery to fraud. Avoid the F-words!


Any thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Gentlemen, thanks for this dialogue. Captain, perhaps you and Roger and the Colonel and Brian and Buccaneer and Beerhunter and others have (at least for me) begun to use this thread to map set of standards that might move us past this hurdle of "what is" and "what isn't." Since a large number of Lee Enfields underwent some form of repair (sometimes extensive) and Nitro-proofing before going into civil ownership, then nearly every gun (with the exception of the unissued or unused guns) is more than likely to some extent a "parts" gun -- something has been replaced or repaired and tested.

---

For me - and despite my username, I have no military experience; I am just a well-read student of British Empire and its arms with plenty still to learn - the key thing in differentiating a parts gun from a refurbished arm is "who replaced the parts, why, and when?"

It goes without saying (at least in my opinion) that parts replaced by military or police armourers during the arm's service life do not compromise the historic integrity of the gun - and often adds to it, as for example with a Martini-Henry which was later converted to a Martini-Enfield.

But, if significant parts were replaced with "new" bits (even "correct" new bits) after a gun left service, then it's a different kettle of fish (with exceptions for trivial things like screws and sling swivels etc)

As an example: I would not classify a full-wood SMLE with only a post-service replacement barrel (even a New Old Stock or brand new one) as a "parts gun". Ditto a restored sporterised SMLE which has retained its original barrel but has "new" woodwork.

But an SMLE which has a post-service replacement barrel AND a replacement stock? I'd probably consider that a "parts gun", since at that point pretty much the only "original" parts left in it are the action and the magazine and it has no history behind it anymore.

It's still an SMLE, of course - replacing the barrel and the woodwork doesn't change that - but just as if you have a restored Model T Ford where the only "original" parts left in it are the steering wheel, the windscreen, and the dashboard; then I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convinving anyone it's an historic car - even if it's been completely and lovingly restored with care and patience to almost the same condition it rolled out of the factory in.

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

I should also stress that I don't see anything wrong with taking a sporterised/broken/bitser rifle and refurbishing it to "as-new(ish)" condition so it can be used for target shooting or hunting; to the contrary I might even call that a noble and worthy undertaking.

But I believe the critical thing is that the restorer be open about what's been done, and that it's been done to recreate/restore a vintage rifle for modern, practical use - rather than passing it off as a rare Rhodesian Commando Marksman's Rifle which belonged to the grandfather of a friend of a friend who fought in the Mau Mau uprising.

I thought this deserved a fairly comprehensive reply as well so split it from my earlier reply re: Commercial Thorough Refurbishment of rifles; I hope nobody minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

So I think I do understand collecting. And the tendency to hoard. Serious collectors have made major contributions to our knowledge in the form of books and forum contributions. But I could show you a collection in a castle that contains multiple copies of the same types - and it is all suffering from rust, as the owner appears to be unable to care for it all. That really is disappointing. As to use of the word "hoarders", I stick by that. Acquiring multiple copies of the same type is hoarding, but the hoarders want to dignify their activity as collecting, and in this way are downgrading serious collecting.

So what is serious collecting? It would be interesting to hear a few viewpoints on that!

---

When I think of "Serious Collectors", I think of the guys who have collections rivalling some established arms museums, including examples of multiple types of rare and very expensive guns. They know exactly what the guns are, how they fit into their overall collection theme, they know the history of their guns and they care for them and look after them. Being a "Serious Collector" is not a bad thing, even if it involves far more discretionary spending money than most of us are ever likely to see this side of a Lotto win or Ocean's 11-style casino heist.

I think a useful rule of thumb separating a collector from a hoarder is the willingness of someone to pass on the gun if it doesn't fit their "theme" - and also whether they're buying an item to stop someone else getting it.

If offered a 1942 Lithgow SMLE Mk III* in decent condition, a collector - who may already have a WWII Lithgow SMLE Mk III* - might very well pass on it if it doesn't enhance their collection; but that's a decision for each collector to make based on their collecting interests, themes, and a host of other factors too numerous to get into in this post without making your eyes glaze over in boredom*. The particularly community-minded collector may even call other people that he knows to alert them of the rifle they have passed on, should it be of interest to them.

I would suggest that a hoarder, however, will treat old rifles like Pokemon and buy it because "they've gotta catch 'em all" - or worse, because if they don't buy it, someone else might** and it's a short step from that to the impurifaction of our precious bodily essences by Communism.

The problem, though, is that people with huge and expensive collections have worked hard to get where they are and I don't think they should be denigrated for their hard work and acumen.

But, as has been noted, there's a point where so much potential collecting stock ends up becoming unavailable to the average enthusiast. In the case of military surplus rifles, this has flow-on effects because it stops younger people getting involved in the hobby - especially as shooters - because even an entry-level gun costs large sums of money which they don't have or don't see the value in spending.

A few years ago it was still possible to get a garden-variety Lithgow WWII SMLE Mk III* in decent, shootable condition for about AUD$350. Not dirt cheap, but not unfeasible or aspirational, either. Now they're going for ever-increasing sums of money and I've seen them selling for around AUD$750 if they've got a decent bore, which is frankly silly. A young person who's bought an old army rifle for AUD$250 is likely to be driven to learn more about it, discover its history, maybe get another one... and we have another member of the Imperial Society of Learned, Relaxed and Very Impartial Military Rifle Enthusiasts.

Nowadays, a younger person is only going to drop AUD$750 (and I sure as hell didn't have a lazy AUD$750 lying about to buy rifles when I was 21, which wasn't all that long ago) on an old military rifle if they're already certain they're interested in them - such as from shooting a friend or relative's rifle.

I don't really know what the solution is, though. Each collection is different and there are many cromulent reasons to have dozens of seemingly identical rifles; I'd loathe to create a situation where anyone who surpasses an undefined by magic number of "identical" guns (their identicality similarly ill-defined) suddenly becomes a hoarder who must be shunned.

*Is he still talking? Yes, Other Barry, he certainly is...
*Dramatic Chord

Colonel and Patrick: Thanks for those lucid insights. You've really helped me understand the nuances.

Colonel, your point that others too have raised actually leads to another distinction:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Enfield

there's a point where so much potential collecting stock ends up becoming unavailable to the average enthusiast. In the case of military surplus rifles, this has flow-on effects because it stops younger people getting involved in the hobby - especially as shooters - because even an entry-level gun costs large sums of money which they don't have or don't see the value in spending.

---

"Market Manipulators:" These are hoarders who buy up existing stocks of specific types of guns and rare parts, thus limiting open-market supply for the purpose of manipulating prices for personal gain in markets where demand is expected to rise. We've all seen this -- someone with money buying up scopes, or a particular model of gun, or a limited supply part (magazines, sights, etc.) then dribbling the supply back into the open market (on flea-bay for example) at a significantly higher price.

"Compulsive Hoarder" is an obsessive-compulsive aggregator of weapons who buys more and more and more for the purpose of feeding a gluttonous personal appetite.

"Malicious Hoarder" aggregates massive amounts of weapons because the will not allow others to own what they obsessively must have for themselves -- another person's gain is their personal loss.

I am likely the youngest (or one of the youngest) collector(s) on this board that it is fairly difficult to get into Milsurps from a beginner standpoint.

It took a fair bit of trial and error (a lot more error, sometimes with little bit of luck to actually end up with something I like at a fair price) to find out what I wanted to collect and what to look for. Having no one to show me anything about Milsurps really made it difficult to get into it, the way I started was with the current (as in at the moment it is cheap might not be so in the future) gateway Milsurps, the Soviet firearms. The advantages I have on my side for collecting (which all my generation have) is the fact the internet exists and there is tons of information on the various firearms. The problems are that leads to cost inflation (if someone sees certain firearms selling for 400$ and they were selling it at 300$ guess what they are going to sell it at now), and it also can provide poor information (and if you don't know how to tell the difference that can be a problem). From a realistic standpoint it is hard to get certain examples but that is what makes it somewhat enjoyable, having to wait for the right rifle at the right price.

Early on in collecting I was buying everything I saw, it was a bit of a rush, getting to take apart and see all these different firearms. Now I have calmed down, I wait for the right example and I also know what specifically I have a interest in (which is still everything, I just have a priority list). For me it took over 40 rifles to learn what I wanted and what to look for (though I have passed most of them on at this point). I almost wish there was like a collectors group where people can meet up and share information go over different rifles in person just so people can get a feel for them.

In regards to the repairing firearms, I get fixing/replacing parts if it is broken. What I don't get is replacing stuff because something else might look better or this was the 'original' configuration (it was only factory correct once maybe, and that was leaving the factory). The only time I see it as acceptable to do a complete overhaul is when you have a sporter and you decide to restore it back to military configuration.

The prices on some things are getting ridiculous for example in Canada, M1 Garands they tend to go for 1200$ for a crap one all the way to 2000$ for a mixmaster someone made in there backyard. In fact the prices have resulted in this garden market of people manufacturing there own M1 Garands because the supply isn't there at the moment (which I know is due to mostly people hoarding firearms rather than there being none, 15 years ago they sold for 200-300$ they shouldn't be at 1500$ for the same rifle).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Enfield

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

---

This is a nice idea but not so easy here in the UK where each extra barrel or bolt requires a variation to your firearms certificate. In theory it is possible but in practice I can see problems if you tried to retain more than a small number.

Regarding replacement of wood and barrels it is quite possible that there could be 40 or 50 years between say the replacement of wood and when the shot out barrel may be replaced. This could happen in or out of military service. To me the fitting of a replacement barrel is entirely justified to keep the rifle shooting. A huge number of WW1 smle rifles were re barrelled whilst still in service during the 1920s and 30s. They may not be factory original but they are most certainly service original.

I have a simple set of standards. When I sell a rifle restored by me it gets advertised as BDL FTR. When I replace parts, I DO try to put parts that would have been assembled as original at the factory providing I have them. The ONLY reason for this is the anal retentiveness of TOO MANY collectors. Certainly not because it's practical. If I don't have the so called "correct" parts. I use the next best part in the bin as it should have been done in the first place! I just finished cleaning up and test firing a Greek FTR '44 date Long Branch that is a perfect example of "right as rain" but not good enough for many of the hopelessly anal collectors out there. God forbid, it sports an F51 barrel that gauges in near new condition, an obviously renumbered bolt, deep black dip blue finish, a few other Fazakerley parts to include the safety and Mk.1 rear sight, and a mixture of birch and beech woodwork that matches reasonably well. It looks just as it should and shoots even better!

I have a 1917 Lithgow that I bought in sporterized condition. In bringing it back to something like original condition, I used Lithgow parts when I could, but none are "numbers matching". I also used a combination of a NOS forend and used British front handguard. It's a bitser/mixmaster that no-one would ever be fooled into thinking was "as issued". But it does, to my eye, look a lot better than when I bought it. My intent was to learn as I went with an already much-abused old sporter, and it went well. I learned a lot about Enfields and a little about myself, too.

For something like my rifle, I prefer the term "rebuilt" rather than "restored".

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...451d7a66-1.jpg

I will write up a short blurb about the rifle to be inserted into the butt.

An interesting thread..... off topic a bit ( totally out of character for this forum) but to me the whole thread revolves around honesty and a bit of knowledge.

Back to post #1, The main concern from Buccaneer was the misleading info an RFD was giving out, I,ve bought a few rifles in the past and have been told all kinds of story etc, a few examples

1) A rifle I,d spotted on Gunstar, the pics were spot on I emailed the dealer and the deal was done, I was told it shoots fine..... I could never understand this bit, as the firing pin (it was a SMLE .22) was broke. !!!! but was an excellent example of a rifle.

2) A No1 Mk V described as all original, only original part was the body...... returned ASAP and the dealer said I knew nothing (maybe true but I can tell a Nock up No1 MkV a mile away) wasn't even willing to do a pick up. ( a real T**T as far I,m concerned)

3) A Mauser target rifle described as slightly pitted..... the body was total scrap, kept the barrel and timber and cut the body. (the fact this could of been sold to a FAC holder makes me cringe, the thought of home loads packed to the gunnels with powder....... ) not worth sending back as the I,d loose too much on the postage.


4) A rare SMLE that was a total knock up and sent back..... fair enough to the dealer he went out the way to get as much info on the rifle and its past , it belonged to Chris Barber.......

There are more but back to the rifle in (4) the dealer didn't know anything and was going by a description that come with the rifle I can't fault him for that and I should of learned by now to get more pics or go and see it..... as for the rest in the above just blatant lies......


I,m not going to say it will never happen again as it will, but when I see something now I tend to proceed with caution, with certain questions and get more pics etc and if in doubt pull out.

Rebuilt, Re finished, restored etc, I,ve rebuilt quite a few things in the past (some bits on the restorers forum) all of these etc are or were for me, I posted them to show what can be done etc on a budget, most recent was a scope can that I repaired and re finished....... I probably saved half of what they sell for on ebay, the most expensive thing I bought for this was the rivets.... is it original ( I,m not ar**d to be honest) it is a scope can that does its job a lot better now than when I first bought it, has had a proper repair and finished as it would of been in service if I was to ever sell it that would be my sales pitch.

As for hoarding or collecting, I always classed myself as more of a hoarder than a collector until I read the description of the hoarder....

I don't have 98 No4 t's, (have two) one being rebuilt which was just a barrelled action, so no good for the anal collector, but does that make me a bad collector ??

"I say, he's not one of those 3rd class collector chaps is he"

and as for the pic, is this collecting or hoarding ??? :lol:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fb82abf2-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

as for the pic, is this collecting or hoarding ???

---

BigDuke, you are NOT a hoarder, so rest easy. You certainly qualify as an "ardent collector" who has been more than generous in your +1,000 posts. These many contributions attest to your generosity and willingness to contribute as well as learn. Thanks for all your insights.

Reading another thread from Roger Payne, he makes another collector distinction:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

It may sound a little self serving to my wife, but I always argue that in buying collectable rifles, scopes etc., I am not really spending the money in the sense of it being gone forever (like in spending it on an exotic holiday - very nice but nothing left afterwards other than a rapidly fading tan & some snap shots), but just converting it into another form. Some people do it by turning money into gold, jewellery, or Chippendale furniture; we do it by converting our money into Lee Enfields. If you buy wisely you can always get your money back, if not make a profit, as & when you need to. And of course you have the pleasure of owning them in the meantime.

---

So he thus defines another category: the "Investor-Collector" who, although passionate about the collection's historical significance, also realizes that the collection is not squandering but a long-term investment, just like antiques, or stocks, etc. I confess my collection of antique paintings, furniture, and now just one old car (which are in daily use) are both a love of art and craftsmanship and history, while also and a good investment of money -- each appreciates every year. (Just try buying a new piece of furniture or a car today and see what it's worth 10 years from now!)

While this thread may have wandered a bit from Buccaneer's first thoughts, for me at least, it has been a very worthwhile evolution and refinement of my thinking about what's the best way to have high standards in our avocations and, for some, our professions. Good job mates -- keep the thoughts coming.

The sad fact is that surplus rifles were only cheap when they were surplus. Now, except for the last mother load of Indian Enfields (~900,000) there are no large stocks to be sold cheap. Only way to get one is to have a fellow sell you his, and so prices are going up to reflect that. Prices are not excessive if we look at what new arms retail for , heck you can still get a used complete Enfield in the eastern part of the United States for between 300 and 400 dollars, when a new commercial barrel is a 350 dollar item.

As for hoarders, well they will be the source of decent rifles that can be fired in 50 years. I suppose while it might be sad for fellows that want to play around with them today for a cheap price, they young men in the year 2065 that want to buy a shootable 1915 BSA or a New 1955 Fazakerley will be glad there were some hoarders in the last 100 years that bought but did not shoot these rifles. in any case as the years go by all these neat rifles were be fired less and less anyway, just the way it is. All things made by men go from being tools to relics. if you had a like new condition Colt 1860 revolver today you would not shoot it, if Enfield rifles still can garner interest in 50 years there will likely be an Italian company making some sort of reproduction that you can shoot.

This rifle illustrates the "was is Bubba or was it official" dilemma perfectly:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ht=Fianna+Fail

Thanks to the knowhow on this forum (and thanks again to Frederick and Peter) I now know that it was indeed an official makeover, and not Bubba. And until I knew, I avoided doing anything to it - apart from removing the horrible varnish, which definitely was Bubba. That was a tricky one: some aspects (new barrel, renumbered, extended butt) were part of it's history, the thick layer of varnish was not.

In other words, the most important aspect is knowledge. You need that before applying the knowhow. Otherwise it is possible to fall into the trap described by a delightfully compact German word "Verschlimmbesserung" - making it worse by trying to make it better.

I doubt that we will arrive at an internationally recognised "standard", but at least we are trying to clear the fog. I particularly like Seaspriter's term "malicious hoarders" !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Thanks to the knowhow on this forum (and thanks again to Frederick and Peter) I now know that it was indeed an official makeover, and not Bubba. And until I knew, I avoided doing anything to it - apart from removing the horrible varnish, which definitely was Bubba. That was a tricky one: some aspects (new barrel, renumbered, extended butt) were part of it's history, the thick layer of varnish was not.

In other words, the most important aspect is knowledge. You need that before applying the knowhow. Otherwise it is possible to fall into the trap described by a delightfully compact German word "Verschlimmbesserung" - making it worse by trying to make it better.

---

Patrick, I like your insights in this post (as well as the others). While we might not arrive at an "international standard," there is definitely a lot of convergence among forum members about a large number of key "principles of restoration" and some common definitions that could definitely help "clear the fog of ambiguity and uncertainty" that introduces risk and confusion into the equation of buying and restoring guns. Keep the ideas flowing.

I've enjoyed this thread, apologies to Buccaneer for is meandering off coarse a bit but I think it's well worth the diversion it has taken. The foundations of it are integrity and moral accountability, which are liken to the type of folks I prefer associating with.

To the points and templates being suggested for a "defined" manual of categories for restoration and or repair, I say it's a very noble thought and very well defines the character of those proposing ideas to keep everyone above the board. Unfortunately, I fear it will only be as long lived as the next owner will allow. Personally, I would do any one of the suggested Ideas and have always done so with any rifle I have sold in regard to condition, accuracy ( If I have indeed shot it ), if it was as I bought it, etc... My list of sporter restorations is quite short at only 2. A third sporter I bought, I actually just restocked in a much better looking sportered military stock and gave it to a friends son for his first hunting rifle. I repaired the draws as outlined by Peter and was well pleased with it as it was.... a sporter.

The following statement is making me cringe just thinking about typing it but I'll explain and you can let me know who I am afterwards....

I currently own 147 milsurp rifles. 57 of them are No.4 Mk.I/Mk.2 and 33 are Mk.III and variants there of. There... I said it :)

First off, I am not by any means wealthy, far from it actually. I am not married and have no children so what most people have spent on raising kids and sending them to college, I have been able to spend part of that money on my interests.

My collecting began nearly 25 years ago and when the internet opened up, I just bought everything I had an interest in. Prior to the start of dedicated collecting, in 1985, I bought my first Enfield, a 1941 Lithgow and it sat in it's case while I bought all kinds of other rifles. Years later, while showing a friend my collection, I pulled out the Lithgow ,which hadn't see daylight since I bought it, and something about it's design just hit me differently than when I bought it. The reading started and I was hooked.... all out Enfield assault. The more I read about different variants, the more examples I needed to fill the gaps.

For example, I read that there were 10,000 rifles contracted to China....had to find one. Then I read Thailand had been sent some No.4's and naturally, needed one of those. As for price, I didn't care if I paid $50.00 to $100.00 more than it was currently worth if I wanted it in my collection. The Thailand marked rifle was a 2001 "Buy It Now" purchase that nearly broke the keyboard for $335.00+$30.00 shipping AND a $25.00 transfer fee. It was on the last page and I think had been active for 11 min. NO ONE was paying that kind of money for No.4's back then! I was very fortunate as there were many excellent condition rifles all over the market and I could afford to be very picky about condition. Don't get me wrong, If I wanted a particular rifle and it had a mismatched bolt or a sewer pipe for a bore... I didn't care.

So, as the information came in, the money went out for rifles. In 2010 I decided my only interest was going to be Enfields and sold many of the non-Enfields ( The number was much higher than 147 at the time ) The stocks of parts I have accumulated over the years was simply to have them if needed. Nothing I bought had the thought of future profit in mind.

I'll add this one last thing.... I love to shoot my milsurp rifles, but I don't shoot them all. There is likely 40 to 50 of them that I have never chambered a round in. As a collector, I don't feel the need to shoot a rifle because that was what it was built/intended for. Shooting a No.4 is shooting a No.4, whether it is a Maltby or a South African marked Savage. Think about it, if you collected stamps, would you use one of them to mail the Gas bill because that is what stamps are made for? 'Comon now ;-)

Ok now... who am I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeDD

Ok now... who am I?

---

David, you certainly qualify as an "ARDENT COLLECTOR/RESTORER/SHOOTER" who has contracted "Enfielditis" (like most of us on this site). If you were a hoarder, you would not be so clear about your objectives. While my Enfield collection is only a 1/10th of yours, it too aims at having a wide variety of every type and style and manufacturer.

And if you were a hoarder, nor would you share your knowledge with others -- for hoarders, life is a one way street leading to themselves alone.

Thanks for your contributions.

And let us NEVER forget..." He Who Dies With The Most Toys, Wins":)

Yes, IMO you should type out whatever info you have put a copy in the butt trap. The future owners will then have the same option you had to accept or reject the stories, or "provenance" as it is called in the trade. ;)

Spike,
Any chance you can post a pic of your Thai No4? It sounds a rare rifle. I've never seen any reference to them. I'd love to compare the markings to my 1920 Siamese BSA Rama VI (BSA Rifle No III). Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

The sad fact is that surplus rifles were only cheap when they were surplus. Now, except for the last mother load of Indian Enfields (~900,000) there are no large stocks to be sold cheap. Only way to get one is to have a fellow sell you his, and so prices are going up to reflect that. Prices are not excessive if we look at what new arms retail for, heck you can still get a used complete Enfield in the eastern part of the United States for between 300 and 400 dollars, when a new commercial barrel is a 350 dollar item.

---

I'm not a huge fan of the "Well, a new one is expensive and so therefore an old one should also be slightly less expensive" as a justification for high prices on things like ex-military rifles, which were produced in the millions and of which millions are still in existence and on the commercial market. Sure, a new hunting rifle might be $1200, but that doesn't follow that it means a rifle that's 50+ years old should be $800 because "it's still cheaper than buying a new rifle".

Quote:

---

As for hoarders, well they will be the source of decent rifles that can be fired in 50 years. I suppose while it might be sad for fellows that want to play around with them today for a cheap price, they young men in the year 2065 that want to buy a shootable 1915 BSA or a New 1955 Fazakerley will be glad there were some hoarders in the last 100 years that bought but did not shoot these rifles.

---

Will there be many of young people interested in .303s by then, though? I mean, in 2065 a WWI-vintage Lee-Enfield will be the same age that a Snider-Enfield is today and the market for those is not brisk - they're about (and they're not really cheap), but basically if you want one (in this part of the world at least) you're probably going to have an easier time finding an original Snider-Enfield than you will a WWI-era SMLE with its volley sights and magazine cut-off still present.

Quote:

---

If you had a like new condition Colt 1860 revolver today you would not shoot it, if Enfield rifles still can garner interest in 50 years there will likely be an Italian company making some sort of reproduction that you can shoot.

---

That's a valid and worthwhile observation and one I agree with. I also suspect we might even start seeing Lee-Enfields in whatever the readily available cartridges in 2065 are - probably .308 still, but it wouldn't surpise me if someone started offering repros in .223 or perhaps even some cartridge that hasn't been invented yet, on the theory that I highly doubt .303 British ammunition will be in mass commercial production 50 years from now.

I don't want to sound negative here, as the spirit in which all of the above suggestions for guidelines, templates & so forth has been made reflects the high ethical standards of forum members. However, such guidelines will only work in respect of those people who are prepared to adhere to them. It sounds like quacking the obvious, but human nature being what it is the whole collecting world is not going to suddenly (or even gradually, in my opinion) adopt such measures. Most people aren't even fraudulently motivated (though some are), but simply will not be bothered to start stamping 'reproduction' or 'restoration' or whatever in the barrel channel of their forends, together with an essay summarising what they've done, to be stuffed into the stock bolt hole (which probably won't be found by the purchaser until after they've paid for it & got it home).

I have been restoring/rebuilding/rewhateverwewanttocallitnow-ing Lee Enfields for a long time. Some I do for myself (see Restorer's corner around pages 5 or 6 for one example), & some I do put into stock to sell on. However, I always tell prospective customers that the firearm has been restored, & if they ask specifics I tell them exactly what I have done. It puts a few people off, but most are simply grateful to be made aware, so that they can bear this fact in mind in deciding whether or not to buy. I try to price rebuilt weapons more reasonably than 'ex-factory' examples, & they all sell, & to a fully informed purchaser.

It is evident that there are potential problems down the line here - if one makes a decent job of replacing parts it may be difficult or even impossible to tell in years to come whether the rifle is 'factory new' or was returned to such condition by the judicious replacement of parts. The clear marking of replacement parts would of course ameliorate this problem (so long as the rifle was available to be stripped before purchase), but as alluded to above I just can't see any more than the highly motivated few ever carrying out this procedure.

I think that we have to accept at times that some problems have no easy solution. We just have to learn as much as we can about our subject, & ask as many questions as possible if we are unsure before making a purchase. Internet forae such as this have made a huge contribution to disseminating knowledge amongst collectors & shooters of military surplus rifles, have become an indispensable resource, & long may they continue.

However, I shall watch the development of the guidelines keenly!:clap:

Well put Roger.

As we continue with this hobby, we will encounter more and more reworked and parts switched out rifles. Almost like detective work when picking up and examining a rifle.

In recent times I have other collectors bringing me their purchases for a check up and evaluation. I have noted that there are many full wood rifles floating around on the market that are quite obviously 'restored' by civilian owners. As most know, there is more to stocking up a Lee Enfield than just getting the barreled action to fit into the wood and getting the bands and handguards to fit.

Now when I look at a rifle that I might buy, I look for the signs. Same as in the world of collecting antique furniture , or cars, motor cycles or farm tractors.

I just find it ironic that some of the same commercial outlets that were profiting by selling mil spec rifles to the public converted into sporters, are now profiting by selling woodwork and parts to restore them back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

but human nature being what it is the whole collecting world is not going to suddenly (or even gradually, in my opinion) adopt such measures. Most people aren't even fraudulently motivated (though some are), but simply will not be bothered to start stamping 'reproduction' or 'restoration' or whatever in the barrel channel of their forends, together with an essay summarising what they've done, to be stuffed into the stock bolt hole

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

However, I shall watch the development of the guidelines keenly!

---

Thanks Roger. One thing that triggered this Thread in this direction was your post on another thread last month where you described a sniper that you had sold several years ago that had been fraudulently stamped with assorted codes to supervalidate its authenticity.

I have followed your posts as well as others and know, without question or doubt, that I TRUST your judgment and ethical standards. It is the reason why I sent my stripped ("skeletonized") LB Sniper to Brian Dick for full restoration -- because I TRUST him.

As a student of human behaviour, let me suggest that the actual percentage of people who will act in an honest, trustworthy way is far higher than most people predict. If we put together a set of "standards of excellence" or "principles and practices of restoration" or "ethical standards," and referred to them as the foundation of our work, I think, over the course of time, people would gravitate to this as a means of finding a trustworthy foundation for making complex decisions in the ambiguous, uncertain, and paradoxical world of historic guns. I know I would truly appreciate a set of standards or principles, which could be constructed jointly, and rather easily, from the fine members of this Milsurps "association."

Thanks Seaspriter. I reiterate that I think what you are trying to do, to formalise a set of guidelines on restoration, is a laudable thing. I wish you the best of luck, & trust you will keep us posted on developments.

ATB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I reiterate that I think what you are trying to do, to formalise a set of guidelines on restoration, is a laudable thing. I wish you the best of luck, & trust you will keep us posted on developments.

---

Thanks Roger. Actually I have done this several times before with professional associations I belong to. The task is generally not hard.
1) It starts with a group of volunteers who already naturally have the guidelines in their heads, and simply begin to codify these in writing. The volunteers form a Task Force that sets a time frame for getting the job done. In this case it would be a Joint Task Force representing collectors and restorers primarily (but not limited to) the Commonwealth and US. The guidelines are voluntary -- we aren't a law enforcement group!
2) Someone typically does a first draft (which is nothing more than a "target" for upgrades and refinements.) Often there are three "targets" or "themes"-- in this case I think I'm hearing three distinct themes:
- a) Code of Ethics
- b) Standards of Restoration
- c) Definitions
3) A website (in this case simply a Milsurps thread or threads) is set up for debating and refining the thinking -- sometimes called the "Delphi Method." With any luck, there is more convergence than divergence, which means the framework is most likely to be accepted by the entire group.
4) After the debate period is over, the Task Force formalizes it's recommendations.
5) Those who believe in the standards promote them on gun boards, embrace them in our restorations, and use them in buy/sell transactions at gun shows and auction sites, etc. etc. etc.

In this case, I'd suggest we limit our scope to Enfields (i.e. not Mausers, M-1s, etc) to keep things focused. If the other communities of interest want to join forces, we leave that pathway open for comment after the Enfield Task Force finishes, allowing for parallel development of guidelines in their communities. I don't want to speculate what other Milsurp communities would want to do, but there may be some interest on the M-1 side, as this is an important issue for those, like me, who also collect this species.

Any thoughts from others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

The Enfield No.8 that I recently used in a BR50 competition (beating about 100k-worth of modern high-tech in the process) was a sporterized example when I got it, already drilled and tapped for a scope. I fitted it out with original parts, and it is now a top-class rifle. But I am not pretending that it came thus from the factory.
My other No.8 (oops, what have I been writing about multiple copies!?!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

I wonder if I am a hoarder? In my defence, none of my Boer Mausers are identical - their serial numbers are different...

---

Can't help but smile at these two posts as i have 2 No8s that have same serial number, so in fact i must be a hoarder:surrender:

Col. Enfield.

I would suggest there will be folks very interested in 50 years, as long as there is not a complete collapse of western civilization like that Rome saw. Fact is that with the Snider-Enfield the only major conflicts where it was "the arm" was the Abyssinian campaign of 1868, the search for doctor Livingston in the 1870s and as a secondary arm in the 1879 Zulu campaign. I guess also the 1886 upper Canada revolt. Yawn...... It was a transitional arm without a lot of combat history.

Now compare that to the Martini Henry: with one major war the 1879 Zulu war and a few other secondary ones, 1882 Egyptian campaign, 1885 Khartoum relief, 1896~1898 Sudanese campaign (secondary arm), it still is an arm most Brit collectors want, and very few ever actually shoot. Still the demand for Martini-Henrys has always exceeded the supply in my period of collecting from 1982 to the present day.

The No1 MK III had a long Commonwealth history: WWI, the Irish revolution and civil war, Spanish civil war (secondary role), WWII, Korea, Mau Mau rebellion, Malaysian conflict (secondary role) Rhodesian conflict (police issue), Cadet use until the 1960s, Australian reserve and cadet use until 1968, along with being the dominate 100 yard finals rifle from 1920 to 1968 at any imperial match or meet. Add to that all of the Non UK conflicts it was used in, such as the 1947 separation crisis in India, the Sino-Indian war of 1962, the Goa intervention 1962, the 1965 Paki-Indian war, the 1971 Paki-Indian war, the 1979 to 1989 Russo-Afghan war, the 1995~2001 Nepal crisis, early use in the US-Taliban war of 2001 to ?? The fact is you have an active use by this arm in so many conflict that it is sure to be one of the most historic rifles ever with a nearly continuous 100 year use history.

Even if the west goes under, the use of this rifle by pretty much every group in southeast Asia and the middle east will keep it of interest to some folks.

With something like 13 million made and about 900,000 still in use in India, I expect in 50 years you will still be able to buy ammunition for it as well as parts, though by then they may be new made. Folks are still shooting reproductions of US civil war arms and while that market has stagnated, it still exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

Will folks very interested in 50 years?

---

This is an intriguing question. While we all know that it's somewhat a matter of supply and demand,. While the supply is fixed, the demand is going to be driven (up or down) by perceived value. What, then drives value? It will be people who want to buy Enfields.

Just look what's happened to the perceived value of M-1 Rifles and Carbines -- prices over $1,000 USD and even higher, climbing all the time. Why? Because they are valued -- because of the heritage, the story, the pictures, the history, the imagery, etc. -- along with the fact they were quality guns from day one. The same can be said for Winchesters, Colts, and Sharps along with many others.

On the opposite side stands the Chauchat Machine Gun, which, by nearly universal judgment, is considered one of the worst guns ever designed. How many people are collecting those compared to anything John Browning designed? Heck, we had his WWI designed guns on board my ship in Vietnam -- I carried a 1911 45, we had BARs issued to the Gunner's Mates and MaDeuces mounted on the top decks -- all a tribute to a fine design (like the Enfield) and highly collected today.

If we want Enfields to be in demand in the future, I think three things are necessary:
1) Technical Knowledge: what we are doing on this site is a big step in the right direction -- giving people technical knowledge and restoration insight so that the next generations of collectors and restorers can follow suit.

But we also need two additional things to perpetuate the legacy (I think we could do better at these):
2) Buyer Confidence: buyers must be able to know that what they get is legitimate -- an Enfield world they can trust, in other words a good/safe "investment" and
3) More "cache:"- the romance, the heroism, the accuracy, the passion, the war stories, the pictures -- which lead to a passionate commitment to the legacy.

Keep these three dimensions of the of the "value equation" alive and Enfields will be cherished for years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

Col. Enfield.

I would suggest there will be folks very interested in 50 years, as long as there is not a complete collapse of western civilization like that Rome saw. Fact is that with the Snider-Enfield the only major conflicts where it was "the arm" was the Abyssinian campaign of 1868, the search for doctor Livingston in the 1870s and as a secondary arm in the 1879 Zulu campaign. I guess also the 1886 upper Canada revolt. Yawn...... It was a transitional arm without a lot of combat history.

---

It was used in New Zealand for the Maori Wars in the late 1860s/early 1870s and they were also used a fair bit by the Colonial forces in Australia during the Bushranger Era, so they're quite well-known guns in this part of the world. I believe they were also used during the Boshin War in Japan as well.

Quote:

---

With something like 13 million made and about 900,000 still in use in India, I expect in 50 years you will still be able to buy ammunition for it as well as parts, though by then they may be new made. Folks are still shooting reproductions of US civil war arms and while that market has stagnated, it still exists.

---

India is notoriously unwilling to share their Lee-Enfields, though - there might be nearly a million of them still in service there but I doubt they'll end up on the collector market when India is done with them, which is a shame. I am very fond of the Lee-Enfield and truly hope it's still a popular gun a century from now, but I suspect it may end up like the Mauser C96 today - a collectible arm of interest to a select number of people who appreciate its aesthetics and history, but will ammunition being expensive and hard to get.