Any source of new unissued/unnumbered No1 MKIII nose cap?
Printable View
Any source of new unissued/unnumbered No1 MKIII nose cap?
Brp gun parts corp or apex gun partsQuote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
It was numbered, but I just bought one from Sarco for $9US last week. Excellent condition, serial number could easily be ground off. You might ask if they have any in their stockpile without numbers. Can't beat the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
Pretty sure I got 4 or 5 from BRP and although unnumbered they had clearly once been numbered and had numbers ground off.
In the real world of service life Armourers would simply file the old number off, clean up, make good, send through the parkerizing process and re-use. Same as many other numbered items being re-used. Waste not, want not and all that.
"In the real world of service life Armourers would simply file the old number off, clean up, make good, send through the parkerizing process and re-use. Same as many other numbered items being re-used. Waste not, want not and all that."
And there we have the essence of the problem with the "numbers game". Presumably (correct me if I am wrong) a service armorer did not renumber non-pressure bearing parts, as these were irrelevant for safety and did not invalidate the proof.
But readers should ask themselves: why are people keen on acquiring unnumbered parts?
Maybe it is just my cynical attitude to such matters, but the thought inevitably crosses the mind that it is because in many cases they want to stamp on a number to match their rifle.
The number itself is irrelevant to the functionality, but does - oh what a surprise - increases the value to a future purchaser when the rifle is sold as being "correctly" numbered. In fact, the whole setup is no longer correct, but the falsification of the part by forging the number (i.e. imitation of an original "documentation of origin" that was intended to prove to which rifle the part belonged) has now created a fake from the aspect of "originality".
Questioned, I have little doubt that all those responsible would reply with one or both of the following well-worn and specious arguments:
a) "Of course I know that it is non-original to that rifle and would inform any prospective purchaser/leave a note in the butt trap." That is IMHO no better as an excuse than an art forger who sells his fakes to a dealer who knows that they are fake. But when the purchaser/dealer resells the item?
b) "Of course, any expert can tell that it is not original". What is that supposed to mean? That it is OK to defraud non-experts?
I feel a prophet in the wilderness when I write: stamping of numbers onto parts by a non-authorized agency is fundamentally fraudulent.
Yes, I know it's a bee in my bonnet, but perhaps it might make a few people think.
Peter why would you file it? Didn't you have access to linishers or grinders?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Simple part like that it'd be easier to put it in your bench vice and file it. So simplicity would be the answer. The only reason some parts are numbered to match on rifles is to preserve the integrity of the accuracy and of the hand fitted parts..., like backsight slide, fore-end, nose cap, magazine...., you know what I mean.
I have renumbered zillions of parts for re-use. Never worried me or the eagle eyed examiners/out-inspectors...., the people who REALLY matter. But I agree entirely with Patrick
"I have renumbered zillions of parts for re-use. "
And, of course, you and your fellow armorers were an authorized agency.
But Joe Q Public acquiring parts from Numrich or wherever and stamping them himself is NOT.
Perhaps one way to fight this sad trend in faking is to urge prospective buyers to pay big bucks ONLY for rifles with unequivocal factory matching numbers. I assume that with the SMLE this means perfectly matching font on the pieces listed by Peter L? Armourers and Resto-bubba wouldn't often have access to stamps that would match the factory versions. In the case of non-originality the buyer can then attempt to exercise some brain power and attempt to decide whether the non-matching pieces are old and proper armourer replacements or fresh out of Resto-bubbas parts trove. There should be clear hints in things like consistent discoloration/ wear, etc. In the case of an armourer repaired gun there is still obvious collector value and the promise of a good useable rifle. In the case of a bubba- I recently bought a No. 4 (online) that looked good externally but upon stripping found the draws didn't even contact the sear lugs! Couldn't even force it back together for the return shipment. Whoever "desporterized" it must have squeezed it together with a vice.
Ridolpho
Glad I'm not the originator of this thread. I'd leave here feeling like I'd just been accused of something.
Not from me Baal....., I'm all for using new parts WHEN NECESSARY. But was brought up in the pre throwaway era and some things just seem alien to me.
Yes I feel bad, I just asked this because I need a nose cap for my MKIII :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Baal
Baal, none of us are seeking to be critical of Buster95's very innocent request. As a world wide group of Enfield enthusiasts, it's quite common that a simple and straightforward request, such as Buster's, takes on a life of its own because of latent issues imbedded underneath the request. What looks like an innocuous request for information (like this post), is interleaved with ethical issues and restoration standards like this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baal
In some ways this thread has taken on some of the qualities of Buccaneer's thread a week ago: Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!
I suspect that sometime soon another thread of will emerge like this, until we, as a very committed group of restoration enthusiasts, will decide to codify our joint thinking into a set of voluntary standards and principles/guidelines.
---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------
Buster, it's not your fault, so please don't carry a burden of guilt for asking a very fair and reasonable question. What's happened to your thread is the product of some very refined thinkers who are grappling with many issues, and the "nose cap" question you asked is akin to the "tip of the iceberg." (just see what happened to Buccaneer's thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
Bear with us -- eventually, as my ancestor, Commodore David Porter used to say: "A complaint is but a prelude to action."
I wonder why you need a replacement nosecap that's all. Where did the old one go? And why must it be new? The only reason I ever saw for replacing them was a broken foresight protector - and that broke off as it was being crudely straightened without heat. And stripped thread on an EY rifle which I kept and used to mount an old bayonet
The gun is a sporter.
I can understand the OP's desire to have an unnumbered nose cap for his restoration. If I were in the same position as he I would rather have a nose cap with no serial number on it at all than the wrong serial. It is just as obviously a restoration but somehow offends me less bearing no number at all than an incorrect number.
I've restored several sporter rifles and like Roger, wrong serial numbers annoy me. I will line through the old number on a replacement back sight or barrel and remove the number from a forend or nose cap but I won't stamp a new one. This makes me feel better and hopefully the rifle can be identified as a restoration in the future.
What sort of tooling was used to scrub this nose cap before renumbering?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/xlarge-3.jpg
Circular machine marks would indicate a lathe I would think. This is very common on rifles refurbished at Lithgow.
I don't think they used a lathe for that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
The nose cap pictured in post #19 doesn't look renumbered to me. It looks like the original machine marks on the bayonet boss.
I think so BAR but the nose cap has been mounted eccentrically. Same as the manufacture of the nose caps on Sterling SMG's was machined.
Look like milling (end mill) to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer