Force matched - me no understand

Where does the term 'force matched' come from???

Use force to fit something???? Or does it mean renumbered with or without fitting???

What exactly does it mean? Is it possible to force match something nicely?

To me, if I read that a rifle has something force matched, the thing is garbage.
Or is this the meaning of the expression? I have a forced matched bolt so my gun is a piece of schit.

Or do we make up our own terms now? eg. I have a 'relaxed fit' happy matched bolt in mine!!!

WTF???

Winston Churchill said that he would never beat a child unless it was for abuse of the english language.

Rant over. Happy Easter.
Monty Python - Always Look on the Bright Side of Life - YouTube

I never understand the phrase either. I've heard it to describe the fitting of an ill-fitting bolt. You get it to fit or bear evenly on both locking lugs by firing it until the DO bear evenly!

Force match......... Nope, nothing a real Armourer would ever practice. I put the phrase down to those much-derided-by-me home tinkerers or enthusiastic amateurs etc etc

I think it's an Americanism meaning; fitted and re-numbered to match.

The example I thin of for this term relates to Yugo M24/47 mausers. These mausers were made from bins of M24 parts. FOr the "new" assembly, the old number was either ground off or struck out. Then the new serial number was applied. Thus the serial numbers on the parts were "forced' to match during this refurbishment/rebuild.

Walter

It has nothing to do with the fitment of parts in relation to each other. The term simply refers to the serial numbers of individual parts, whatever that might be, being X-ed out and "Force Matched" to the receiver serial number. Very common on Russian arms and Russian captured weapons.
It's a numbers game that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WNO1958

the old number was either ground off or struck out

---

That's exactly what it's come to mean. It's a created term for those that have to have a term...instead of mismatched, jumbled up or parts gun. I guess it's nicer than built from scrap parts. Now it's "Original" again...

In the US it is a term used to identify rifles that might have matched serial numbers, but did not come from the factory in that condition. In descending order of desirability it could mean:

1) Fresh out of factory rebuild with major serialed component replaced and renumbered
2) Rebuild/repair out of military workshop, same as above.
3) Reworked by skilled gunsmith, not military but up to mil-spec.
4) Humped up piece of crap done by Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob in his garage. Often not done correctly, for example Lee Enfield bolt substituted and re-numbered where both lugs do not bear evenly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

That's exactly what it's come to mean. It's a created term for those that have to have a term...instead of mismatched, jumbled up or parts gun. I guess it's nicer than built from scrap parts. Now it's "Original" again...

---

I agree, but the term has also come to refer to guns that have had parts renumbered during a legitimate arsenal overhaul such as an FTR. Finnish captured and reworked Soviet MNs for example. I would argue that category of weapons is not a parts gun or built from scrap parts. I would also argue that the term is sloppy communication with a meaning so diffuse as to be meaningless. What it really means is the potential buyer better look the thing over very closely to find out why the parts have been renumbered.

Fredrick 303 posted while I was typing. I concurr

But a useful and necessary term in the wacky world of collecting. To me a 'force-match" is a replacement part installed by a military armorer and numbered or renumbered accordingly. Maybe not now "original-matching" but still a genuine, mechanically sound piece. Renumbering post service is not "force-matched", it's faked.

Ridolpho

Here's another possible meaning

In the US, there is a group of M1 Garand collectors that acquire M1 rifles, remove perfectly serviceable parts of one manufacture so that they can add parts of another manufacturer such that the rifle appears to be as if it came directly from the factory. That the part they removed was carefully fitted by an properly trained armorer is of no consequence. The term they use is "all correct' and they assign a higher value for it.

I think the proper term for this activity might be 'Forced matched".

Walter

Forced match simply means it was re-numbered during refurbishment. It is not the original matching part. So for many collectors it is of less value because it is not original as it left the factory. Almost all Finnish Rifles are technically force matched, but because it is the norm with Finns and they really are completely rebuilt rifles we call it Finn Matching. They renumbered the Russian Bolt and Receiver during the build.

I used to restore long Lees in much the same way as the Garrand collectors. I would switch out parts to create a rifle with parts of all the same manufacture. I would spend a lot of time and money chasing the right acceptance marks and inspection stamps for a rebuild. All cool and groovey when finished and just as it left the factory!

Then one day I bought a beater of a long Lee Enfield. 1896 LSA. It had been sent to RSAF enfield in 1898 and 1899. A visit to the Birmingham Repair facility in 1903. Then it went over to the Royal Navy through Chatham Naval worlkshop #3 in 1909, had a new barrel fitted before it was shipped out to where it had a rack number applied in 1910.
I determined all this by reading inspection stamps and the little date marks. The thing was a treasure trove for parts for my other rebuilds to make them correct. I had Enfield parts, BSA parts, Sparkbrook parts to switch out and harvest.

It then struck me what I was doing. Looking at this beater, I had a good idea that the Enfield marked nose cap was put on this LSA rifle in 1898 or 99. The rear volley sight and rear barrel band had been switched out by Sparkbrook in 1903. Instead of improving collectability, I was removing the history from the rifle. The next owner would now look at the rework stamps and wonder but never know what had been done in 1899 as now, much of the rework evidence was gone.

So now I take a different approach. If I restore a mix match rifle, it stays mix match. It tells a part of the rifle's story.
Yes, very tempting to switch out and put that BSA marked barrel band on that BSA. But no. Part is parts.

As my collecting experience grows, I can usually tell a restored or de-sportered rifle. Or at least I like to think that I can. I have noticed too many 'all correct' rifles. I am sure that some would be possible, but if everything is correct on a hundred year old service rifle, I am very suspicious.

I only ever restored one rifle that got the full works with new made replacement wood, replacement barrel and a full reblue. All matching manufacture and acceptance mark style. The thing looked like brand new when finished. There were no two serial numbers alike.

The thought did cross my mind that the rifle would be worth more money if it was all matching. But that would be faking, plain and simple, and easy to detect.
The term used for that would be 'humping the rifle'??? I think that one came from Australia?

The term "King screw" comes to mind. I never could figure that one out. Maybe we should ask the Queen?

As mentioned the term 'Force Matched' mainly applies to Soviet/Russian firearms as when they were rebuilt they tended not to care so much about getting the original parts back together as long as they worked. Literally would stamp out the previous number and stamp the new one in.

I have mentioned before some of the terms used collecting are a bit... confusing or misleading. This is simply due to a lack of standardization of terms. For example a force matched rifle could be considered all matching as it is matching from service, but it isn't factory original. Some collectors don't consider a force matched rifle all matching (in there case what they consider all matching I would consider factory original).

Collectors are actually one of the few groups actively destroying the history of milsurps in this day and age. Every time you switch out a part to make it 'all correct' (unless the part is broken) you are destroying the history of the firearm. Just because you know that it was switched doesn't mean someone down the road will. Then that incorrect example will become a correct example, which everyone else starts to base their knowledge off of. It is the destruction of history, though the individuals doing it believe it is the preservation of history, which is the scariest part of the whole situation (think the 'committee of public safety' during the French Revolution, and how they actively contributed to the destruction of public safety).

I'll trade you my miss matched Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.I for your force matched No.4 smle.......:thup:

The term "Force Matched" is not normally used in the Lee-Enfield collecting field and the use of it can cause confusion as noted above by others. I recommend that the term "Force Matched" NOT be used regarding Lee-Enfields, due to the multiple possible meanings and confusion that can result. I believe that it is best to explain a firearm's condition in plain language without using that term.

Likewise, the term "original" is dangerously confusing unless explained in detail (e.g. Original as it left the factory? Original as it left the military as surplus? Original as found in "Bubba's" estate sale? Original as found dug up on a battlefield?)

The term "Force Matched" is commonly used in the Soviet rifles' collecting field to refer to firearms where parts that were changed during an overhaul or other repair in military service, had the old serial number cancelled (usually by striking out), or totally removed (e.g. Bolt handle ground down), and the serial number of the weapon it has now been installed on has been put onto it. The Mosin 91/30 rifle would have serial numbers on butt plate, magazine bottom plate, bolt etc. If a buttplate was changed, the armourer would strike out the old number and stamp in the new rifle's serial number. Sometimes, with both Soviet and with captured German firearms (the latter nicknamed "RC" or "Russian Capture" by collectors), the "new" serial number would be electric-pencilled to show that the part was now mated to a particular firearm (e.g. On Kar98k bolts and Mosin 91/30 scope mounts).

These were legitimate in-service repairs. Similar parts changes and renumbering occurred on MK.III / MK.III* Lee-Enfields, most often seen by me on the underside of rear sight leaves. We also often see a similar renumbering on scope brackets for the No. 4 MK.I (T) where many brackets were reassigned to one or more other rifles during their service careers. A friend has a No. 4 MK.I (T) where there were three different scope numbers assigned over the years, in-service, to that rifle. The earlier two numbers are cancelled out.

Collectors almost always prefer rifles where the parts only have the original factory marked serial numbers. When parts have been officially changed and renumbered in service, the rifle is still collectible but usually is not as valuable to collectors. Variable factors than can override this are condition e.g. special markings such as desirable national markings, Naval or Air Force issue markings or capture markings) or if a rifle is a rarer variant (e.g. Experimental or a very limited production run.) Thus a Mosin 91/30 or SVT-40 with Finnish "SA" capture markings is usually more valuable than one without such markings.

I had six Mosin 91/30 PU sniper rifles. Five of these had arsenal overhaul electric-pencil markings but one rifle did not and an advanced collector zeroed in on that one and added it to his collection. Lee-Enfield collectors usually prefer rifles that have not gone through F.T.R. Americans will understand this as almost all US WWII firearms went through arsenal overhauls and finding a factory original one is a treasure for them. Regarding WNO1958's I do not think that "Forced Match" would not apply as these parts, although they have part numbers and sometimes batch numbers, do not have serial numbers to change. Any firearm could have parts changed in service but if the parts are correct versions and not serial numbered, thus no numbers changed in service, who is to say if it was changed in-service or by a civilian later on? The best term I have seen about such a US rifle is "parts flying together in formation". ;-)

In summary: "Forced Match" is used by collectors of Soviet firearms and "Russian Capture" firearms to refer to parts where the serial nunbered replacement parts were renumbered to match the firearm and this was done in-service. The term is not usually associated with Lee-Enfields or with US firearms.

In the same vein, why do people refer to the letter and number markings on an arm as "stampings?" A tool named a stamp is used to make the markings. Stampings or pressings (British) are sheet metal parts formed by pressing the metal in a matching set of dies. Just because a number of people use it, does not make it right.

I usually tune out of a thread that has the words force matched.

To me a "forced matched" part is a part renumbered to match but done in a way that could have been done by anyone & the original number has been forcefully removed & the new number stamped over the grinding
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...No8three-1.jpg


Renumbering is where the original number remains but cancelled out & the new number stamped nearby
http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...9/17BSA7-1.jpg


Replaced & numbered to match, is a replacement new part numbered to match which take experience to identify & to the newbie would appear original as this example on a 1917 BSA with a EFD bolt that went though a refurb at Enfield
http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...9/17BSA4-1.jpg


Some of you guys might not like the term but its a good reference for describing originality of parts to someone who is on the same page, it is simple & saves a lot of time discribing things

So is 'force matching' the same thing as 'humping'?

Or does 'force matching' mean legit in service refurb renumber, and 'humping' means renumbered to deceive, as in a post service renumbering to fake an all matching rifle to increase its resale value?

In order of desirability to collectors, which takes precedence?;-

a. Original to that rifle part with matching serial number.
b. New replacement part numbered to match.
c. New replacement part, no number.
d. Recycled part, old number struck out, renumbered.
e. Recycled part, old number removed, renumbered (force matched, or humped?)
f. Recycled part, old number removed.
g. Recycled part, miss-matched number.

I think it's a poor reference because there seems to be no official meaning.
A renumber is a renumber, whether the old number remains lined out or is completely scrubbed/removed. The part is simply simply renumbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

In the same vein, why do people refer to the letter and number markings on an arm as "stampings?" A tool named a stamp is used to make the markings. Stampings or pressings (British) are sheet metal parts formed by pressing the metal in a matching set of dies. Just because a number of people use it, does not make it right.

---

Metal stamps are used to make the markings sometimes, so why wouldn't you call it a 'stamping'. Would you prefer if they called the markings 'stamped' on instead of a 'stamping'? Words can have multiple meanings, and at least it is logical to understand how they come to that conclusion (i.e. you use a metal stamp and make a stamping).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by englishman_ca

So is 'force matching' the same thing as 'humping'?

Or does 'force matching' mean legit in service refurb renumber, and 'humping' means renumbered to deceive, as in a post service renumbering to fake an all matching rifle to increase its resale value?

In order of desirability to collectors, which takes precedence?;-

a. Original to that rifle part with matching serial number.
b. New replacement part numbered to match.
c. New replacement part, no number.
d. Recycled part, old number struck out, renumbered.
e. Recycled part, old number removed, renumbered (force matched, or humped?)
f. Recycled part, old number removed.
g. Recycled part, miss-matched number.

---

Humping is the intent to deceive. Different nations had different policies on how they did things, and that always has to be taken into consideration. A 'force matched' part was done in service. Any attempt to renumber the part to match post service is a humping of a firearm as matching numbers increases value.

Generally speaking the most desired form of firearm to collect is one that is original to what it came out of the factory as, in both condition and parts. From there is only goes down in value. Mismatched bolts and such are almost always not from service rather from the importation process.

So to answer what I consider most desirable it is in the order of A, B, D/E (depending on the practices of the military in question, if the military didn't remove the old number in refurbishment practices it is likely humped), then it is a toss up between the rest (as if they are unnumbered or mismatched it could be a restoration, bubba, someone just replacing parts, etc.). This is when it is important to understand the practices of the particular militaries in terms of what firearm you are looking at and how they treated them. For example Finland used to spend a long time renumbering and trying to keep original parts together before WWII. After WWII they rebuilt guns with whatever was available and generally didn't take the same amount of effort to try and keep matching parts together, except for things like the bolts. Other nations were very strict about keeping numbered parts together (Germany, Switzerland etc.). Some didn't even number the bolts (Austria-Hungary, Italy for the most part, etc.).

In many "proper" Ordnance systems, the correct procedure is to "strike" or "bar" out the original number, in such a way that it is still legible, and apply, via stamp, die or mechanical engraver, a new number.

This is STILL common practice in places where weapons are subject to "upgrades" whilst on the books. The idea is that the Ordnance / RAEME etc. boffins can identify major components' original "heritage", especially if there is a "product recall" or an instruction specifying components originally of a certain serial number range, as "obsolete" or "superseded". to be removed and replaced by a new item. USABLE parts recovered from "scrapped" weapons are pooled and inspected, then held for re-issue. Any "serial numbers" on these will normally be "barred out" as per above. After fitting of such "pre-loved' parts and final acceptance at re-assembly, any appropriate markings / numbers will be applied as per technical instructions.

The business of "All-Matching" M-1 Carbines used to amuse me. Given the number of major and minor contractors making parts and / or assembling them, there was almost NIL chance of there being any significant number that left a "factory" with a complete suite of parts made by the name on the body / receiver, especially during war-time. Ditto the 1911 pistol. And by the time they left service????

Next thing there will be a rash of "All-Matching" AR-15s.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

there seems to be no official meaning.

---

& just that is why i use it when discribing what is a possible none official renumbering of a part

As far as Lee Enfields go the phrase Force matched is a rubbish saying and means exactly nothing in most cases. To many shared parts between factories and assembly lines from the same manufacturer. People who swap parts are destroying the rifles history. A 1913 No1 Mk3 Lithgow in mint condition does not exist in real life. In real life it is now a Mk3* looking very very tired to low average condition even with newer furniture. It will have been through at least two FTRs. A 1945 Lithgow could be as close as you will get to new, like a 1953 could be. XPs range from beaters to new.
No4 Mk2s can be NEW.
If the date is pre WW1 or during 1914/18 and it did not belong to a police force you can bet large sums of money it wont look new without a FTR with new parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

As far as Lee Enfields go the phrase Force matched is a rubbish saying and means exactly nothing in most cases. To many shared parts between factories and assembly lines from the same manufacturer. People who swap parts are destroying the rifles history. A 1913 No1 Mk3 Lithgow in mint condition does not exist in real life. In real life it is now a Mk3* looking very very tired to low average condition even with newer furniture. It will have been through at least two FTRs. A 1945 Lithgow could be as close as you will get to new, like a 1953 could be. XPs range from beaters to new.
No4 Mk2s can be NEW.
If the date is pre WW1 or during 1914/18 and it did not belong to a police force you can bet large sums of money it wont look new without a FTR with new parts.

---

Geez mate, we are probably wandering way off topic now, but I'll respond briefly. I wouldn't describe any as mint or even anywhere near it, but I've had examples of nearly every year of Lithgow that certainly had not been through any FTR's. Many where very much original to my untrained eyes, including a 1914 and 1915. I'd still like to think that somewhere out there there's a nice original 1913 as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Geez mate, we are probably wandering way off topic now, but I'll respond briefly. I wouldn't describe any as mint or even anywhere near it, but I've had examples of nearly every year of Lithgow that certainly had not been through any FTR's. Many where very much original to my untrained eyes, including a 1914 and 1915. I'd still like to think that somewhere out there there's a nice original 1913 as well.

---

I have one but it is very very tired, it is an old lady with all its history still in place. I got it because it looked old dirty and worn and every one just walked past it without looking to see what it was. As far as I am concerned it is priceless never to be sold except from my cold lifeless hands. The other has been FTRd which is fine because it is a 1913 and that's what they did to rifles that are worn . Depending when the FTR was done at Lithgow the parts used would have been the same as the original so it would look like as new never used but what about WW2, Korea etc. WW1 was very hard on rifles just look at the crap that was returned to Aussie in replacement for the new rifles sent to the mother country at the beginning.

The words 'force matched' should NEVER feature in the description of any weapon for all of the good, genuine and honest reasons stated within this thread. Just the mere words imply that something has been 'forced' and matched'. Neither of which are true or correct UNLESS IT IS TRUE and then, it is the work of a bodger, bubba, a home tinkerer, enthusiastic amateur, home/self taught expert gnunsmith etc etc. Like I say several times every day and has been repeated here by those that really know, Armourers were always CORRECTLY re-fitting old/used parts as well as new parts and the barred out numbers will generally be visible (there were exceptions I should add.....*). Even when our guns were upgraded we would bar through the complete designation and re-engrave. The Mk2 and 3 Brens to L4....., the FN GPMG';s from L8 or L37 to L7A2......... or the M1919's to L3A1's. And that isn't forcing or matching anything. It might not look tidy but it's the way of the real armourers in the real world

Would you force match the pistons into your car? Nope. There's no place for the term 'force match' in the world of Armourers.

In regard to Enfiels, as I haven't followed Mosin's close enough to have heard the phrase, The term " Forced Matched " was a term I understood to have nothing to do with FTR's...nothing to do with properly fitted parts by Armorers...nothing to do with field repairs..etc...etc. It also has nothing to do with "physically" forcing a part to fit a rifle. It was the back yard, non-gunsmith ****** that simply ground one set of numbers off and used whatever was at hand to apply another set of numbers that matched to receiver...poorly done in almost every case in the pure interest of claiming the rifle has "matching" numbers. "Forced" meaning NOT done by a proper Armorer at a military facility. At least that is my understanding of it from dozens of pictures over the years of bolts, nose caps and rear sights where the term " Forced Matched " was used.

If it means something else, it would put every FTR...FTR 1/2...FTR 1/3 rifle on the **** list and I can tell you from my personal sales experience of 1/2 and 1/3 rifles, the term " Forced matched " is not derogatorily associated with them in the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeDD

In regard to Enfiels, as I haven't followed Mosin's close enough to have heard the phrase, The term " Forced Matched " was a term I understood to have nothing to do with FTR's...nothing to do with properly fitted parts by Armorers...nothing to do with field repairs..etc...etc. It also has nothing to do with "physically" forcing a part to fit a rifle. It was the back yard, non-gunsmith ****** that simply ground one set of numbers off and used whatever was at hand to apply another set of numbers that matched to receiver...poorly done in almost every case in the pure interest of claiming the rifle has "matching" numbers. "Forced" meaning NOT done by a proper Armorer at a military facility. At least that is my understanding of it from dozens of pictures over the years of bolts, nose caps and rear sights where the term " Forced Matched " was used.

If it means something else, it would put every FTR...FTR 1/2...FTR 1/3 rifle on the **** list and I can tell you from my personal sales experience of 1/2 and 1/3 rifles, the term " Forced matched " is not derogatorily associated with them in the least.

---

My thoughts exactly, if you guys want to give us an "offical" term to replace it with, then please do!

Parts gun...

Renumbered post service........amateur renumbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

I have one but it is very very tired, it is an old lady with all its history still in place. I got it because it looked old dirty and worn and every one just walked past it without looking to see what it was. .

---

Any chance of seeing photos of it??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeDD

In regard to Enfiels, as I haven't followed Mosin's close enough to have heard the phrase, The term " Forced Matched " was a term I understood to have nothing to do with FTR's...nothing to do with properly fitted parts by Armorers...nothing to do with field repairs..etc...etc. It also has nothing to do with "physically" forcing a part to fit a rifle. It was the back yard, non-gunsmith ****** that simply ground one set of numbers off and used whatever was at hand to apply another set of numbers that matched to receiver...poorly done in almost every case in the pure interest of claiming the rifle has "matching" numbers. "Forced" meaning NOT done by a proper Armorer at a military facility. At least that is my understanding of it from dozens of pictures over the years of bolts, nose caps and rear sights where the term " Forced Matched " was used.

If it means something else, it would put every FTR...FTR 1/2...FTR 1/3 rifle on the **** list and I can tell you from my personal sales experience of 1/2 and 1/3 rifles, the term " Forced matched " is not derogatorily associated with them in the least.

---

Backyard gunsmiths changing numbers is humping.

Force Matching is what the Russians did with 91/30, SVT, and other Refurbs. Matching part was lost or no good so they electro penciled a different part and put it on.

The Russians did the same with RC Mausers. They stripped them down. Refinished them. Then to complete the destruction of a beautiful K98k they grabbed the closest bolt or other part and re-numbered it usually with electro pencil rather than looking for the correct matching one.

The Finns since they took crap Russian Mosins and made them shootable did an in between which we call Finn Matching. Russian Numbers were removed and new Finn numbers were added to the Russian parts that were reused.

My dealings with U.K. dealers when purchasing U.K. deactivated guns make me think that we need the term "Forced Matched" or an alternative phase. I think this because we need to differentiate between a "matching numbers" gun where all the serial numbered parts match the master serial number, where this has been the case from when then gun left the factory, and a gun where the numbers on parts have been changed to match the master number. This is because dealers often charge a premium for a "matching numbers" gun and will often try to pass a gun off as matching even if the numbers have been changed to match. Taking away the term "forced matched" could mean that a "matching numbers" gun could be made out of any odd assortment of parts simply by grinding off numbers, applying new numbers, attach a hefty premium and rip off some poor unsuspecting collector, more easily than at present.

Ah....... in those sorts of examples we're not comparing like with like. That's not force matching or anything......... That's fraud!

A matching numbers gun is exactly what they all were when they left the Armourers shop. But while we matched hundreds of things we didn't force anything. It was done properly. The closest a real Armourer got to such a notion was the term '.....gently swage the head to a rounded form.......' when fitting L1 bayonet grips.

I dunno, I used to force another beer on the odd occasion, 'specially if someone called "last drinks"

Yes it's all about numbers, nothing really to do with gun smithing. Personally I've never paid a premium for a deac just because the dealer has said it's "fully matching" numbers and I haven't listened to any of the B.S. they've told me either. If the deac turns up and it's fully matching numbers it's a bonus but if it's not I'm not overly bothered because I haven't paid over the odds for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Renumbered post service........amateur renumbered.

---

Exactly what I think when I hear the term "force matched".

Usually also results in me walking away.

Yes, I have to say that the term ''Force matched'' really ****es me off!!!. To me every Bolt action rifle has had its Bolt 'Force matched',because the 2 parts were made separately,and someone had to fit them.!
Regards Stuart.
PS Keep up the good work making stocks...

I agree, & loathe the term 'force matched' with a vengeance. Why not just 're-matched', or 're-numbered'? Both of these terms can be further added to if desired, eg. 'probable ordnance re-numbered', or 'amateur re-matched', for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Why not just 're-matched', or 're-numbered'?

---

Both of these terms would be absolutely fine with me because they differentiate from the term "matching numbers gun" which some dealers are all too keen to use when it isn't.

Force matched.......... leaves me thinking of an old ruddy faced blacksmith heat bashing a hinge onto an old farm gate. Then aligning it afterwards using the oxy torch and a lump hammer. Have you ever seen a REME RAEME, RCEME, RNZEME recovery mechanic de-linking track link pins on a 55 ton Centurion that's shed its tracks on a side incline. Same sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Force matched.......... leaves me thinking of an old ruddy faced blacksmith heat bashing a hinge onto an old farm gate. Then aligning it afterwards using the oxy torch and a lump hammer. Have you ever seen a REME RAEME, RCEME, RNZEME recovery mechanic de-linking track link pins on a 55 ton Centurion that's shed its tracks on a side incline. Same sort of thing.

---

You just described the Soviet refurbishment program, except they are ruddy faced from the Vodka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

Soviet refurbishment program

---

There was nothing wrong with the Soviet post war refurbishment programme. I am sure that it's purpose was partly to provide employment to the masses with the added benefit of the state getting something useful back in return. On the other hand, we who live in Capitalist Western countries prefer to pay the unemployed to stay at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

There was nothing wrong with the Soviet post war refurbishment programme. I am sure that it's purpose was partly to provide employment to the masses with the added benefit of the state getting something useful back in return. On the other hand, we who live in Capitalist Western countries prefer to pay the unemployed to stay at home.

---

The Western nations did a similar process though not to the same level of crudeness (and when I say crudeness, it doesn't mean it wasn't effective, simply that it wasn't as well done as it could have been, if you look at a example of Soviet arms which haven't been refurbished from pre-WWII you will see a much higher quality standard). For example all the FTR Lee Enfields. Most nations had some sort of refurbishment program, the quality of it varied between nations.

Presumably the Soviet post war refurbishment program included some armoured vehicles such as T34 tanks. I wonder if they refurbished soft skinned vehicles such as trucks and jeeps?

Whenever I think of "force matched" the first thing that comes to mind is a Mitchell's Mausers K98k, which in that context is perhaps a more polite way of saying "humped".

Where does the forum stand on the topic of rifles where the bolt, foreend, magazine, etc have all had the same number applied by a gunsmith assembling them from parts bins? Or even refinishing them and applying the number?

Well....., in my opinion as a bit part Armourer, I'd say that providing this fitting has been done exactly and accurately, given the specification and using the correct gauges, then this is what real Armourers were doing every day of the week so get on with it if it's all being done correctly. Alas, some of the self taught home experts or tinkerers - and dare I say it, amateur gunsmiths and even pro 'gunsmiths' have a bent for NOT doing it correctly. So you take your pick. Just don't get me going about the latter....., the home tinkerers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonEnfield

Where does the forum stand on the topic of rifles where the bolt, foreend, magazine, etc have all had the same number applied by a gunsmith assembling them from parts bins? Or even refinishing them and applying the number?

---

Again, parts guns...simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

a bit part Armourer

---

You are SO flippin' funny...:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LondonEnfield

Where does the forum stand on the topic of rifles where the bolt, foreend, magazine, etc have all had the same number applied by a gunsmith assembling them from parts bins? Or even refinishing them and applying the number?

---

That is called faking, and it should be condemned in the most serious way possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

That is called faking, and it should be condemned in the most serious way possible.

---

I wouldn't describe it as faking if the work has been done properly by an experienced person/gunsmith/armourer. But clearly the resulting gun isn't the same thing as a gun where all the serial numbered parts match and none have been changed since manufacture. That is why I believe that we need some words to describe a gun where the numbers have been changed to match. If "forced matched" is not acceptable then we need some other phrase to describe it. It doesn't really matter what the phrase is provided it is different from "matching numbers".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I wouldn't describe it as faking if the work has been done properly by an experienced person/gunsmith/armourer. But clearly the resulting gun isn't the same thing as a gun where all the serial numbered parts match and none have been changed since manufacture. That is why I believe that we need some words to describe a gun where the numbers have been changed to match. If "forced matched" is not acceptable then we need some other phrase to describe it. It doesn't really matter what the phrase is provided it is different from "matching numbers".

---

If it is made from parts why serialize the different parts unless you intended to pass it off as something it isn't? What about renumbering one single part to make it 'all matching'? That is humping/faking and should discouraged at every turn possible. This isn't a new manufacture firearm, its a milsurp and people renumbering the parts post-service is faking in my books as even if they know it isn't original, does the next person? It might not be the original builder who trys and fakes the firearm, it could be several people down the line. It could be the original gunsmith dies and someone who doesn't know better passes it off as all matching. Many different things that can happen, but you see it all the time when the history of the firearm isn't passed on properly and people start claiming it is something it is not due lack of knowledge or purposely trying to screw someone over.

Forced matched as mentioned is primarily used for Soviet arms, and really only applies when the serialized part has been struck out or re-ground in service and renumbered with the new firearms serial number. I wouldn't really use the phrase Force Matched for anything but Soviet arms, as for most milsurps it isn't really a accurate way to describe them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

If it is made from parts why serialize the different parts unless you intended to pass it off as something it isn't? What about renumbering one single part to make it 'all matching'? That is humping/faking and should discouraged at every turn possible. This isn't a new manufacture firearm, its a milsurp and people renumbering the parts post-service is faking in my books as even if they know it isn't original, does the next person? It might not be the original builder who trys and fakes the firearm, it could be several people down the line. It could be the original gunsmith dies and someone who doesn't know better passes it off as all matching. Many different things that can happen, but you see it all the time when the history of the firearm isn't passed on properly and people start claiming it is something it is not due lack of knowledge or purposely trying to screw someone over.

Forced matched as mentioned is primarily used for Soviet arms, and really only applies when the serialized part has been struck out or re-ground in service and renumbered with the new firearms serial number. I wouldn't really use the phrase Force Matched for anything but Soviet arms, as for most milsurps it isn't really a accurate way to describe them.

---

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I have restored many Lee Enfield's over the years and never have sold one, without the discloser that it is a restored sporter. Mismatched serial numbers tell the story that it is not original.
Even if bolt, receiver, barrel, mag, rear sight and nose cap match, I would still inform the buyer that the wood has been replaced.
I have found many rifles that have serious issues with bolts and receivers, those get cut or crushed. I would rather lose money than endanger someone.
Humping rifles is not something new, Bannerman, Jovino, Mitchell and St. Amour have all done it.

This should be titled :


The thread that would not die.

Ok question, if a rifle has a mismatched bolt, once fitted correctly, should it be numbered to match?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I wouldn't describe it as faking if the work has been done properly by an experienced person/gunsmith/armourer. But clearly the resulting gun isn't the same thing as a gun where all the serial numbered parts match and none have been changed since manufacture. That is why I believe that we need some words to describe a gun where the numbers have been changed to match. If "forced matched" is not acceptable then we need some other phrase to describe it. It doesn't really matter what the phrase is provided it is different from "matching numbers".

---

My opinion only.

Anything other than a part officially renumbered/replaced by an armourer during military service can't be called "matching".

If the intention of the renumbering is to increase the value of the resulting rifle and to fool people into paying more than they otherwise would then I would describe it as faking/fraud.
If on the other-hand the renumbering has be done for what some would describe as "good house keeping" and the parts have been carefully adjusted where needed to match and the numbers have perhaps been applied by electro-pencil, then I don't have too much of a problem with this.