An Interesting Hypothetical

A few nights ago I saw a discussion on another forum that I thought was very interesting but did not see the members really discuss much of it. So I thought I would bring the topic over for an interesting chat here. The conundrum on the forum was that what would you do if you had gotten a rebuilt M1 from the CMP, and you have an extra barrel lying around that would be "Correct" for that rifle to have instead of it's current barrel. However the "Correct" barrel has an import mark on it (could be any importer, take your pick, I believe it was a Blue Sky barrel in the other forum). Both of the barrels are in the same condition and both have good bores.

Now comes the interesting part, would you swap out the barrels or leave it as is?

None of the other parts are correct so why? The rifle has been rebuilt so many times that it'll never be close, it's not original so what gives? Correct...after a dozen juggled parts... It's not a conundrum, it's a waste of time.

It's a hypothetical, I wouldn't do it personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

None of the other parts are correct so why? The rifle has been rebuilt so many times that it'll never be close, it's not original so what gives? Correct...after a dozen juggled parts... It's not a conundrum, it's a waste of time.

---

...and money.

The object of restoration is to simulate originality. Any rifle that has rebuild marks or has been refinished can never do that with simple parts replacement.

There was a time 20+ years ago when parts and rifles were abundant and restoration was financially feasible. I think those days are behind us now with cottage industries making fake parts and original parts skyrocketing in price. I can see replacing a few small parts on a nearly matching example to make it "correct" but ground up restoration is beyond the pale now IMHO. You are altering the history of the weapon when you tear it apart and rebuild it to factory "correct" condition.

A firearm was only factory 'correct' once in its life. After that point it is part of the firearms history. Nothing makes me sadder than the willing destruction of something's actual history to try and 'preserve' history. You are actually doing the opposite of what should be done and in many ways it is worse than bubba, as at least bubba is honest about what he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

A firearm was only factory 'correct' once in its life. After that point it is part of the firearms history. Nothing makes me sadder than the willing destruction of something's actual history to try and 'preserve' history. You are actually doing the opposite of what should be done and in many ways it is worse than bubba, as at least bubba is honest about what he does.

---

I am not actually doing this. The arms in my question I was speaking about don't actually exist. I was just trying to create what I thought was an interesting conversation for this forum.

Edit: changed To to For

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowman1510

I was just trying to create what I thought was an interesting conversation for this forum.

---

A fun hypothetical for sure. Personally, I see this kind of thing as no less sleazy than stamping fake cartouches onto stocks.
This type of fraudulent creation of "correct" firearms is especially popular with M1917s - so much so that when I see "ALL MATCHING!" on one of them I invariably think, "wonder how much all those parts cost the fella!"
It's fake, it's not "correct", and it's the destruction of history.
I don't have much tolerance for it.

I guess it would be all up to how the person billed it if they sold it. Maybe if they just built as a shooter for themselves it could remotely be acceptable. But to bill it as "correct" with an import mark on the barrel that they put on them self is wrong.

Different collecting hobbies have different philosophies... junky old "barn find" cars that are restored bring huge bucks and get prestigious awards. One of my favorite TV shows is "Chasing Classic Cars." Maybe I'll start one called Chasing Classic Garands :)

So which of these would you rather have, the original and historically pure one or the total restoration? The person who paid $100K for the painted one certainly knew it was not original, it only simulated how it looked when it was new. Guys who restore Garands are trying for the same thing.Attachment 95768Attachment 95769

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob seijas

Guys who restore Garands are trying for the same thing.

---

So, you'd pay big bucks for a complete parts rifle...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

So, you'd pay big bucks for a complete parts rifle...?

---

Jim--

I have to agree with you. I recently seen an individual pay $3,000 for an "original" late Winchester M1 Garand which was brought home by a departed WWII GI. The only problem was the stock had been repaired in several places and was too new to use to in combat. (Used in Normandy and the Bulge) and the front sight was to H&R M1. I told the individual he should contact an expert who collects M1 Garands before purchasing the rifle. I referred him the Garand Collectors Association for advice. Unfortunately what happens with parts assemblers is they forget to pass on that the rifle was rebuilt back to its original configuration and not "original".