Points To Ponder

[jmoore]

Regarding the two percent- I think that number is high, but that's the optimist in me. I define "ORIGINAL" as "as left the factory/assembly shop". "CORRECT" is another matter entirely, as these rifles saw inspections and regular maintenance whilst in service.

I'm not thinking of "un-Bubba'd" rifles, although that's becoming rather more common- 15-20 years ago almost no one would resurrect a sportered or modified rifle (with exceptions made for rare variants)- it would cost way more than buying a "correct" example.

How many rifles do you pass up beween purchases? I reckon I DON'T buy well over 99% of what I examine for one reason or another, NOT counting lack of funds for "high end" stuff- which tends to be more often at least "correct" if not "original". (Oddly, "top dollar" Nazi seems to be the exact opposite- Fakes abound!)

PS- FTR's do fall under the "correct" catagory- if not "improved" or modded after the fact.

PSS- The US CMP does have something like "correct" and "collector" grades, but I don't recall an "original" grade...???

[villiers]

You haven´t seen anything ... until you start to discuss Lugers with US enthusiasts. It wouldn´t put me off so much if their interest were not so obviously venal. Faking a numbered magazine base, bakelite grips or numbering grip screws to increase the `market value´is not something I´d wish on Enfields.

[PrinzEugen]

Given the difficulties of telling the difference between 'original' and 'correct' I'd say any distinction is a bit meaningless, or at least more or less impossible to prove either way.
In terms of rifles - some people seem to buy shootable rifles and then never shoot them. For me (especially in the Uk given constraints of numbers of guns you can actually own) I want to keep on shooting them (also if I didn't shoot my collectable rifles I wouldn't be shooting much). I think as long as the guns are still 'active' they are more or less still in service and as long as proper parts are used for essential maintenance then this, in my eyes anyway, does nothing to harm the originality or allure of a gun, assuming maintenance is 'dun proper like' to coin a phrase.

[jmoore]

Originally posted by PrinzEugen:"I think as long as the guns are still 'active' they are more or less still in service and as long as proper parts are used for essential maintenance then this, in my eyes anyway, does nothing to harm the originality..."

I would amend it to read "...does nothing to harm the CORRECTNESS..." and have no arguement.

Having given the matter some further contemplation, I might venture that No.4 Mk.2s may have a possible 30-50% original survival rate. Maybe the 1950's Canadian rifles as well. But they are both comparatively low production runs compared to WWI and WWII.

Hard evidence for what remains "as manufactured"?

Absolutely none! But read through Peter Laidler's posts and think of all the levels of maintenance from the big FTR facilities down to field repairs, throw in long service lives, possible multiple military "owners" across the globe, exposure to weather, parade grounds, training, shooting, "make work", possibly even combat(!), etc., and it's surprising that any are left "pure".

[Gingercat]

In terms of rifles - some people seem to buy shootable rifles and then never shoot them. For me (especially in the Uk given constraints of numbers of guns you can actually own) I want to keep on shooting them (also if I didn't shoot my collectable rifles I wouldn't be shooting much).

With a 'collect and occasional use' clause on my UK FAC, I'm one of those people who tends to buy 'shootable rifles' and then not to shoot them. But why would I want to buy a tired rifle with a shot out bore, or worse still a 'deactivated' one, if I'm looking for something for my collection? I regard myself as a 'custodian' for future generations and it would seem to be sacrilege to shoot my 1914 Mk III SMLE (with its original - as far as I can tell - 1914 dated barrel) etc.

I keep buying rifles (9 now), thinking that I really must get one that I'm not too precious about shooting regularly - then always finding a reason why I shouldn't put many rounds through it! I'm really enjoying the hobby though...

In my book: Original = as near as it left the factory as possible, down to the correct makers' inspection stamps. (very few and far between examples seen)
Correct = any rifle that was repaired in service, or has been possibly restored (to spec) since entering civilian life.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

So what are we to make of all the Lee Metfords and Lee Enfields that were recycled into SMLEs or sub-cal trainers?

As they left the factory? Last FTR? Last EMER / EMEI modification? Last workover in some official service in some country, somewhere?

The Garand guys obsession with "original" is a bit quaint, considering that as soon as there was someone other than Springfield making parts, the game was on. When things got really roaring in wartime, the chance of each manufacturer ALWAYS having sufficient stock of ALL the parts from their own machines was NIL. If you have a totally matching pre-war Springfield Garand with it's original gas trap system, it probably fell off a truck a LONG time ago or it has been retro-fitted. I don't think there was any plan in the US ordnance system to thoughtfully put a few aside for future collectors.


Parts were parts. They either met milspec or they didn't. And that was before combat use, repair or official rebuild in the field, foreign service etc.

Some people's brains must explode when they trawl through M-1 Carbines and 1911s then.

[Bindi2]

So what are we to make of all the Lee Metfords and Lee Enfields that were recycled into SMLEs or sub-cal trainers?

As they left the factory? Last FTR? Last EMER / EMEI modification? Last workover in some official service in some country, somewhere?

The Garand guys obsession with "original" is a bit quaint, considering that as soon as there was someone other than Springfield making parts, the game was on. When things got really roaring in wartime, the chance of each manufacturer ALWAYS having sufficient stock of ALL the parts from their own machines was NIL. If you have a totally matching pre-war Springfield Garand with it's original gas trap system, it probably fell off a truck a LONG time ago or it has been retro-fitted. I don't think there was any plan in the US ordnance system to thoughtfully put a few aside for future collectors.


Parts were parts. They either met milspec or they didn't. And that was before combat use, repair or official rebuild in the field, foreign service etc.

Some people's brains must explode when they trawl through M-1 Carbines and 1911s then.

+1 then some

[buffdog]

Oh, Oh! I have an 1896 Long Lee that was Converted and made into a No. 1 Mark IV in 1908. Also a 1917 SSA No. 1 Mark III* that was changed back to a No. 1 Mark III at RFI in 1929, and the * marked out with two bars. Should I go and hide them from the Purists?

Actually, both the "left the factory" and "left the Service" points of view are good ones, but I think I have to lean to the "left the Service" one. Since the original owner was the Service, and all work on the rifle was done by Service personnel or authorized personnel, and then placed back into active use after any repairs or modifications were made, I think I would call that as Original.

To carry this a bit further, if an Armourer replaced a stripped screw, does the rifle lose it's "Original" designation. How about a replaced chip of wood on the top of the buttplate area, when the rifle was placed down rather heavily by so ham fisted recruit? Is it not still "Original"?
.
.

[jmoore]

Oh, Oh! I have an 1896 Long Lee that was Converted and made into a No. 1 Mark IV in 1908. Also a 1917 SSA No. 1 Mark III* that was changed back to a No. 1 Mark III at RFI in 1929, and the * marked out with two bars. Should I go and hide them from the Purists?

Actually, both the "left the factory" and "left the Service" points of view are good ones, but I think I have to lean to the "left the Service" one. Since the original owner was the Service, and all work on the rifle was done by Service personnel or authorized personnel, and then placed back into active use after any repairs or modifications were made, I think I would call that as Original.

To carry this a bit further, if an Armourer replaced a stripped screw, does the rifle lose it's "Original" designation. How about a replaced chip of wood on the top of the buttplate area, when the rifle was placed down rather heavily by so ham fisted recruit? Is it not still "Original"?
.
.

"Correct" would be a better term than "original" per your examples. As there ARE some few factory original examples out there, however rare, I think the term should be reserved for them. Let's not muddy the waters by broadening the definitions. That's a job best left to the politicians and "feel gooders".

[smellie]

I am wondering where this leaves my pair of SMLE I*** rifles? One is a Navy conversion of a 1907 Enfield but has the original rear sight (beautiful thing!) an the sight-bed screwed to the barrel, the other is an Army conversion of a 1904 LSA brought completely up to III* standards.

Or what about the CLLE? They certainly were never manufactured that-a-way.

Or a 1918 NRF with a recycled Ross butt, 1945 Enfield barrel, paint finish and composite aluminum/wood forestock?

Is a Charlton original? Or was Bubba working for the Aussie Gummint? What about a .50 Helmet Test Rifle? Or a Musket? How about a DeLisle?

I collect for the varieties which saw military service and I'm happy to get them, or restore them to, condition in which they would have been accepted by Capt. Laidler's grandfather..... who likely would have passed them on to my own grandfather. Perhaps it's not 'correct', but it's good enough for me.
.