Bitsa's - What to do with them?

[bouletbill]

At least all those US basements full of Lee-Enfields have saved many from the chop simply by keeping values up enough to interest the trade. If the trade wasn't interested then much of this old stuff would disappear. There should be some way of registering unshootable spare parts but the anti-gun agenda of most authorities would never agree a practical solution ... in my opinion.

[Bindi2]

How do you tell between a bitsza and field repair,SSA,NRF,Maltby or Lithgow with a FTR stamp and dont forget the rifles returned to Australia after WW1 From England that needed rebuilding just to work.( got new ones returned worn out older ones)

[bigduke6]

.........

I think that just about puts it in a nutshell!.

I'll keep my "bitsas" (if I'm allowed) simply because someone went to the trouble of putting them back together, possibly not for profit, and that is as much (if not more) a part of their history as anything else. In fact they are almost more interesting because of it, especially when faulty. Now I just need to get fit in order to cycle the100 mile round trip to Bisley every couple of days in order to shoot them, as the cost of petrol is starting to get prohibitive.
Anyone got one of those BSA bicycles with the SMLE rack for sale?.

Jss,

Dont be fooled into thinking you have to shoot a full bore rifle on a full bore range, you can download your ammo, there is plenty of info out there regarding this, and it allows you to shoot on indoor ranges, saves on powder, case life is extended and saves your shoulder.

As Patrick pointed out take as many rifles with you to the range, I do this when I go over to Bangor, in most cases I go to test out stuff I have worked on, but take a good selection of my own to give them a run out.

Regarding your bitsa,s keep them and the slot on your ticket until something nice comes along, then do a one for one, sell the bitsa as complete or as a trade in etc, or put it on guntrader, Deactivating should be the very last on the list, once its chopped it stays chopped.

Remeber No4 barrels are becoming as scarce as rocking horse S**t, so if you have a No4 and do sell off the timber and non pressure parts etc, the barrel is the money earner.

There are many shooters who also collect, and Buccaneer has some sound advice regarding this, and with regards to the HBSA you can become a Corresponding member.

I,m like a few on here who like to bring some life back into a Milsurp that has been sporterized etc, so a few of my own are bitsa,s and in the case of a few rare ones I will build them up with what I have on hand then replace the parts with original bits when or if they become available, patience is the main factor here.

It all comes down to time and money in the end, my money ran out long ago, as for time this is becoming more limited.

[Beerhunter]

I now have two possibly three of these rifles and in order to keep them I have to shoot them at least 3 times a year each.

That is a load of nonsense made up by your local Constabulary and probably promulgated by the local FEOs.. Those numbers have no basis in law whatsoever. Additionally they are, compared with other Constabularies, particularly draconian. Here is the actual law on the subject.

Section 30A(4) of the 1968 Firearms Act - as Amended:

The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the holder no longer has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition which he is authorised by virtue of the certificate to have in his possession or to purchase or acquire.

and Section 30B(2) ibid.:

A firearm certificate may be partially revoked only if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the holder no longer has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition to which the partial revocation relates.

The ONLY power, under those Sections, that the Chief Officer of Police has is to revoke or partially the Certificate. That is a big step for him/her and is liable to challenge in the Crown Court: Section 30A(6) and Section30B(3).

In other words, if one's "good reason" is "target shooting" and you stop doing that, the Chief Officer Police can revoke or partially revoke your FAC. However (and it is a big however) in law (and in Guidance to Police) there are no numbers quoted and this number is by far the most onerous that I have seen. If I was you I would get that in writing.

I know that standing up to your Constabulary and (more often in my opinion) over officious FEOs is a big step for you but that is the law, not what your local plods have made up.

[olmate]

I have a few Bitsa's myself.. Mainly No5's and, although I have three there that are quite collectable, I do have 3 or 4 that have been "saved" and made to look somewhat like they were intended to. Long barrels gone and stocks put back like they should be (although I have kept the differeent calibres as I reckon they are collectable as Australian Wildcats) .25-303 (x2), .270-303 and .35-303. All part of our history now I reckon

[tbonesmith]

If it's well set up who cares? If it's a collectable something you want to keep tucked away for posterity all well and good, but if you use it, it's all about the setup, all matching numbers or none.
Just my 2 cents.

[Claven2]

How do you tell between a bitsza and field repair,SSA,NRF,Maltby or Lithgow with a FTR stamp and dont forget the rifles returned to Australia after WW1 From England that needed rebuilding just to work.( got new ones returned worn out older ones)

In fairness to the Brits, it would have been unfeasible to find all the Lithgows still in service and return those specifically, plus after wastage, they could never have returned the proper number.

I also doubt they selected worn rifles specifically. Many MANY of the SMLE's in inventory had spent a long hard war shooting cordite and being dragged in the mud. The AEF rifles, for that matter, largely needed rebuilding.

Personally, I like the lithgow-rebuilt Brit rifles - they have an interesting history.

[Bindi2]

In fairness to the Brits, it would have been unfeasible to find all the Lithgows still in service and return those specifically, plus after wastage, they could never have returned the proper number.

I also doubt they selected worn rifles specifically. Many MANY of the SMLE's in inventory had spent a long hard war shooting cordite and being dragged in the mud. The AEF rifles, for that matter, largely needed rebuilding.

Personally, I like the Lithgow-rebuilt Brit rifles - they have an interesting history.

They got new rifles they were still building rifles they could have returned new rifles. I have some of those returned rifles one is a HT the others ,well enough said. Apart from the action there is little remaining (WW2 ,Malaya then Korea i suppose is a good run) But some of the actions are still older than any we made.

[Rumpelhardt]

Just a question on this subject. When you speak of "Bitsa's" are you referring to rifles who have had major parts of the barreled action like bolts and barrels modified or changed by us slimy civilians or would even replacing wood and small parts that got butchered or removed put it in this category?

[Claven2]

They got new rifles they were still building rifles they could have returned new rifles. I have some of those returned rifles one is a HT the others ,well enough said. Apart from the action there is little remaining (WW2 ,Malaya then Korea i suppose is a good run) But some of the actions are still older than any we made.

In the early 1920's, only BSA was still producing No.1 rifles in quantity and those were primarily for foreign sale and commercial use. The UK MOD only bought enough to keep the production lines from closing. They would never have had enough unissued rifles on hand to send them to Australia. In all liklihood, they simply selected a muster point near Australia, perhaps India or Singapore, and had a bunch of rifles made surplus by the size of the peacetime army gathered together, counted, and sent to Australia.

As I said, had Australia retained those lithgows (and not sent them to the UK), they would have been used and abused by diggers for the whoel war and would still have needed rebuilding in similar proportions. In general, most militaries were disposing of guns anyway - Australia, by exception, rebuilt a lot of guns to like new again - I'd be interested to know when exactly though - was it in the 1920's (I doubt...?) or predominantly in the 1930's and later when the state of world affairs and its deterioration was becoming more evident?

All that to say, I doubt hte MoD did this on purpose as a snuff to Australia's armed forces. To the brass at the war office, an Enfield listed in stores as serviceable is as good as any other - regardless of the reality of the abused state of many of the rifles coming back from the front.