Originality. A few home truths

[breakeyp]

Outstanding Peter! You have just described operations at Ford Motor Company and any other auto plant. If parts come in out of inspection, Engineering gets paperwork to allow it or else it is sent back to the maker. If he can'[t fix it---he eats it or if it is a material out of color---he sends it to our competitiors.

Also there is the problem of "first in and first out" or "last in and first out." If new parts to a new specification are received, unless noted otherwise, they are thrown in on top of the old stock and over time the old stuff shows up on later stuff and drives the collectors crazy because of the obvious change of parts by "bad collectors out there seeking to make things right to their knowledge!" Also the famous, if there is a problem, a day or weeks run is set aside for later repair as time permits. So somethings don't go out in numerical order. The last month of a car model year program was when the planat sweeped the floor for obsolete parts to get them out of the plant and still get paid for making a car. I know of a Canadian GM car with the Canadian equivalent of Buick nomenclature on one side of the car and Oldsmobile on the other side. Yes the customer ate it and without a bottle of ketchup.

[jmoore]

Wait just a minute! If we are designating "original" as "parts all from the same plant and made at the same time", then no, there's not likely wartime No.4s built just that way. But if "original" is "whatever was thrown together to make a working rifle at the assembly area and remains as such", then there's small chance of a few still intact. As a "for instance" I have a Winchester P'14 that is so original that it never left the factory until the 1960's. Known factory specimen. What are the chances? Dadgummed small. But it sits in front of me as I type.

ETA: Will go out on a limb here, and root through the rifle pictured below, and see of what it's made. Unless the light stock sanding disqualifies it from all original parts status. That's a Bubba, not an overhaul change. Won't report back in for over 26 hours, so y'all discuss away.

[Old Lancer]

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me, I'm glad to label myself a shooter rather than a collector. As long as its complete and serviceable then I consider myself lucky to own a piece of my ancestors proud military history. If one needs a rifle to be so correct then it must be so a monetary value can be attached, and IMHO thats the wrong reason to be its owner.
JUST MY OPINION, I'M ENTITLED TO IT AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!

[Pablo]

I was under the impression all original meant the same as when it left the factory. Not all parts from one plant.

[bigduke6]

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me

Very interesting thread and was Just waiting for someone to mention the A word, and I am in agreement with oldlancer but I,m a great believer in the old saying "every one to there own",

Understand Peter starting the thread, as I,m sure he has had all manor of questions regarding No4,s and what parts should I have on this and is this correct etc etc...........

As he has stated many times what was the nearest to hand was fitted etc and that was one rifle ready to go back into system, Simple.

But I dont think this ended with Enfields, for those with Blinkers on take them off and have a look at the other forums (even the Mauser one) you will see its the same story throughout the milsurp world, of course there are exceptions.

I was under the impression all original meant the same as when it left the factory. Not all parts from one plant

Pablo says it all too me, and going back to Breakyp,s comments regarding fords etc, I remember a Landrover 90 I had many yeas ago, and during its build and due to Lucas being on strike there was a shortage of Distributers, so LR used Bosch, so a Limited batch of LR,s 90 left the factory fitted with a Bosch Dizzy and points, possibly better quality but a pain in the ar** when trying to get points etc, It was only when I went to a parts place that you could buy almost any part etc for anything on four wheels that one of the lads behind the counter was a LR anorak and told me the story.

Moral of the story here is the future, say 20 years from now at a Landrover meeting ( I like them but not that much) you may have two people with the same LR 90 but a few weeks between build date, both own an original LR, with a different dizzy

[villiers]

Think it must have started with the old German practice of numbering each individual minute part which (in theory) would only fit the individual weapon. Loewe´s DWM initiated the DIN norm that made parts inter-changeable and any good gunsmith can improve on the reliability of a Luger with the help of a large barrel of mixed parts. But `fully numbered´ is still the benchmark for the market value of a `collector´s´ item. So it´s now just a confidence trick.

[STG-98]

This is all getting a little bit too anal if you ask me, I'm glad to label myself a shooter rather than a collector. As long as its complete and serviceable then I consider myself lucky to own a piece of my ancestors proud military history. If one needs a rifle to be so correct then it must be so a monetary value can be attached, and IMHO thats the wrong reason to be its owner.
JUST MY OPINION, I'M ENTITLED TO IT AS YOU ARE TO YOURS!

And I'm not exactly British - more like generic -American. And can relate 100% !
Motivation is preservation / appreciation of something historic, and a minor key of monetary value.

[Brown Dog]

Well, I’m the new boy on the block to the 4T business; but parts of this ’all-matching’ debate bemuse me.

Part of my bemusement comes from not being a ‘collector’ of anything and part of it, I think, comes from having spent more than 2 decades in the Forces.

Whilst I do ‘get’ why some people might like to have an ‘all-matching numbers’ piece of kit; I don’t get why ‘all matching numbers’ is somehow held to make a rifle more authentic.

Further to Peter’s points about the realities of distributed mass production I think part of this 'all-matching' thing may also be a mis-tune to the realities of military life. If we go to the ‘everlasting broom’ analogy; at what point do you tell a soldier using an issue broom that’s had the handle and brush replaced several times that he’s not actually using an issue broom?

If I move to another Land Rover analogy, over a hard life of use, a military landrover might have virtually every part replaced (well, I think the one exception to this is the ladder chassis itself, but I’m not REME! ) thus the actual landrover in military use in some grim place may almost literally not be the landrover that rolled out of the factory. I’m not clear why that could be held to make the vehicle less authentic. Certainly, no one tells the soldiers.

Moving to rifles, I can’t discern the difference. Break the stock, get a new stock. Smash the sight, get a new sight. Bend the barrel, get a new barrel etc. (I think the only exception is the relatively modern concept of the 'master component') All that stuff happens in peacetime, let alone conflict. At what point does the rebuilt rifle in the hands of soldier on the frontline cease to be authentic?

I think a point of view could actually be held that an ‘all matching’ rifle may have had a less interesting ‘life’ than one that’s been up and down the log chain a few times.

Just musings

[PrinzEugen]

All matching on a No4 amounts to bolt, receiver, maybe the mag and possibly some wood if marked. Anything else is unprovable - you can compare condition to the rest of the rifle but it's still intuition, guesswork etc and you may be wrong. For me as long as it's all authentic military parts which look like they belong together then it's good enough.

[Peter Laidler]

JM is right of course........... There will be one or two Enfields like the day they left the factory. Some at the bottom of the Atlantic or the Med and some of the UF55's still in the original wrapping. But for the rest, they're just a hybrid mix of parts - much the same as those at the bottom of the Atlantic!

What I am trying to tell you originality freaks is just how it was at the time according to my Sten research that must pretty well equate to No4 production and how life was afterwards, in the cruel and mean service world. If you have a wartime No4 and any FTR No4 including the 1/2's and 1/3's, then every mark/type part is acceptable. The only exception to the type of part fitted that I remember, that is well documented is that the Mk2 rifle must have a Mk1 backsight. For anything else, it's a free for all

And you're NEARLY right Black dog....... we DO frequently change Land Rover Chassis too