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