Originality. A few home truths

[Son]

All up, this is a discussion about every individuals definition of a word. When asked these questions I use "original" to describe "as it left the factory" (allegedly, that is. Once again there will always be a grey area there particularly regards small parts)
And "correct" to mean it has all the right types of bits indicated by it's last marked condition (eg FTR, upgrade to * or /2 or such)

There will never be consensus within any single group of "collectors", let alone across the board of all collectors. Terminology that has no recorded definition (unlike the correct designations of the rifles as recorded in the LoC) will always be open for misuse.

Anyway, here's a pic of a Lithgow SMLE that was developed by a Base Level armourer for an undisclosed "special" purpose... (must be worth a fortune!)

[tlvaughn]

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.

I would think "all matching" and "all original" would be two different discussions. If I came across a 1941 Savage MkI T (Less Telescope) and the s/n's matched but some of the parts did not, I would buy it; however, if I came across the same rifle and the s/n on the bolt did not match, I would walk away from it unless it was being given away.

To your point though, I would have no problem owning a 4T with mismatched bracket and scope, as long as the bolt s/n matched.

[Bindi2]

Son mow the lawn it looks unkept.

[Claven2]

My take on it, is that if a WW2 brit No.4 still has bright electro-pencil marks on the receiver (i.e. not refinished) and the barrel date matches the receiver and all the serial numbers are matching each other. I generally consider it to be "original" in terms of an example of a WW2 issued rifle.

If, however, the rifle has, for example, post-war F53 marked parts better found on a No.4Mk2, or has LB or Savage parts mixed in, or has a refinished receiver (blueing or suncorite in the electropencil markings) it's a sure bet it's been rebuilt and likely retains very few of the parts it was born wearing. This does not make it a bad example, it probably left service that way, but it is slightly less collectable to someone wanting a WW2 "as-issued" example.

[spinecracker]

I do not think we will ever get a consensus of opinion on the subject (you say potato, I say Solanum tuberosum...), as it appears there will be as many definitions of "matching", "original" and "correct" as there are Lee-Enfield collectors. There will always be individuals who like the idea of the rifle with all "original" parts from the factory (good job proving that with so many spares on ebay...), and those do define original as "the state the rifle was in when it left service", and many shades inbetween. I have fallen into the former category once or twice (remember the 1941 Long Branch I restored? Then again, I had a very good reason). I now follow Claven2's discussion, remembering that these rifles would go through replacement of damaged parts and refurbishments as part of service life, and this is part and parcel of the history of the rifle, so why should I bugger with it or think it is less valuable to me because it saw some action and got some scrapes? When you think about it, the L42A1 didn't originally leave the factory as an L42A1, and a Savage No.4T sure as heck didn't leave Savage in that shape. My go-to shooting Lee-Enfield is a 1944 BSA, FTRed in 1949, with matching receiver, bolt, forend and magazine from the time of the FTR, and I love that rifle. The 1941 Fazakerley No.4 Mk.1 I have been looking at (it did pass the head space check with a 0.638" long #3 bolt head - phew!) appears to be all original, except for the later variation upper band with the welded on lugs, the Mk.II rear sight and the Mk.II cocking piece, but I will never be sure that other parts have not been swapped out, and I will never be able to prove anything either way, so I do not worry about it.

Now I have finished rambling, I will go and finish waking up and have a cup of tea.

[Mk VII]

I don't think anyone with any reasonable degree of knowledge of the wartime MoS's decentralising of production would have been under any illusion that all the parts were made under the same roof. The same goes for Sht L.E. production in the Kaiser's War, in the later stages at any rate.

[jmoore]

I'll have photos of the Fazackerly shown earlier for y'all to pick apart. A "practical exercise", if you will.

It surely lived a sheltered life, until it was sold off. Probably in a crate full of similar rifles that had been in QM stores their entire service lives. ("First in-last out", sort thing.) Out of 4000000 WWII No.4s I wouldn't be surprised that 4000 might survive more or less "intact".

The rifle of this study was doing pretty well, until some collector decided to "pretty up" the wood. I even have a culprit in mind, as he was notorious for sanding wood on virtually everything he ever touched, including almost "new" condition rifles of all nations. Hundreds of 'em! Col. Bill...Errrrrr- but he's long gone now.

[jmoore]

A photo review of the Fazackerly is linked below.

Ignoring the sanding of the stock and upper handguard metal, see if you think this rifle is "original", "original except for...", or "parts is parts". Be suspicious, make me take more and better photos, pick it apart. Show no mercy! I'll attempt to defend the "client" when appropriate. Or throw it to the wolves when it makes sense. (I've a Savage that was "all Savage", but removed the two position rear sight for shooting purposes, and can no longer remember where the Mk.II sight went- so no photo fun there!)

Slide-show link:

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...view=slideshow

Album link:

http://s20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...20F%2010%2043/

Some highlights:





Interesting surface texture on several parts. Sort of sandblasted, but with a near empty sand hopper...(?)

[Brian Dick]

Unaltered factory original rifles are out there. I've had a few through my shop in the past 20 years. I still have a Maltby ROFM 1941 and 1942 that are virtually new. The ROFM 1941 was out of Naval service. I think Savage and Long Branch No.4's can still be found from time to time in newish condition more so than their British made cousins. I have a few of those stashed away too. I have an all matching 1945 BSA/H&H No.4T with the grease wrappings still on the bands and nosecap. These rifles certainly don't have any stories to tell other than the inside of a store room someplace.

[spinecracker]

What was I thinking....

How about the 1942 NZ-marked Long Branch No.4 Mk.1* I picked up a short while ago. It looks like it has spent almost all of its life in storage. All parts are LB marked and, as far as I can tell, it has not been monkeyed with since it left Long Branch. Can I prove that it is factory original? No. Can I take a bloody good guess? Yes.