Originality. A few home truths

[Brian Dick]

I have 2 '42 date Long Branch No.4Mk.1* rifles in the same condition and one Savage Mk.1*, all NZ owned. I have another South African owned Savage that's new except it was thrown around after being surplused and sports the handling marks in the woodwork to prove it. A damned shame but it's still a very nice rifle. One of my favorites is a well used but nice condition LB Mk.1* made in 1943 that's also NZ owned so they did use some of them but many were left unused and stored until released to the commercial market in the 1960's and later.

[jmoore]

What was I thinking....

You were thinking about how nice it is IN the bandwagon, rather than being one of the heckling rabble on foot! Much less tiring.

Tiring- Two and 1/2 hours doing photo junk on the computer, and another hour or so actually taking pictures, KNOWING that someone else has a better example that'll just have to be posted...

[Demo]

Plenty of lithgows in Australia that have not been altered from new manufacture.

[nzl1a1collector]

I agree with Peter, I'm often asked by owners wanting to have an 'all correct' L1A1 and there are others determined hunt for all B61 or E57 parts to put on their cloned L1A1 rifles made up from parts kits. I ask them to define what they want.... are they wanting their rifle to 'look' like it was when it left the factory or do they want to represent a certain period because the rifles changed and were altered during their service life according to the Bible, (EMER's / EMEI's).

I do have a factory original British 1961 dated Enfield L1A1, one of only 10 sent to New Zealand as being part of the Rifle Steering Committee (RSC). These rifles were the new Mark 2 Rifles utilising all the modifications/alterations determined by the RSC. In theory the L1A1 Rifle should of become the 7.62 mm L1A2 Rifle but it never happened. I can tell you the rifle doesn't have ALL this or ALL that manufacturer's parts on it. Its a mix of Enfield (D61) and Fazackerly (F60) made parts. These rifles were held as 'Control Rifles' and never messed with for their time in the NZ Army system.

The thing collectors/owners tend to overlook is that small arms are mass produced, they are assembled on a production line into which parts that are available are put into assembly bins, the asemblers take part A, add part B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J etc till they have a complete unit. They don't care if part A or B was made by manufacturer '1' '2' or '3'.

It's certainly the case for mass Base Workshop overhauls. I was talking to an ex National Service Armourer who was involved in the refurbishment program of the New Zealand Army's Sten Guns. All they did was disassemble the lot en-mass, checked the parts, cleaned, bead blasted, phosphated the parts and then re-assembled the lot by taking part A, B, C from bulk bins and ending up with a Complete Sten Gun, checked and tested and then preserved and put into storage. They didn't care who made what part so long as it functioned and within spec it was used. The Sten's are 'Original'................... for the Army.

So what is Original?

1) As it leaves the Factory door Originality
2) A certain specific period during the service life of the rifle Originality.
3) Sold out of Military Service Originality (before it modified/bubberised/upgraded/downgraded/ninjaed/converted)
4) flight of fancy Originality

[Peter Laidler]

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer............................

Ah, Demo......, but we're not talking of Australian Lithgow No1's

[jmoore]

Anybody else out there willing to have their rifle photo scutinized?

All we need is one good example.

It makes for good discussion.

I still think that there's examples that were sold off or sent to foreign nations outside of UK MOD cantrol during the early post war era that may have never left their crates.
Current external finsh isn't a consideration, here. Just whether it's "as built".

Plenty of "losing side" weapons that remain original. Extremely few Garands and carbines, but they are out there. Maybe a few 91/30s, but most folk don't pay attention. Wartime M44s exist in original condition. Why is ONLY the No.4 exempt? ANd only British No.4s at that? Not Savages, or Long Branches, or even No.1 dispersal rifles. Hmmm?

[Brian Dick]

I'll do some photos for you JM. I'm trying to update my newly formatted website and deleting/adding a bunch of rifles so a few more No.4 photos are no problem.

[spinecracker]

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer............................

Bugger. And I was having such a nice day....well, until I woke up...

[Brian Dick]

With the help of Badger, (thanks Doug), here are a couple of NOS No.4 rifles as promised. One a British Maltby made in 1942.

Attachment 26691Attachment 26689Attachment 26690

The other a Canadian Long Branch made in 1942 with New Zealand ownership marks.

Attachment 26687Attachment 26692Attachment 26688

[spinecracker]

Anyone who THINKS that he's got an original 'as it left the factory' NZ No4 Mk1* before you gloat about it, you could be in for a shock. But I won't say more until this thread has run its course for a little while longer.....

I haven't been gloating, but I have been quietly enjoying the NZ-marked Long Branch I bought recently...so spill the beans, Peter!!!!! If I'm going to hear something I don't like, I'd like to hear it quickly :P