Gentleman,
Let me start by thanking Peter for continuing to contribute a wealth of information that would otherwise not be known in his absence. Having had the privilege of being turned loose in the Small Arms School in Warminster was an experience I will never forget and always appreciate.
After reading this entire thread, an obvious and long standing trend presents itself, which is, the lack of understanding the difference between a shooter and a collector. It could even be taken a step further to the absolute refusal of the aforementioned. It's almost as if there is an obsession with the obsession of a collector. Given this board is mostly comprised of shooters it stands to reason why most things are one sided and this topic seems to be mostly a confusion on the part of shooters.
The lack of understanding of anything in life is of course the spawn of "question" and it can be applied to everything. What I have read in this thread is just completely the opposite. The majority of the posts here aren't asking a question but are rather the "stating" of facts and supporting posts to the stating of facts to somehow point out that the only perceived reason why a collector would collect a rifle for doesn't exist therefore is pointless. The key word being " perceived " which is again, a byproduct of the unknown. There was even a poster who stated the only reason someone would want to pursue the acquisition of a all "original" rifle was because of it's monetary worth. Apparently, he's got it all figured out without so much as asking a single question. From where I sit, Bullshit. I've never in over 20 years bought a rifle worrying about what I could get out of it monetarily and have in fact paid much more for a particular rifle I wanted. Why? Steady now, here's where the confusion sets in... because I'm a collector and that is what a collector does, which brings us to the real question at hand. What do I collect rifles for and what do I look for in a collectible rife or rather, what do I consider to be collectible about a rifle. If that question had been asked of me the answer would be long listed so, to keep in topic of the thread, I'll address originality.
Originality: To suggest that collectors are unaware of the fact that most rifles are produced with outsourced parts is, to put it quite bluntly, asinine. For that matter, to suggest it of a shooter is quite the same. We have all been in this game for a long time and apart from the newcomers, I think it safe to say it's common knowledge. Given the fact of what we all know to be common knowledge, how could ANYONE, a shooter or collector, be confused about what the term "ORIGINAL" represents? If a particular situation exists, ie... rifles manufactured with outsourced parts, then by default we are left with only one option... as it left the factory. Which in short, would be my answer. As it left the factory.
I have a hard time understanding the confusion about this subject. In all that we have learned from each other which has shed a fantastic look into the mind boggling detail of the history of these rifles... why is anyone confused about the different aspects that draw us to them ?