Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Seaspriter]

ALL, every last one of the weapons that pass through our large workshops are just that when they get to the Out Inspectors bench. Robbie Robertson, bless him! Parts guns. The only parts that stayed together were the barrel, body, bolt and fore-end. And without doubt, in some cases with some tired and worn/shot-out old dogs, it was just the body, the master component that was original!

Gentlemen, thanks for this dialogue. Captain, perhaps you and Roger and the Colonel and Brian and Buccaneer and Beerhunter and others have (at least for me) begun to use this thread to map set of standards that might move us past this hurdle of "what is" and "what isn't." Since a large number of Lee Enfields underwent some form of repair (sometimes extensive) and Nitro-proofing before going into civil ownership, then nearly every gun (with the exception of the unissued or unused guns) is more than likely to some extent a "parts" gun -- something has been replaced or repaired and tested.

Then let me propose (just a starting draft) what a simple "Milsurp Standard" for Enfields might be:
1) Refurbished/Restored to British Armourer's Standards for FTR (i.e. all parts within spec and 80% life expectancy)
2) No Serial Number finagling
3) Changes made only when needed or were normal in FTR (i.e. no extraneous changes, such as converting a regular issue gun to a sniper or Jungle Carbine)
4) Before and After printed documentation of the restoration

Those of us who restore guns can state: "RESTORED TO MILSURP STANDARDS established by British Armourers for the 21st century." As Colonel Enfield remarked: openly acknowledge the rifle has been through a "Commercial Thorough Refurb" ["CTR"]

Please add your thoughts.

This might evolve into a new thread on proposed "Milsurp Restoration Standards" that will be an informal certified Standard of Excellence that many of you already adhere to, but is not written down and codified for future generations. I know many of you have these standards in your heads, have been trained in applying them, and admonish us when we don't meet those standards. A short codification of the standards & general principles might be helpful (God forbid it shouldn't look like government regs or ISO standards). Sort of a 21st century version of the British Armourer's Manual. Captain Laidler's expert Knowledge Library could be the start of such a Next Generation Armourer's Restoration Manual & Standards of Excellence.

In the appendix we could put serial number data, deciphering Enfield markings, how to spot a fake, identifying types of wood, tips & techniques: when to use more modern techniques, such as using modern seals, lubricants, using Loctite instead of staking screws & nuts over, using BLO instead of RLO, etc.

Most of what I'm proposing is already in the Milsurps library of threads, but often scattered (with the exception of Captain Laidler's knowledge library.

What do you masters/experts think?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Colonel Enfield]

Gentlemen, thanks for this dialogue. Captain, perhaps you and Roger and the Colonel and Brian and Buccaneer and Beerhunter and others have (at least for me) begun to use this thread to map set of standards that might move us past this hurdle of "what is" and "what isn't." Since a large number of Lee Enfields underwent some form of repair (sometimes extensive) and Nitro-proofing before going into civil ownership, then nearly every gun (with the exception of the unissued or unused guns) is more than likely to some extent a "parts" gun -- something has been replaced or repaired and tested.

For me - and despite my username, I have no military experience; I am just a well-read student of British Empire and its arms with plenty still to learn - the key thing in differentiating a parts gun from a refurbished arm is "who replaced the parts, why, and when?"

It goes without saying (at least in my opinion) that parts replaced by military or police armourers during the arm's service life do not compromise the historic integrity of the gun - and often adds to it, as for example with a Martini-Henry which was later converted to a Martini-Enfield.

But, if significant parts were replaced with "new" bits (even "correct" new bits) after a gun left service, then it's a different kettle of fish (with exceptions for trivial things like screws and sling swivels etc)

As an example: I would not classify a full-wood SMLE with only a post-service replacement barrel (even a New Old Stock or brand new one) as a "parts gun". Ditto a restored sporterised SMLE which has retained its original barrel but has "new" woodwork.

But an SMLE which has a post-service replacement barrel AND a replacement stock? I'd probably consider that a "parts gun", since at that point pretty much the only "original" parts left in it are the action and the magazine and it has no history behind it anymore.

It's still an SMLE, of course - replacing the barrel and the woodwork doesn't change that - but just as if you have a restored Model T Ford where the only "original" parts left in it are the steering wheel, the windscreen, and the dashboard; then I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convinving anyone it's an historic car - even if it's been completely and lovingly restored with care and patience to almost the same condition it rolled out of the factory in.

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

I should also stress that I don't see anything wrong with taking a sporterised/broken/bitser rifle and refurbishing it to "as-new(ish)" condition so it can be used for target shooting or hunting; to the contrary I might even call that a noble and worthy undertaking.

But I believe the critical thing is that the restorer be open about what's been done, and that it's been done to recreate/restore a vintage rifle for modern, practical use - rather than passing it off as a rare Rhodesian Commando Marksman's Rifle which belonged to the grandfather of a friend of a friend who fought in the Mau Mau uprising.

[birdhound]

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

This is a nice idea but not so easy here in the UK where each extra barrel or bolt requires a variation to your firearms certificate. In theory it is possible but in practice I can see problems if you tried to retain more than a small number.

Regarding replacement of wood and barrels it is quite possible that there could be 40 or 50 years between say the replacement of wood and when the shot out barrel may be replaced. This could happen in or out of military service. To me the fitting of a replacement barrel is entirely justified to keep the rifle shooting. A huge number of WW1 smle rifles were re barrelled whilst still in service during the 1920s and 30s. They may not be factory original but they are most certainly service original.