Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Peter Laidler]

When I am rebuilding telescopic sights, where required I only ever use modern seals, lubricants. If I have parts remanufactured I don't even hesitate to do so - using modern materials too! And I would never, ever stake the turret screws over either!

Off the subject a tad but as Armourers, we would stake screws, bolts or nuts to keep them secure. Indeed, that's the very reason, say, band screws are countersunk. (Don't believe me....., just look...) So we could secure them with a light centre punch. I bet that nobody would be so foolhardy now!

[Colonel Enfield]

I think all this has touched on a salient question, namely - at what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"?

Parts guns have their place, especially if the owner is fully aware of its status - but I also worry that 20-odd years down the track guns like that are going to end up on the market as "arsenal rebuilds"; not due to any deliberately misleading conduct but just because someone will come across an old rifle with a series of parts from different eras ("That's definitely not a WWII barrel and there's no way that wood is that old either, but the action says 1942...") and conclude that, well, obviously as parts wore out they were replaced - but without realising it was done (by a previous owner and not the military) 75 years after WWII ended, not 75 months.

[Seaspriter]

at what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"? Parts guns have their place, especially if the owner is fully aware of its status - but I also worry that 20-odd years down the track guns like that are going to end up on the market as "arsenal rebuilds"; not due to any deliberately misleading conduct but just because someone will come across an old rifle with a series of parts from different eras

Well stated Colonel. This is already a problem. I have two Enfields, both which were bought out of surplus after FTR by Parker Hale, which did upgrades and restampings on them. These were probably done in the late 1940s or 1950s. I cannot tell what PH did and what was an arsenal repair. Maybe this isn't a big deal for these guns, but it begs your question: what point does it stop being a "refurbishment" and start being a "parts gun"?

This is why the historian in me compels me to document all the changes to the gun and scroll it into the butt stock hole where the (typically) missing oiler and cleaning gear was stowed.

[Peter Laidler]

Exactly Colonel......... 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!

I have mentioned many times before of No5 woodwork through the Ordnance system in the mid to late 60's was obviously converted from No4 fore-ends and butts. It's just something that is real life and we need to accept. I suppose that the current classic example is L42's with modified/converted No8 handguards! That's how they were....

[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?

[Peter Laidler]

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination Sea Spriter. Not a term I would freely use. I prefer the phrase '..... just know a little bit more than the average Joe'.

I'll go ofdf one one of my tangents again. Well, it is a dreary Sunday here in Oxford...... ! was at a Crown Court a couple of years ago and listened to a couple of Barristers discussing the subject of 'expert witnesses' one was calling*. Very interesting......... There's the experts by definition of their trade or calling, those by virtue of their time served in a particular craft, the graduates in such fields as mechanical engineers, aeronauticss, metallurgists, wood experts etc etc...., you know the stuff. And there's the new 'subject matter experts' - whatever that is! And then there's the 'I've read a few/plenty/lots of books' experts. From what they said and my sisters time as one of them (now retired) I'll just stick to being 'knows a bit more than the average joe sort of people'.
* He was absolutely hopeless as it transpired.........

[Seaspriter]

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination

Ah, the words of a true master. Humbleness is a sign of deep wisdom. Only a master knows how much he still has to learn, but is still willing to share his knowledge, understanding it is always short of full insight.

As an expert in a totally unrelated field to yours, I too acknowledge I have accumulated much knowledge but still have a journey of learning that will, unfortunately, never be fulfilled in the limited time I have in this life.

That said, the collective wisdom of those I think of as "experts" (your humble admonition acknowledged) is at it's zenith now. The next generation of Enfield enthusiasts will never have the experience base of those that are currently contributing. Codifying both technical knowledge and deeper wisdom will never be more opportune that this moment in time -- this is as good as it gets. I implore you of such great experience to take this idea of a Next Generation Armourer's Restoration Manual to heart. A decade from now we will be on the wane as age shows no mercy -- the march of time shows no compassion; opportunity is offered only to those who seek it and capitalize upon it.

[Buccaneer]

I started this thread as a bit of a personal rant over what I perceived to be the destruction of a piece of history in able to produce a "pretty" rifle. A comment has been made to the effect that if a rifle does not shoot well then it is just a relic, buts that's just the point these rifles ARE relics and history books as well if you know what to look for, if you change things just to improve the rifles looks then you are bound to destroy part of it's history.
In general these rifles were never designed or built to be anything other than battle rifles capable of hitting a body mass at a reasonable distance when placed in the hands of your common crunchie, they can of course be made to achieve some very impressive results but they were never going to be tack drivers.
I fully appreciate the enormous lengths that some people go to to bring a "lost cause" back from the scrap heap but as Roger Payne has already said if something does not need changing then don't change it.
I have in my collection a 1904 dated Sht LE ConD MkII** N, it started life as a LSA & Co 1897 LE MkI, it has been fitted with a new barrel but that was only because the old barrel was in such poor condition the rifle would have failed proof which would have meant either de act or scrap and that really would have been a crime.The rest of the rifle remains as it was, the woodwork shows every knock and ding put there over the years by everyone who has every handled it but that is all part of its history, I would no more consider changing the wood work to improve its looks than I would take a sander to an antique table top to "restore" its original finish.
I hope that one day when my tempory ownership of this rifle passes to someone else that they see it for what it is, a quite rare and fairly battered old war horse that deserves to be looked after and not messed with as I suspect the people whose comments I overheard at the Phoenix show would have done.
Enjoy the history that is passing through your hands treat it with respect and hope that those who follow us do the same thing.

[Peter Laidler]

Talking of delelict things, I did the exact opposite. Not comparing like with like, but I purchased a totally rusted out fit for scrap 1969 Mini Cooper in 1983. Rebuilt it to new standard - eventually - over a 3 year period. But the notion that I would ever use cad plated nuts and bolts, cellulose paint or use anything else that would rot, tarnish or rust out in true BMC/Leyland fashion never even entered my head. All stainless steel nuts and bolts, same with the bracketry........, all stainless made new with modern paint too. As for the old Lucas (=Loads of Unconnected Crap And Solder) AC 'prince of darkness' alternator. Stripped and assemled in old casing but with modern guts machined to fit. Ain't original but it's already lasted longer than the original car!

[Patrick Chadwick]

OK, now it's my turn for a rant!

I shoot old rifles. Some of them very old. Some of them look like wrecks - on the outside. The insides are a different matter! Many would be sneered at by collectors. But they all work. I invest some time and trouble to achieve this, and share the methods with people on these forums.

If part is defective, I will repair it or (rarely) replace it with an original part. Basically, I will carry out what I regard as proper maintenance (like oiling a dry stock). But not pretty it up to increase it's decorative value. The aim is to keep the gun functioning as a gun, not as antique decoration.

Swapping out properly functioning parts merely to achieve an imagined "correctness" is IMHO falsification. Take a close look at the M1 (carbine and Garand) forums to see how the "numbers game" can become obsessive. Thanks to the efforts of the "matchmakers" there must be a higher percentage of "all original and correct" rifles around now than there were when they were in service use, as the matchmakers busy themselves to undo the work of Peter Laidler and his colleagues around the world.

Force-matching numbers on replaced parts is totally non-functional, and has the character of forgery, as it is the falsification of documentary evidence (the number). There is no excuse for this whatsoever.

I am not a collector. I am not running a museum. I am not saving them for posterity. Posterity is a person I am never going to meet, and will have to look after himself. But posterity will reap the advantage of the work I have done in making and keeping these old bangers operational, instead of just hoarding them.

Collectors who, with misplaced pride, write "I have just acquired my 99th 4T (or whatever)" are not doing anything useful for the shooting community. They are, again IMHO, being dogs in the manger and preventing 98 other people from being able to shoot one of these rifles.

And then they have the temerity to complain that prices are rising - when they themselves are the price drivers!

Sorry collectors, I know this is unfair to some of you who are serious students of the material, and hereby apologize to those who feel unjustly criticized. But all too many appear to be hoarders. And this is merely the opinion of a serious shooter, so you can ignore it!