Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Patrick Chadwick]

Some very good definitions by Seaspriter. They certainly help me to clarify my thoughts. May I suggest that it is also helpful to distinguish between the parts and the whole? The word "original", for instance, is frequently used in an ambiguous sense. This results in awkwardness when evaluating some of the rifles photographically presented for our inspection and evaluation.

Starting point:
As made by the factory = original part
As assembled by the factory = ex-factory = original configuration of an original rifle
If configuration was altered = no longer original configuration or original rifle
If configuration retrospectively altered to match ex-factory condition = original configuration, but not original rifle.

Already it starts to get a little grey. I propose avoiding the loose use of "original", and sticking to "ex-factory rifle" to mean "as it left the factory". This refers to the entire assembly of parts, not the quality and condition of the surface finish, which will, in general, have significantly deteriorated by comparison with the "out of the wrap" condition.

However, as the primary function of an armorer is to ensure that the rifles function properly, the proportion of ex-factory rifles in this sense must inevitably decline in service. What bothers us is what happens to the guns after their service life has ended. And it is clear that after a while it is impossible to say in all cases who made an alteration. The "part of it's history" argument sometimes seems to be a cop-out to avoid making a decision, but is also often valid. Is the No.4 butt on my No.8 a "part of it's history" or the work of John Q. Bubba? In such cases, it is IMHO proper to leave it alone if you are not very sure.

So we then have:
Ex-factory = a rifle with all components in the same configuration as they left the factory, nothing having been replaced. Common in beat-up condition, but rarer and rarer in increasingly good condition.
Original configuration = all original parts from the same date/series and in the same configuration as for the rifle when it was delivered ex-factory, but not all from the same rifle, some or more having been replaced. Very common.
Non-original configuration = original parts used for replacement, but some from later versions/series. Very common in order to get an old banger working again.
Returned to original configuration = more and more common as the matchmakers continue their work, but this does not create an original ex-factory rifle. And the matchmakers seem to prefer to ignore the "returned" aspect.

Original part, but original number erased and new number applied = a forged number on what has thereby become a faked part. Very, very common in the world of Mausers and especially Lugers, where some people apparently "Buy the numbers, not the gun"and unmarked original parts from old factory spares stocks can be sold for a hefty premium. Saves having to scrub the old number before force-matching the new part, doesn't it?

Yes, it's all shades of grey. The only thread of logic that I have been able to follow to my own satisfaction is that alterations that are not functionally necessary can easily be the start of a progression of falsification through faking and forgery to fraud. Avoid the F-words!


Any thoughts?

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]

I thought this deserved a fairly comprehensive reply as well so split it from my earlier reply re: Commercial Thorough Refurbishment of rifles; I hope nobody minds.

So I think I do understand collecting. And the tendency to hoard. Serious collectors have made major contributions to our knowledge in the form of books and forum contributions. But I could show you a collection in a castle that contains multiple copies of the same types - and it is all suffering from rust, as the owner appears to be unable to care for it all. That really is disappointing. As to use of the word "hoarders", I stick by that. Acquiring multiple copies of the same type is hoarding, but the hoarders want to dignify their activity as collecting, and in this way are downgrading serious collecting.

So what is serious collecting? It would be interesting to hear a few viewpoints on that!

When I think of "Serious Collectors", I think of the guys who have collections rivalling some established arms museums, including examples of multiple types of rare and very expensive guns. They know exactly what the guns are, how they fit into their overall collection theme, they know the history of their guns and they care for them and look after them. Being a "Serious Collector" is not a bad thing, even if it involves far more discretionary spending money than most of us are ever likely to see this side of a Lotto win or Ocean's 11-style casino heist.

I think a useful rule of thumb separating a collector from a hoarder is the willingness of someone to pass on the gun if it doesn't fit their "theme" - and also whether they're buying an item to stop someone else getting it.

If offered a 1942 Lithgow SMLE Mk III* in decent condition, a collector - who may already have a WWII Lithgow SMLE Mk III* - might very well pass on it if it doesn't enhance their collection; but that's a decision for each collector to make based on their collecting interests, themes, and a host of other factors too numerous to get into in this post without making your eyes glaze over in boredom*. The particularly community-minded collector may even call other people that he knows to alert them of the rifle they have passed on, should it be of interest to them.

I would suggest that a hoarder, however, will treat old rifles like Pokemon and buy it because "they've gotta catch 'em all" - or worse, because if they don't buy it, someone else might** and it's a short step from that to the impurifaction of our precious bodily essences by Communism.

The problem, though, is that people with huge and expensive collections have worked hard to get where they are and I don't think they should be denigrated for their hard work and acumen.

But, as has been noted, there's a point where so much potential collecting stock ends up becoming unavailable to the average enthusiast. In the case of military surplus rifles, this has flow-on effects because it stops younger people getting involved in the hobby - especially as shooters - because even an entry-level gun costs large sums of money which they don't have or don't see the value in spending.

A few years ago it was still possible to get a garden-variety Lithgow WWII SMLE Mk III* in decent, shootable condition for about AUD$350. Not dirt cheap, but not unfeasible or aspirational, either. Now they're going for ever-increasing sums of money and I've seen them selling for around AUD$750 if they've got a decent bore, which is frankly silly. A young person who's bought an old army rifle for AUD$250 is likely to be driven to learn more about it, discover its history, maybe get another one... and we have another member of the Imperial Society of Learned, Relaxed and Very Impartial Military Rifle Enthusiasts.

Nowadays, a younger person is only going to drop AUD$750 (and I sure as hell didn't have a lazy AUD$750 lying about to buy rifles when I was 21, which wasn't all that long ago) on an old military rifle if they're already certain they're interested in them - such as from shooting a friend or relative's rifle.

I don't really know what the solution is, though. Each collection is different and there are many cromulent reasons to have dozens of seemingly identical rifles; I'd loathe to create a situation where anyone who surpasses an undefined by magic number of "identical" guns (their identicality similarly ill-defined) suddenly becomes a hoarder who must be shunned.

*Is he still talking? Yes, Other Barry, he certainly is...
*Dramatic Chord

[Seaspriter]

Colonel and Patrick: Thanks for those lucid insights. You've really helped me understand the nuances.

Colonel, your point that others too have raised actually leads to another distinction:

there's a point where so much potential collecting stock ends up becoming unavailable to the average enthusiast. In the case of military surplus rifles, this has flow-on effects because it stops younger people getting involved in the hobby - especially as shooters - because even an entry-level gun costs large sums of money which they don't have or don't see the value in spending.

"Market Manipulators:" These are hoarders who buy up existing stocks of specific types of guns and rare parts, thus limiting open-market supply for the purpose of manipulating prices for personal gain in markets where demand is expected to rise. We've all seen this -- someone with money buying up scopes, or a particular model of gun, or a limited supply part (magazines, sights, etc.) then dribbling the supply back into the open market (on flea-bay for example) at a significantly higher price.

"Compulsive Hoarder" is an obsessive-compulsive aggregator of weapons who buys more and more and more for the purpose of feeding a gluttonous personal appetite.

"Malicious Hoarder" aggregates massive amounts of weapons because the will not allow others to own what they obsessively must have for themselves -- another person's gain is their personal loss.