What have i done?

[Robert303]

Harlton,
My mistake was 1) I was far too impulsive. 2) I read the blurb instead of asking for better photographs and 3) I had read a 'bit' about these rifles but not enough. With hindsight I should have calmed down. Re read the Home Office Spec that was researched by Steve on his 'Enforcer Page'. I should then have looked at as many decent pictures from KNOWN reliable dealers / collectors as I could, making notes of unique points. If they could not be seen on the rifle that was being sold I should have asked for better pics or walked away. The picture I was looking at was not clear, however I should still have spotted the Magazine and the Butt were not right. In addition, and where possible you study pics of or get examples of the unique pieces such as scope rings and mounts. I have now bought examples of them to see what they really look like. I am however still trying to get some RAHs 4 scope rings as the RAHS 3s I have will NOT fit a Pecar Scope marked 25.4mm on the box. If I cannot get RAHS4s I'll have to accept modern rings until I can. The reworked area on the rifle was not an area that had had a pad on it. I was meant to be the result of the 'Original Designation and number having' been 'Ground Off' according to the blurb.
As I said I've learnt a lot and at least I did not get burnt. Yes it is a rifle that can be quite easily faked BUT unless someone start adding spurious markings there should be no real harm done as Simon runs such a great service identifying the real ones. When mine is done it will look 'Similar' but not identical as I doubt I'l get the right butt. Like the 4T replica I have I will also publish the number.

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.

[desperatedan]

Harlton,
My mistake was 1) I was far too impulsive. 2) I read the blurb instead of asking for better photographs and 3) I had read a 'bit' about these rifles but not enough. With hindsight I should have calmed down. Re read the Home Office Spec that was researched by Steve on his 'Enforcer Page'. I should then have looked at as many decent pictures from KNOWN reliable dealers / collectors as I could, making notes of unique points. If they could not be seen on the rifle that was being sold I should have asked for better pics or walked away. The picture I was looking at was not clear, however I should still have spotted the Magazine and the Butt were not right. In addition, and where possible you study pics of or get examples of the unique pieces such as scope rings and mounts. I have now bought examples of them to see what they really look like. I am however still trying to get some RAHs 4 scope rings as the RAHS 3s I have will NOT fit a Pecar Scope marked 25.4mm on the box. If I cannot get RAHS4s I'll have to accept modern rings until I can. The reworked area on the rifle was not an area that had had a pad on it. I was meant to be the result of the 'Original Designation and number having' been 'Ground Off' according to the blurb.
As I said I've learnt a lot and at least I did not get burnt. Yes it is a rifle that can be quite easily faked BUT unless someone start adding spurious markings there should be no real harm done as Simon runs such a great service identifying the real ones. When mine is done it will look 'Similar' but not identical as I doubt I'l get the right butt. Like the 4T replica I have I will also publish the number.

Robert - Just a thought but if you're going to fit a "no drill" type mount (Fultons?) won't this sit higher than the base pads as fitted to the receivers on Enforcers, so wouldn't RALS4 rings be better for you? IIRC the L's have 0.23" under them and the H's have 0.486".

[Robert303]

Thanks for this. Scopes and the mounts for them are something I have had little experience of and they appear to have a whole world of their own jargon and codes. For instance can I ask what IIRC is? I can work out the the L and the H though ;-).
Much will depend on 1) The mount I go for and 2) The type / shape of Butt I use. I may go for one of the leather raised cheek pieces to get a decent shooting position for both prone and 'standing foxhole'. This then brings me to bipods. Again I've never used one before. The next question is, can I get an original 'As issued to the Police' bipod IF there ever was such a thing, as some Forces bought the 'Kit' and others bought the rifles and added the 'Extras' later. Again I really need to see an original to have some idea of what I'm looking for. Are there any current bipods that are the same or very similar to the period Parker Hale ones? I can see me trying / buying / selling a lot of bits and pieces in the next few months!

As I'm at Bisley this weekend on the Edinburgh Classics Trade Stand I'll be able to talk to a few people and hopefully see some examples. So if you are passing and have items that might be of interest by all means drop by. I'm reasonably civilised in the morning less so by 5 on Sat!

Thanks to all who have contributed on this thread it's been very helpful and I appreciate it.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

For instance can I ask what IIRC is?

It's part of the new "texting" jargon. IIRC=If I Remember Correctly, LOL=Laughing Out Loud, WTF?=Why The Face?, etc.

[Colonel Enfield]

It's part of the new "texting" jargon. IIRC=If I Remember Correctly, LOL=Laughing Out Loud, WTF?=Why The Face?, etc.

A couple of things - firstly, it's not "new" - text message jargon, netspeak and its descendants have been around for more than 20 years. Secondly, WTF does not mean "Why The Face?"; it means "What the F----?"

Besides the others Steve H mentioned, A few examples you're likely to encounter in non-computer gaming contexts include AFAIK (As Far As I Know), IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), ICYMI (In Case You Missed It), FFS (For F--'s Sake) and ROFL (Rolling On The Floor Laughing).

[browningautorifle]

WTF does not mean "Why The Face?"; it means "What the F----?"

Yup...