Force matched - me no understand

[Homer]

I think it's a poor reference because there seems to be no official meaning.
A renumber is a renumber, whether the old number remains lined out or is completely scrubbed/removed. The part is simply simply renumbered.

[Eaglelord17]

In the same vein, why do people refer to the letter and number markings on an arm as "stampings?" A tool named a stamp is used to make the markings. Stampings or pressings (British) are sheet metal parts formed by pressing the metal in a matching set of dies. Just because a number of people use it, does not make it right.

Metal stamps are used to make the markings sometimes, so why wouldn't you call it a 'stamping'. Would you prefer if they called the markings 'stamped' on instead of a 'stamping'? Words can have multiple meanings, and at least it is logical to understand how they come to that conclusion (i.e. you use a metal stamp and make a stamping).

So is 'force matching' the same thing as 'humping'?

Or does 'force matching' mean legit in service refurb renumber, and 'humping' means renumbered to deceive, as in a post service renumbering to fake an all matching rifle to increase its resale value?

In order of desirability to collectors, which takes precedence?;-

a. Original to that rifle part with matching serial number.
b. New replacement part numbered to match.
c. New replacement part, no number.
d. Recycled part, old number struck out, renumbered.
e. Recycled part, old number removed, renumbered (force matched, or humped?)
f. Recycled part, old number removed.
g. Recycled part, miss-matched number.

Humping is the intent to deceive. Different nations had different policies on how they did things, and that always has to be taken into consideration. A 'force matched' part was done in service. Any attempt to renumber the part to match post service is a humping of a firearm as matching numbers increases value.

Generally speaking the most desired form of firearm to collect is one that is original to what it came out of the factory as, in both condition and parts. From there is only goes down in value. Mismatched bolts and such are almost always not from service rather from the importation process.

So to answer what I consider most desirable it is in the order of A, B, D/E (depending on the practices of the military in question, if the military didn't remove the old number in refurbishment practices it is likely humped), then it is a toss up between the rest (as if they are unnumbered or mismatched it could be a restoration, bubba, someone just replacing parts, etc.). This is when it is important to understand the practices of the particular militaries in terms of what firearm you are looking at and how they treated them. For example Finland used to spend a long time renumbering and trying to keep original parts together before WWII. After WWII they rebuilt guns with whatever was available and generally didn't take the same amount of effort to try and keep matching parts together, except for things like the bolts. Other nations were very strict about keeping numbered parts together (Germany, Switzerland etc.). Some didn't even number the bolts (Austria-Hungary, Italy for the most part, etc.).

[Bruce_in_Oz]

In many "proper" Ordnance systems, the correct procedure is to "strike" or "bar" out the original number, in such a way that it is still legible, and apply, via stamp, die or mechanical engraver, a new number.

This is STILL common practice in places where weapons are subject to "upgrades" whilst on the books. The idea is that the Ordnance / RAEME etc. boffins can identify major components' original "heritage", especially if there is a "product recall" or an instruction specifying components originally of a certain serial number range, as "obsolete" or "superseded". to be removed and replaced by a new item. USABLE parts recovered from "scrapped" weapons are pooled and inspected, then held for re-issue. Any "serial numbers" on these will normally be "barred out" as per above. After fitting of such "pre-loved' parts and final acceptance at re-assembly, any appropriate markings / numbers will be applied as per technical instructions.

The business of "All-Matching" M-1 Carbines used to amuse me. Given the number of major and minor contractors making parts and / or assembling them, there was almost NIL chance of there being any significant number that left a "factory" with a complete suite of parts made by the name on the body / receiver, especially during war-time. Ditto the 1911 pistol. And by the time they left service????

Next thing there will be a rash of "All-Matching" AR-15s.........

[5thBatt]

there seems to be no official meaning.

& just that is why i use it when discribing what is a possible none official renumbering of a part

[Bindi2]

As far as Lee Enfields go the phrase Force matched is a rubbish saying and means exactly nothing in most cases. To many shared parts between factories and assembly lines from the same manufacturer. People who swap parts are destroying the rifles history. A 1913 No1 Mk3 Lithgow in mint condition does not exist in real life. In real life it is now a Mk3* looking very very tired to low average condition even with newer furniture. It will have been through at least two FTRs. A 1945 Lithgow could be as close as you will get to new, like a 1953 could be. XPs range from beaters to new.
No4 Mk2s can be NEW.
If the date is pre WW1 or during 1914/18 and it did not belong to a police force you can bet large sums of money it wont look new without a FTR with new parts.

[Homer]

As far as Lee Enfields go the phrase Force matched is a rubbish saying and means exactly nothing in most cases. To many shared parts between factories and assembly lines from the same manufacturer. People who swap parts are destroying the rifles history. A 1913 No1 Mk3 Lithgow in mint condition does not exist in real life. In real life it is now a Mk3* looking very very tired to low average condition even with newer furniture. It will have been through at least two FTRs. A 1945 Lithgow could be as close as you will get to new, like a 1953 could be. XPs range from beaters to new.
No4 Mk2s can be NEW.
If the date is pre WW1 or during 1914/18 and it did not belong to a police force you can bet large sums of money it wont look new without a FTR with new parts.

Geez mate, we are probably wandering way off topic now, but I'll respond briefly. I wouldn't describe any as mint or even anywhere near it, but I've had examples of nearly every year of Lithgow that certainly had not been through any FTR's. Many where very much original to my untrained eyes, including a 1914 and 1915. I'd still like to think that somewhere out there there's a nice original 1913 as well.

[Bindi2]

Geez mate, we are probably wandering way off topic now, but I'll respond briefly. I wouldn't describe any as mint or even anywhere near it, but I've had examples of nearly every year of Lithgow that certainly had not been through any FTR's. Many where very much original to my untrained eyes, including a 1914 and 1915. I'd still like to think that somewhere out there there's a nice original 1913 as well.

I have one but it is very very tired, it is an old lady with all its history still in place. I got it because it looked old dirty and worn and every one just walked past it without looking to see what it was. As far as I am concerned it is priceless never to be sold except from my cold lifeless hands. The other has been FTRd which is fine because it is a 1913 and that's what they did to rifles that are worn . Depending when the FTR was done at Lithgow the parts used would have been the same as the original so it would look like as new never used but what about WW2, Korea etc. WW1 was very hard on rifles just look at the crap that was returned to Aussie in replacement for the new rifles sent to the mother country at the beginning.

[Peter Laidler]

The words 'force matched' should NEVER feature in the description of any weapon for all of the good, genuine and honest reasons stated within this thread. Just the mere words imply that something has been 'forced' and matched'. Neither of which are true or correct UNLESS IT IS TRUE and then, it is the work of a bodger, bubba, a home tinkerer, enthusiastic amateur, home/self taught expert gnunsmith etc etc. Like I say several times every day and has been repeated here by those that really know, Armourers were always CORRECTLY re-fitting old/used parts as well as new parts and the barred out numbers will generally be visible (there were exceptions I should add.....*). Even when our guns were upgraded we would bar through the complete designation and re-engrave. The Mk2 and 3 Brens to L4....., the FN GPMG';s from L8 or L37 to L7A2......... or the M1919's to L3A1's. And that isn't forcing or matching anything. It might not look tidy but it's the way of the real armourers in the real world

Would you force match the pistons into your car? Nope. There's no place for the term 'force match' in the world of Armourers.

[SpikeDD]

In regard to Enfiels, as I haven't followed Mosin's close enough to have heard the phrase, The term " Forced Matched " was a term I understood to have nothing to do with FTR's...nothing to do with properly fitted parts by Armorers...nothing to do with field repairs..etc...etc. It also has nothing to do with "physically" forcing a part to fit a rifle. It was the back yard, non-gunsmith ****** that simply ground one set of numbers off and used whatever was at hand to apply another set of numbers that matched to receiver...poorly done in almost every case in the pure interest of claiming the rifle has "matching" numbers. "Forced" meaning NOT done by a proper Armorer at a military facility. At least that is my understanding of it from dozens of pictures over the years of bolts, nose caps and rear sights where the term " Forced Matched " was used.

If it means something else, it would put every FTR...FTR 1/2...FTR 1/3 rifle on the **** list and I can tell you from my personal sales experience of 1/2 and 1/3 rifles, the term " Forced matched " is not derogatorily associated with them in the least.

[5thBatt]

In regard to Enfiels, as I haven't followed Mosin's close enough to have heard the phrase, The term " Forced Matched " was a term I understood to have nothing to do with FTR's...nothing to do with properly fitted parts by Armorers...nothing to do with field repairs..etc...etc. It also has nothing to do with "physically" forcing a part to fit a rifle. It was the back yard, non-gunsmith ****** that simply ground one set of numbers off and used whatever was at hand to apply another set of numbers that matched to receiver...poorly done in almost every case in the pure interest of claiming the rifle has "matching" numbers. "Forced" meaning NOT done by a proper Armorer at a military facility. At least that is my understanding of it from dozens of pictures over the years of bolts, nose caps and rear sights where the term " Forced Matched " was used.

If it means something else, it would put every FTR...FTR 1/2...FTR 1/3 rifle on the **** list and I can tell you from my personal sales experience of 1/2 and 1/3 rifles, the term " Forced matched " is not derogatorily associated with them in the least.

My thoughts exactly, if you guys want to give us an "offical" term to replace it with, then please do!