-
Contributing Member
You’re a bit late, haha.
Even with the JA barrel, $500 was a fine price.
Personally I think mismatched parts are part of the appeal - this gun saw some things!
Replacing all the mismatched parts is no different, in my mind, than using reproduction stamps for cartouches and trying to pass it off as genuine.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to rcathey For This Useful Post:
-
02-23-2018 08:29 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Advisory Panel
Love the history of the JA barrel, that's fine if it's good. I think after a bit of TLC that rifle will fit the rack perfectly. Steel wool and oil on the steel and varsol and rags for the wood. Apply rifle oil and pull through the barrel. You know the drill... Thanks for pics. Nice rifle.
-
Thank You to browningautorifle For This Useful Post:
-
-
Contributing Member
Steel wool and oil on the steel and varsol and rags for the wood. Apply rifle oil and pull through the barrel. You know the drill... Thanks for pics. Nice rifle.
Hi Jim, The metal looks like it parkerized, other then my military service I've little experience with rust removal and parkerization. Most of the rust should come off easy I was doing it with just my finger but I want to be sure to do the least amount of damage to the finish I can.
---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 AM ----------
Originally Posted by
rcathey
Personally I think mismatched parts are part of the appeal
I'm with you, I don't mind that a rifle had parts changed by the armory, as long as it's not aftermarket I'm good. I'm going to just enjoy owning it
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
usabaker
The metal looks like it parkerized
Good enough then, that MUST be a full armory refurb then...JA barrel, park...looks good.
-
Thank You to browningautorifle For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
For the price you couldn't go wrong at least not around here!
Everyone wants fully matching and all original but for a pure shooter you did fine.
To put it in perspective a mint condition all original M1917 would spend it's life as a safe queen. You have a rifle that served in 2 world wars and was rebuilt into something that's probably better than when it was new and you can use it without guilt or trepidation. Personally I don't have a problem with that. Shoot and enjoy it.
Send us a range report when you get the old girl finished and out. Good luck with it. - Bill
-
Thank You to oldfoneguy For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by
oldfoneguy
end us a range report when you get the old girl finished and out
Will Do! thanks for your thoughts.
-
-
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by
oldfoneguy
To put it in perspective a mint condition all original M1917 would spend it's life as a safe queen. You have a rifle that served in 2 world wars and was rebuilt into something that's probably better than when it was new and you can use it without guilt or trepidation. Personally I don't have a problem with that. Shoot and enjoy it.
That’s better said than the way I put it. Exactly my thinking though and I couldn’t agree more!
-
Thank You to rcathey For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
As I recall, the JA barrels were 2-groove? A friend had an Eddystone 1917 with a 2-groove replacement barrel. Of course, that was around 1960 so we made it into a sporter and had the barrel cut to 20", re-stocked, scoped. It shot very well. I think, at that time, he paid somewhere between $20 and $30 for it.
-
-
Legacy Member
USABAKER-- Very nice find! Salt Flat
-
Thank You to Salt Flat For This Useful Post:
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
rcathey
Replacing all the mismatched parts is no different, in my mind, than using reproduction stamps for cartouches and trying to pass it off as genuine.
Thank you rcathey for that opinion - it's nice to know that I am not alone in thinking that the mania for replacing perfectly functional components to achieve the so-called "all-matching and original" piece - which is then most certainly NOT original - is falsification. And when reproduction stamps are used, that is quite simply faking. Indeed, in the sense that the original stamps had documentary character, standing in for the inspector's signature as proving the provenience and correctness (inspection, proof etc) of a component, then it is the falsification of a document = forgery.
Last edited by Patrick Chadwick; 03-01-2018 at 05:21 PM.
-
Thank You to Patrick Chadwick For This Useful Post: