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?

[Colonel Enfield]

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.

For me - and despite my username, I have no military experience; I am just a well-read student of British Empire and its arms with plenty still to learn - the key thing in differentiating a parts gun from a refurbished arm is "who replaced the parts, why, and when?"

It goes without saying (at least in my opinion) that parts replaced by military or police armourers during the arm's service life do not compromise the historic integrity of the gun - and often adds to it, as for example with a Martini-Henry which was later converted to a Martini-Enfield.

But, if significant parts were replaced with "new" bits (even "correct" new bits) after a gun left service, then it's a different kettle of fish (with exceptions for trivial things like screws and sling swivels etc)

As an example: I would not classify a full-wood SMLE with only a post-service replacement barrel (even a New Old Stock or brand new one) as a "parts gun". Ditto a restored sporterised SMLE which has retained its original barrel but has "new" woodwork.

But an SMLE which has a post-service replacement barrel AND a replacement stock? I'd probably consider that a "parts gun", since at that point pretty much the only "original" parts left in it are the action and the magazine and it has no history behind it anymore.

It's still an SMLE, of course - replacing the barrel and the woodwork doesn't change that - but just as if you have a restored Model T Ford where the only "original" parts left in it are the steering wheel, the windscreen, and the dashboard; then I would suggest you're going to have a hard time convinving anyone it's an historic car - even if it's been completely and lovingly restored with care and patience to almost the same condition it rolled out of the factory in.

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

I should also stress that I don't see anything wrong with taking a sporterised/broken/bitser rifle and refurbishing it to "as-new(ish)" condition so it can be used for target shooting or hunting; to the contrary I might even call that a noble and worthy undertaking.

But I believe the critical thing is that the restorer be open about what's been done, and that it's been done to recreate/restore a vintage rifle for modern, practical use - rather than passing it off as a rare Rhodesian Commando Marksman's Rifle which belonged to the grandfather of a friend of a friend who fought in the Mau Mau uprising.

[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.

[Eaglelord17]

I am likely the youngest (or one of the youngest) collector(s) on this board that it is fairly difficult to get into Milsurps from a beginner standpoint.

It took a fair bit of trial and error (a lot more error, sometimes with little bit of luck to actually end up with something I like at a fair price) to find out what I wanted to collect and what to look for. Having no one to show me anything about Milsurps really made it difficult to get into it, the way I started was with the current (as in at the moment it is cheap might not be so in the future) gateway Milsurps, the Soviet firearms. The advantages I have on my side for collecting (which all my generation have) is the fact the internet exists and there is tons of information on the various firearms. The problems are that leads to cost inflation (if someone sees certain firearms selling for 400$ and they were selling it at 300$ guess what they are going to sell it at now), and it also can provide poor information (and if you don't know how to tell the difference that can be a problem). From a realistic standpoint it is hard to get certain examples but that is what makes it somewhat enjoyable, having to wait for the right rifle at the right price.

Early on in collecting I was buying everything I saw, it was a bit of a rush, getting to take apart and see all these different firearms. Now I have calmed down, I wait for the right example and I also know what specifically I have a interest in (which is still everything, I just have a priority list). For me it took over 40 rifles to learn what I wanted and what to look for (though I have passed most of them on at this point). I almost wish there was like a collectors group where people can meet up and share information go over different rifles in person just so people can get a feel for them.

In regards to the repairing firearms, I get fixing/replacing parts if it is broken. What I don't get is replacing stuff because something else might look better or this was the 'original' configuration (it was only factory correct once maybe, and that was leaving the factory). The only time I see it as acceptable to do a complete overhaul is when you have a sporter and you decide to restore it back to military configuration.

The prices on some things are getting ridiculous for example in Canada, M1 Garands they tend to go for 1200$ for a crap one all the way to 2000$ for a mixmaster someone made in there backyard. In fact the prices have resulted in this garden market of people manufacturing there own M1 Garands because the supply isn't there at the moment (which I know is due to mostly people hoarding firearms rather than there being none, 15 years ago they sold for 200-300$ they shouldn't be at 1500$ for the same rifle).

[birdhound]

Having said all that, I believe the easiest way to establish a "good faith" restoration/refurbishment is to keep the parts that were on the gun when it was originally acquired. Even if it's a sporterised SMLE and the furniture and barrel and sight have been changed back to "original" ones, by retaining the "incorrect" parts the restorer ensures that whoever acquires the rifle after them is under no illusions of its earlier condition and how it has been altered.

This is a nice idea but not so easy here in the UK where each extra barrel or bolt requires a variation to your firearms certificate. In theory it is possible but in practice I can see problems if you tried to retain more than a small number.

Regarding replacement of wood and barrels it is quite possible that there could be 40 or 50 years between say the replacement of wood and when the shot out barrel may be replaced. This could happen in or out of military service. To me the fitting of a replacement barrel is entirely justified to keep the rifle shooting. A huge number of WW1 smle rifles were re barrelled whilst still in service during the 1920s and 30s. They may not be factory original but they are most certainly service original.

[Brian Dick]

I have a simple set of standards. When I sell a rifle restored by me it gets advertised as BDL FTR. When I replace parts, I DO try to put parts that would have been assembled as original at the factory providing I have them. The ONLY reason for this is the anal retentiveness of TOO MANY collectors. Certainly not because it's practical. If I don't have the so called "correct" parts. I use the next best part in the bin as it should have been done in the first place! I just finished cleaning up and test firing a Greek FTR '44 date Long Branch that is a perfect example of "right as rain" but not good enough for many of the hopelessly anal collectors out there. God forbid, it sports an F51 barrel that gauges in near new condition, an obviously renumbered bolt, deep black dip blue finish, a few other Fazakerley parts to include the safety and Mk.1 rear sight, and a mixture of birch and beech woodwork that matches reasonably well. It looks just as it should and shoots even better!

[stevebc]

I have a 1917 Lithgow that I bought in sporterized condition. In bringing it back to something like original condition, I used Lithgow parts when I could, but none are "numbers matching". I also used a combination of a NOS forend and used British front handguard. It's a bitser/mixmaster that no-one would ever be fooled into thinking was "as issued". But it does, to my eye, look a lot better than when I bought it. My intent was to learn as I went with an already much-abused old sporter, and it went well. I learned a lot about Enfields and a little about myself, too.

For something like my rifle, I prefer the term "rebuilt" rather than "restored".



I will write up a short blurb about the rifle to be inserted into the butt.

[bigduke6]

An interesting thread..... off topic a bit ( totally out of character for this forum) but to me the whole thread revolves around honesty and a bit of knowledge.

Back to post #1, The main concern from Buccaneer was the misleading info an RFD was giving out, I,ve bought a few rifles in the past and have been told all kinds of story etc, a few examples

1) A rifle I,d spotted on Gunstar, the pics were spot on I emailed the dealer and the deal was done, I was told it shoots fine..... I could never understand this bit, as the firing pin (it was a SMLE .22) was broke. !!!! but was an excellent example of a rifle.

2) A No1 Mk V described as all original, only original part was the body...... returned ASAP and the dealer said I knew nothing (maybe true but I can tell a Nock up No1 MkV a mile away) wasn't even willing to do a pick up. ( a real T**T as far I,m concerned)

3) A Mauser target rifle described as slightly pitted..... the body was total scrap, kept the barrel and timber and cut the body. (the fact this could of been sold to a FAC holder makes me cringe, the thought of home loads packed to the gunnels with powder....... ) not worth sending back as the I,d loose too much on the postage.


4) A rare SMLE that was a total knock up and sent back..... fair enough to the dealer he went out the way to get as much info on the rifle and its past , it belonged to Chris Barber.......

There are more but back to the rifle in (4) the dealer didn't know anything and was going by a description that come with the rifle I can't fault him for that and I should of learned by now to get more pics or go and see it..... as for the rest in the above just blatant lies......


I,m not going to say it will never happen again as it will, but when I see something now I tend to proceed with caution, with certain questions and get more pics etc and if in doubt pull out.

Rebuilt, Re finished, restored etc, I,ve rebuilt quite a few things in the past (some bits on the restorers forum) all of these etc are or were for me, I posted them to show what can be done etc on a budget, most recent was a scope can that I repaired and re finished....... I probably saved half of what they sell for on ebay, the most expensive thing I bought for this was the rivets.... is it original ( I,m not ar**d to be honest) it is a scope can that does its job a lot better now than when I first bought it, has had a proper repair and finished as it would of been in service if I was to ever sell it that would be my sales pitch.

As for hoarding or collecting, I always classed myself as more of a hoarder than a collector until I read the description of the hoarder....

I don't have 98 No4 t's, (have two) one being rebuilt which was just a barrelled action, so no good for the anal collector, but does that make me a bad collector ??

"I say, he's not one of those 3rd class collector chaps is he"

and as for the pic, is this collecting or hoarding ???

[Seaspriter]

as for the pic, is this collecting or hoarding ???

BigDuke, you are NOT a hoarder, so rest easy. You certainly qualify as an "ardent collector" who has been more than generous in your +1,000 posts. These many contributions attest to your generosity and willingness to contribute as well as learn. Thanks for all your insights.

Reading another thread from Roger Payne, he makes another collector distinction:

It may sound a little self serving to my wife, but I always argue that in buying collectable rifles, scopes etc., I am not really spending the money in the sense of it being gone forever (like in spending it on an exotic holiday - very nice but nothing left afterwards other than a rapidly fading tan & some snap shots), but just converting it into another form. Some people do it by turning money into gold, jewellery, or Chippendale furniture; we do it by converting our money into Lee Enfields. If you buy wisely you can always get your money back, if not make a profit, as & when you need to. And of course you have the pleasure of owning them in the meantime.

So he thus defines another category: the "Investor-Collector" who, although passionate about the collection's historical significance, also realizes that the collection is not squandering but a long-term investment, just like antiques, or stocks, etc. I confess my collection of antique paintings, furniture, and now just one old car (which are in daily use) are both a love of art and craftsmanship and history, while also and a good investment of money -- each appreciates every year. (Just try buying a new piece of furniture or a car today and see what it's worth 10 years from now!)

While this thread may have wandered a bit from Buccaneer's first thoughts, for me at least, it has been a very worthwhile evolution and refinement of my thinking about what's the best way to have high standards in our avocations and, for some, our professions. Good job mates -- keep the thoughts coming.