Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Frederick303]

The sad fact is that surplus rifles were only cheap when they were surplus. Now, except for the last mother load of Indian Enfields (~900,000) there are no large stocks to be sold cheap. Only way to get one is to have a fellow sell you his, and so prices are going up to reflect that. Prices are not excessive if we look at what new arms retail for , heck you can still get a used complete Enfield in the eastern part of the United States for between 300 and 400 dollars, when a new commercial barrel is a 350 dollar item.

As for hoarders, well they will be the source of decent rifles that can be fired in 50 years. I suppose while it might be sad for fellows that want to play around with them today for a cheap price, they young men in the year 2065 that want to buy a shootable 1915 BSA or a New 1955 Fazakerley will be glad there were some hoarders in the last 100 years that bought but did not shoot these rifles. in any case as the years go by all these neat rifles were be fired less and less anyway, just the way it is. All things made by men go from being tools to relics. if you had a like new condition Colt 1860 revolver today you would not shoot it, if Enfield Rifles still can garner interest in 50 years there will likely be an Italian company making some sort of reproduction that you can shoot.

[Patrick Chadwick]

This rifle illustrates the "was is Bubba or was it official" dilemma perfectly:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ht=Fianna+Fail

Thanks to the knowhow on this forum (and thanks again to Frederick and Peter) I now know that it was indeed an official makeover, and not Bubba. And until I knew, I avoided doing anything to it - apart from removing the horrible varnish, which definitely was Bubba. That was a tricky one: some aspects (new barrel, renumbered, extended butt) were part of it's history, the thick layer of varnish was not.

In other words, the most important aspect is knowledge. You need that before applying the knowhow. Otherwise it is possible to fall into the trap described by a delightfully compact German word "Verschlimmbesserung" - making it worse by trying to make it better.

I doubt that we will arrive at an internationally recognised "standard", but at least we are trying to clear the fog. I particularly like Seaspriter's term "malicious hoarders" !

[Seaspriter]

Thanks to the knowhow on this forum (and thanks again to Frederick and Peter) I now know that it was indeed an official makeover, and not Bubba. And until I knew, I avoided doing anything to it - apart from removing the horrible varnish, which definitely was Bubba. That was a tricky one: some aspects (new barrel, renumbered, extended butt) were part of it's history, the thick layer of varnish was not.

In other words, the most important aspect is knowledge. You need that before applying the knowhow. Otherwise it is possible to fall into the trap described by a delightfully compact German word "Verschlimmbesserung" - making it worse by trying to make it better.

Patrick, I like your insights in this post (as well as the others). While we might not arrive at an "international standard," there is definitely a lot of convergence among forum members about a large number of key "principles of restoration" and some common definitions that could definitely help "clear the fog of ambiguity and uncertainty" that introduces risk and confusion into the equation of buying and restoring guns. Keep the ideas flowing.

[SpikeDD]

I've enjoyed this thread, apologies to Buccaneer for is meandering off coarse a bit but I think it's well worth the diversion it has taken. The foundations of it are integrity and moral accountability, which are liken to the type of folks I prefer associating with.

To the points and templates being suggested for a "defined" manual of categories for restoration and or repair, I say it's a very noble thought and very well defines the character of those proposing ideas to keep everyone above the board. Unfortunately, I fear it will only be as long lived as the next owner will allow. Personally, I would do any one of the suggested Ideas and have always done so with any rifle I have sold in regard to condition, accuracy ( If I have indeed shot it ), if it was as I bought it, etc... My list of sporter restorations is quite short at only 2. A third sporter I bought, I actually just restocked in a much better looking sportered military stock and gave it to a friends son for his first hunting rifle. I repaired the draws as outlined by Peter and was well pleased with it as it was.... a sporter.

The following statement is making me cringe just thinking about typing it but I'll explain and you can let me know who I am afterwards....

I currently own 147 milsurp rifles. 57 of them are No.4 Mk.I/Mk.2 and 33 are Mk.III and variants there of. There... I said it

First off, I am not by any means wealthy, far from it actually. I am not married and have no children so what most people have spent on raising kids and sending them to college, I have been able to spend part of that money on my interests.

My collecting began nearly 25 years ago and when the internet opened up, I just bought everything I had an interest in. Prior to the start of dedicated collecting, in 1985, I bought my first Enfield, a 1941 Lithgow and it sat in it's case while I bought all kinds of other rifles. Years later, while showing a friend my collection, I pulled out the Lithgow ,which hadn't see daylight since I bought it, and something about it's design just hit me differently than when I bought it. The reading started and I was hooked.... all out Enfield assault. The more I read about different variants, the more examples I needed to fill the gaps.

For example, I read that there were 10,000 rifles contracted to China....had to find one. Then I read Thailand had been sent some No.4's and naturally, needed one of those. As for price, I didn't care if I paid $50.00 to $100.00 more than it was currently worth if I wanted it in my collection. The Thailand marked rifle was a 2001 "Buy It Now" purchase that nearly broke the keyboard for $335.00+$30.00 shipping AND a $25.00 transfer fee. It was on the last page and I think had been active for 11 min. NO ONE was paying that kind of money for No.4's back then! I was very fortunate as there were many excellent condition rifles all over the market and I could afford to be very picky about condition. Don't get me wrong, If I wanted a particular rifle and it had a mismatched bolt or a sewer pipe for a bore... I didn't care.

So, as the information came in, the money went out for rifles. In 2010 I decided my only interest was going to be Enfields and sold many of the non-Enfields ( The number was much higher than 147 at the time ) The stocks of parts I have accumulated over the years was simply to have them if needed. Nothing I bought had the thought of future profit in mind.

I'll add this one last thing.... I love to shoot my milsurp rifles, but I don't shoot them all. There is likely 40 to 50 of them that I have never chambered a round in. As a collector, I don't feel the need to shoot a rifle because that was what it was built/intended for. Shooting a No.4 is shooting a No.4, whether it is a Maltby or a South African marked Savage. Think about it, if you collected stamps, would you use one of them to mail the Gas bill because that is what stamps are made for? 'Comon now ;-)

Ok now... who am I?

[Seaspriter]

Ok now... who am I?

David, you certainly qualify as an "ARDENT COLLECTOR/RESTORER/SHOOTER" who has contracted "Enfielditis" (like most of us on this site). If you were a hoarder, you would not be so clear about your objectives. While my Enfield collection is only a 1/10th of yours, it too aims at having a wide variety of every type and style and manufacturer.

And if you were a hoarder, nor would you share your knowledge with others -- for hoarders, life is a one way street leading to themselves alone.

Thanks for your contributions.

[enfield303t]

And let us NEVER forget..." He Who Dies With The Most Toys, Wins"

[Surpmil]

Yes, IMO you should type out whatever info you have put a copy in the butt trap. The future owners will then have the same option you had to accept or reject the stories, or "provenance" as it is called in the trade.

[Robert303]

Spike,
Any chance you can post a pic of your Thai No4? It sounds a rare rifle. I've never seen any reference to them. I'd love to compare the markings to my 1920 Siamese BSA Rama VI (BSA Rifle No III). Thanks.

[Colonel Enfield]

The sad fact is that surplus rifles were only cheap when they were surplus. Now, except for the last mother load of Indian Enfields (~900,000) there are no large stocks to be sold cheap. Only way to get one is to have a fellow sell you his, and so prices are going up to reflect that. Prices are not excessive if we look at what new arms retail for, heck you can still get a used complete Enfield in the eastern part of the United States for between 300 and 400 dollars, when a new commercial barrel is a 350 dollar item.

I'm not a huge fan of the "Well, a new one is expensive and so therefore an old one should also be slightly less expensive" as a justification for high prices on things like ex-military rifles, which were produced in the millions and of which millions are still in existence and on the commercial market. Sure, a new hunting rifle might be $1200, but that doesn't follow that it means a rifle that's 50+ years old should be $800 because "it's still cheaper than buying a new rifle".

As for hoarders, well they will be the source of decent rifles that can be fired in 50 years. I suppose while it might be sad for fellows that want to play around with them today for a cheap price, they young men in the year 2065 that want to buy a shootable 1915 BSA or a New 1955 Fazakerley will be glad there were some hoarders in the last 100 years that bought but did not shoot these rifles.

Will there be many of young people interested in .303s by then, though? I mean, in 2065 a WWI-vintage Lee-Enfield will be the same age that a Snider-Enfield is today and the market for those is not brisk - they're about (and they're not really cheap), but basically if you want one (in this part of the world at least) you're probably going to have an easier time finding an original Snider-Enfield than you will a WWI-era SMLE with its volley sights and magazine cut-off still present.

If you had a like new condition Colt 1860 revolver today you would not shoot it, if Enfield Rifles still can garner interest in 50 years there will likely be an Italian company making some sort of reproduction that you can shoot.

That's a valid and worthwhile observation and one I agree with. I also suspect we might even start seeing Lee-Enfields in whatever the readily available cartridges in 2065 are - probably .308 still, but it wouldn't surpise me if someone started offering repros in .223 or perhaps even some cartridge that hasn't been invented yet, on the theory that I highly doubt .303 British ammunition will be in mass commercial production 50 years from now.

[Roger Payne]

I don't want to sound negative here, as the spirit in which all of the above suggestions for guidelines, templates & so forth has been made reflects the high ethical standards of forum members. However, such guidelines will only work in respect of those people who are prepared to adhere to them. It sounds like quacking the obvious, but human nature being what it is the whole collecting world is not going to suddenly (or even gradually, in my opinion) adopt such measures. Most people aren't even fraudulently motivated (though some are), but simply will not be bothered to start stamping 'reproduction' or 'restoration' or whatever in the barrel channel of their forends, together with an essay summarising what they've done, to be stuffed into the stock bolt hole (which probably won't be found by the purchaser until after they've paid for it & got it home).

I have been restoring/rebuilding/rewhateverwewanttocallitnow-ing Lee Enfields for a long time. Some I do for myself (see Restorer's corner around pages 5 or 6 for one example), & some I do put into stock to sell on. However, I always tell prospective customers that the firearm has been restored, & if they ask specifics I tell them exactly what I have done. It puts a few people off, but most are simply grateful to be made aware, so that they can bear this fact in mind in deciding whether or not to buy. I try to price rebuilt weapons more reasonably than 'ex-factory' examples, & they all sell, & to a fully informed purchaser.

It is evident that there are potential problems down the line here - if one makes a decent job of replacing parts it may be difficult or even impossible to tell in years to come whether the rifle is 'factory new' or was returned to such condition by the judicious replacement of parts. The clear marking of replacement parts would of course ameliorate this problem (so long as the rifle was available to be stripped before purchase), but as alluded to above I just can't see any more than the highly motivated few ever carrying out this procedure.

I think that we have to accept at times that some problems have no easy solution. We just have to learn as much as we can about our subject, & ask as many questions as possible if we are unsure before making a purchase. Internet forae such as this have made a huge contribution to disseminating knowledge amongst collectors & shooters of military surplus rifles, have become an indispensable resource, & long may they continue.

However, I shall watch the development of the guidelines keenly!