Points To Ponder

[Alan de Enfield]

We all know that the "Garand Guys" are somewhat Anal when it comes to 'all matching' where every nut, bolt, screw etc has to be numbered and dated to the rifle, but at what point do we consider an Enfield to be 'all original' ?

As has been stated many times by Peter Laidler when a rifle came into the armourers shop they just reached into the 'bin' for the nearest 'correct' part (irrespective of manufacturer), in another example he tells the story of 12 No4T's that during testing were run over by a truck - 8 rifles were rebuilt using the parts from 12 rifles.
Serial numbers were lined out and new numbers stamped.
New barrels (different dates) fitted
New unnumbered butts fitted to 4T's
Scope cans and transit cases, straightened out, repainted and re-numbered.

How about this one :- as originally supplied scope brackets were not numbered, a later EMER then instructed that they should be numbered - which is 'original' ?

The only time the rifle is 'original' is the day it left the factory.

My proposal : The rifle is to be considered original if it is in the condition it was on the day it was discharged from Military service.

Discuss :-

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.

[Bindi2]

The day it left service. Any thing else is BUBBAs work

[Peter Laidler]

We ONLY ever numbered brackets when there was a need to remove the telescope from the bracket. This was because once the telescope was removed from a bracket, there was no numerical link from THAT bracket to THAT rifle. And it is the BRACKET that is matched to the rifle and NOT the telescope. Telescopes are pretty well interchangeable.

Additionally, it was taboo or certainly bad practice to number a bracket with the telescope fitted. So if the bracket wasn't already numbered, then as soon as the scope was removed, NUMBER THE BRACKET

[jmoore]

Garand guys also tend to live in Fairie Land, where "correct" parts equal "original" parts. 99.5+ percent of Garands AREN'T wearing the same parts as the day they left the factory.

I really, really like M1s, but quit collecting them some time ago as complete units. Now, I either buy 'em as shooters or for one or two particular parts for one of my old Fairieland rifles.


At this late date, I reckon anyone who adds or re-numbers a bracket for a No.4(T) is either stupid or a crook bent on making a profit.

If you want "all original" start collecting weapons from the "loser's" side, as they were less apt to have continued in service. Plus, plenty were "souvenired".

As for Enfields, some few do turn up original, but it's MAYBE 2 precent? SMLE Mk.Vs, No.4 Mk.2s, and late No.5s raise the average.
No.4 Mk.1 (T)s seem to often be close to "as left H&H", but numbered brackets throw most out of the altogther original catagory. And finding an unrebuilt or good condition pre-1944 "T" is tough!

[jmoore]

Oh, and 1950's vintage Canadian No.4 Mk.1*s. Fair number of those still floating aboot with original factory parts all flying in formation.

[Rumpelhardt]

Are these the same type of people who spend hundreds of thousands or even millions on a car only to vacuum seal it in plastic and stash it deep inside a garage where no one not even them can enjoy it? Makes perfect sense to me.

[newcastle]

"As for Enfields, some few do turn up original, but it's MAYBE 2 precent? SMLE Mk.Vs, No.4 Mk.2s, and late No.5s raise the average" - Sorry but this sounds a wee bitty hogwashy to me. I think that until recently there were so many of these about and they were so cheap that people didn't bother chopping and changing bits at all and I owudl think that MOST didn't need bits changing in service - 2% is crazy low.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

In my mind "original" condition is the state it was in when it left the factory and "correct" is what it was when it left government service. Both conditions are good.

[barbarossa]

I'll have to concur on the two percent guesstimation as still out there 'as orginally left the factory'. Figure that means that if it's a BSA made SMLE, all parts should be marked as BSA manufactured, ditto on LSA or RSAF Enfield or Lithgow or whoever. And correct for that particualr vintage. Peddle Scheme SMLE's are another matter entirely, though they should reflect a preponderance of components by the facility where assembled. For instance, it it's marked as assembled at RSAF, Enfield, it would seem logical that the majority of small parts will be of Enfield manufacture. Put another way, if it's a pre 1916 SMLE Mark III by whatever maker, it'll have certain characteristics if original to period of manufacture viz lightened buttstock, lightened nosecap boss, lightened sight protectors, etc. If those salient features are not in evidence, then the rifle must be considered 'as issued' and nothing more.

Original condition SMLE Mark III and Markj III* rifles as they left the factory are certainly scarce. Yes, there are still a lot of rifles such as Long Branch or Savage No.4's which still as they left the shipping crate in WWII but the same rule does not apply to the SMLE rifle which were processed through the rebuild process en masse during the interwar period of the 20's and 30's.

That's my .02 worth from observing and collecting SMLE's since the halycon days of the 1960's and 70's when Lee Enfield Rifles were dirt cheap and generally as they were surplused out of stores. I don't think there was a single collector out there in those days who gave the slightest thought to whether all the parts were of the same manufacturer or not. Everyone was happy if the rifle just shot accurately and had good headspace.

[Demo]

Interesting discussion.

A rifle could be original from new manufacture or original from refurb or FTR or perhaps just original from military service. The latter could be very hard to determine if the rifle has a mix of parts that any civilian could have replaced, but I think it's all based on opinions really. No one can know for sure who changed a cocking piece, or a trigger guard.