Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Peter Laidler]

Don't feel toooo bad Englishman. EVERY weapon that ever left our Armourers shops or ANY Armourers shop across the Commonwealth was a 'parts' gun. Because by definition, they only ever came in because there was something wrong with them. And when they went out, they were fixed. Generally with parts, off the shelf. Ok, ok, so we accurately hand fitted them correctly. We weren't as careful as you about marking them of course. We tested them and off they went. That's the nature of the beast!

[Frederick303]

Don't know if this is relevant or not, but here is what I have done to prevent folks thinking my restorations are original.

On the interior of the forend, where it does not show, I put the following, done with a dremal tool:

restored, day-month-year.

In most cases this is sort of not needed, as with No1 Mk III the old serial numbers on the muzzle cap and forend indicate the rifle is a parts gun.

On some of the No4 rifles it would be hard to tell it is a restoration, other than the lack of a serial number on the forend.

In once case where I restored a badly mauled Navy arms L42A1 rifle, I used a solid front sight guard, not the one with the screw, as anyone who looks at it will know by sight that something is wrong. Take off the forend to look closer and you will see the restored marking.

Not sure what more you can do. In 500 years, if they are still around, a rifle restored within a century of the period of use will be an item of some value and appreciation, even if it is only a wall hanger. Of course that is predicated on the ideal that something will remain of western civilization and some folks will still have interest in the 20th century. It may well be that folks 500 years from now have no interest in such items.

[Buccaneer]

I would totally disagree with your 3rd fromn last Para Buccaneer, starting 'There is the more.......' What you have stated is factually wrong. We used to fit (as in stone, adjust and correctly fit) new and even used bolts to rifles every day. To say that it could be unsafe is............., er.......... Anyway

And That's the UK Military. What about a US gunsmith doing it in the USA or Australia or NZ where they don't do proofing as such..........?

You are quite correct Peter but the rifle in question was staying here in the UK which means it is covered by UK proof regulations.
In addition any rifle that comes from overseas without proof marks that are recognised will need to be proofed before it can be sold or even advertised for sale, what an individual does with a personally owned weapon is entirely up to them.
You seem to overlook the fact that this is not the military where everything was done to a set standard and then inspected and signed for these rifles can by tinkered with by anyone who thinks they have the skill to do it which is why here in the UK if pressure bearing parts are changed the rifle needs to go for re-proof to PROVE that it has been done properly.

[Peter Laidler]

I haven't overlooked the facts and I appreciate that my technical background is military as opposed to commercial but once a rifle is in proof, it is proofed. The proof house don't check that commercial workmanship has 'been done properly' so far as I am aware........... I appreciate too that while the penalties would seem to be draconian, the wording of the antiquated legislation of the proof rules are soooooooo obscure and higgledy piggledy now as to be virtually unenforceable in a current Court. Just try getting them to Court to prove or disprove a point! Not my words I hasten to add. Indeed, it is said that some of the rules and reguilations have been made in-house to suit a need.......... Again...., not my words

[Buccaneer]

I haven't overlooked the facts and I appreciate that my technical background is military as opposed to commercial but once a rifle is in proof, it is proofed. The proof house don't check that commercial workmanship has 'been done properly' so far as I am aware........... I appreciate too that while the penalties would seem to be draconian, the wording of the antiquated legislation of the proof rules are soooooooo obscure and higgledy piggledy now as to be virtually unenforceable in a current Court. Just try getting them to Court to prove or disprove a point! Not my words I hasten to add. Indeed, it is said that some of the rules and reguilations have been made in-house to suit a need.......... Again...., not my words

As I have already pointed out an individual FAC holder can do what they like, however as an RFD I would not wish to risk loseing my license to trade because I had not followed the correct procedure no matter how antiquated they may appear to be.
If a trader wishes to stick two fingers up to the regulations with a see me in court attitude thats fine but you won't find me at the front of that queue nor any of the other RFD's that I have spoken to.
Without the correct proof marks in the right places a firearm is not "in proof" it is the accepted norm and wether we like it or not that is the way it is in the trade here in the UK.

[ssj]

Interestingly it seems safety isnt always the first thing. eg As an example, someone in a facebook group was really happy they had bought an original, unused 1943 LB as new, un-fired no4. Now the numbers of these that are starting to appear in NZ is well concerning. I just have difficulty believing there are front line guns from 1943 un-issued and now appearing and that it is genuine. I Q'd that but lots of ppl think its genuine and since its un-used and as-is from the factory there is no need to safety check it, oh boy. I guess its a function of them going from worthless to worth "doing up" that we will see more and more dis-honest ppl aiming to make a dollar off the gullible, Mosins and Finish capture, re-capture and re-re-capture now seem the latest forgery crazy that is farcical. What really concerns me however is how unsafe these maybe.

[5thBatt]

Interestingly it seems safety isnt always the first thing. eg As an example, someone in a facebook group was really happy they had bought an original, unused 1943 LB as new, un-fired no4. Now the numbers of these that are starting to appear in NZ is well concerning. I just have difficulty believing there are front line guns from 1943 un-issued and now appearing and that it is genuine. I Q'd that but lots of ppl think its genuine and since its un-used and as-is from the factory there is no need to safety check it, oh boy. I guess its a function of them going from worthless to worth "doing up" that we will see more and more dis-honest ppl aiming to make a dollar off the gullible, Mosins and Finish capture, re-capture and re-re-capture now seem the latest forgery crazy that is farcical. What really concerns me however is how unsafe these maybe.

ssj the No4 has never been NZs "front line" weapon, there were crates & crates of them (still new & unissued) sold off years ago, many ending up sitting in gun safes around the country, we have been seeing them surfacing for years, no real increase, in fact i would say i have been seeing less over the last few years.

[Peter Laidler]

What was NZ's front line weapon then 5th Batt? It was the front line weapon at my parent units at Ngaruawahia and Papakura while I was there as the L1A1 was creeping into service (Infantry excepted of course as they were fully L1A1 armed.....) I've said it many times but we did have many crates of new No4's - many hundreds in total - in 'the bond' store (the secure area) of the big Ordnance Depot there that we had to do the annual percentage check on. They were not marked NZ so far as I recall as they'd never been taken from the crates and by '67 were never going to be issued. I know Kim W, one of our now deceased, ex RNZEME forumers purchased a couple of brand new, unused No4's directly from Ordnance as did Den Phillips, one of our RNZEME Sergeants.

Were all these new No4's sold off?

Were all these sold off

[Enfieldlock]

I have not posted here for some time. A friend told me about this thread. I was at Bisley over the weekend and agree that it was not much to write home about.

I think I recognise the target for the OP's comments. It is one I was associated with for many years. However I would like it to be known that I have not been involved with that particular enterprise (or any other for that matter) since Dec 2013.

[Homer]

If these are the people selling restored rifles using newly made parts from their website, they're a joke. Can't believe the crap that's been posted there over the years.