Buy the rifle not the story!!!!!

[Buccaneer]

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.

Another batch of "brand new" woodwork was delivered to them whilst at the show and I do mean brand new not "new unissued old stock"

[Enfieldlock]

I believe some of the comments here are rather ingenuous. They fail to address the nub of the problem, which is; What do you do when a rifle is unserviceable due to missing/broken parts and replacement bits are just not available?

I see no difference between NOS parts and those made new. This especially so when the new-made parts are the result of many months of effort to get it right. Reverse engineering is not an exact art, it involves a lot of engineering intuition. Further, especially when re-manufacturing wood parts, obtaining acceptable material is very difficult.

Of course, when faced with an unserviceable rifle and no parts, we could bin it by turning it into a manhole cover. This would result in one less Enfield, but would satisfy the Messianic urges of the ultra-purists.

[Peter Laidler]

The words 'reverse engineer' to an engineer are the cue for a nightmare induced heart attack, believe me! Like Enfield Lock says, that by definition there's no drawings available (otherwise it wouldn't be reverse engineering...), no datums from which to start, centres which have to be accurately re-located, no known dimensions from which to work after the sample has suffered years of use and........ and.......

Another phrase is the well used '.......just copy this.........'

I heard those two words again and I'm just going to have to lay down in a darkened room..........

[Roger Payne]

I agree with you Jim. I have been rebuilding Enfields to return them to serviceable condition for 35 years now (yes, frightening how time passes by, isn't it?!), & I have no argument with that at all. Indeed, as mentioned before Dave T & I bought about 140 partly stripped No4 T's back in the 1990's & we had a little cottage industry going of rebuilding them one at a time for about ten years, & still being able to move on the rebuilt rifles at a reasonable price by the standards of the time. We did get some tyre kickers moaning about parts not being 'as the rifle left the factory', & 'yeah, but you've rebuilt it!', but what the XXXX did they expect me to do with them, buy them to scrap them (as you alluded to)? A rebuilt but genuine rifle is less desirable to many collectors than one in pristine condition, but it is far better than not having one at all, especially when it is priced commensurately.

I think where criticism may be justified (& I'm speaking generally now, & not about any current outfit in particular), is the unnecessary replacement of parts just to make a rifle look 'better'. The late Ma Parker was a terror for doing this (bless her soul). I think perhaps she could justify her astronomical prices by stating that a rifle had had various new parts fitted & had been re-blued to new condition. Many a good honest rifle was ruined that way.

In short, my view is 'If you don't NEED to then don't. If you NEED to then do'. I don't think any fair minded person can then reasonably criticise you - at least not with any validity.

[Peter Laidler]

Heavens above Roger........... Rebuilding rifles is what we used to do on an almost industrial scale at our major workshops. Some of the ORP's (the Ordnance Repair Programmes) were just that, with hundreds going through at any one time. There was just such a programme with the last L42's after the L96's had started to trickle into service. Some of the tyre kickers looking for factory original - whatever that really is - ought to get out a bit more. Imagine the dispair when I read time and time again of a bolt that is 'not original' because I can see the remnains of another number underneath the ' matching' number.......... I mean....... It's like the oft mentioned saga of butt patching

Back to my darkened room...........

[Seaspriter]

Back to my darkened room...........

Ah, Peter, please don't stay in your darkened room for too long -- we love your posts, wisdom, humour, wit, and angst included ;-)

The question of what is the "right standard" for restoring a gun is one that will never be resolved, no matter how long we debate it. (Believe me, this is not just a question for gun restorers, it is a question that is similarly debated by antique furniture, auto, house, and boat restorers too. You could take all the debaters and stretch then end-to-end around the world, and they'd reach to no conclusion. (Peter, this means you may spend a lot of time in your dark room -- not something we want).

It reminds me of the debates that happened when I was restoring 300 year old houses. I'd have an open house for restoration friends who represented different "schools of thought" about what was the proper restoration approach (what era to restore back to, what authenticity of parts, etc.). These debates got so heated at time, I'd start to "bait the purists" whose philosophy, if taken to extremes, would have me living in an "authentic" 17th century home -- with a privy out back, no running water, no electricity to run my computer, and a wife who'd want me buried in the back yard.

I have my own "philosophy" and set of principles (which I won't foist on others, but will share):
1) it it's a gun, be sure it's safe if someone might shoot it in the future. If it's not safe, be sure it's marked unsafe.
2) like the armourer, use authentic parts, if available; if not available, use 1st class reproduction parts when and if necessary
3) all repairs and upgrades (like putting a better sight on a gun) should be authentic to the period
4) if the gun represents an positive evolution (i.e. a No.4 Mk1/3) retain the highest grade evolution, don't take it back to original,
except if the evolution was detrimental (such as a sporterized version), then restore to original. (believe me, this principle is always going to be controversial.)
5) if in doubt as to what to do: wait, do nothing, research, ask for opinions, and "let the gun speak to you."
6) more often than not, less is best, except when it comes to safety.
7) write a provenance of the gun -- where it came from, how I found it, and what I did to it -- so that a future collector isn't confounded, bewitched and bewildered
8) never present the restoration in a fraudulent way that would be considered a "fake" that was intended to deceive
9) restore a gun because you love the gun and the process of revitalization, not simply because it's a "money maker," (but making money doesn't hurt and isn't bad)
10) don't be afraid to take a really good restoration technique from one field and use it in a similar field if it serves preservation a hundred years or more from now.
11) spread the wealth of knowledge: share what you learned with others -- "collecting" doesn't mean "hording knowledge" -- which is why I love this Milsurps community.
12) graciously thank and acknowledge those who have contributed to your learning and your sources of insight.

This is my approach, and I'm sure everyone on this site has theirs. I find it useful to make restoration principles visible and overt, so that anyone who acquires a gun I've touched knows what went into it -- what it is, and what it isn't.

[Frederick303]

I think for many the dividing line between legitimate restorations and "fakes" is the re-serializing of parts. At least here in the US of A that seems to be the case. Sort of that I think most folks do not see an issue.

Being from the shooting side of the Enfield collecting world, adjusting the fine fits to get the rifles back to correct service bedding is something I have done many a time. To a purist I have messed with the rifles, but to me a rifle that is not adjusted for best accuracy is sort of an anachronism. Once a rifle gets to the point where accuracy is of no concern it is no longer a tool but entering the realm of a relic.

I actually know folks that think that cleaning the stock or adding linseed oil to a dry stock is altering a collectable arm. That is the true collectors and those folks by in large are not shooters.

[Seaspriter]

actually know folks that think that cleaning the stock or adding linseed oil to a dry stock is altering a collectable arm. That is the true collectors and those folks by in large are not shooters

Well said Frederick. This is where Purists become Anal ("pure anal" -- sure sounds like an oxymoron). As a collector who is also, by profession a futurist, and by avocation an historian, I take a very long view on restoration -- from an artifact's origins, its current usage/utility, and what is going to happening to it 100 years hence.

The purely anal "preservationists" view (such as starving dry wood by withholding a nurturing drink of linseed oil) is both perverse and will actually result in the future degeneration of the artifact (which is not "preservation" but just a twisted "dust unto dust" approach to any future historian).

Frederick, I'm with you on this one -- a gun should shoot accurately. As long as the improvements don't materially alter the gun (drilling multiple mounting holes, chopping up stocks, etc.), then march forward stalwartly as the warriors did on the battle field generations before.

If we ask the question: "What will future generations think about what we did when we owned this historic weapon?" and can answer that question honourably with integrity, then we should not hesitate to take action to keep these weapons shooting accurately and properly maintained. I am delighted so many British Armourers, ardent collectors, fastidious researchers, and knowledgeable restorers have contributed to this website with their highest standards of excellence to keep the tradition alive for future generations.

[Roger Payne]

Well said Frederick. This is where Purists become Anal ("pure anal" -- sure sounds like an oxymoron).

Sounds more like the title of a dodgy 'niche interest' film to me.........





Sorry for lowering the tone. My wife says I'm infantile & soooooo predictable!

[Buccaneer]

In short, my view is 'If you don't NEED to then don't. If you NEED to then do'. I don't think any fair minded person can then reasonably criticise you - at least not with any validity

I could not have put it better myself