Comments for So, ya wanna collect guns, part II

So, ya wanna collect guns, part II

2009-03-10T12:36:28Z

Some good answers, and some good tries, and one knowledge gloat from a dealer-collector, who swept in like a college sophomore visiting his old high school... 8^ D All of your answers, right and wrong, indicate why, if you are going to really get into collecting antiques, you need to do some research on the eras and types you are interested in, to include understanding extant manufacturing processes, knowledge that AW1 Tim used, for example. Investing in a few (themselves not cheap) books can save you hundreds, if not thousands, on collecting over the long haul - this is especially true when you talk older, expensive guns. You saw MCart wishing he had his references handy.

Whether the finish is in too good a shape... or is in too *bad* a condition matters. Too bad a condition? That can be evidence of artificial aging, to make new parts look old, just as in faking other kinds of antiques. Whether or not the finish is appropriate for the age and manufacturing styles extant at time of original manufacture. Newer-style finishes aren't necessarily wrong, especially on military weapons that had long service lives - but, the finish needs to match the claims. If they guy is claiming an original Springfield M1903, but it has a parkerized finish - then that rifle was redone at some point in it's life - and isn't worth what an original condition rifle would be - unless you're willing to pay what the guy is asking... but you should know general values going in.

Parts and markings should also match - again, in military weapons, that may not always be true because of arsenal rebuilds. That's especially true of US weapons. When we brought 'em in for rebuild, we stripped 'em, put the parts in bins, refurbished the parts, then pulled parts from the bins to reassemble weapons. Which is why a Winchester-made M1 Garand that consists of all Winchester parts commands a lot more than my Winchester M1 Garand. The only Winchester part on my rifle is the reciever, the rest is a mix of Springfield and International Harvester parts. This indicates a Korean War or post-Korean War rebuild, because International Harvester only made M1 rifles during the Korean War. You don't want to pay a premium for a Winchester-built rifle when what you have is a rebuild.

That said, let's take a look at those same rifles from yesterday, in the same order - only this time, the other side of the action.

Royal Irish Constabulary Carbine, manufactured 1900. But wait! I said it was made in 1902 yesterday... Don't worry - we'll get to that.

Charger-Loading Lee-Enfield, manufactured 1910

Lee-Enfield No 1, manufactured in 1901.

Okay, go at it, same as yesterday.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-11

2009-03-11T19:14:27Z

Well, Richard, by all means, get one!

J(NTA)

Yeah, you pretty much blew the ending of the series away...

Sigh. And to think I *give* you money...~!

Comment from Richard on 2009-03-11

2009-03-11T07:31:12Z

John,

Ben many years since a post.

Love the elegance and lethal-ness of the arms of yor.......but I covet a "Rancher M-14" with up-grades......")

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-03-11

2009-03-11T06:54:37Z

The cocking piece on the bolt in the 1901 is wrong-it looks a lot like an Ishapore I have here in the house, and the Ishapore No. 1's have a lot of the wartime deletions in manufacturing steps.

Comment from John (not the armorer) on 2009-03-10

2009-03-11T03:01:27Z

I hope I am not spoiling any of the Armorer's fun, (If so, I apologize and request this be removed for future use when appropriate in the grand strategy....)
For the benefit of those in, or bound for Af'stan here is a more detailed tip sheet of things to look for when shopping at the bazaar.
http://www.armscollectors.com/darra/afghanold.htm

And, an olde article by Bill Edwards (author of the classic book "Civil War Gns") on the nice folks hwo were making the guns back in 1962 is available here
http://www.armscollectors.com/darra/darra.htm

Thanks to a tip from a CIA agent who served in the area we have a link to a 7:46 video that will take a while to download, but it is a fascinating look into the gunmaking area where few foreigners ever travel. One warning- while these folks are really clever about making guns, they apparently don't know much about safe gun handling and that will make a lot of people nervous!
http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196&sc=1363196

Comment from Argent on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T20:50:04Z

Actually the screw in pic 1 also looks a bit rusty and out of place.

Comment from Argent on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T20:10:19Z

I'm with Joshua on this one and it's possible it's been bootpolished as well.

Comment from Arditi on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T19:53:37Z

Great points gents. I have an m1853 Enfield(I think as this is not my primary area of interest) that was brought back by a Marine buddy from the Stan. It certainly looks cobbled together and is working, but I'm not sure if it's meant to be a wallhanger or one of the M1853's that the Afghanis put together during one of the British incursions. Interesting thread. Remind me to show you my collection someday John.
Best, Arditi(Russ)

Comment from Joshua of Leavenworth on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T15:39:24Z

I would have to concur, that rifle the Lee - Enfield No. 1 is the fake here. Having seen both sides now it is even more obvious. As mentioned above the metal striations appear fresh and unworn, or poorly manufactured. There is a hint of actual rust on the bolt, could be sign of poor quality metal used in the manufacture. The wood of number three appears to be finer grained and not properly worn, similar to the replacement stock on my CMP M-1, the wood also seems to have coloration issues near and just under the edges of the metal bands, as though someone had use some linseed oil to fake age and use.

Not any where near an expert but this is a lot of fun learning.

Comment from Neffi on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T15:24:58Z

Regarding that LE No. 1 with the 1901 date,,, wasn't the No.1 Mk1 accepted into Brit service late in 1902? I'm prolly wrong, bayonets being my thing rather than their respective holders.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T15:09:54Z

And Steve just reinforces several of my points. To include the more you know, the better off you are, and the fact that this is a blog post, not a book on collecting the Springfield '03...

My collection is built on the concept of " If I like it, and the price is right, I buy it and shoot it."

But it's better to do that eyes wide open.

Comment from USMC Steve on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T14:55:23Z

Actually, some of what you said might not be quite correct. Dependent on when the 03 Springfield was built, some WERE parkerized in the black style parkerizing. And a good many when sent to the armories for refurbishing were parkerized as well. So it would be a case where if you took your generalization literally, one might pass up a rifle that had true value based on its particular history. There again, it might be about impossible to determine that though, dependent on the claim by the seller of what that rifle;s history might have been.

I stick to this rule: If I like it, and the price is right, I buy it and shoot it.

If I am happy that is sufficient to my purpose.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T14:48:53Z

Another test to look for... King's Crown, or Queen's Crown. There's a difference!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T14:43:51Z

Ooo! Ooo! Hidden coded messages in the comments, indicating that Heartless reads his special mail!

The Crown cyphers are indeed an area where the fakers get it wrong, along with proof marks. Sometimes, they get them all so wrong I wonder if it isn't on purpose.

We haven't gotten to the issue of witness, inspection, and proof marks...

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T14:31:31Z

OK, now that we've seen both sides...the two that have visible dating (1 and 3) both get the regency stamp (VR 1900 for Victoria, and ER 1901 for Ed the VIIth). That's the most common imperfection on fakers.

No visible date on #2, and honestly, I'm not sure where it would normally be found, since Brit rifles haven't been my thing up til now.

But since I'm heading to that part of the world soon (and I'd be happy to go shopping for you John, when time allows) where can I find references on the rifles and pistols found there?

I've already told my wife she's going to have to put up with at least one camel gun wall hanger.

Comment from Josh on 2009-03-10

2009-03-10T13:49:55Z

The clear, uniform striations in the metal on the third one just look wrong. The first and second one both have smooth metal, whether it be from better finishing, or years of wear. But that metal looks like it was just manufactured yesterday.