Idiot alert! Glossary needed...

The prototype short M-1 rifles were experimentals for airborn use. Tanks were never part of the experiment.
There were various shortened and lightened rifles, but once again, tanks were not a factor.
I suspect that the DAO spurless Enfield emerged for the same reason that police agencies went to DAO revolvers and autoloaders.

As far as a glossary goes, let's do away with "re-arsenaled" and "forced matched". These terms are just plain stupid.
 
woodchopper said:
but thats only because of all the work it takes to make a good looking one out of a chopped down sporter. :D

I have a thread here about my project.

Start with a bubba sporter then find some near matching wood to splice together and make the shorter upper handguards from scratch. JB weld works good to make the front sight protector fit real snug after you ream it out a little to fit the thicker barrel.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, a tanker Enfield is a neat way to deal with a chopped barrel, I just noticed one for sale that was nearly $100 more than a regular full wood.

For me, personally, a tanker would be a cool project gun as a way to sort out a bubba, but not something I'd pay for. I'm not bashing them, though, or looking down my nose at those who make or buy them.

Here's my first tanker Enfield: ;)

002-1.jpg
 
Boy, did that one EVER get chopped!:eek::eek::eek:

What was it when you started? Number 1 or Number 4? Hope not a Sparkbrook!:confused::confused:

Excellent work, though: very nicely done!:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

LOL!!;););););)

:D.
 
Last edited:
I quite agree with TIRIAQ as regards useless words which must be dumped.

Look at a Charger-Loading LE or LM: every single one was "re-arsenaled", as was every single SMLE I**, I*** and most of the I*, every single Musket, any IP conversion. I have seen an SMLE Mark III* which started off in 1894 as a long Lee-Metford. How many times was that baby "re-arsenaled"??? How many of her parts were "forced-matched"???? (I mean, apart from the 1908 bolt and the 1943 barrel?)

What the nitpickers are losing sight of is that these things, all of them, were made for a WAR. So that's why they were made. And then they WENT to one and they SERVED their PURPOSE. And now, 70 or 95 or 125 years later, guys are bickering because the Armourers kept them working properly instead of just looking pretty.

Yes: get rid of "re-arsenaled" and "forced-matched" entirely.

"Forced-matching" is what Bubba does in the basement with his $11.95 Princess Auto number punches.:HR: An Armourer RE-NUMBERS previously-numbered spare parts which are still to spec for the project at hand, thus making them FIT CORRECTLY and become a proper, integral PART of the project.
.
 
Camster, I must agree.

I own two unfired rifles. One is a Martini-Henry Mark IV, the other a Long Branch Number 4 with no serial number and the prettiest wood I ever saw.

And they bother the heck out of me beautiful as they both are.

But if I take either one shooting for an afternoon, it's gonna cost me a box of shells plus another 400 or so off the value of the rifle. And I can't afford that.

So they sit.
.
 
I thought they were all fired/proofed...then packed n' wrapped.

To me, an unfired is like owning a ship that hasn't passed trials yet...I have guns I haven't fired but, they all have been.

EDIT:
Respect where respect is due...

There are a few folks out there that would open and, drink the first bottle of Dom Perignon, light up a pre-ban Cohiba (southern neighbours) simply because they can. The value of the item as "collectable" vs. value of it's use...

I'm not too far out on a limb suggesting you [smellie] may have other guns to fire for the sake of firing...
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, a couple or three.

Proof rounds (2 each) don't count: they are just to see if the thing is gonna blow up.

What matters is the number of rounds since it left the factory, al so many years ago.

There's always that nagging feeling, that unresolved question: what would one do when it was BRAND-NEW?????

THAT's the question I can't afford to answer. And I'm not sure that it would be RIGHT to try, either. The Martini was made in 1887: 125 years ago. How many others have survived 125 years in pristine condition? None that I know of, except at the Pattern Room. The Number 4 was made the year I was born. I'm old and broken-down now, massive health problems that I don't like to talk about..... and it's like the day it walked out of Long Branch. Do I have the MORAL right to disturb that?

Somehow, I don't think I have.

In a way, it's as if I had been appointed the CUSTODIAN of these things, for the future.

A quandry, for sure.
.
 
Smellie...any pics of that MH posted anywhere??? I don't think anybody here can say they've ever seen a mint one.

I have 3 of them but they are all used and abused...one's been bubba'd all to ####e.

Come on!!! Martini #### !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom