Who else has seen this

Status
Not open for further replies.
So who has sooo many "in the wrap" Irish contract Faz's that they can just bubba em up like that? The irony is that he states "not some loose non-matching sporter that bubba got at" when in fact it is bubba'd; albeit nicely.
Looks like a twisted, dwarfed, youth version.
 
I did see it, and was a bit shocked. Wait, actually I almost had a stroke.

Not that it's ugly or anything like that. It does look very, very good (I'l admit, I may be a bit biased because there is a Weimaraner in the pics). I am puzzled though, it's hard to believe anyone would think about doing this to a true collector's rifle, and think it's a good move - at the very least on the financial side. I know the "it's your rifle, do what you want" rule applies to everyone, but...

Anywho, everytime something like that happens, my own near-new "Irish Contract" goes up in value :)

I guess I should put a hold on my plan to drill and tap it for scope, right? ;)
 
I've got a friend who's turning a No.5 into what he calls a Jungle Scout Guerilla Sniper Carbine: folding stock, scout mounted scopt, integral bipod. But his was already bubba'd, the modifications make a certain amount of practical sense (unlike a "Tanker" Enfield, and he wouldn't have done it to a virgin, in-the-wrap rifle.
 
Jungle Carbine is another option instead of tankers. It was probably done when they sold cheap like SKS rifles. It just wouldn't make sense to make a "Tanker" No4 Enfield vs Sporterize one unless they were widely available.

My grandpa Sportered a couple Enfields before he knew better, but back then at stores, decent Sporters were more expensive than Standard rifles so it just made sense to bubba.
 
I really think we should bring back WOOLDING for the utter brainless A$$h*les that pull stunts like that.

Oh well, it still has value, I suppose.

$35 for the bolt.

$35 for the magazine.

$20 for the rear sight.

$25 for that very pretty butt w/e

$30 for the rest of the furniture.

$140 total, no higher, IF he can find the customers and has the time to wait.

Just hope the proud new owner realises what he actually has, now that he seems to have laid down enough coin to buy TWO in decent shape.
.
 
I'm not sure what the big deal is. While I have several No.4's in original configuration, one an unfired '55 PF like the tanker in question, I wouldn't cut any of them up. But I would have no problem owning one that someone else has modified.

When you think about it, that particular rifle never 'served', it just looks like thousands of other rifles that did.

My 2 bits...
 
Even if there were 17 million, they did take at least 3 major wars, a dozen small wars and from 1879 through to 1969 to build: ninety years.

I rather doubt that more than TWO million survive today in anything vaguely like the way they were built, and most of those are in India and Pakistan, being worked to death slowly.

That Irish batch was the very LAST cache of factory-new, in-the-wrap, British-made, peacetime Number 4s in the world.

EVERYTHING left now is second-hand and used, regardless of appearance or condition.

Question: would the same JERK do the same thing to a minty, unfired-in-grease 1945 Springfield Garand??? After all, that's what the actual, REAL "Tanker" rifle was.... the whole dozen or so, none of which was released. All the rest, including all the ones on the market, are fakes.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom