Aresnal rebuild/mismatched part milsurps


PDA






jefnvk
July 21, 2007, 03:16 PM
Is there anyone but me that actually prefer these guns? To me at least, arsenal reworkings and incorrect parts are signs the gun actually was fielded in some manner, that the gun actualy got used. I can definitely see the point in, although I will not, pay a premium for a correct, matching gun. To me, milsurps are a uilitarian, rugged weapon, and buying pretty ones defeats that purpose.

So, anyone agree? Or, am I just crazy?

If you enjoyed reading about "Aresnal rebuild/mismatched part milsurps" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
July 21, 2007, 03:19 PM
As long as the headspace is correct, and they function, I prefer to pay less for mismatched................But hey. I am cheap.:neener:

Hoppy590
July 21, 2007, 03:34 PM
depends on the gun in question

a missmatched K31 is almost always a parts gun (magazine aside)
where as a missmatched Mosin could be a refurb.
while the parts arnt serial numbered, i personaly have never seen ANY M1917's that have ALL one make of parts. (winchester, remington, eddystone) they are almost all a mix. along with many M1 carbines that may sport a reciever of one brand and a barrel of another, and were issued that way from day 1.


i feel western nations put alot more effort in keeping guns together than the comblocs. and as such, a mismatched combloc is not a big deal where as a mix matched western is worth a look over. to ensure its not a franken rifle

personaly. i dont think lower of mismatches, but i consider it like i would a car. when some one says "custom" i need to make sure its not "hack job" or " jimmy rigged"

Harry Paget Flashman
July 21, 2007, 05:16 PM
If an arsenal rebuild adds another proof mark or cartouche then I'm all for it. :)

DMK
July 21, 2007, 10:28 PM
It depends. I don't really get all excited that my particular rifle might have been in combat and drawn blood. In fact, I'd rather not think about it. I just like to have something similar to what was fielded at certain points in history.

I'd rather have a nice looking weapon that shoots good. If the weapon was rebuilt, that's fine. If it's all original, that's fine too. The end result is what matters to me. In service nobody cared if all the parts were correct for a certain manufacturer or year. They only cared that it would shoot straight and reliably.

jefnvk
July 22, 2007, 12:52 AM
In service nobody cared if all the parts were correct for a certain manufacturer or year. They only cared that it would shoot straight and reliably.

OK, thats more what I was going for. You can speak my thoughts better than I.

SlamFire1
July 22, 2007, 08:48 AM
Depending on the firearm, a rebuild will increase its value over the generic. I thinking specifically about American firearms, and more specifically the Artillery Colt. US military arms are most valuble in original all matching condition. The next tier is identifiable sub variants. Which include Arsenal rebuilds. There are a number of 1964 vintage rebuilds in M1 Garands that are identifiable by pencil marks as to rebuild date and arsenal. Those rifles will be worth more than the un identifiable rebuild.

For non US arms, it will all depend on the collector market. Value is driven by a number of factors, but one is reference books. If someone writes a reference book, identifies which arsenals did what, claims one arsenal is better than all the rest, then rifles coming out of that arsenal will be worth more.

Buy what you want. Buy quality.

DMK
July 22, 2007, 01:19 PM
Monetary value is based on what a knowledgeable buyer is willing to pay for it. On a sliding scale, rarity typically sells for more. If (in some alternate universe) original M1 carbines and Garands were more common and rebuilds were rare, then rebuilds would probably be worth more to collectors (with just as many folks faking them).

Keep in mind too that the values in the various collector books are set by collectors of those particular weapons. Folks that collect every variation of Garand, or K98, or Colt SAA, are going to be a lot more picky about the historical details of these arms. They want to differentiate the many variations in their collections.

On the flipside, there are a lot of less discriminating folks who just want a representative weapon of a type or various types. They may want "a Garand", "a K98", or "an Enfield" for their collection. They aren't going to be as picky about when it was made, if all the parts are 'correct'. They just want a reprasentitive of that type. Overall condition would be more important than technical and historical details. If they are looking a details, they are probably looking for just one or two things. If it's a type 99, does it have a mum? If it's a Garand or Carbine, is it a WWII rifle or a later Korean war rifle? If it's a K98, does it have swastikas? If it's an Enfield is it British or Indian? And etc.

I mostly fit in the latter category, and I suspect the OP does too.

If you enjoyed reading about "Aresnal rebuild/mismatched part milsurps" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!