"Gotcha Gun"??

[silverknife]

If this subject has already been beaten to death please forgive a relative newcomer to the forum. I have read many of the threads but cannot read them all.

In a previous thread there was some discussion about folks who replace incorretly numbered parts with parts which show the correct markings. Unkind opinons about those folks were expressed with which I must respectfully disagree. Not to hijack that thread, I am starting this one.

I get that there is a distinction between an "original" and a "restored" firearm whether we are talking about Lugers or 1911 Colts or carbines or Garands or any other military issued weapon. I also get that there are some of us who want only originals and those of us who are OK with restorations (that would be me). To me, a restored firearm is one which is in the same condition as it would have been when it came out of the factory, approved for issuance to the war fighter.

I respectfully disagree with characterizing a restored firearm as "gotcha" gun, or the product of a crook. The dishonesty comes not from restoring the weapon, but with representing it as "original." If the definition of "original" means that the weapon has all of the very same parts with which it was built then it strikes me that there is no way on earth that one can verify the originality of a weapon unless he was the person to whom the weapon was issued when it came from the factory, and we know that damn few soldiers of ANY rank, were ever permitted to keep their issued weapons after the wars ended.

Provenance? Maybe. IF the records trace the weapon from owner to owner with no breaks in the chain of ownership. Perhaps if the individual weapon is truly an historical piece, proof of that fact also might serve to assuage doubt about its originality. However, it seems to me that if an issued and battle tested firearm shows the correct parts, numbered and/or proofed correctly, in the correct place, with wear patterns and in condition which make sense, the most anyone can say about it is that it is representative of how the firearm would have looked when it came out of the factory minus the wear a tear of combat and perhaps the ravages of time and poor maintenance.

While I am only starting to turn my attention to Lugers, I have spent years tracking down the correct parts for various makes of carbines, Garands, and 1911 Colts. Some have stayed in my collection, some are now circulating. Of course I have no control over how subsequent owners represent the firearms, but unless subsequent owners break parts and replace them with the wrong part or a reproduction part, each new owner in the years to come will own an historical military weapon which is representative of EXACTLY how that weapon was built. My present projects, are a well used 1939 Chamber Date 42 Code P.08 and a butchered up “sportarized” .30-40 Krag. The Luger needs a hold open latch and spring and a professional exterior restoration while the Krag needs the correct barrel, front sight, full stock, and a few other parts. I don’t think that undoing the damage that was done to the Krag is dishonest. I believe that accurately restoring historical firearms is respectful of the history of the gunmakers who designed and built them, although I understand and do not disagree with the view that leaving military small arms in the same condition as they were in when they were last fired in anger is respectful of history and the soldiers who carried them into battle. I guess I just feel that "restoration" is not a dirty word and that people who restore firearms, by tracking down and replacing incorrect parts with the correct ones are not being dishonest and do not deserve to be regarded with disdain.

Just my opinion, obviously others will differ.

Regards,
Doug