Frankenguns

[Jerry Cornelius]

A question for the learned assembly: suppose you have two guns of the same type (only two?). Let’s say one has good woodwork and a tatty action, the other has a good action but the woodwork is poor

Is it ok to swap bits around to make one good gun (and one tired one) or are you losing history if you do?

I’m not sure what I think. For very rare guns it’s a clear no from me. Similarly for guns with a long production run and many small and possibly undocumented variations (the original crosman pumpers for instance).

On the other hand no one would challenge using a non working donor to restore a gun to working order (I think). And if you, say, swap the grips around on a pair of identical pistols are you really losing anything? Indeed, would anyone know, although that’s not really the point.

So I’m not sure where the line is. Or even if there is a line. What do we think?

[WebleyWombler]

In that situation with a pair of the same model, I would swop the parts and make up a decent gun. i would then put the other one in the 'To Do' pile to be refurbished later. This would be carried out either as a 'Cabinet Queen ' or a functioning user depending on the rarity.
I will put up with a lot, tatty, rusty guns don't bother me, but they must function as the makers intended or better. I can't stand to see a gun not working.

[Shed tuner]

I will put up with a lot, tatty, rusty guns don't bother me, but they must function as the makers intended or better. I can't stand to see a gun not working.

ditto - it just has to work !

[Garvin]

A contrary view from a collector first, shooter second...

I hate Frankenguns! To me, knowingly having eg. a BSA prewar with one stock/trigger block and another cylinder in my collection would be unthinkable. The odd screw, maybe, even perhaps grips on a pistol if the originals were terrible on an otherwise excellent gun. But something that changes an airgun's identity? Never!

[WebleyWombler]

A contrary view from a collector first, shooter second...

I hate Frankenguns! To me, knowingly having eg. a BSA prewar with one stock/trigger block and another cylinder in my collection would be unthinkable. The odd screw, maybe, even perhaps grips on a pistol if the originals were terrible on an otherwise excellent gun. But something that changes an airgun's identity? Never!

I dislike Mongrels. In my post I stated I would swop parts over if the guns were of the same model. I do not (unless it is really desperate ) swop bits about on any gun that I feel has a historical connection. B2s are my victim of choice at the moment and I think I've sawed up 11 in the past year for my experiments.
We must remember that in the past, people did what was expedient to put their guns back into use or to 'Customise' one for their purpose. As an example , would you consider a Webley MkIII in .22 fitted with a PH16 to be a frankengun?,or an older HW that has had a record trigger fitted? Guns evolve over the years, sights get lost , screws strip or get lost, cocking arm snap or the pivots wear, Even BSA changed the cocking arm for a later version if they got a pre 1911 in for repair.
When I see an older gun that has been modified I always ask myself. is is sensible, is it competent, is it in the ethos of the model and above all, why was it done. Sometimes those questions throw up surprises which are worthy of research.

[Garvin]

I dislike Mongrels. In my post I stated I would swop parts over if the guns were of the same model. I do not (unless it is really desperate ) swop bits about on any gun that I feel has a historical connection. B2s are my victim of choice at the moment and I think I've sawed up 11 in the past year for my experiments.
We must remember that in the past, people did what was expedient to put their guns back into use or to 'Customise' one for their purpose. As an example , would you consider a Webley MkIII in .22 fitted with a PH16 to be a frankengun?,or an older HW that has had a record trigger fitted? Guns evolve over the years, sights get lost , screws strip or get lost, cocking arm snap or the pivots wear, Even BSA changed the cocking arm for a later version if they got a pre 1911 in for repair.
When I see an older gun that has been modified I always ask myself. is is sensible, is it competent, is it in the ethos of the model and above all, why was it done. Sometimes those questions throw up surprises which are worthy of research.

It's probably an individual view as to what exact components you think might change an airgun's identity, Fred.

To me, at the extremes it's easy to say. The odd screw clearly doesn't, whereas a new trigger block and cylinder clearly does.

Personally, I feel the nearer a gun is to the way a gun would have left the factory, the better from a collecting point of view. Different add-ons like peep sights fitted during a gun's lifetime wouldn't necessarily bother me. I collect airguns that are not so well used that they need new cocking links...

[Abasmajor]

A contrary view from a collector first, shooter second...

I hate Frankenguns! To me, knowingly having eg. a BSA prewar with one stock/trigger block and another cylinder in my collection would be unthinkable. The odd screw, maybe, even perhaps grips on a pistol if the originals were terrible on an otherwise excellent gun. But something that changes an airgun's identity? Never!

Ditto from a collector and shooter in equal measure.

Brian

[scooter48]

A contrary view from a collector first, shooter second...

I hate Frankenguns! To me, knowingly having eg. a BSA prewar with one stock/trigger block and another cylinder in my collection would be unthinkable. The odd screw, maybe, even perhaps grips on a pistol if the originals were terrible on an otherwise excellent gun. But something that changes an airgun's identity? Never!

Surely just keeping an old airgun alive is better than scrapping it.Not everyone has the money to buy top quality guns but would just like something really old.I have some top quality guns as well some old toot but i will never get rid of them.

[Garvin]

Surely just keeping an old airgun alive is better than scrapping it.Not everyone has the money to buy top quality guns but would just like something really old.I have some top quality guns as well some old toot but i will never get rid of them.

There's many different kinds of collectors, for sure.

I've been one when I had virtually no spare money and now I'm older I can afford to spend a bit more, but by no means a lot compared to some.

I think one's attitude to collecting is more a state of mind than just a question of what you can afford.

When I was younger I would buy anything interesting. Now I'm more discerning and buy much less.

I don't think one approach is better than the other, just different.

[evert]

...When I was younger I would buy anything interesting. Now I'm more discerning and buy much less.

I don't think one approach is better than the other, just different.

Well, I've been down that "buy anything interesting" road for a while, and after a while it feels like you're just hoarding junk that can collect dust.
That makes me a bit more dicerning, but once in a while I still cant help myself

When it comes to the original topic, I'm guilty of parts changing to build complete and clean guns.
As an example, I have three Diana 35's that all were bought VERY cheap, because they were missing parts or had something seriously abused.
The result its that I now have one nice and clean example, one that it a bit rough, and a wreck that has been resurrected.
All for less then you would usually pay for a clean example...

Another example would be my meteor collection; I've collected the mk's from 1 to 6, and have moved parts beetween examples of the same mk to create some clean guns. Now, the earlier scarce guns are kept original, but the meteors in the mk3-5 I mix parts. There may be some minor variations in triggers, screw head profiles, stock varnish color and so on, that to the extreme purist might be wrong to mix...

[rapidresponse1]

i agree with garven

[Thegreg]

Just focusing on your first two paragraphs; so a case of two identical guns to swap and interchange parts between to “cherry pick” the nicest bits to make one nice rifle and one slightly rougher one. I can’t see anything wrong with that. My first question before you feel any guilt is how do you know the gun is original in the first place?

The general rule I follow is if I know beyond doubt that something is in original condition, that is the way it will stay. Otherwise it’s fair game, because in the decades of previous ownership you don’t have a clue what “originality” is actually left that you’re beating yourself up trying to preserve.

Cheers
Greg

[Geezer]

Interesting thread.

I’m not sure there is a definitive answer. Surely it ultimately depends on context?

Examples.

I’ve replaced plenty of buggered screws with correct replacements without feeling that I was destroying historical authenticity in any way.

I have a 1970s BSF that came with no rear sight. The only one I could find was from a slightly earlier version of the same model. So I fitted it. It’s inauthentic, but, to me, not a big deal. At least I can shoot it now.

My Webley Hurricane was standard. About 5-10 years ago, i snagged some of the optional brown grips, which it now wears. Is that bad? I also have a scope rail for it which is period correct, but did not originally get sold with it. Does that matter? Why?

And I can’t see a big problem swapping a worn or damaged stock for a better one of the same type and vintage.

None of which is the same as taking two guns and making one good (but unoriginal) one and either one poor one or a bunch of spares. Or now (rather than in 1960) drilling and tapping a Mk3 for a PH aperture.

There’s a line somewhere, but it’s fuzzy.

[Jesim1]

A question for the learned assembly: suppose you have two guns of the same type (only two?). Let’s say one has good woodwork and a tatty action, the other has a good action but the woodwork is poor

Is it ok to swap bits around to make one good gun (and one tired one) or are you losing history if you do?

I’m not sure what I think. For very rare guns it’s a clear no from me. Similarly for guns with a long production run and many small and possibly undocumented variations (the original crosman pumpers for instance).

On the other hand no one would challenge using a non working donor to restore a gun to working order (I think). And if you, say, swap the grips around on a pair of identical pistols are you really losing anything? Indeed, would anyone know, although that’s not really the point.

So I’m not sure where the line is. Or even if there is a line. What do we think?

I kind of agree on your take, and also that the older or rarer the gun the less desirable it is to swap bits around, but on a new gun I'd have no issue with swapping a stock I liked better to the more smooth action for instance.

[micky2]

I wouldn't feel to bad with changing grips over on Webley pistols if they were better ones on a poor pistol than on a good one.or if they damaged.