What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

.55"/.303", most definetly fakes!

Bockscar

Well-Known Member
As I said, most definitely fakes as I made these myself! I always had a soft spot for these rounds, and realising I would probably never get to have the real thing, I decided to make one for my own amusement and for representative display. Whilst machining was ongoing, it was decided that a clip of five would look even better! So that's the way I went.
Knowing the way some feel about such items, I shall openly state that these items have enough subtle dimensional changes that I built into them in order to differentiate them from the real thing.
image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg
 
Last edited:
They look great!

"Fake" tends to imply deceiving someone with larceny in mind. "Replica" or "reproduction" is a better description, IMHO?

Ray
 
Bockscar I am with you I will never have an authentic rounds so I would be very happy with a representation of one and I must say yours are fantastic, do you have any photo's or video of how you did it. I would like to have a go myself.

many thanks
Richard.
 
Excellent job of work there Bockscar,well done,and as far as "fake"goes,I am with raymeketa,replicas,,,not fakes,
Regards,
Don,
 
Richard,

No real secrets here with regards to turning your own example...all the dimensions up to the shoulder are taken from a standard .55" Boys example. For the remaining section it was just a matter of of some drawings to bring the angle from the shoulder to the neck into agreement whilst keeping the overall length of 99 m/m in mind. The details of neck diameter and length were deduced by eye from a line illustration that I came across which seemed to be to 1:1 scale. These dimensions were applied to to the finished models and look "right"!
To set the angle on the compound slide of the lathe, I chucked a .55" example and ran a DTI over the length of the angle until I achieved zero over its length. I then manufactured a complete wood example as a tooling up exercise and also to set stops etc'

image.jpgimage.jpg

The case in this example was the important element to work on to get my sizes etc', the projectile was added later on a whim and as you can see I did not get the profile quite right!

Bockscar.
 
Many thanks Bockscar, I only have 1 spare boys case so I think I will try and have a go with a .50 case first as I have lots of spare 50 cal. I do like the wooden round as well it is a great piece on its own merit. Like you I only want a representation so if my shoulder/neck angle is a bit out I don't mind

thanks again
Richard.
 
First of all congratualtions, fantastic craftsmanship, well done and yes definately replica, not fake.

.......here is my only issue with such things. Its great to see you have placed subtle differences in the measurements to make it obvious to those, in the know. However to an outsider like me, they look pretty good and if I saw one I might buy it as an 'unsual round'. Now lets fast forward twenty, thirty or forty years...these rounds now have age, details of who made them have been lost and they find their way onto the open market. You have five made, but say 'John' and 'Dave' (fictitious names btw) want a clip each and so on. All of a sudden these rounds have credability, maybe not to the expert, but to those less than knowledgable...........get my drift?
As collectors we have a duty to protect our own hobby, with this in mind would it not be worth the little extra effort to engrave one side 'Replica'? I would like to ask other collectors who would accept one of these into their own collections as a 'fill in', would the wording Replica have any undue effect on the piece? - as this is what it is. Of course they could be turned around so that the engraving couldnt be seen, but then future issues would be solved once and for all.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not stood on a soapbox lecturing saying this should be done, that should be done. I'm just more interested where everyone else stands on this issue? I'm lucky to have collected and gained knowledge before the influx of reproduction items. Militaria in general is now awash with repro items, this can only get worse if we allow it to.

over to you guys.

As I said at the start, excellent work, I am not taking anything away from the skilled craftsmanship you have shown and the above posts indeed echo this. Well done in also recognising the issue I raise by changing the dimensions in the first place!!

all the best
regards Kev
 
That is a very fair point you make I for one Kev would have no problem with my replica "if I manage to make a descent one" having replica or reproduction down the side or to replace the Headstamp, I agree whole heartedly with you on the fake/future/aged debate. I have a few rounds that are resin replica's and metallic replicas that are marked as such and it does not bother me in any way.

Richard.
 
They look great!

"Fake" tends to imply deceiving someone with larceny in mind. "Replica" or "reproduction" is a better description, IMHO?

Ray

Preface this to Bokscar, nothing personal, simply standing up for the opposition - to remain silent is to be counted with the majority.

As one of the more vocal I'll grab the banner and run with itadding my own humble opinion. Said it before and I'll say it again, today's "reproductions" are tomorrow's "fakes". If you don't understand/believe that then you are either a new collector or you have not been paying attention. This is a constant and increasing problem, and creating more is simply polluting the gene pool. Regardless of innocent intentions today, time moves on and not a week goes by without someone on this forum asking if they are wasting their hard-earned money on something that is not as it seems. Subtle changes intended to be obvious today in the future may be questioned as variations. Money changes hands, a collector is screwed and the history is muddied. Look no further than the title of this category - spotting fake/reproduction items. Why is this category necessary? Why add to it? We have all seen it happen, most of us have had it happen to us. Innocent intent or not, the result is the same. My two cents, again.
 
The last couple of replys to this thread were the ones I was honestly expecting to receive at some point, and quite rightly too in my opinion. Before I had even cut metal on this project, I had doubts myself about actually going ahead owing to the dubious nature of just where these items would sit. I went through stages of "will I wont I" before proceeding to make the item for my own personal use and enjoyment. The next stage was the idea of letting a select number of collectors view the items and get their opinions of wether I should go public with them or not. In the end I decided to put them out there and get it over with. All the points raised so far have been perfectly valid with regards to fakes et al and I am only too aware of the problem myself although never having been burned personally....I would hate that. For the record it should be noted that the "cases" are in fact solid brass and very heavy, the projectiles themselves are commercially available .308" calibre copper clad and not nickel clad .303" as per the original from what I understand to be the case.
The original idea was to have a headstamp reading "reproduction 2014" but this is proving difficult to do on test pieces so far with any semblance of neatness. The idea here being to stamp this so deeply that any attempt to remove it would result in the loss of the extractor lip. If there is no success in this area, then it is a reversion to the secondary idea of cutting a deep key way in the case side with details stamped inside.
 
I have a growing number of replica rounds made for me by a friend (mostly cannon calibres, some grenade rounds) but I don't worry about them ever being passed off as real: they are all machined from solid aluminium, with no primer pockets.
 
Preface this to Bokscar, nothing personal, simply standing up for the opposition - to remain silent is to be counted with the majority.

As one of the more vocal I'll grab the banner and run with itadding my own humble opinion. Said it before and I'll say it again, today's "reproductions" are tomorrow's "fakes". If you don't understand/believe that then you are either a new collector or you have not been paying attention. This is a constant and increasing problem, and creating more is simply polluting the gene pool. Regardless of innocent intentions today, time moves on and not a week goes by without someone on this forum asking if they are wasting their hard-earned money on something that is not as it seems. Subtle changes intended to be obvious today in the future may be questioned as variations. Money changes hands, a collector is screwed and the history is muddied. Look no further than the title of this category - spotting fake/reproduction items. Why is this category necessary? Why add to it? We have all seen it happen, most of us have had it happen to us. Innocent intent or not, the result is the same. My two cents, again.

Jeff, I understand where you are coming from but like it or not people are always going to reproduce items, either deliberately to sell on as fakes or as a 'replica' of an original. As prices increase so the scarcer items get further from reach for the average collector, many collectors have limited funds and yet the desire to own the scarcer rounds is still there, hence the replica 'fill in' is very appealing. I understand that and have no problem with this personal choice.
I do however strongly believe that the responsibility lies with the people producing the items to make every attempt that any such items are never going to be passed off as real in the future. Stamping an item REPLICA with a date of production is a great idea. Of course its also the responsibility of the collector to voice opinion of what is and what is not acceptable; this we do not for our own gain, as we hopefully have built up knowledge, its for the future generations we fear.
I read a thread on another forum about the amount of reproduction items on display at a recent museum and was this acceptable? Interesting thread and question raised. I'm of the opinion that when visiting a museum I want to see items that 'were there' original and nothing else. There are of course exceptions to the rule, one off items to complete a uniform etc, but these should be clearly labelled as such and photos of originals provided where possible..............but this is another debate.

Bockscar has made very clear his battle with his concience about producing these and the lengths he is going to to protect future generations and for that I applaud him, he doesnt have to do this, no one does and not everyone will.

What I really would like to know, given a choice of two items, both identical Replicas, one stamped Replica, the other not; would people choose the ones with or without 'REPLICA' stamped on them? If they did choose to buy the one without the stamp my question would be; Why? If you know you are buying a replica, then thats what it is, why the issue?

Faking items of course is another area, and, a total different area. This is nothing short of Fraud, done purely for self gain. This again is an area that will always be with us as collectors. Where money is involved there will always be fakes, be it fashion clothing, paintings or even money itself. Everyone gets stung, you only ever learn by being hurt. However knowledge can be defence against fakes.

What I also worry about is creating 'new rounds' that never existed, an unusual dummy round never seen before. Another turns up miles apart and validates the first. A third gets put into a museum and concretes opinion - a new round (or whatever else is created).

In the end replica items will always be around and I fear in greater numbers, the guidelines which collectors lay down as 'Acceptable' is perhaps the way to go ?

Kev
 
Thanks, and I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe that accepting something wrong as "inevitable" is the way to go. I would instead argue to teach new collectors "how to collect". Everyone today seems to want that instant gratification, few are willing to dedicate the time and effort necessary for building a good collection, to wait for the piece they are hunting for and to then wait again for the better upgrade. If they cannot have it today they "reproduce" or "restore", saying "I could never afford" etc. In the meantime the collectors are out there at the shows, networking, at the boot sales, garage sales, talking to people, and finding great pieces.

Some folks are fortunate and can buy their collections, others have to work at it. That takes both a lot of hard work and a passion for what they are doing. Take a look at many of the major collections around the globe, you will see examples of work, sweat and sacrifice. I would suggest that we share that passion and laydown guidelines of what is "unacceptable" instead?
 
A little OT but maybe apropos, and definitely a little tongue-in-cheek.

I was watching one of the "science" TV shows recently, the subject being anthropology or archaeology. A team was digging for relics at a site known for yielding a lot of goodies in the past, when they uncovered a tiny bit of bone, no bigger than my little finger. Back in the laboratory, they took this sliver and using modeling clay, they reconstructed an entire T Rex. So, applying the same principles and techniques, couldn't we take, say, a fired primer from a real 55/303 and reconstruct a complete cartridge? Would it be any less authentic than that T Rex?

Just asking?

No offense to you anthropologists or archaeologists out there. And I hope I spelled them right. :tinysmile_grin_t:

Ray
 
Last edited:
Very interesting thread & provided much food for thought. As a convert to the " today's replica is tomorrow's fake" side of the argument, this thread has shown, as with so many things in life, it's not always so black & white!
Tim
 
A little OT but maybe apropos, and definitely a little tongue-in-cheek.

I was watching one of the "science" TV shows recently, the subject being anthropology or archaeology. A team was digging for relics at a site known for yielding a lot of goodies in the past, when they uncovered a tiny bit of bone, no bigger than my little finger. Back in the laboratory, they took this sliver and using modeling clay, they reconstructed an entire T Rex. So, applying the same principles and techniques, couldn't we take, say, a fired primer from a real 55/303 and reconstruct a complete cartridge? Would it be any less authentic than that T Rex?

Just asking?

No offense to you anthropologists or archaeologists out there. And I hope I spelled them right. :tinysmile_grin_t:

Ray

I would expect that the difference is more one of scientific inquiry vs historic interest.
Further, they are not collectors, and don't get me started on museums. I've learned more about weak/fake museums in the past year then I was ever interested in learning. Another subject for another day.

Shifting gears a bit, take this train of thought to other types of collecting. Coins, art, stamps, even baseball cards. I used to see "reproductions" of valuable coins available in Beijing all the time. As I recall the coin collectors do not take the same attitude of "it's inevitable, no real harm done". Reproductions of art are popular, but not among collectors. And the list goes on and on.

So why is ordnance different? Speaking in generalities and not trying to turn this into any sort of personal attack on anyone, but there is not a week goes by that we do not have folks in this forum showing off their efforts at "reproducing", "repairing", "replacing", "restoring" different hard to find ordnance items. During the same period we have other folks (I confess, I get great pleasure when it is the same people) who are asking/complaining about fakes/"restored" items that they have purchased or are considering purchasing. And yet, nobody sees a connection between the two? I see often how the excuse is that "it is only for me, I don't sell", etc. Look at the people that fade just from this forum in 1-2 years time. Big collectors that have died, mid-sized collectors that find other interests, small collectors that make 1-2 posts and are never heard from again. Where did all of their ordnance go? Most likely Gunbroker, Egun, Ebay etc. In most cases the pieces in our collections will outlive us, or our interest.

In the end it is your property, do with it as you will.
 
[QUOTE In the end it is your property, do with it as you will.[/QUOTE]

We never really own it, just look after it for future generations and hope it doesn't get destroyed along the way.

Dave.
 
I see nothing wrong with restoring or repairing ordnance items. Collectors rebuild and/or restore automobiles, airplanes, and buildings and most everyone sees nothing wrong about it. Why should an historic artifact be consigned to the dump just because it shows it's age and use?

Again, JMHO

Ray
 
Top