Return to Index  

Re: Just two I reckon

September 9 2015 at 4:11 AM
No score for this post
Nelson  (no login)


Response to Just two I reckon

 
> I reckon there are just two and this is also what the collector says. I assume the one for sale was bought by the collector. >

At the end of the tale, I agree with your conclusion, Nuyt, and indeed this is where I was going. Let’s broaden the conversation a little, just to ensure that you and I—and it is hoped, everyone else—are on the same page. First of all, both the seller and the purchaser are collectors. I imagine that the typical story of ordnance collection is as true in Oz as it is in the States: the first collector’s accumulation had burgeoned to the point that (i) it threatened to burst the confines of his storage space(s) and there was no other place to store it; and (ii) he had diminished his money reserves and now needed to sell one or more items to recoup some cash. If a collector has two of the same type of gun, selling one is an easier decision than having to choose among a number of single items. I’m wondering if you can use your connection with the second collector (the recent purchaser) and request him to contact the first collector (the seller) to disclose the serial number on his remaining piece (reasonably assuming the sold piece is serial No. 1153). For one thing, it may well tell us that representative guns of both manufacturing runs were sold to the NEI and got diverted to Australia. It is, believe me, a most important question.

> The one with the hinged shield may have been adapted post war by another collector. I thought it was mentioned somewhere that this shield was not the original one? >

I’m dubious about this conclusion. I think at some point, likely in the United States, there were two shield variants. I admit that I have seen only the one without the upper hinges in USMC hands. The hinges for the upper part look to be original to me, and the rear shield braces appear much the same, with the diff being only in their length. That written, I know nothing about the upper hinged shields. Cannot resist pointing out the differences in the wheels. Each has a pair of holes, 180° opposed, but in one case the holes are ovoid and in the other a flatter ellipse or trapezoid. Such wheels, of course, could have come from virtually anywhere and at any time....and anyway, just maybe you and I had best stay clear of wheel patterns.

> The Buquor adapter as used by KNIL was a small carriage that carried the whole gun when travelling, it was not a modification of the gun carriage. >

I’m scratching my head on this one. I would term what I see a small gun trailer rather than a carriage. Methinks any nation wanting to schlep its older horse-drawn gun carriages at high truck speeds could have fashioned such simple trailers. The genius of the Buquor (a.k.a. Martin Parry) gun carriage adaptors was to have two axle points, one displaced from the other, such that the lower connected to smaller wheels mounting pneumatic tires, having a braking mechanism, and carrying the gun at high speed. The gun was still mounted on and fired from its upper or cranked axle and did not require other firing modifications. See

patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US2129315.pdf [highlight, copy, and paste]

Nelson

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Responses

  • Buquor - nuyt on Sep 9, 2015, 3:09 PM
  •  
    Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
     Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement