>In a general sense, I prefer to see such things still being used, or
>failing that, maintained in such a way that they could, if needed, be
>put back into service.

I once witnessed an argument between a visitor and a staffer at the Owls Head Transportation Museum about the museum's habit of operating its vehicles at the various special occasions it hosts during the summer. Well, when I say "argument", it was really the visitor ranting about the irresponsibility of it all and the staffer trying to find polite ways of not engaging.

I kind of let it go on for a while, then ambled over, pointed at the oily drip tray under the engine of the vintage biplane standing nearby, and asked, "Is that there because this engine still runs?"

"Yes it is," the staffer said.

"Awesome," I said, and wandered on to look at the next item.

Mind you, there are certain safety considerations involved in applying that philosophy to firearms (as, indeed, there are with vintage vehicles, though the considers themselves are different). I don't shoot my old Mauser Bolo, for instance, because it's worn out and mismatched and wouldn't be safe, and I have a couple of others that the current working status of is uncertain. There are practical obstacles too, sometimes; I have a couple of other guns in my collection that you just can't get ammunition for any longer. Nobody's made British .380 Revolver ammunition (black powder cartridges, from the 1870s) for quite a long time.

Still, if you can, and it's safe, why not? I've seen people object, "Why ruin it?" but unless you're dealing with some kind of super-elaborate presentation piece with a really fragile embellished finish or something, I don't think that really holds up. It's what they're for.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.