I hope it won't be considered impertinent, but I would like to comment on the remarks in the first page of the article linked above.
The damage done to British guns and rifles is I think more likely to have been done when those arms returned to the UK with their owners from the hot and dusty corners of the Empire. They returned to homes mostly without central heating, to a cold, damp climate (except for a few summer months), often to be stored in attics & lofts and basements & cellars without in most cases I suspect, any preparation for storage in those environments.
The arms and their owners travelled to and from their overseas postings on ships, and the hold of a ship at sea is never a very dry place, nor is the salt air beneficial.
Despite the very generous leave officers could obtain before WWII, probably most of these guns and rifles spent months at a time in their cases unused.
The leather, wood and felt cases did little or nothing to keep out humidity and actually absorbed moisture from the air, which would be released when the ambient humidity decreased. That part of the moisture that escaped inward into the case would then tend to condense on the cold metal of the gun or rifle, as would any other that entered the by-no-means airtight case.
As there is nowhere in the UK to use an express rifle for example, there they would sit for decades with only an occasional cleaning if any. Many, perhaps most having a sentimental attachment for their owners, would be kept into the owners's old age, exacerbating the problems.
I remember a tailor from when I was a child who had been a district officer somewhere in Africa. He bought a .375 H&H before he went and was quite proud of the rifle, but when he told that story I doubt he had shot it for forty years. I wonder in fact when he had last looked at it, let alone cleaned it!
As we know, most of those who own firearms are not really enthusiasts or deeply interested in them; they are tools, albeit expensive ones. In India particularly, even private soldiers had Indian servants who would do much of the cleaning and polishing . I believe they were not supposed to be allowed to handle the soldier's weapons however.
In the case of officer's, they could have entrusted the cleaning of their sporting arms to their soldier-servants, or their household servants. In British regiments stationed in England, the soldier-servants (batmen) would be British of course, but there were dozens of Indian regiments which made up what was called "the Indian Army" and there the servants would be Indians of course. Probably that made little difference to the quality of the cleaning, but I can't agree that "the British Army in general did not stress keeping their arms in a pristine condition". I think if you ask any ex-British soldier, particularly one who served before WWII, you will hear in some detail just how fussy weapons cleaning and inspection was.
"FTR" or "Factory Thorough Repair" was only resorted to when necessary, and barring accidental or war damage, or simply a great deal of wear, it probably only happened once or twice in a rifle's service life. Most maintenance was done at a 'lower echelon' from what I have learned.
