AA broad arrow stock markings?

Hey guys,
Need some Commonwealth input from this scholarly group. I'm a collector and fan of WW2 Enfields and gear. Mainly my focus for many years has been K98ks. One rifle I own, a duv 40, is obviously a Commonwealth capture. As shown below, it has an AA over broad arrow inspection marking in the buttstock and a disc inletted into the stock. These K98ks turn up. All are '41 date and earlier, most duv 41 and duv 40 (a rare code), some byf 41. Primarily they turn up with the AA stock inspection, a few with the disc.
Thread:
duv 40 Commonealth capture

Given the dates and obvious use of the rifles, and where Commonwealth forces would be best situated to haul in a bunch of '41 and earlier K98ks, my guess is they are ex-Afrika Korps rifles. The mystery is what is the AA broad arrow? Best guesses have been Allhalabad Arsenal in India, or Alexandria in Egypt. The known SMLE with such a stock stamp was an India connected unit stationed in Alexandria. Can anyone help with any definitive ID of this AA inspection?

My take is these rifles were perhaps diverted to a Commonwealth affiliated Asian country, such as Malasia, etc., for use by Military Provost/Police. I pride myself on research and a library, and good Enfield texts and can find nothing definitive. Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Regards,
Hambone

In the early 90's, Springfield Sporters had a group of Lees with the same marking and I was told they were from a police department in the Far East--they would not be specific. Burma, Malaya or the like. Certainly this is nothing definitive. Perhaps Peter can comment further.

I have an 40 or 41 date German K98 bayonet with a broad arrow on the cross piece. Correspondence with British bayonet collectors were inconclusive other than to offer the possibility that it was museum marked! More likely it might have been with your lot.

These markings have been discussed on forums before with no conclusion arrived at that, to me, makes common sense. Why would the British go out of their way in the middle of deperate battles/times, to mark captured property? Supply issues would mandate no issue to their own troops (the stated reason for little issue of the lend lease Garands we gave them). Giving them to partisans/captured area governments is fine but why identify them a captured. Those markings might make the new owners open to reprisals by the former owners.

I can see them as being captured material run through a British depot after WWII for issue as foreign aid to countries in South East Asia.

Free opinion for what it is worth.

I couldn't say that is an unreasonable theory. The only time I've seen these AA K98ks discussed was in several threads over the years I've initiated. I'd like to see others. I think identifying AA would be instrumental. Obviously, a large haul of captured 98ks of '41 or earlier vintage with a Commonwealth nexus would be North African campaign related. Alexandria, Egypt was a huge supply depot/port and large amounts of captured weapons went through it. Allhalabad Arsenal was a large arsenal in India which also handled captured weapons.

The inspection would indicate repair, or more likely, examination. Examination for what? Police / provost use is likely. Indeed, some of these have MP discs with a weapon/rack number (presumably). I think that these were given to a British Commonwealth for use, perhaps postwar. I've heard the Sarco / Malaysia connection and one owner states that he got his years back from these rifles. I've been at this 25+ years and never remember Sarco selling matched nice K98ks. Further, none of these have import markings, so they would have to predate the 80s.
Regards,
Hambone

If I might add a further comment regarding British ordnance practices--at the risk of garnering Peter's ire.

Britain shared the use of all its manuals and requirements will all Commonwealth countries. Canada and Australia and India issued their own manuals and regulations but were mostly direct copies of the British manuals (if its not broken--don't fix it).
With the break up of the Commonwealth post WWII, I have seen indications that the various new nations wanted their own direction and set up new ordnance facilities etc. As they had British equipment from the war, I can see them continuing to follow British methods but modified locally as required. Without British direct support they had to establish their facilities and corresponding markings (A^A). If this is true, I suspect that their revised manuals did not get wide distribution if written at all. This might explaine the inability to find written records.

This is speculation at best as you say, nobody really knows what went on. Since Peter has yet to chime in, I will try to get his attention in another thread---not trying to steal your thread. I will be gone for seveal days--going to Tulsa. best, p.