It looks as though something has been ground off the top of the receiver ring; DP stamps perhaps? That is about the deepest grind I can remember seeing.
Printable View
It looks as though something has been ground off the top of the receiver ring; DP stamps perhaps? That is about the deepest grind I can remember seeing.
Presumably IF it was DP marked, that would have been done 'in service', but, it passed proof testing for civilian life after its sale out of service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
The problem being, no one will ever know if it passed the proof testing (just) but the next round could be the one that causes catastrophic failure.
Well now you've got me worried. Does anyone have a picture of how the receiver ring should look?
Thanks!
EDIT: Nevermind - I found one online. Thanks anyway.
The top of the ring does not look quite as flat in person as it does in the pictures. There are no visible grind marks, and the patina is consistent around the ring. Wouldn't there have been DP marks other places on the rifle if it was designated as such?
It's only my opinion ZGrand, but I suspect it's probably ok. The blueing is consistent & the flat, though a little better defined than on most receivers, looks professionally executed. There are no obvious file marks going in various different directions, nor signs of cold blue. And as you say, the rifle would be DP marked elsewhere. Please don't take this as any encouragement from me to jeopardize your safety if you have concerns about shooting it - you must do what you feel appropriate - but from what I can see on the pictures I think it's ok. You often find sharper edges & less 'finer finishing' on these later assembly rifles. (But in any event, if one has any doubts about a rifle it would pay to get an Enfield competent gunsmith to check it over before taking it out on the range).
Thanks -- I agree. I've been researching local gunsmiths this morning. Better safe than sorry! I'll post the results when done.
It looks alright to me. Much of the furniture on these final M-series ones is beech rather than walnut. The 1940s cases are best relegated to people looking to make up period-looking dummies - most of them split at the neck when fired after all these years.
I got lucky and found a gunsmith with
LE experience and good reviews about 15 miles from my house. He looked at the weapon, checked the headspace, the bolt, the receiver, the crown, and the bore. He said he'd seen better examples, but had certainly seen worse. He said it might not be very accurate, but should be safe to fire. As soon as the range near me re-opens, I'll give it a go and post my impressions.
Thanks again fellers for all the help!
Keep us posted on how she shoots. If you can get hold of some flat base ammo (like old military surplus rounds) you may not be too disappointed.
Will do. Unfortunately, the only ammo I could readily find was PPU 180g jacketed soft point, which I assume has a boat-tail projectile.
In the mean time, if anyone else has any opinions on the firearm, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Based on tests done at Enfield in the 20s (IIRC), there's probably no reason to worry about safety if using standard loads in a clean, dry chamber. In the trials described in the Textbook of Small Arms 1929, a barrel was inserted into an action without threads at all, only a (presumably) close sliding fit. Due to proper cartridge case expansion and adhesion to the cylinder wall, the rifle could be fired in that condition with no apparent problems. When the cases or chamber were oiled slightly, the barrel was blown violently out of the action.
The test showing that with clean dry ammo and chamber case adhesion absorbs almost all the backwards thrust, at least it did in their tests!