between rifle #B14270 and B15200Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
Printable View
between rifle #B14270 and B15200Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
OK picture time.
I'm posting a link, but this is the basic idea:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN0312-1.jpg
All the red is below the discolored part, on the darker area of the stock. All the yellow is in the discolored area and on the nose cap.
The rest of the photos show markings and the actual paint.
Login to a private Photobucket.com album
Password: Bishop
I do want to note... it does not appear the bolt is matching. I could be wrong, but you'll see the serials on the rifle and the bolt. The numbers on the stock and the nose cap do match. The only thing that appears to have a different set of numbers is the bolt. They match everywhere else.
What's the number on the back of the bolt handle? The number on the underside of the handle is the Lithgow assembly or inventory number. Not the serial number.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow... I just invented curse words. LOL! The numbers on the back of the bolt handle match the nose cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
I don't think we can be sure of this. The actions were made in 1926 and assembled into rifles around June the following year when they were serial numbered. In other words, actions with shield were still being assembled long after the wrist stamp changed to MA and it's probably very possible that some 1926 actions with shield were assembled after some stamped MA were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Sorry, this is way off topic but it was asked somewhere.
Continuing the OT, it would seem that bigduke6's 1926 could very well be a 1925 overstamp. The last digit surely looks more like a "5" than a "6". Except that it's loop is closed. Why would that be wrong? would be the first time nor the last. A good example would be the 1930's No.4 Mk.1s which are seen "updated", sometimes 2 or 4 years.
Wolf308, if it was my rifle, it would probably have already been test fired, but I'm a bit mad. Which ties in with the thought that it might be interesting to "restore" the paint. Not just everyone has a good excuse to make their Enfield colorful!
It also wouldn't be too surprising if the rifle was in military service for quite some time before being a cadet training tool.
It's nice to finally put those marks on the woodwork into context, have seen two or three on this website, always with varied explanations.
Good one oz.
I mentioned before that when I was in Australia, we had Cadet Force rifles that came through our workshops as part of the usual turnover of military kit and these were bog standard No1's and Brens, with coloured paint but not marked DP. Can any of you RAEME Armourers look up in the old EMEI's to see what came first, red or yellow paint. I have a feeling that it was yellow but this was gradually changed to red because yellow became the standardised colour for blank firing attachments and barrels.
It will have been a 'B' class mod or instruction on a do-it-when-they-pass-through the parent workshop basis.
Got any old EMEI's in the tech library Son? Might they still have them at Bandiana?
Then we need a little survey of #s to see what the story is. I put my #s up lets see what can be learnt. OVER TO THE FOURMERSQuote:
Originally Posted by Demo