Printable View
A red band at the muzzle usually meany Z-UF as Z= Base workshop repair only and UF= Unfit to Fire. Many reasons for this, the common one in the 80's/90's was severe barrel crazing that was borescoped and examined by an experienced examiner. It was then condemned as Z-BER, barrel replaced or certified as fit to fire.
Seaspriter, that's the school my sons went to: Merchant Taylors, Sandy Lodge etc.
Both were in the CCF, but they only shoot .22s these days.
The school fees nearly killed me but that's another story...
Thanks Rob. I'm a historical writer as well as a collector of Enfields (and lots of other things historic). If you have any stories, insights, anecdotes, observations, etc. you could share, please expound. I'm thinking of writing a short historic novelette about the Enfields in my collection, attaching real personalities (even if fictional but based on fact) to each of the Enfields as they evolved over time. Thus my Savage No.4 Mk1/3 starts in Britain as a design which is then taken to America, becomes a Lend-Lease gun, fights in battle, is FTR'd, then brought to your son's school, then sold back to America thorough an importer ......... each of these stages of evolution has a story. Multiply this story for each of the production facilities and across WWI, WWII, and the Korean War, as well as Middle Eastern and Malaysian conflicts and you can see the kaleidoscope of stories that are possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
(If you'd feel more comfortable using a PM, please do).
Anyone else with stories about the CCF, please chime in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Thank you Brian and Peter for helping demystify the "Mysterious Red X."Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I did sleuth the entire gun for any stampings that would have been placed on the gun after the Red X was painted on -- and found nothing other than standard marks (i.e. no Z or DP stamps). Most people who would own a gun like this would remove the Red X for aesthetic reasons (I won't -- it's an integral part of the "story"). My visual examination of the barrel shows 5 grooves bright and clean -- but I didn't do a microscopic examination for crazing (beyond my capacity).
Question: If other guns have been so designated but lost their Red X and have been put into the public's hands, is there any danger of firing these weapons?
(Recall the recent thread of the Saga of Old Joe who bought the DP'd No1MkIII-- different conditions with the hole drilled in the barrel, but nevertheless....caution!)
IOW, does the Red X mean:
1) the gun is unsafe and should be DP'd or
2) that it falls into that "grey area"s where its not suited for strenuous warfare conditions but where it may be shot occasionally for target range purposes or
3) that the gun has not been tested/examined carefully and proofed to British Quality Standards, which means it has unknown factors/conditions?
In every respect the gun looks A-1, but as we know, looks can be deceiving (an oft-ill-fated lesson).
Q1. When the red band is there it indicates Z-UF. That is UNFIT to fire. We say do not shoot it until it's been borescoped and examined. That is only ONE of the possibilities
2. There are no grey areas or Sub Standard now. The rifle is serviceable or it ain't. If it ain't, there is a separate category entirely and that is downgrtaded for training and as such, these are classified as DP and CANNOT be fired. We have vehicles earmarked like this too. Used for recovery and training tasks etc etc
3.; After examination it'll be scrapped, repaired or sent back as serviceable without the red indicator. I would say that yours was sent back for certification/examination and only made it back to Ordnance where it stayed and was then disposed of. After 1987-ish No4 rifles that were sentenced Z were not GENERALLY replaced unless a replacement was requested, because the new Cadet GP rifle was sort of imminent (they had to wait a few more years I hasten to add.....) so money was not spent on replacing No4's from Ordnance stocks