My SMLE Mk III has DP marks on it; however, the barrel and reciever marks are marked out with teardrop shaped stamps. The gun has the HV, SC, and BNP post 1954 marks on it, and i was wondering if it was safe to shoot?
Printable View
My SMLE Mk III has DP marks on it; however, the barrel and reciever marks are marked out with teardrop shaped stamps. The gun has the HV, SC, and BNP post 1954 marks on it, and i was wondering if it was safe to shoot?
Don't shoot DP guns. They've been marked for a reason.
I understand that, but it looks like the DP marks have been marked out by an armorer. It seems structurally intact, but I hadn't heard of the guns being un-DP'd
Exactly. Send a PM to Mr Laidler and he can fill you in.
Thanks. I can't see why the gun would be DP'd for wear. The rifling still has hard edges on it and none of the parts look worn at all. The govt marks seem to indicate that it was a RSAF rifle.
---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------
It won't be too bad if it's unusable (I traded it for a 91/30) because it's a genuinely great looking rifle, I'll just be a little miffed if I never get to see this perform.
What you need to understand is that in the very vast majority of cases a rifle would have been converted to Drill Purpose because it had a problem that could not be fixed by replacing component parts. The British never threw away anything unless they absolutely positively couldn't repair it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pigspitter
I understnd the DP rifles were to be made up from sub standard or second grade parts wherever possible but finished externally to the same quality as an FTR rifle.
It seems to be the appearance that everybody goes off when judging a DP... it may look like a silk purse... but it was in fact made out of a sow's ear.
Can you post pictures of the "cancelled" DP marks on the metal? I'd really like to see what they look like.
With all due respect, thats just not a provable statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
Tens of thousands of rifles were DP'd because they needed tens of thousands of DP rifles.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0_110327-1.jpg
Here are the "cancelled" DP marks
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0_110405-1.jpg
The BNP post-1954 mark
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0_110519-1.jpg
The HV and SC(SG?) marks below the rear sight leaf
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0_110642-1.jpg
Another view of the cancelled DP marks
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0_110700-1.jpg
Finally the makers mark
Its probably a rifle that was un-DP'd in 1940, along with quite a few EYs and GFs. You do see quite a few with these cancellation marks.
What's an EY and GF? So this gun should be safe to shoot, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
Pigsplitter, I suggest that you read all the threads on this forum regarding this subject first. Done that.......... Now I'd like you to read and digest what Son has said. There's another REME Armouer who knows a few things. Now I'll tell you a few things that might run contrary to others ideas and theories. I have been involved in the process of the selection of rifles to DP specification. In fact, I was also involved in drawing up the specification of the later DP rifles. That should set out my stall. I have never heard of any rifle being officially UN DP'd and if such rifles were un DP'd, then as sure as god made little green apples, we, as Armourers WOULD know about a cancelled DP mark. Just think about it, How would we NOT know about such an important safety related matter............. Come on! And I can tell you that the initial selection of rifles for conversion to DP standard is ALWAYS from rifles that had failed a critical gauging or other specification failuree. This was inevitably in the rifle body because this was the part that was not replaceable in our service. I've mentioned it before of hundreds subject to an intense fire. YOU don't know that it might have altered the structural integrity of the hardening of the body but I did - because I subject a sample batch to hardness testing.
Your rifle might visually be fine but metallurgically a sack of c--p. Or worn out beyond the capacity of the gauge limits which neither you nor most others n the forum don't have. But I'd suggest that you do this. To everyone who says that a DP marked rifle is fine and safe, then ask them to put it in writing. I am the most senior Armourer in the UK MoD Army. No thanks....................... but I could be wrong
Son, Tankie and Skippy, all well qualified Armourers, would you guarantee the future safety of an ex DP rifle and say so in writing, with your pension hanging on it?
Has that answered your question pigspitter........................
Thank you very much. I guess this gun will be a wall hanger from now on. We have a saying around here "Better safe than sorry" and I'll take that to heart in this case.
Some further information on your observations and their significance, from my point of view:
1. The "SC" stamp stands for short cone and the "HV" stamp stands for high velocity. They were stamped on the barrel at the time of manufacture to indicate that the chamber of the barrel was made for the Mark VII ammunition which was the standard service round at the time. It has nothing to do with a safety rating beyond the indication that it was suitable for Mark VII ammunition.
2. "DP" is a military designation that a rifle is for Drill Purposes only. The problem with the DP mark is that it doesn't say why it was converted to DP standards as most rifles converted to this had a serious problem, but not all.
3. There is no way that someone sitting on his computer can say if your rifle is safe to shoot. That would be guess work at best, and we wouldn't want anyone to take a risk. The rifle would have to be completley inspected by a very knowledgeable expert gunsmith/armourer. The chances are that for this weapon there are few if any that still exist with the detailled knowledge and tools and even if you found someone, it would most likely be economically senseless. Hence, it is standard practice to not shoot a rifle once its been classified as "DP"
4. "EY" means emergency use only and "GF" means grenade firing. Common markings on rifles that were a little more worn.
5. Now, your BNP mark is a civilian proof mark showing that your receiver underwent proof testing after military use. The mark came into use from 1954. Your barrel should also carry a BNP proof mark...........does it?
If it does, it looks like your rifle was re-proofed once in civilian hands with the aim of shooting it.
Out of curiosity, does any of the wood have the DP mark on it?
These comments are for information purposes and not intended to contradict the good advice you have received so far.
I personaly would not shoot a DP marked rifle as it's an unnecessary risk.
The stock has been sporterized and refinished, so any markings have been removed. I'll check to see if it has been reproofed on the barrel.
Pigspitter,
Thankyou for being open minded enough about your rifle to take on board what has been said. All too often we see similar questions asked and answered, only to have the poster go on to ask elsewhere until they get an answer they like.
No, I will never say anything other than "do not fire a DP rifle".
Even if it has survived a civilian proof round, no one can tell you it won't fail sooner rather than later. It has most likely failed a test which said it would not have sufficient safe service left to warrant repair and re-issue.
"I have never heard of any rifle being officially UN DP'd..."
"British Small Arms Of WW2"----Skennerton page 7:
12. 2.42 No.1 rifle, assy f/ stripped DP Cogswell&Harrison 496
7. 5.42 No.1 rifle, assy f/DP models B.S.A. 6,500
20. 5.42 No.1 rifle, assy f/DP parts Holland & Holland 4,500
11,496 un-DP rifles, in whole or in part.
-----krinko
I read that too Krinko and I'd suggest that you read it again. Were the DP rifles STRIPPED for parts in order to make serviceable rifles?
OR, as it says, were XYZ amount of rifles made up from stripped DP rifles?
This isn't the same as UN - DP'ing a DP rifle or using a previous DP as a service rifle. After all, most scrap cars cntain thousands of serviceable parts that we regularly cannibalise to keep our everyday cars going (you do if you own an MG, believe me........)
I retierate that I have never read an instruction to Armourers in the old ACI's (Army Council Instructions), SAI's (Small Arms Instructions), EMER's or the Equipment Regulations (the ER's) that '....Armourers will see DP marked rifles that have been returned to serviceable condition. These rifles look good but by some dint of white mans magic have been deemed to be suitable for front line service by being brought up to A1 condition. In the richter scale of small arms, these rifles fall below that of EY and Sub Standard......'
No, I just have to say that once a DP, always a DP - that's why we stamp a xxxxing great 1/2" DP stamp deeply into the body and barrel. I only say that from the UK Military point of view. What your average enthusiastic amateur or commercial gunsmith chooses to use as his criteria or how he chooses to take up worn out locking shoulders, stretched body or tighten up a boltway in a rifle is a matter for him. I appreciate that he's got a living to make from making good and selling it on but we haven't. In other words, some have a vested interest and I haven't
It's one of the first case and two of the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
We aren't using the Humpty Dumpty English, are we?
-----krinko
I wonder, how and under what circumstances would the Birmingham Proof House proof a DP rifle? Wouldn't they have known the meaning of DP and rejected it at once?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatikulu
The proof house does not pre-judge any firearm. They are asked to test it and they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
They do not check for headspace, they just fire a 'proof load' and if it doesnt explode/fall apart or bulge the barrel it passes.
I guess that if they had one of the DP's with a hughe great hole thru' the action/barrel that they may notice it
Yes, but they have a defined viewing stage before testing any proof loads, to determine suitability for proof, as directed by the Proof Act. I am surprised that they would agree to proof a DP rifle. I know that they will not conduct a private proof of a government rifle unless it has the Sold Out of Service stamp. Is anyone on these boards associated with the Proof House who can comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
..
The Proof Houses are commercial organisations which make a great deal of money on the back of the the UK government's rafts of firearms legislations (eg proof certificates for de-acts).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
I can assure you that they will test anything that is submitted to them, and make no distinction as to provenance or appearance. A great many DP rifles have been submitted for proof (DPs are one of the main sources of original early SMLEs for UK collectors, as there are so few of these types in circulation), and none have ever failed. The Proof Houses do not check headspace or any other specification feature - AFAIK they just make a quick check of the bore to ensure there are no obstructions. Thus barrel bulges are sometimes detected and picked up.
Just a minute JC5. I have a SA80/L98 and it was submitted to proof (for reasons irrelevant here.....) and it sailed through of course. There is no sold out of sevice stamp anywhere. Comments
My area of study is the pre-WWII era, so most of my sources are older, and I admit things might have changed in the past 60+ years! My source for the Sold Out of Service stamp as a requirement for commercial proof is an article on the Proof House by E.G.B. Reynolds from Guns Review, 1966. I suppose the original requirement was to exclude stolen arms. From the comments on this thread, it seems that Proof House standards have changed (or slipped?).Quote:
I know that they will not conduct a private proof of a government rifle unless it has the Sold Out of Service stamp. Is anyone on these boards associated with the Proof House who can comment?
I think even by 1966, the Proof houses couldn't require sold out of service stamps - by that date there were hundreds of thousands of unstamped surplus rifles on the market. Possibly such a requirement was in effect prior to WW1 or during the inter-war years, but there are plenty of target (ie civilian owned) Enfields around from those days without any SooS stamps.
I make no assertion--I'm just quoting Reynolds. Keep in mind, I am NOT suggesting that any DP rifle is safe to fire, and I'm not taking issue with any of the facts presented in this thread. I'm just trying to learn more about how/why/under what circumstances the Birmingham Proof House would prove a DP rifle, and how their policies might have changed over time.
Thunderbox, I'm not sure I follow you about the target (civilian owned) Enfields. If you mean the commercial rifles --a.k.a. Lee Speeds, and target rifles made on the Lee Enfield pattern by BSA and LSA---they would not need the Sold Out of Service or Sale Permit stamps because they were never in government service. Such rifles always had commercial rather than military proofs. Or are you referring to ex-service rifles being on the market in the 1960s? How soon after adopting the SLR did the British government begin selling off their stockpiles of service rifles to civilians?
Ex-service rifles seem to have appeared on the market as early as the 1920s - not surprising, given that the War Office appears to have disposed of about 1/2 million rifles during the inter war period. Its quite hard to date any private use of a military rifle, but sometimes the form of civilian proof markings gives a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
The first surplus No4s came on the market at least by 1948 -I have a No4 here that the old gent asserted he bought from AJ Parker that year.
Where would one look for documentary evidence of such disposals? Any official documents or mentions in the press of the day? The old Parker and PH catalogues mention some ex-service rifles, but that doesn't tell us anything about the quantity. This might be straying too far from the thread topic of DPs and the proof house, in which case I can start a new thread on it.Quote:
Ex-service rifles seem to have appeared on the market as early as the 1920s - not surprising, given that the War Office appears to have disposed of about 1/2 million rifles during the inter war period.
Here's a few links to other threads where Peter and others have discussed the pitfalls of DP and ZF marked rifles ...
ZF marking on Enfields?
DP Stock Marks Query
DP Rifles
Anyone with rifles so marked should read them all thoroughly before you go and shoot it ... :thup:
Regards,
Doug
The 1940 Parker Hale catalogue (Service Section) shows No1's for sale :
Brand new, ex BSA factory £11 - 11 - 00
Secondhand and overhauled £6 - 0 - 00
As a matter of interest Headspace gauges were 12 shillings each.
I would have thought that in 1940 the Military would have needed all they could get - maybe PH did not have that many to sell.
Reading through that catalogue, there's nothing that specifically says these are ex-service rifles, released by the government. It's reasonable to assume that "secondhand" means "ex-service" (or "surplus" as we Americans call them), but that isn't necessarily certain. There were enough civilian target rifles in private hands to constitute a secondhand market. There's really no way to be sure.
As for the £11/11/0 rifles, it says they are "specially selected from the stocks held by the BSA factory." These are new BSA rifles. I would bet that there is not a broad arrow on any of those, just "BSA Co." on the butt socket. BSA advertising from the late 30s lists them for the same price.
I would agree that in 1940, the government would have been requisitioning all the arms it could get, including any commercial versions of the SMLE that PH or BSA had in stock. I'd guess the 1940 catalogue was probably put together in late 1939.
For those that don't have it, it's available in the MKL ... :)
1940 Parker Hale Service Section Catalog
Regards,
Doug