An explosively dismantled Enfeld

A friend sent these pics, and said I could repost them here. He's indicated that the rifle appeared in new condition, with no marks on the bolt face, and ....

He's a well experienced Enfielder, and those DP marks should have/could have been a warning any one of us could have overlooked, and is a reminder that although a million Enfields appear to have DP and mysteriously still be good and safe shooters, there always exists real potential to take them seriously. I think my friend is very lucky, and yes, those are burns around the wrist and where the wrist watch was. I remain increasingly impressed by the power of 50,000 psi.

His words,
"Have you ever heard of a DP #4 with a (professional looking) hole through the chamber? I certainly hadn't till I fired it last Friday. Gave me a bit of a start -photo's attached.
It appeared to have never fired a shot and I couldn't see the holes of course cause they were encased in wood. All the forend screws look to have never been removed from their first fitting. Thought I'd knabbed a real bargain...
Those are (three day old) splinters & powder burns on my wrist, saved somewhat by my watchstrap. Took a couple to the leg also as I was sitting down. Projectile made it about 3/4 the way down the barrel. Those bits of handguard ended up several metres apart, don't know where the rest of it & the top of the retainer went.
****ed me off as it was a real tidy rifle.

Yeah pleased I had ear muffs on.
Hole goes all the way through, note the perfect trace through both both sides of the cartridge case.

I'd be pleased if you could post it on misurps as I'm not too familiar with it. Mention the fact that bore/bolt face probably was new, and forend screws looked untouched.

Couldn't believe it - it came fitted with a firing pin, I just happened to be the first guy to try it."

Lucky chap and a warning to us all to inspect any firearm before first firing.
Glad is wasnt worse and that he could relate his story.

Maybe you could post this on 'that other forum' where members regularly post that it is safe to fire DP rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Lucky chap and a warning to us all to inspect any firearm before first firing.
Glad is wasnt worse and that he could relate his story.

Maybe you could post this on 'that other forum' where members regularly post that it is safe to fire DP rifles.

---

I don't think anyone condones shooting a DP that has a hole through the chamber....

Lucky chap and a warning to us all to inspect any firearm before first firing.
Glad is wasnt worse and that he could relate his story.

Maybe you could post this on 'that other forum' where members regularly post that it is safe to fire DP rifles.

Yes, I agree 100%, lucky man.
I'm not sure about your ref about the other forum, like to PM the details? maybe its better the scoop remains here at milsurps?

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I don't think anyone condones shooting a DP that has a hole through the chamber....

---

My guess is that hole was just out of sight under the hand guard, didn't we have something similar here 6-12 months ago but those holes were from underneath, even more out of sight? Interesting the way the brass is punched out so cleanly,

Surely, and in the kindest way, (so you know that there are some barbed words to follow............) this is simpy bordering on stupidity for the buyer/user of a new rifle for not even looking in the bore before he used it. To be honest, if he's missed a hole like this, I doubt whether he even looked through the barrel!

Nope, sorry RJW, I know he's a KIWI but..........., no sympathy! Good bit of advice here, taught to all Armourers and shooters. LOOK AT THE BORE AND NOT THROUGH THE BARREL

Incidentally, we had a similar case to this with an RAF DP No4 with a vertical larger diameter hole a bit further forwards. But in that case, the lad was already prone on the firing point when one of the range staff handed him the rifle

Can't help but agree, and I'm sure he does too...
It strikes me as odd or unusual that a deact hole is drilled like this out of sight. I've seen some that come out sideways through the left knox, and are visible enough to head off any shooter mistakes like this. isn't it kind of dumb to deact/drill it in this position or was the procedure done without much in the way of guidelines or rules?
There must be folks who have bought enfields over the last 50 years, never would know what DP meant, and would just open fire and get hurt.

OK, since I have described often enough how to give a rifle a quick check-over, I feel entitled to stick my oar in here and add to the chorus of "never fire a rifle that has not been inspected".

But why was the rifle in that dangerous state? - The holes turned what may or may not have been a safe rifle to fire into one that was definitely dangerous to fire.

The only explanation that occurs to me at the moment, is that the rifle was intended to be de-activated, while retaining the external appearance, by driving a pin through the two holes, thus blocking off the chamber and making it impossible to insert a full-length cartridge case, not even a blank.

I imagine that it is now impossible to establish whether such a pin was ever fitted, but what idiot would drill the holes and then not drive in the pin? BTW. in Germany, to de-act a gun in this way, the pin would have to be welded (as well other actions, such as drilling 6 holes through the barrel etc) so that no-one could attempt to reactivate the gun by driving out the pin.

And that is indeed what might have happened. The pin was never fitted, or may have originally been present, but someone removed it, thus making the rifle really, really dangerous. And, in this country and probably most others that have legislation, even the attempt to reactivate a gun is a criminal act. We have all now seen one good reason why.

For the last time, to be engraved in letters of fire on a pillar of steel (which is just about what happened):

"never fire a rifle that has not been inspected".

Hi Patrick, that explains a lot, thanks...

and its a major trap, booby trap in the making.

I cannot imagine why someone would create a trap like that.
DP is one thing. Disabled/non-firing is another.
But functional apart from a hole through the chamber?
That is nothing more than a trap with a potential to do serious injury.

It is in the same category as handloading a .303 cartridge with a case full of Bullseye, and leaving it lying on a bench at a range.

The reasoning behind thinking it was ok is where the problem lies. Just because it is a DP rifle, doesn't mean all the parts are old and damaged and worn out. It was still supposed to be finished to the same standard as a new rifle, just using as many (forgive the terminology here) "factory seconds" parts as possible. I have to wonder who put a firing pin in it... one thing they have in common is the firing pin cut as a minimum.

Over the years there have been a lot of different things done to prevent DP rifles being fired. All of them are done to SHOW it is DP only, not to MAKE it DP only.. BIG DIFFERENCE. I haven't seen a lot of DP No4's but I have never come across a DP with a pin through the chamber. Holes in varying positions, varying sizes and even quantities are common. A mate bought a Lithgow No1 with a very similar hole the one shown here, except a bit further back along the knox... It hadn't been detected when the rifle was stripped as it had been filled with an epoxy and coloured to match. The previous owner claimed to have shot it often. On close inspection the hole was filled with an epoxy on the top side, but only went about 1/4 inch deep below the chamber, and had nothing in it.

I very much doubt that the "DP" mark and the hole are actually related.

Presumably the rifle was DP'd in service. Looks like the rifle as then had another shooting career - if that is indeed a civilian BSA ball-burnished barrel fitted, as it appears. Someone has then decided to make it into a display rifle with a rather stupid "invisible" de-activation.

This incident again makes me wonder why the US and some other countries have no system of proof or other stringent check. At least in UK and Europe you can be reassured that your salvaged DP or home-made conversion is safe enough by submitting it to an independent over-proof test.....

Two things jump out at me, the experienced enfielder bit and the big bloody DP on the receiver.
There are fools and there are lucky fools.:nono:

The rifle is clearly marked DP so only a fool would try to fire it.

I seem to remember that the Air Training Corps had No.4 DPs like that BUT!!!!!! they also had cut firing pins. I wonder if the moron who did this replaced the bolt with a bolt from a Service Rifle?

DP is a term that should be commonly known but unfortunately many have no idea of it's true meaning.

The common lack of knowledge of the true meaning of DP is made worse by tossers trying to confuse the issue with terms such as "Durban Police."

Locally, every firearm sale now requires a serviceability certifcate. Hopefully those issuing the certificates know what to look for as the average shooter probably has no idea.

The pic showing the fired case against the drilled knoxform, gives a good illustration of position of the chamber within the barrel.

Just glad it was not me.

Note to self - wear safety glasses when shooting and keep away from shooters using a new acquisition for the first time.

Paul

As I mentioned earlier, we (not the Army, but the RAF....) had DP No4's that had a large diameter hole in the barrel just forwards of the nocks form. But on these the hole went rhrough the fore-end and hanguard too. The rifle was liberally stamped DP and the strikers were cut short and the bolt face welded up - and I seem to remember that the striker had a small run of weld across it and the rear face of the cocking piece to secure it.

Some RAF blokes were doing what we call 'background activity' at the rear of the firing point while the firing detail were on the firing point. Nobody realised that the arms storeman had given one of the squad a DP rifle............ When one of the firing party rifles misfired a few times, one of the range officers realised that the rifle was defective and to speed things up a bit, just called one of the other shooters to bring HIS rifle up to the firing point. Which he did and took the 'defective' rifle away.

Nobody realised it at the time that during a bit of previous background activity, the DP bolt had been put into the 'service' rifle hence the reason that it wouldn't fire. But the rifle that had NOW been put onto the firing point was the DP rifle, with a hole right through the fore-end, barrel and handguard BUT had a service bolt in place. It was charger loaded and as the first round of his 'check group' was fired, the rifle went pear shaped - as did two of his fingers.

One of my friends at 14MAG was the technical investigator of that rifle/incident and I seem to remember that this was the incident that lead to all the bullshi............ er............... horse manure about crazed barrels cracking. It was nothing of the sort.

I don't suppose I really need to jump in here, but I too see the DP as glaring. The hole was originally drilled through the wood as well and has been change out at some point to make it better for display. People see and believe what they want. Therefore this happened. No sympathy here either.

Personally I will not shoot an aging rifle that I haven't stripped down to the point that I can examine every square inch of metal. I admit I have a couple of old guns I won't shoot because I lack the knowledge to strip without possibly damaging something- eventually I'll figure those out too. Removing the forend/ handguards on Number 1's or Number 4's is very straightforward and newcomers to the gun should purchase any one of a number of excellent references that have detailed stripping instructions. As everyone here knows, SMLE #1 MkIII's are simple to strip with one caution being to remove the forend before attempting to remove the butt (which isn't often necessary, anyway. No.4's are even simpler and the only thing I've found difficult is that some front sight guards retaining screws may be seized and/ or chewed up and if you bend the front band over the guard to remove it it may be damaged (at $10.00 to replace, who cares?). As the responsibility for my safety is ultimately my own, I've literally resorted to putting a rifle action under a microscope when I suspected cracks in an Ishapore action body (turned out to be milling ridges). Again these comments are for newcomers to the Lee Enfield, as I was about two years ago. The info. available on this forum is wonderful.

Ridolpho

Ok, interesting update;

Here's an email I didn't expect today, but does go more to the experience of the man I know... Whats quite scary is that only stripping the rifle would have revealed the issue, or a determined look into the chamber with a mirror. The number of times I've bought a rifle and gone through it that thoroughly I could probably not count even a couple.

"Hey again Roger.
I'm certain no armourer (or any sane person) would drill those holes and not fix a pin. Barrel isn't ball burnished.
Forend serial (and bolt) don't match the action.
The blued barrel has a small amount of parkerising round its base it from when I presume the action was dipped.

Had a look at the milsurp posting - thanks for that. As you're fully aware I wanted this known to help prevent the possibility of this happening to someone else. Feel free to post this email (or part of it) also.

My eyes are still quite good and I value my body intact, so prior to shooting of course I scrubbed the barrel thoroughly and gave the rifle a good going over including head spacing it before I fired it. Didn't want to disturb the fore end/screws taking it apart, and as I've owned several DP marked rifles over the years that were in fine condition had no reason to. The fact that the bolt had an intact firing pin also made me think all would be well.
I wasn't expecting to find a hole through the reinforcing of course.

Even now it's been "driven into me" that there is a hole in the chamber & light isn't being restricted getting to the offending holes due to the wood being blown off, all I can detect looking down the shiny chamber in the daylight is a slight shadow that could just be a tiny blemish...

As a side note, some years ago I talked to a bloke that was the head armourer in the NZ Army in the late 1970's and early 1980's. He said they'd get a request from a unit for certain amount of DP rifles and they would just use the closet ones to the workbench. All should've been in good serviceable condition as otherwise they wouldn't have been in their stores, some would've been new condition. Besides stamping them, the only other alteration would be to snip the tip of the firing pin and braize up the (striker) hole in the bolt head.

If you know anyone that collects blown up LE's this one could be up for a deal.

Regards.

>>>This incident again makes me wonder why the US and some other countries have no system of proof or other stringent check. At least in UKicon and Europe you can be reassured that your salvaged DP or home-made conversion is safe enough by submitting it to an independent over-proof test..... <<<

It makes no difference if the hole is drilled after the fact. Plenty of junky #4s made it to the US with British proffs all over them. It is never safe to assume the government is going to act in your best interest. Who knows how many hands a rifle passes through after proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>This incident again makes me wonder why the US and some other countries have no system of proof or other stringent check. At least in UKicon and Europe you can be reassured that your salvaged DP or home-made conversion is safe enough by submitting it to an independent over-proof test..... <<<

It makes no difference if the hole is drilled after the fact. Plenty of junky #4s made it to the US with British proffs all over them. It is never safe to assume the government is going to act in your best interest. Who knows how many hands a rifle passes through after proof.

---

O.k., I should have qualified that to include the existence of supporting law as well - i.e. in UK and Europe its a responsibility of a dealer to ensure firearms are in proof, and for any firearm to be re-submitted to proof if any change has occurred that affects a pressure-bearing part (change of bolt, hole drilled through barrel...). This doesn't cover a private to private deal involving an idiot, but it generally ensures that the majority of firearms do get screened at intervals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

Forend serial (and bolt) don't match the action.

The fact that the bolt had an intact firing pin also made me think all would be well.

---

But it ain't the right bolt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ireload2

>>>This incident again makes me wonder why the US and some other countries have no system of proof or other stringent check. At least in UKicon and Europe you can be reassured that your salvaged DP or home-made conversion is safe enough by submitting it to an independent over-proof test..... <<<

It makes no difference if the hole is drilled after the fact. Plenty of junky #4s made it to the US with British proffs all over them. It is never safe to assume the government is going to act in your best interest. Who knows how many hands a rifle passes through after proof.

---

Yep, we need more rules:bow:regulations to help control firearm safety:runaway:, after hearing about this event:yikes:, I'm really scared :help: for my safety & that of my family & Friends:sos: :surrender:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

O.k., I should have qualified that to include the existence of supporting law as well - i.e. in UK and Europe its a responsibility of a dealer to ensure firearms are in proof, and for any firearm to be re-submitted to proof if any change has occurred that affects a pressure-bearing part (change of bolt, hole drilled through barrel...). This doesn't cover a private to private deal

---

Given that this occurred in New Zealand, I'm guessing that those "wild colonials" aren't under the same proofing regulations as the UK?

Nope........... no more rules needed. Just a good helping of the bleedin' obvious.

Look at the bore, not down the barrel

I might add that sellers of old rifles should be responsible and check them over properly before resale.

I just received a brief email to say that on back tracking some of the rifles history, it may have been on display at a servicemans club in the past, where it was deacted in the interests of not having a shootable firearm on display. Whether this was sold close to this set up or it had traveled several owners before I don't know. The deact could have been done by someone somewhat knowledgable or simply a casual bubba job by a club member.

It's easy to miss holes like this if you aren't looking for them.
I was once shown one which I was told had been drilled by some home bodger, and you would have missed it with a casual look down there.

I disagree most strongly Mk7. Even a cursory look down a barrel should identify something like a hole!!!!!!! When viewing, you look at the bore, not through the barrel!

They (multiple) weren't very obvious, until you really looked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I might add that sellers of old rifles should be responsible and check them over properly before resale.

---

Brian I agree with you in a perfect world but in this one, I don't trust most of the sellers to know anything about what they are selling other than to get the money. I know you go over your stuff but I have seen DP guns sold as being DP marked for the Detroit Police. BLR was Burma LIght Rifles. and so forth. Greedy seller and gullible buyer can cause an increase in medical bills. One old boy told me his guns were safe as he had his idiot brother in law shoot them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I might add that sellers of old rifles should be responsible and check them over properly before resale.

---

Some fellers apparently realize they got taken on the rifle and try to turn it as soon as possible. Let it be the next sucker's problem. I go to enough shows here in Phoenix and I see the same rifles at multiple shows. Often on different tables than at another show. I recommend getting a seller's name and address just like he wants yours.

Out of interest, in what circumstances would the injured party have a case in law against the seller?

An interesting question and one which likely has a different answer in each country represented by the membership. My observation at shows I attend here in Alberta is that while sellers rarely advertise a gun as shootable, if pressed they will often make a verbal claim about headspace, etc, that might be thought to carry some legal obligation. However, you would think a bill of sale that states "sold as is, with no guarantee of mechanical condition" might cover a seller and remind the purchaser of his personal responsibility. As for buyers- find a gunsmith if you are at all uncertain! What I would hate to see is fear of litigation render private sales impossible.

Ridolpho

In the UK it would be "Fit for Purpose" and as far as I am aware there would only be two categories for firearms

To be able to SELL a firearm it must be either:
a) A 'shooter' which is safe to use as intended. Only firearms which have been proof tested (and marked as such) can be sold. Any changes to any pressure parts (bolt, action, bolt head or barrel) require the weapon to be re-proofed.
b) A 'deactivated' firearm that will (should) have an official certificate from the proof house confirming that it has been deactivated to Government specification.

Paul, Yeah, I know. It's wishful thinking I guess. God forbid anyone takes any personal responsibility anymore. See you at KCR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

A 'deactivated' firearm that will (should) have an official certificate from the proof house confirming that it has been deactivated to Government specification.

---

But there is not req

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

In the UK it would be "Fit for Purpose" and as far as I am aware there would only be two categories for firearms

b) A 'deactivated' firearm that will (should) have an official certificate from the proof house confirming that it has been deactivated to Government specification.

---

But there is no legal requirement for that. A dect can be sold without a Certificate (it will still have the Proof House Mark.) It can even be sold without a mark, its just that one would then need to take one's chances on an individual case basis.

Added this thread to the "Gallery of Dramas" for future reference.

Link here:

Gallery of Dramas. Broken Enfield Parts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

One old boy told me his guns were safe as he had his idiot brother in law shoot them!

---

Now THAT is funny. Still can't believe dude pulled the trigger on that DP rifle. Sad day in America when a guy named Bubba is dissapointed by what somone did to a gun...

I'd like to say that the gentleman concerned was quite brave to have the story publicly aired on this forum as this forum has some of the most experienced Enfielders on the planet, and he must have known he would be ripped apart! If his story educates only one potencial DP buyer then it must be worth it. As they say, you learn from your mistakes, and hopefully others do too!! If we continue to bash people for airing their stories, then perhaps other important lessons may be kept secret.

So, thank you for taking the time to share your mistake and for taking the bashing. I know that its a mistake that you wont make again and I hope anyone who reads this will doubly check any rifle they are unfamiliar with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

So, thank you for taking the time to share your mistake and for taking the bashing. I know that its a mistake that you wont make again and I hope anyone who reads this will doubly check any rifle they are unfamiliar with.

---

I am in full agreement with that statement. The best way to learn a lesson is by others mistakes. I am thankful he was not injured and had the courage to take his lumps for the benifit and saftey of the less knowlegable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

a) A 'shooter' which is safe to use as intended. Only firearms which have been proof tested (and marked as such) can be sold. Any changes to any pressure parts (bolt, action, bolt head or barrel) require the weapon to be re-proofed. b) A 'deactivated' firearm that will (should) have an official certificate from the proof house confirming that it has been deactivated to Government specification.

---

The law in Germany is equivalent. In France as well (as far as I can make out - I do have a copy of the French regulations).

BUT
a) "Only firearms which have been proof tested (and marked as such) can be sold." Like the MOT test on your car, the proof mark only proves that it passed the test THEN - it is no guarantee of the state of the rifle NOW.
"Any changes to any pressure parts (bolt, action, bolt head or barrel) require the weapon to be re-proofed." Taken literally, that would also mean mean recrowning, rebluing, or just plain removal of rust. So how literally do you take it?

b) The regulations here are stringent. The chamber, for instance, must be pinned or welded shut in such a manner that it is impossible to insert a cartridge. And the firing pin must be removed or shortened. And the bolt face must be ground off at 45 degrees (i.e. so that it is screamingly obvious) etc etc. So the rifle that was the start of this thread would have been viewed not as a proper de-act, but rather as having an illegal alteration to a pressure bearing part that made the rifle unsafe (as was demonstrated).

But no private seller is going to give a buyer any kind of written guarantee. And verbal statements will, in practice, be useless: "I never said that" - "The buyer must have misunderstood me" - and so on.
So we are back to

"CAVEAT EMPTOR"

It's all too easy to make a mistake and just keep quiet. We need as much GOOD information as possible out in the open. Years ago a flying magazine for the Royal Airforce had a cartoon strip called 'Pilot Officer Prune' which published some wonderful stories each one with a very cautionary tale.

I've had rounds go off when I was not expecting them to do so, I've had rounds with no powder. I've learnt from that and passed on the experiences. I've seen some horrible near misses and heard clowns discussing reloading. I've seen committee members hush things up and go after others for far lesser mistakes. We need to forgive honest mistakes and jump on those who deliberately mislead such as 'Durban Police' on a 'Drill Purpose' Rifle.

The biggest challenge in the internet age will be sorting out the 'Real Answers' from those who are genuinely qualfied from the 'Self Appointed Expert' answers from the idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

.
.............."Any changes to any pressure parts (bolt, action, bolt head or barrel) require the weapon to be re-proofed." Taken literally, that would also mean mean recrowning, rebluing, or just plain removal of rust. So how literally do you take it?....

---

A good question, and one that is not understood by our Police Firearms department.
I was looking to buy a proof marked complete barreled action (with bolt) and the Police told me that once I had replaced the 'furniture' I would have to submit it for re-proofing - they still insisted even after I explained that their statement was bovine excrement, it finally took a letter from the proof house explaining that they made the proof tests WITHOUT the furniture (due to potential damage whilst in the clamps), and stated that it did say on their web-site that furniture should be removed before the rifle is submitted for testing - that the Police 'caved-in'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert303

It's all too easy to make a mistake and just keep quiet. We need as much GOOD information as possible out in the open. Years ago a flying magazine for the Royal Airforce had a cartoon strip called 'Pilot Officer Prune' which published some wonderful stories each one with a very cautionary tale.

---

We still have those stories but they go under the title of 'I learnt about flying from that'. We also have AEMS (Aviation Error Management System) for individuals to report anything they think has the pottential to be incorrect (Publications) or to air mistakes. Engineers from my era tended to hush up mistakes and only they learnt from it, now we can air mistakes, everyone learns. The only problem is that the accident rates appear to have rissen, where as its all down to more accidents being reported now.

Proof testing is just like the annual car test (or MoT test as we call it in England) It tests the rifle on that day and on that day only. Whatever happens to it thereafter is academic and there is no come-back either. Just like your car test............. But unlike the proof test, the car test done every year

Spooky to think a firearm would be altered in this manner and leave some future user at risk. Mind you I bought a 20 gauge shotgum to which had been added rifle sights and all looked fine. On the first shot the rear sight blew off and a lots of fine hot material sprayed all over......the screws had been improperly tapped and too weak for the barrel pressure. So the valuable advice above needs to be heeded......thoroughly check over any unfamiliar "new" old rifle. Thanks for posting the pics.....very effective

But it's a DP rifle it's NOT supposed to be fired! Period. That's why it has DP on it. Yes you should check a firearm before you shoot it. But this rifle shouldn't have been fired in the first place and there in lies the lesson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread sure has taken a different direction away from where the problem lay. Someone didn't inspect his "new" rifle or have any real knowledge before hand and almost got hurt because of it. No one else is to blame, nor need there be any other measures taken. Know your hobby or change to collecting stamps. You can't get injured there...

BAR has hit the nail on the head. Another of those who takes a 'bleedin obvious' view of life!

Ah yes, stamp collecting, but you still run the risk of a paper cut.:beerchug:

Here's a New Zealand Property #4 with the proper paint and reciver stamped "DP" for your consideration:

New Zealand Property marked Savage No4 Mk1 Rifle - CMP Forums

Beautiful example of a DP gun. A treasure to have in the collection. And possibly the next in a long line of accidents...Then, oh my God...who's to blame?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I was looking to buy a proof marked complete barreled action (with bolt) and the Police told me that once I had replaced the 'furniture' I would have to submit it for re-proofing

---

More to the point, in my opinion, your rifle being in Proof is actually nothing to do with the police UNLESS you were to attempt to sell it. That is the point at which an offence would be committed if a weapon was out of Proof.

In other words wither or not a a rifle is in Proof has nothing to do with the Firearms Licensing System laid down in the 1968 Firearms Act.

I told someone from my lot a while ago to look up the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 and then let me know where it said that OWNING a firearm out of Proof was an offence - he never got back to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubbaTheKid

Here's a New Zealand Property #4 with the proper paint and reciver stamped "DP" for your consideration:

New Zealand Property marked Savage No4 Mk1 Rifle - CMP Forums

---

kollector03 apparently is going to part out this rifle! What a waste!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's too bad. Mint rifle from what I can see.

Not to beleagure the obvious, but since it is marked DP isn't it a wall hanger?
What is it worth being NZ marked as well as "US Property" marked?
I tried to key word search here for US Property but came up empty.

I should think no premium beyond a DP rifle. It IS an interesting item though. The very marks you describe, and the fact it wasn't beat to pennybits...sounds like it will be resurrected in a functional form to go on...

I agree with some of the comments praising the fellow for posting his mistake for others to learn by. It's easy to criticize someone, and certainly a DP rifle shouldn't be trusted, but really, how many people on this forum haven't HONESTLY done something stupid in their shooting careers and been lucky to get away with it? It is easy to be misled by a minty-looking gun, and I have missed a hole in a barrel before. I had a DP Bren once which had a hole drilled through the barrel, and even though it was NOT a small hole and was plainly obvious from the outside, neither I nor my two gunsmiths could readily identify where it was on close bore inspection. The bore was not mint, and it just faded into some of the minor marks. Of note, the hole could be suspected when you ran a brush down the barrel, as it hung up at that spot somewhat.

While I had no intention of firing the gun, it taught me a lesson to always look at the exterior of the barrel as well as the interior. That lesson has served me well on a few occasions. I recall a couple of very nice looking rifles, one a Lee Enfield LEC 1, the other an older Mauser 98AZ. Both had the usual sort of minor biffs and service love kisses on the stocks, and both had good bores. Both however had significant corrosion at the wood line--when you took off the top and bottom wood, the pitting line was horrendous, and in the Enfield's case, very deep. I've also owned a DP Ross Mk III which had a hole drilled, not through side-side like usual, but from underneath halfway along the barrel. It was visible on good bore inspection, but was impossible to miss with the stock removed.

It's not just the guns either. Back in the day when one could take Brens and such to the range, I bought a decent looking lot of military surplus .303 ammo to shoot in a converted auto Bren. It was WWII era stuff, and had been reboxed. That should have been my first clue--I'm thinking the original boxes must have rotted or something. Several shots went off well, although accuracy was terrible, and then I had what seemed like a jam--the gun went off,quieter than usual, but didn't cycle. I pulled the barrel and looked down it, and sure enough, there was the bullet, halfway down the pipe, with a bunch of goopy looking stuff behind it which proved to be gummy propellant . Fortunately the bullet hadn't made it far enough to pass the gas port, or the gun might have cycled and I could have put a second round on top of the first. I packed up and went home, and pulled the bullets off the remaining cartridges. In several, the powder had congealed inside the cases.

My lessons learned: inspect every used gun (new or old) thoroughly before firing, and don't use old ammo, or someone else's reloads.

Cheers

Ed

An interesting thread might invite members to mention names of gunsmiths by geographic region that they know to be qualified to work on specific brands of surplus arms. I live in a mid size city and belong to the local "historic arms...collectors club" and have collected for 30 years and have never met a gunsmith. I feel comfortable doing superficial inspections of several types of rifles (for me the most enjoyable aspect of the hobby) but for those who don't, or for serious mechanical work, it would be nice to know of any possible professional help within a reasonable radius of home.

Ridolpho

More to the point Ridolpho, I think it'd be equally interesting to identify Bolt Actions two 'gunsmiths' who couldn't identify a hole in a Bren barrel.......... Really................. two gunsmiths who couldn't identify a hole in a Bren barrel. Sorry Bolt Action but words fail me. Maybe they should have been called ginsmiths!

Sorry to sound a tad abrasive here BA, but there are no excuses - ever ............ Don't look down the barrel, look at the bore!

OK, we all agree we "should be able" to see a deliberately-drilled hole. And it's our own lookout if we don't.
Most of the blown-up actions shown on this forum were those in which metal fatigue or other invisible processes were at work. We have been fortunate to have owned and shot WW1 and WW2 -era rifles in a strong condition, with obvious clues to how many rounds have been put through them. But our kids and their kids etc. may well still be bolt-action enthusiasts, and the rifles will be a lot older - maybe rebarrelled several times... but with pressure-bearing parts which have gone around the block an unquantifiable number of times.
So my Q is: At what point in a rifle's life is it prudent to re-proof? And how is that done? (both in the UK and elsewhere?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

Most of the blown-up actions shown on this forum were those in which metal fatigue or other invisible processes were at work.

---

Really??? Show references to verify this statement.

Sorry, jmoore I wish I hadn't posted that question. Obviously I don't have references. I'll be careful not to ask such questions in future.

I would be satisified with any example, because I just don't remember one. Broken firing pins, springs and bolt heads we have plenty of known examples? But a high cycle "fatigue" induced catastrophic failure for any milsurp? Probably would be US M1 carbine related, if I had to take a guess at a "prime suspect". Even when M16s shed locking lugs, they seem to keep running after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

Sorry, jmoore I wish I hadn't posted that question. Obviously I don't have references. I'll be careful not to ask such questions in future.

---

Your question is valid and worthy of discussion, but the lead-in statement is inflammatory enough to require substantiating evidence.

For several reasons, I don't think it's wise to EVER reproof something once it's been there already

That's the simple answer! Maybe best left that way?