Does any one have any information about "twin D6E Enfield Examiners marks on the rear receiver flats"? I understand that the typical mark is D7E on the right flat and D6E on the left.
Printable View
Does any one have any information about "twin D6E Enfield Examiners marks on the rear receiver flats"? I understand that the typical mark is D7E on the right flat and D6E on the left.
mjolnir2: I've noticed two with such markings recently- one on gunauction.com and one on Gunbroker.com. I also recall their serial numbers were quite close together. Can you post some photos? Note: found the two sale postings. Both rifles are 1945, serial numbers T33475 and T33439. Again, both have D6E on both sides of the rear of the body.
Ridolpho
Yes, those are the two that I was referring to in my post. Both had the similar markings and the rifles, based upon my limited knowledge, looked correct in all other aspects. I was wondering if someone here could shed some light on this topic. Interesting observation about the 2 serial numbers being so close,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
Photos have been posted in the past. You would be well advised to buy a copy of Peter's book on the No4(T) as the story is all there, but for the odd detail or two that have turned up since. Then you can be an expert like those of us who read it years ago! :lol:
Surpmil: I, too, read Peter's book a while ago but I don't recall mention of D6E marks on both rear flats. I have quite a number of photos of this specific area on file and these two are the first I've seen like this. Does this suggest Harry Hardwick was moonlighting at BSA Shirley?
Ridolpho
Surpmil - LOL! I will just have to do that and get a copy. Thank you for the response! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Thanks for the links. I just took a look at both of them. I must admit I can't recall seeing this phenomenon before, but I'll check out my later rifles when I get a minute. Having said that, nothing like this surprises me any more!
Both rifles appear to be genuine T's as is the bracket & scope on the former of the two. The Mk2 scope has of course been fitted as a replacement to the Mk3 that was originally on the rifle. You can just about make out a Mk3 serial number underneath the replacement number of the current scope. I really can't make out all of the original digits but perhaps it might be possible with the rifle in front of you? Looks like it could possible be 19138 or perhaps 19638. I don't think the replacement would have occurred in UK service, as I think it improbable that a Mk3 would have been replaced by an early type Mk2.
Nice REL scope tin.
But to come back to the D6E bit I cannot offer any explanation, but I do not think the rifles are fakes, if that is the concern. Some months ago I posted a picture of an early Holland & Holland conversion I have (BSA 1941) that bears the D6E on the knoxform; something else that should not exist, but I've now seen one or two like this. Coming back to 'your' rifle, it has been refinished & is a re-match, but it is real.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has a theory on this? Maybe Harry H noticed the outlying examiner at BSA had missed a few so added his stamp twice to make up for it!!
ATB.
Roger,
Thank you so much for your time!
I took a look at the rifle this morning and added a few more pictures to the puzzle. I looked at the scope rings are they are numbered as expected where the number on the ring base versus upper match and it looks like were staked once the scope is mounted. I do not see any re-staking so is it possible that this rifle was originally equipped with a Mk2 scope and the butt was replaced?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cc157589-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d161bce6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...94e40944-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a9667641-1.jpg
Below is a copy of the rear pad with the duplicate D6E stamps and another shot the serial number of the other scope. I tried doing a rubbing (place a piece of paper on the number and lightly rub back and forth with a lead pencil) but it was unsuccessful. To me it looks like a 9. I also confirmed that serial number of rifle is on the barrel. Re-Park was done to the receiver and total length of the barrel. The are multiple inception marks in the barrel near the interface to the receiver.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c69d1922-1.jpg
Thanks Thor. They say "never say 'never' or 'always' " with Lee Enfields, but having said that I think it unlikely that a Mk2 scope dated the year before would have been originally fitted to a 1945 dated Shirley rifle. What you say about the butt being swapped over & it originally having a Mk2 scope is possible, but I think unlikely. If you want to see the serial number of the rifle your butt was originally fitted to, then if you take it off the serial should be there on the part that is normally hidden inside the butt socket of the rifle. It may well be original to your rifle - & would fit in with the Mk3 scope serial number. However, to remove the butt you will need an armourer's brace, or (as Peter might say) a fXXXing big screwdriver!
ATB.
We've discussed D7E stamps on unconverted TR marked rifles (I have one here) and even on regular No4s. I'm not sure what it means, except that we're not sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
D7E is simply another Enfield examiners mark. In this case an Enfield examiner stationed at BSA in much the same way as D6E was based at H&H and D7Z was based at Singer.
Thanks PL - that's what I was getting at when I said, tongue in cheek, that maybe Harry H spotted an omission by the fellow at BSA & 'rectified' it by bashing his into the rifle twice!
ATB.
Unless I am seeing things, is not the receiver gray?? It appears to me to be one of the Belgian TEFLON (tm) coated No.4(T)'s that were dumped on the market some years ago. Recall those Roger (nice seeing you again by the way and next time make time for a cuppa tea) when a load of kit was dumped by Belgium. There was also a load of .22 No.4 conversions as well (200 units seems to run to mind) hit the market around the same time.
IF this is in fact one of the Belgian Teflon coated rifles what scope it had with it when it was released is anyone's guess. In fact, I seem to recall they came out into the market scopeless.
Yes, looks like it could be a Belgian release to me.
Roger - Yes, the barrel and recover are gray so this must be a Belgium import. Actually the coating was applied nicely on the receiver, barrel, and misc parts.
I did a search on the forum and found some interesting information. Anyone have any idea why they parted with these, timeframe, etc. - Thanks!
It would probably be fair to say that a rifle that had been equipped with a Mk.3 scope would not be retrofitted with a MkI - except by a civilian. I believe the SOP was for the old scope numbers to be struck out rather than filed or sanded out. There is a gap between the shoulder of the butt and the socket on the left side that I don't think would pass inspection either. But you probably know all this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjolnir2
IMHO you might as well complete the job someone started and degrease the rifle and paint it black. I believe BDL offers Suncoriting, to coin a verb. ;)
...I see Roger has covered this already - never mind!
If the expert types here believe it to have a finish applied by a previous military owner (ie. Belgium) I think I'd leave it be. The Belgian ownership/ re-finishing ( if this is, indeed the case) adds to a chain ownership and authenticity. I'd love to have it, as is, as well as one of those rough and ready Indian owned No. 4 T's we see from time to time. Paint it black and it's just another T with a nice but historically meaningless finish. My own favorite T, a '43, was subjected to a Maltby refurb and the black paint is ugly as hell but I wouldn't change it.
Ridolpho
Do we know for a fact that the grey finish is Belgium/Holland Benelux - or whatever? It is a tough coat of whatever it is. We had a Crown Agents contract to refurbish a lot of No2 and L9 pistols for ........ I seem to recall saying this some time ago so won't repeat it. But do we KNOW where the grey finish comes from for a FACT?
Surpmil - Actually the butt stock seems tight into the socket. I can't imagine it would/can be any tighter, but since this is my first Enfield, you guys will have to let me know. It's on so tight, I was disuaded from removing it and looking for a serial number. Would love to know the serial number lurking underneath!Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d9c6beca-1.jpg
I tried in a very discrete spot to remove the gray with thinner and it is not coming off without some serious effort (e.g., blasting). At this point I think I'm going with Ridolphe and leave it as is since it is part of the rifle's history. It would be a shame to spoil its history if in fact it was performed by a Belgium armory. The application of the gray was very well done since there is no flaking, runs, etc. so I'd be shocked it being a bubba job ( I've seen them bubba jobs since I'm living in the heart of the South). If anyone out on the forum can verify the coating as challenged by Peter, I would really like to know.
As per everyone's feedback and excellent support, it seems it is a legit No. 4 MK 1 (T) so I am very pleased with the rifle. I can deal with the gray versus a suspect (T) rifle. Picture below is of the index mark for the barrel where the serial number is stamped (see picture below). Looks like its been on there since 1945, but you guys will have to let me know.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...439f40bb-1.jpg
One of the most import attributes to me is if the rifle will shoot well. I took it out to the range this weekend and took a few shots at 100 yards with Previ ammo. I think I can do better with my hand loads. To me it is such a privilege to be able to own such a piece of history.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c4d29d2e-1.jpg
Peter - Seems your book is out of print; however, I can find a few for sale on Amazon but they are over $150. Are planning to issue a second edition? I will be tempted to hold out otherwise! :lol:
Gentlemen - Thank you again for all your insight!
---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------
Gentlemen - Any useful information on the underside end of the barrel?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a8e42540-1.jpg
Are there any US import marks on the rifle and if so are they under this grey finish or do they penetrate it?
Where the grey is worn off, does the metal underneath appear to have been grit blasted or can you see the original finish?
If it seems clear that it has not been grit blasted and that the original "blue" is still underneath the grey paint or whatever it is, you might consider removing it chemically. Of course being sure that however you remove the grey finish will not harm what is left of the original finish.
I can't see a military outfit refinishing just the barreled receiver and not the bolt body at least, though it should be noted that H&H did just that during the war, after the conversion work. In that case however, the polished bolt body was the standard finish at the time, with the exception of the handle and the tops of the recoil lugs.
Please disregard my earlier comment on the buttstock; the previous photo suggested there was a problem, but there obviously isn't.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c69d1922-1.jpg
The BNP markings on the under side of the muzzle are just standard modern civvy proof marks showing it has been nitro proved in Birmingham (UK not Alabama).
Yes, the import mark was under the stock on the receiver. The gray was sanded off to bare metal where the import mark was applied. The gray is not applied over the mark so I assume it was done upon import of the rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Looks as if the entire rifle was disassembled and coated, except for the scope pads since they are staked. I don't see any sanding or scuff marks under the gray and the gray was evenly applied. There is no sign of the black coating on the barrel or receiver.
What are the U.S. importer's marks? Can you tell who imported it?
Imported by Federal Ordnance El Monte CA
Interesting. I've never seen their mark on a No.4T.
I did a search on the Web to see if I could reach out to them to determine the source of the rifle but they are no longer in business. So it looks like the trail ends here.
Sorry to reignite an old thread. My rifle no U31621 (1945) also carries the twin D6 stamp.
Could be 19932 just comparing the outline with the numbers serif up topQuote:
Originally Posted by mjolnir2