Printable View
Ok Gents, I picked up this Inglis HP before the door shut on May the 2nd.
I'm looking for some one to question it and make comments. I have may views and just want to see what others think. I've disguised some detail not to divert attention but to try and prevent any digressing at an early stage.
Ill attach photos and await opinions.
I will say that it has a clear ED 63 FTR marking and no frame serial number. That will get some comments I'm sure.
I,ve no comments on that particular example, but I like them, have shot a few and I was looking for one to back engineer some time back to make a UK legal .22 LBP....... but with the price of the 1911 GSG's etc dropping it seemed pointless, but thought about an other avenue that would or may be of interest to some..........
yep got one all matching, with stock
Any thoughts on how it has no serial number on the frame? And having undergone FTR at Enfield without one?
It would be a replacement frame though, right? It should have had a slot for the stock originally?
I can't vouch for how things were done at Inglis or Enfield in the 40s to 60s but currently the frame is the master component and is the master serial. If a frame required replacement then I would expect the gun to be scrapped and parts salvaged rather than put a new frame on it.
I don't think Enfield would allow a pistol to leave the factory after FTR without a serial, even if it arrived without one. I believe this may be a xTxxx serial No2 frame that has had the number very carefully removed. There is a very shallow depression only visible when viewed with a rule against the frame (in the red box in the photo). The Blue box highlights where I'd expect the number to have been but it is straight. The frame has no slot in the grip for the stock.
A replacement or new frame was never available as a spare part in the UK. Not even at Enfield/factory/Base workshop level. It was what we call the 'master component'. I realise that the numbers were engraved quite deeply and that would preclude filing or milling out - but mig or tig welding over would be simplicity itself and distortion free. Making good afterwards, bead blasting, phosphate and paint is your answer I feel. But take it from me, an Army pistol without the master number would be.......... Well, it wouldn't get past the door!
Have you used a micrometer along it against a known service one?
Here in Canada there are quite a few Inglis HP's with no serial # on the frame. We quaintly call them lunchbox specials.
I would have gone with the lunchbox theory however the FTR 63 marking proves to me (and as confirmed by others) that this frame would have had a serial number which has been removed.
When I can, I will post photos of the slide as that looks to be unmolested but not from this frame. I'm interested in opinions on it which is why I wanted to treat the 2 parts separately.
Just a thought, wasn't there some offical regulation regarding the ban on sales of L9A1 (one would also assume this encompasses British issue Ingles) and Faz L2A3 Sterlings??
Was this at least a partial effort to disguise its Identity I wonder?
I think Peter may be on to something when he asks if the frame is beefier where the S/N should be. I have 4 Inglis No.2 BHPs, and looking at the first picture I notice that there is an unfamiliar contour around the original proof mark above and behind the trigger, and where the cam fits through the frame. I imagine it is possible that the frame above the proof mark was welded up to repair a crack rather than replace the frame. The obvious question is who did it if it was done, given that it is unlikely that it was done at Enfield or during its military service time.
I think that mark may be a red herring as I wondered if it was a file mark. It turns out it's a machine mark and a lot of the Chinese No1 pistols have this same mark. I'm confident that this frame has had the number removed but it appears the number may have been in a slightly different position to normal or may have been a short number like xTxx.
There's clearly something that you aren't saying BP. So we're really urinating into the wind........ Or as they say in polite circles, is this a quiz or a raffle?
A short "T" number would make it one of ours then? UK numbers were different were they?
This was one of mine until recently, the serial number engraving is quite light, but is clearly on all three parts.
That looks typical of ours...
It's a bit shallower than I seem to remember it but it'd be noticeable if it were removed with a file. Maybe milled out and filled with tig.
The CH series one I have is engraved a lot deeper.
Apologies my pictures keep loading the wrong way round for some reason
The serial numbers were the same BAR. I'd guess that the serial number has been removed. I have one of the lunch box pistols here as well as several others in very good to near new condition, mostly T series but a few CH too. One of the No.2 pistols I have is also a 1963 FTR out of British service.
Has the frame got any signs of a repair inside it (behind where the serial should be)?
Is it a scrapped/re-welded (over the serial) frame mated to a orphaned slide & barrel? The number on the frame could have been filled completely, so there was only the one number on the de-act certificate? (All guessing!)
I completely forgot about this thread I started, here is a photo of the left side. I now believe the lower is from a later Inglis pistol.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IMG2822-1.jpg
Looks to me all original like it belongs together, slide is marked "Canada" in Russian I think. I've got a similar Enfield 63 FTR'd Inglis deact and the lower looks identical to yours - can't remember the serial though offhand.
A couple of observations:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
1. your slide is not really early, the front dust cover and the front sight block are the standard length, and it appears to have mid point roll stamped markings.
2. your safety is a Mk2 Inglis - I've only seen 1 in person - my understanding is that they were a post war, probably CAL produced item, rather than Inglis production.
3. your frame doesn't appear to be slotted for the shoulder stock? if it is not, it is a guarantee that the frame and slide are miss matched.
4. There were un-numbered frames and slides available thru the Canadian system (into the late '60s at least). All the Frames I'm aware of were Inglis manufactured, We've seen Inglis & CAL manufactured slides.
- as stated, the pantograph engraving is sometimes very shallow - it could have been "wiped" by sandblasting the frame for re finishing.
5. There have been several photos of similar Cyrilic marked slides (it seems now that they were they of the same one?? gunboards post several years ago SU002x) - but so far as I'm aware there is no documentation on them. I suspect it could be an experimental follow on to the Chinese marked slides, and a precursor to the Mutual Aid Board decal (except the MAB decal was authorized in mid 1943 - ie. before Inglis was in production of the BHP).
Is the gun a deac? lots of deacs have been "re-marked" with spurious and fantasy markings to increase their "value"
The thing that disturbs me about the KAHADAH marking is the width of the cutter, and depth of cut (I think that they are too wide and too deep). If you look at the Chinese marked slides, there is a delicacy and verve to them - they used native speakers to produce the script -
an observation in the Gunboards threadhttps://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...nglis-Hi-Power is that the word "Canada" while spelled correctly is all lower case - There were plenty of first generation Russian speaking immigrants in Canada during the WW2 years, I cannot believe that they would not capitalize the spelling of the name of their new country (remember, many of them legally no other home than Canada as they had been dispossessed of property and State - White Russians and various other no longer existing provinces of various Empires).
Mind you, this is just my opinion as an owner of 4 Inglis No.2 pistols, so no offence is intended.
I suspect that your pistol has been pieced together from bits and pieces to make up a complete Ingils BHP. I would be interested to see what proof marks there are, internally and externally.
I couldn’t find that thread on the gun boards forum and no wonder, I posted 3 years before I bought this gun.
I’m totally convinced the lower is non matching due to the lack of slot for the butt and the removal of the serial number. The markings had no effect on price, in fact it was cheaper than a standard example so weren’t added to add value. Also, the gun was deactivated in 2012 and remained unsold until the intro of the draconian EU laws, the proof marks are over the sunc paint so the Cyrillic markings were there before being deactivated. The SU serial is on pristine metal so I’m confident that it’s the only number ever applied to this slide however it could have been an unmarked slide.
What and where would I find the proof marks for photographing?
The primary proof marks were applied to the right side of the frame behind the trigger pin and the right side of the slide behind the ejection port. You should find the typical British proof and the Canadian broad arrow inside a 'C'. These marks were very light and can be hard to see if the Suncorite finish is heavy. British service pistols may have the cross pennants marking on the barrel in front of the S/N. This marking is on the barrel of my 6T**** pistol, but two of my pistols, both 0T**** serial numbered do not have this marking. One has what appears to be a post-war replacement barrel with the stylized maple leaf proof on the right side of the barrel lug. This pistol has a Suncorite finish. The other was FTRd at Enfield in 1963 (and so marked) also has what appears to be a replacement barrel that has an 'M' stamped on the bottom of the barrel lug. It also bears the mysterious 'AF' marking (Attn: P. Laidler) on the frame and the slide after being refinished with black phosphate (Parkerising). Both barrels have a minute stamping that appears to be the typical British proof or an asterisk - it's that small and that hard to tell.
Added comment: my FTR 63 pistol has the same safety lever as yours, but the other pistols do not.
I also neglected to mention that the ejector will have a roman numeral two (II) stamped on its left side. The hammer should have a '2' and a 'D' stamped on its left side as well. The 'II' and the '2' indicate the second series ejector and hammer that was introduced very early on in production to resolve a reliability issue. My understanding is that these parts were retro-fitted the earlier production as - when - possible as well.
BP's first post clearly shows the "C^" and "DCP" Canadian proof markings on the frame behind the trigger pin. This demonstrates that there wasn't an aggressive removal of the frame serial number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S.
I don't think a Mkl ejector, barrel and extractor could possibly matter here. These MkI parts were only in the first few thousand guns, and would have been removed at FTR.
The Mk1 hammer was much longer in production, and MkI hammers are easily found and available even today.
The barrel appears to be a 2 piece post war Belgian type from the pictures on gunboards, so I don't think that it can tell us anything useful in this case.