Hi everyone,
Sorry to ask this (again...), but I can't find the list of reasons that would cause the armourer to stamp the Drill Purpose mark on a SMLE's barrel or receiver. Anyone?
Lou
Printable View
Hi everyone,
Sorry to ask this (again...), but I can't find the list of reasons that would cause the armourer to stamp the Drill Purpose mark on a SMLE's barrel or receiver. Anyone?
Lou
Often it was just because they needed DP rifles, grabbed a few and demilled them. Other times it's b/c the rifles were unservicable.
Thanks Claven. I vaguely remember a discussion about the fact that one could (I think) easily tell the two apart - the ones that "deserved" the DP, for reason of unserviceability (is this even an English word?), and the ones that just inherited the mark because a few DP were needed?
That was when I had a sporterized DP, that had nothing different from a "normal" SMLE, accuracy included... ?
I really don't know how to tell the difference aside from a qualified gunsmith checking the gun out ;)
I guess that was (and still is) the bottom line! Thanks Claven.
As much as I can gather, DP rifles were primarliy made from condemed rifles or assembled from dodgey parts. However, if an armoury was filling an order and there wasn't enough junk riles to convert, they would pull the balance from stores. So it ispossible that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Also if an arm was made obscolete, it was a candidate to be made into a DP.
The main thing with a DP in service is that it would no longer in the loop for inspection and maintainance as would be with live rifles.
Some other older DPs that I have seen are complete and capable of firing, DP marked everywhere including the bolt handle. I guess that is why DP was stamped, stenciled and bands of coloured paint applied to that there was no mistaking them for live rifles. Some have 'NOT FOR BALL' stamped on them which means that they were good for blank fire.
There is a story bouncing around about a recent incident with an Army Cadet instructor. Story is that a DP ended up on the range and a cadet was trying to fire ball rounds through it but it would not fire due to the striker being cut off short. Click but no bang. The dick head of an instructor checked the cartridge primer and seeing no strike mark, he switched out the bolt with one from another rifle, a live one and gave the DP back to the cadet to shoot. There was a problem and the cadet was hurt.
This could not have been an incident in Canada as current day DPs as issued to Canadian Army Cadets, have no bolts, no mags, they can't even chamber a round as they are drilled and pinned through the chamber (some would make you cry, minty Longbranch No.4s).
And then there are the arms made into DPs simply because they became obscolete. I am playing with a project Lee Metford that has DP markings. Original finish, well dinged up yet, it's internals show very little use. Without a doubt it was a DP issued without a bolt.
The bore is clean and shiney, bore guages show no discernable wear. More by luck than good judgement, the bolt head I fitted sgave me correct headspace. I have shot it and the spent cases show no signs of distress.
So if the receiver is marked DP, have the rifle checked against specs. It might be just fine.
Oh, and also something to note. I have seen parts with a condemed mark (bolt heads, barrels, mags, woodwork), that have an armourer's cancellation mark overstruck where DP parts were put back into service.
Failed inspection and not worth the trouble to return to serviceable condition. Lugs not contacting evenly, headspace too long to be corrected, barrel bent, broken major components, serial number range in the orders as not worthy of modification or upgrade, ...
Other parts of the service have/had similar inspection outcomes. The modern Canadian Forces' procedure for a vehicle that begins to cost too much to repair is to code it PCC. (I know it as a verb, PCC'd, and have no idea what it means.)
In NZ if rifles were needed for Drill the Armourers just grabbed the ones closest to the door, many were unfired, I have yet to see an NZ DP rifle that was unserviceable, the armed services in this country never had the resources to buy enough ammo to shoot enough to wear them out!
Stu.
Not much point to them, then, if they can't even teach load/unload drill properly with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by englishman_ca
There was a long article on the old CSP forum detaling exactly how the DP rifles came about. maybe someone ought to resurrect it and put it up.
Just as a matter of interest, I dealt with several hundred that had been involved in a ferocious fire. After refurb they LOOKED good, but underneath, they were matallurgical nightmare. DO NOT EVER FIRE ONE is my advice as a real Armourer since 1963!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
Nope, Canadian cadets don't even get to shoot 303 anymore. 303s are used strictly for bashing on the parade square. Summer training camps have live No.4s for performing a 'feu de joi' and fire blanks. Looking at the bore of some of these, a ball round would not exit due to carbon build up.
Some camps hold C7 service rifles (Canadian improved and built M16) and senior cadets get a familierisation shoot of 5 rounds (whoopdee fricken doo) at a bulls eye target at 100 yds from the prone position. Air cadets cannot shoot the C7 at all, Sea cadets only if they 17 years old.
The Canadian Army Cadet marksmanship program is now performed with a 177 Daisy 853c air rifle. Some select shooters that get a place on the National Rifle Team do get to shoot the 7.62 single shot bolt target rifle and play on Connaught Ranges and a trip over to Bisley if they do really well.
There are still some nice Long Branch No.7s still in use but they will all be withdrawn from service in 2011 to be be pinned and returned to corps as DPs.