Safety Question

[pigspitter]

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?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[browningautorifle]

Don't shoot DP guns. They've been marked for a reason.

[pigspitter]

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

[browningautorifle]

Exactly. Send a PM to Mr Laidler and he can fill you in.

[pigspitter]

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.

[Son]

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.

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.

[Thunderbox]

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.

With all due respect, thats just not a provable statement.

Tens of thousands of rifles were DP'd because they needed tens of thousands of DP rifles.

[pigspitter]

Here are the "cancelled" DP marks

The BNP post-1954 mark

The HV and SC(SG?) marks below the rear sight leaf

Another view of the cancelled DP marks

Finally the makers mark

[Amatikulu]

Can you post pictures of the "cancelled" DP marks on the metal? I'd really like to see what they look like.

[Thunderbox]

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.