19T Proof Mark

[Mk VII]

Worst thing they ever did, ending that Crown immunity.

[Alan de Enfield]

.............. As would anyone in the UK who currently holds one. If it has not be Proofed in London or Birmingham, it is not in proof.

Correct me if I am wrong but my reading of the proof act of 1868 says that it is an offence to "sell, offer for sale, transfer, export or pawn an unproofed firearm, with certain exceptions for military organisations"

It does not appear to be an offence to "receive" an un-proofed firearm.

It would appear to me that the dealer would be guilty but the recipient innocent (until such time as they came to sell it)

It is not illegal to own an unproofed firearm and it can be 'gifted' (no money changes hands / no sale has taken place)

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm......... On the one hand we have 'transferred' which appears to be unlawful and on the other ' gifted' which is legal. Surely, we can't have it both ways........ Or can we?

Worst thing they ever did Mk7........... Not much fun if you were dying in hospital from being served rancid food with the hospital authorities saying that the hygiene rules didn't affect them because they were Crown Servants or were claiming Crown Immunity. Just my take on things.

[Mk VII]

The offence is committed by the seller, not the buyer.
It cannot be gifted because that is 'effecting the transfer' of an unproved arm.

[Thunderbox]

So how were military firearms proofed? The two proof houses can barely cope with the current tiny UK commercial trade, let alone production runs of hundreds of thousands of military rifles. Enfield (and other government factories) must have had proof facilities in order to mark up weapons with crossed pennants and other military proof marks, and so it stands to reason that, at some point, military proof was converged with civilian proof. Modern L85s carry a civilian-compatible proof, and they were never run through Birmingham/London. Perhaps the 19T was simply the first jointly-recognised standard?

[Charlie]

Ok, while you guys were discussing the merits or not of proofing, you blew right by my legitimate question so I will ask again:

My L42A1 is stamped 19T on the body and on the bolt but not the bolt head. Is this something to worry about ? And before anybody asks, yes it does have the correct 7.62x51 extractor.

[Thunderbox]

Ok, while you guys were discussing the merits or not of proofing, you blew right by my legitimate question so I will ask again:

My L42A1 is stamped 19T on the body and on the bolt but not the bolt head. Is this something to worry about ? And before anybody asks, yes it does have the correct 7.62x51 extractor.

It sounds like the bolt head has been replaced. No physical risk to worry about, but its always nice to check that the bolt head has been selected and fitted correctly.

[Peter Laidler]

The Government factories had their own proof facilities on site, as did BSA and Sterling although quite what you are 'proofing' in a blow-back SMG with no positive locking is a matter of conjecture. The first Enfield made SA80's were MoD proofed on site but from Nottingham manufacture onwards they were commercially proofed at the MoD site. Bren barrels made at CRD in Cornwall were MoD proofed at a facility built at the site

There is no MoD proof for small arms now. They all go through the commercial proof house

[Thunderbox]

(duplicate post, for some reason)

[Charlie]

Thank you Thunderbox, I thought I had read that somewhere but wanted to be sure !