Long Branch DP Rifle

[Surpmil]

Was it ever the case that rifles were marked as Drill Purpose not because of some mechanical defect(s), but because they were "obsolete" or simply no longer required for "active" service?

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

Was it ever the case that rifles were marked as Drill Purpose not because of some mechanical defect(s), but because they were "obsolete" or simply no longer required for "active" service?

If you have a look in the library you'll see a long article on DP rifles (by Peter Laidler) - Here is an excerpt, but you need to read it all to get the full context.

"...........But, let’s say the DP stocks aren’t available, then authority will be issued FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE no less, for such weapons to be made available. Ordnance stores would then select from returned weapons that are deemed to be ‘ZF’ (that’s an Armourers technical explanation that I won’t go into) or BER (Beyond Economic Repair) to select the required amount for conversion to DP specification.

Now, if the required amount cannot be made from the ZF and BER stocks, then the remainder will simply be converted from standard war stocks. You will see from this, that while on the face of it, some 30 years down the line that your bright and shining No1 or No4 rifle LOOKS bright and shining, under the bright and shiny surface might be lurking a metallurgical nightmare ……………… Let me give you an example........."