Irish Contract No4 mk2

[Peter Laidler]

Indeed I do disagree Fred (Thread 9, para 5) and others; but I disagree based on nothing more than the obvious facts, evidence of the point in question and what I call 'the bleedin obvious' Being old and wise, like yourself, I place these features slightly higher than government figures, smoke and mirrors and obfuscation.

[Beerhunter]

However at the time some probably were not errors it is only as information has come to light that we can see the mistakes.

One example: Crowned BNP has stood for Bimingham Nitro Proof since 1954. It has never been British Nitro Proof". I could go on but that is just the one that I remember.

I am not trying to knock anyone here. I am just saying read Stratton with caution for all the reasons above.

[Seaspriter]

One example: Crowned BNP has stood for Bi[r]mingham Nitro Proof since 1954. It has never been British Nitro Proof". I could go on but that is just the one that I remember.

Thanks Beerhunter. I for one may have perpetuated that mistake.

In a copy of a 1930s BSA catalogue there's an advertisement that says:

Official Proof of BSA Rifles & Shot Guns: In accordance with the terms of the Gun-Barrel Proof Act of 1868, every BSA Rifle and Gun is submitted to the severe official proof test before it is sold. One or more of the proof marks illustrated below will be found on BSA Rifles and Guns - on the barrels near the breech end and on the actions. [catalogue then shows the crown understamped with BV, BP. BM, or NP.]

I always "assumed" the "B" stood for "British" but we all know what it means to "*** u me." I'm out of the country in Canada on business at the momemt, so I don't have access to my collection, so I can't check this, but I seem to recall seeing the crown+BNP stamp on many versions of British guns exported to the US.

Could you shed some more light on the BNP stamps? Thanks

[Beerhunter]

BV, BP and BM are pre-1954 Proof marks applied by the Birmingham Proof House. In each case the "B" refers to Birmingham, (as opposed to London). They were replaced post-1954 by BNP (for Nitro Proofed guns).

I think that I may have explained the British Proof system before ans so a search should find it.

[Seaspriter]

BV, BP and BM are pre-1954 Proof marks applied by the Birmingham Proof House. In each case the "B" refers to Birmingham, (as opposed to London). They were replaced post-1954 by BNP (for Nitro Proofed guns).

Pardon my belabouring this, but I'd like to understand the nuances, which can be confusing to the non-Brit. Was the Birmingham Proof House a separate, independent entity from Birmingham Small Arms (BSA)?

[Beerhunter]

Pardon my belabouring this, but I'd like to understand the nuances, which can be confusing to the non-Brit. Was the Birmingham Proof House a separate, independent entity from Birmingham Small Arms (BSA)?

Yes. Absolutely. http://www.gunproof.com/ And there is an older Proof House in London Worshipful Company of Gunmakers Between them they have a Statutory responsibility for gun Proof in the UK.

[Peter Laidler]

Proof houses..... They really are nothing more than self perpetuating quasi autonomous non government organisations - or QUANGO's for short. who answer to............., well, nobody really knows! Let me put it like this.......... The way the quaint old 1860 rules were written and re-written since, when the UK Military buy weapons from abroad - and we ain't talking third world here but the likes of the USA and Canada..... and I mean well tried and tested weapons, like M-16's, Miniguns and L116's plus pressure bearing spares then regardless of the proofing or strict manufacturing processes/reigeme in the manufacturing Country, they have to be re-proofed in the UK at great cost. I mean, what does that say.......

And guess what - again......... The quaint 1860 rules mean that even a blow-back unlocked open bolt fired SMG barrel has to be proofed! Whatever for........? Even in service, even if it were made of the mildest of one-way trip mild steel, It CANNOT fail because the bloody breech block is blowing back!

Ain't answered your Q SS but you can see where I'm coming from

[Beerhunter]

Couldn't agree more Peter.

There was time when they served a purpose but their testing methods are now archaic and in recent years they have started to get above themselves - making it up as they go along.

We have an opportunity to sort them out soon when the Law Commission looks at Firearms law.

BTW, there is no requirement in law for the Government to have firearms Proofed - they are exempt.

[breakeyp]

Frederick303's comments regarding the old days prompts me to make the following comments.

When I started collecting in 1972 the only book available was Reynolds and it had to be outlined to make sense. Skennerton's efforts were a parting of the clouds and sunlight appeared.

I was writing articles and answering questions for Mr. Young's Enfield Collector Digest newsletter. Through the Digest, Stratton contacted me about his proposed book and sent me a copy of his proposed questionnaire. I could not see how the questions would work as the responder would have to be very knowledgeable to correctly respond. I could not tell how he would handle the long lee conversions, receivers with two or three serial numbers. I have never heard how many responses he received as that would be an indicator as to how reliable his analysis is.

With his credentials as a retired Idaho University teaching Technical Writing, he did an excellent job of writing the book. Most of the information was taken from Skennerton's books, not based on his personal collection. I am not aware that he travelled in Europe viewing and researching weapons in the museums and the Pattern Room. Following his passing, his collection was sold at auction. I have the auction catalog and his EAL rifle. He had some very nice US military pieces but his British collection was with the exception of the EAL, bare bones with no scarce or sniper rifles and some rifles needed repair (missing small part, swivels etc.). The book collection offered was more US than British.

He certainly started an ambitious project but there is a better chance of it being accomplished now with the immediate responses and raised general knowledge forums can generate.

[Seaspriter]

Thanks Captain & Beerhunter for this very helpful set of posts on BNP.

For you, this Proofing is just contextual in the British culture since 1868. But for us on the outside, cultural context is "invisible" and becomes a dark corner needing enlightenment.

The Proofing process in the UK has some parallels in the US with Underwriters Laboratories and in Canada with the Canadian Standards Association. The difference seems to be that in North America once a manufacturer has submitted their product to safety testing, the product line is then authorized to produce at that standards level, but not submit every single product to UL or CSA.

I do so love the Milsurps "league of masters" -- a delightful bunch of chaps. Thanks again for your daily contributions.

---------- Post added at 10:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------
UPDATING STRATTON

reminiscences of Mr. Stratton

This seems like an opportunity for a team of experts to upgrade a source book. In the seamanship field, Chapman wrote a book in the 1920s. He updated it every decade. When he died in the 1950s, a team took over and keeps updating every decade, and everyone refers to it today; it is required reading as the reference for seamanship. Virtually every sailor worth his salt has it in his library. In my own profession (strategic alliances) I wrote a best practices handbook in 1995, updated it in 2002, and then turned it over to a joint venture team in our professional association in 2012 which turned it into a world-wide collaboration with inputs from Europe, Australia, and the Far East.

This seems like a great opportunity for an upgrade from a world-wide team and use Survey-Monkey for gathering data.