-
Ah, Could it have been DP'ed because it bears obsolete/obsolescent part(s)? It certainly has one component on it that is a wartime expediency part......
-
-
05-03-2017 07:30 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Contributing Member
The original bolt serial was barred out then 1001 stamped on it so now the bolt does not match anything plus a new No. has been stamped on the left side butt socket. Probably wrong but here to learn the 2 range flip sight was not much chop either.
-
-
-
The Mk2 sight is what I was getting at. AFAIK rifles didn't HAVE to be worn out to be turned into DP's; they might just have no longer acceptable parts on them.......I suppose it also depended on how pressing the need for DP rifles was, too.
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Baal
Is that barrel welded together from 2
No, that's a common enough machining mark. Looks like they came from different ends when they did it.
-
-
Legacy Member
No, that's a common enough machining mark. Looks like they came from different ends when they did it.
Interesting. None of the Lee Enfields I've had looked like that.
---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------
I can see why it was a DP. I'll let it run a while..........
Is it the bolt head face not seating in the chamber? Looks to be a lot of space there, but maybe the bolt is not closed fully.
-
-
It is a Mk2 barrel and the piece you see in pic 4 is a sleeve shrunk onto the rolled Accles and Pollock barrel. These barrels were obsolete in 1952(? earliest mention that I can see). They were made by rolling the rifling in a lengths, and shrinking the nocks form on. There weren't any failures as such but the barrel part would work loose in the nocks form and pull away slightly. When this happened you could usually see where the positioning pin was loose too. Because the rifling in these barrels was not machine cut but rolled over a former the rifling always looked half finished and the bores were never as bright either. I only ever saw a few in service as they'd all been culled early on. The irony is that I did see a couple in NZ
though! BAR and Baal were pretty close......
-
The Following 5 Members Say Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
So nothing wrong with the body then....
-
-
Nothing that I can see to be honest DRP. Once I saw the Mk2 barrel I just saw a pad of write-off forms with a red Z stamped on them!
-
Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
Advisory Panel
It is a Mk2 barrel and the piece you see in pic 4 is a sleeve shrunk onto the rolled Accles and Pollock barrel. These barrels were obsolete in 1952(? earliest mention that I can see). They were made by rolling the rifling in a lengths, and shrinking the nocks form on. There weren't any failures as such but the barrel part would work loose in the nocks form and pull away slightly. When this happened you could usually see where the positioning pin was loose too. Because the rifling in these barrels was not machine cut but rolled over a former the rifling always looked half finished and the bores were never as bright either. I only ever saw a few in service as they'd all been culled early on. The irony is that I did see a couple in
NZ though! BAR and Baal were pretty close......
If anyone in Canada finds an A&P fabricated barrel, please let me know so that I can at least offer to purchase it...
After re-examining the 4th,5th and 7th photos, I believe that this is actually a Long Branch 2 groove barrel...the '42 date and the poorly struck marking beside it are typical of an early Long Branch barrel.
The mark referred appears to be the change in machining from a concave? taper from the knox form to a straight taper for the barrel.
-
-
Legacy Member
Guess it made sense, if they needed to make a D.P. to make up the numbers, to choose one with that unacceptable barrel.
-
PM
