Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick View Post
Rather odd for the marks to be so heavily xxxed-out. Lined through seems to have been a typical and sufficient procedure, thus enabling the origins of the parts to be traced if necessary.
And, if I recall correctly, Peter Laidlericon has written somewhere that the receiver was the fundamental item of the rifle's identity and was therefore never replaced - i.e. a new bolt should have been marked to match the receiver, not barrel and receiver marked to match the bolt, which was a replaceable part.

Peter, are you out there? Is this OK or a bit "iffy"?
But receivers were replaced, i have 2 examples in my collection a 1890s EFD MLM MkII with a 1903 Sparkbrook receiver & a 1918 BSA MkIII* with a 1939 Lithgowicon receiver.
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.