Inglis No1 HP pistol

[Brit plumber]

I completely forgot about this thread I started, here is a photo of the left side. I now believe the lower is from a later Inglis pistol.

[desperatedan]

Looks to me all original like it belongs together, slide is marked "Canada" in Russian I think. I've got a similar Enfield 63 FTR'd Inglis deact and the lower looks identical to yours - can't remember the serial though offhand.

[Lee Enfield]

I completely forgot about this thread I started, here is a photo of the left side. I now believe the lower is from a later Inglis pistol.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IMG2822-1.jpg

A couple of observations:

1. your slide is not really early, the front dust cover and the front sight block are the standard length, and it appears to have mid point roll stamped markings.
2. your safety is a Mk2 Inglis - I've only seen 1 in person - my understanding is that they were a post war, probably CAL produced item, rather than Inglis production.
3. your frame doesn't appear to be slotted for the shoulder stock? if it is not, it is a guarantee that the frame and slide are miss matched.
4. There were un-numbered frames and slides available thru the Canadian system (into the late '60s at least). All the Frames I'm aware of were Inglis manufactured, We've seen Inglis & CAL manufactured slides.
- as stated, the pantograph engraving is sometimes very shallow - it could have been "wiped" by sandblasting the frame for re finishing.
5. There have been several photos of similar Cyrilic marked slides (it seems now that they were they of the same one?? gunboards post several years ago SU002x) - but so far as I'm aware there is no documentation on them. I suspect it could be an experimental follow on to the Chinese marked slides, and a precursor to the Mutual Aid Board decal (except the MAB decal was authorized in mid 1943 - ie. before Inglis was in production of the BHP).

Is the gun a deac? lots of deacs have been "re-marked" with spurious and fantasy markings to increase their "value"

The thing that disturbs me about the KAHADAH marking is the width of the cutter, and depth of cut (I think that they are too wide and too deep). If you look at the Chinese marked slides, there is a delicacy and verve to them - they used native speakers to produce the script -

an observation in the Gunboards threadhttps://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...nglis-Hi-Power is that the word "Canada" while spelled correctly is all lower case - There were plenty of first generation Russian speaking immigrants in Canada during the WW2 years, I cannot believe that they would not capitalize the spelling of the name of their new country (remember, many of them legally no other home than Canada as they had been dispossessed of property and State - White Russians and various other no longer existing provinces of various Empires).

[Paul S.]

Mind you, this is just my opinion as an owner of 4 Inglis No.2 pistols, so no offence is intended.

I suspect that your pistol has been pieced together from bits and pieces to make up a complete Ingils BHP. I would be interested to see what proof marks there are, internally and externally.

[Brit plumber]

I couldn’t find that thread on the gun boards forum and no wonder, I posted 3 years before I bought this gun.

I’m totally convinced the lower is non matching due to the lack of slot for the butt and the removal of the serial number. The markings had no effect on price, in fact it was cheaper than a standard example so weren’t added to add value. Also, the gun was deactivated in 2012 and remained unsold until the intro of the draconian EU laws, the proof marks are over the sunc paint so the Cyrillic markings were there before being deactivated. The SU serial is on pristine metal so I’m confident that it’s the only number ever applied to this slide however it could have been an unmarked slide.

What and where would I find the proof marks for photographing?

[Paul S.]

The primary proof marks were applied to the right side of the frame behind the trigger pin and the right side of the slide behind the ejection port. You should find the typical British proof and the Canadian broad arrow inside a 'C'. These marks were very light and can be hard to see if the Suncorite finish is heavy. British service pistols may have the cross pennants marking on the barrel in front of the S/N. This marking is on the barrel of my 6T**** pistol, but two of my pistols, both 0T**** serial numbered do not have this marking. One has what appears to be a post-war replacement barrel with the stylized maple leaf proof on the right side of the barrel lug. This pistol has a Suncorite finish. The other was FTRd at Enfield in 1963 (and so marked) also has what appears to be a replacement barrel that has an 'M' stamped on the bottom of the barrel lug. It also bears the mysterious 'AF' marking (Attn: P. Laidler) on the frame and the slide after being refinished with black phosphate (Parkerising). Both barrels have a minute stamping that appears to be the typical British proof or an asterisk - it's that small and that hard to tell.

Added comment: my FTR 63 pistol has the same safety lever as yours, but the other pistols do not.

I also neglected to mention that the ejector will have a roman numeral two (II) stamped on its left side. The hammer should have a '2' and a 'D' stamped on its left side as well. The 'II' and the '2' indicate the second series ejector and hammer that was introduced very early on in production to resolve a reliability issue. My understanding is that these parts were retro-fitted the earlier production as - when - possible as well.

[Lee Enfield]

The primary proof marks were applied to the right side of the frame behind the trigger pin and the right side of the slide behind the ejection port. You should find the typical British proof and the Canadian broad arrow inside a 'C'. These marks were very light and can be hard to see if the Suncorite finish is heavy. ...snip...

I also neglected to mention that the ejector will have a roman numeral two (II) stamped on its left side. The hammer should have a '2' and a 'D' stamped on its left side as well. The 'II' and the '2' indicate the second series ejector and hammer that was introduced very early on in production to resolve a reliability issue. My understanding is that these parts were retro-fitted the earlier production as - when - possible as well.

BP's first post clearly shows the "C^" and "DCP" Canadian proof markings on the frame behind the trigger pin. This demonstrates that there wasn't an aggressive removal of the frame serial number.

I don't think a MKL ejector, barrel and extractor could possibly matter here. These MkI parts were only in the first few thousand guns, and would have been removed at FTR.

The Mk1 hammer was much longer in production, and MkI hammers are easily found and available even today.

The barrel appears to be a 2 piece post war Belgian type from the pictures on gunboards, so I don't think that it can tell us anything useful in this case.