Another DP Question on Long Branch Markings

[Sapper00]

So not trying to beat a dead horse, just a bit confused but some markings on a 1943 LB No4 I've come across. This rifle has apparently been a family shooter forever and passed through the generations. It's a proper C marked 5 groove barrel and looks original.

"BUT" it has a very small "DP" stamp on the wrist as well as another on the trigger guard. Not the usual large stamp, these are only 2mm tall on the wrist and less on the trigger guard. No other markings anywhere on the action or barrel.

And the "D" is the gothic style D which is also a bit different.
SO I know, "Never Fire a DP" but also that DP's are usually prominently marked so as not to be mixed with live.

Thoughts? and also be nice and don't call me an idiot for asking. Did someone just stamp their initials on this for prosperity?

[browningautorifle]

If it were marked DP then it was judged unworthy. There are dozens of threads here showing reason. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. DP is DP.

[Sapper740]

The potential cost of being wrong is too high. Don't shoot it.

[MAC702]

What places and authorities were doing the "DP" determinations? Do we know what their criteria was? You'd THINK if they were dangerous, they'd be disabled? But I've read enough of the DP threads to understand this is apparently not the case. I note the OP says this has been a shooter for generations in the family. For some families, that means a box a decade. For others, that means shot every month.

[CINDERS]

Unless you have access & knowledge to all the gauges for the rifle it would be difficult to really ascertain why it was DP'ed, you could probably look at all the recoil surfaces on the action to see if they have damage or a seriously worn.

With a DP if the barrel was worn they would just replace the brl and stamp the action & stock FR or FTR but if it is to do with a worn or damaged receiver then would the rifle be DP'ed just curious as to the determination by the armorers.

[Surpmil]

The "D" stamp is damaged to the point that it would be reasonable to ask if would still be considered legible in a military context, and therefore why would it be used? The "P" stamp is also damaged.

Has that same (damaged) stamp been seen on any other LB rifles? Is that the size of the standard Canadian DP stamp?

The receiver was not a "controlled part" in the Canadian Army stores system to the extent that it was in the UK: spares were about and things could get "lost" or written off more easily.

We already know plenty of serviceable arms were DP'd in other parts of the Empire/Commonwealth on the basis of their being obsolete types no longer in service, or just a policy decision. When were the NZ No4's DP'd for example?

The rifle has apparently been shot since leaving service, judging by the stock, scope etc.

My guess would be there is a story alright, but unless these are typical DP markings for a Canadian issue LB No.4, this doesn't "smell" right and I doubt it reflected a rifle unsafe to shoot.