19T Proof Mark

[newbieDAN]

L39A1 has 19T

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.

[Thunderbox]

I assume that "19T" was simply the convergence of civilian and military proof sometime in the 1950s/60s.

"19T" would have been the new UK civilian proof introduced at the time of the adoption of the 7.62x51mm rounds as NATO/UK standard around 1955, and i expect that Enfield later came to an arrangement with the proof houses so that it could carry out proof and mark its own rifles in-house. I expect that L1A1s were also proofed & marked "in house" at the factories, as its hard to see how London & Birmingham could have coped with c.500,000 rifles to test in just a few years.

It would be interesting to find an early example of a 7.62mm civilian proof from the 1950s. AFAIK, large numbers of civilian rifles only started appearing in 7.62mm when the Enfield barrels became available in the late 1960s/ early 70s - ie when all those club P14 conversions were made.

[Simon P]

I have seen an Envoy recently with only the 19T Proof on the barrel, action, bolt & bolt head, there were no other London or Birmingham Proof Marks,

[smellie]

Apart from the "Ring-8" or "8-Ball" marking, was there anything else to distinguish the Number 4s which were approved for use with the Mark VIII ammunition?

Or is this a really dumb question?
.

[Beerhunter]

Is the the 19T Poof Mark Military or Civillian?

That mark is not from either of the two English Proof houses.

[Peter Laidler]

If the commercial Envoy's and Enforcers are proofed with the UK Military 19T mark then surely someone at Enfield is guilty of selling or 'otherwise disposing....' of unproofed weapons. On the other hand, if the UK MoD 19T mark is acceptable then why isn't the older crossed flags mark

Just my take on things especially as the UK Police forces and commercial Envoy shooters don't come under the UK MoD proof exemption.

It would make any subsequent prosecution VERY difficult or pretty well unsustainable.............

[Beerhunter]

If the commercial Envoy's and Enforcers are proofed with the UK Military 19T mark then surely someone at Enfield is guilty of selling or 'otherwise disposing....' of unproofed weapons. On the other hand, if the UK MoD 19T mark is acceptable then why isn't the older crossed flags mark

Just my take on things especially as the UK Police forces and commercial Envoy shooters don't come under the UK MoD proof exemption.

It would make any subsequent prosecution VERY difficult or pretty well unsustainable.............

IIRC, the Primary legislation refers only to the two Proof Houses (Gunmakers & Brmingham).

I would guess that Enfield would claim Crown Immunity (the Law of the land doesn't count) when selling to Police Forces. Whether or not they were correct in doing so, in my opinion, that would not be the case if a Police Force sold the rifles on. In other words those rifles would NOT be in Proof and anyone selling them would be guilty of an offence.

However if the Constabularies that did this also claim Crown Immunity (it would be tougher for them than for Enfield), then the dealers who sold them on could be guilty of an offence. As would anyone in the UK who currently holds one. If it has not be Proofed in London or Birmingham, it is not in proof.

[Alan de Enfield]

.............. As would anyone in the UK who currently holds one. If it has not be Proofed in London or Birmingham, it is not in proof.

Correct me if I am wrong but my reading of the proof act of 1868 says that it is an offence to "sell, offer for sale, transfer, export or pawn an unproofed firearm, with certain exceptions for military organisations"

It does not appear to be an offence to "receive" an un-proofed firearm.

It would appear to me that the dealer would be guilty but the recipient innocent (until such time as they came to sell it)

It is not illegal to own an unproofed firearm and it can be 'gifted' (no money changes hands / no sale has taken place)

[Beerhunter]

Correct me if I am wrong but my reading of the proof act of 1868 says that it is an offence to "sell, offer for sale, transfer, export or pawn an unproofed firearm, with certain exceptions for military organisations"

It does not appear to be an offence to "receive" an un-proofed firearm.

It would appear to me that the dealer would be guilty but the recipient innocent (until such time as they came to sell it)

It is not illegal to own an unproofed firearm and it can be 'gifted' (no money changes hands / no sale has taken place)

Correct, in terms of one has to move the firearm on. Indeed I have a perfectly legal unproofed rifle myself. (Acquired in Switzerland.)

I thought that I had implied that the current owner sells the rifle. My original post, for clarity, should really say: "As would anyone in the UK who currently holds one and sells it on."

[Alan de Enfield]

Correct, in terms of one has to move the firearm on. Indeed I have a perfectly legal unproofed rifle myself. (Acquired in Switzerland.)

I thought that I had implied that the current owner sells the rifle. My original post, for clarity, should really say: "As would anyone in the UK who currently holds one and sells it on."

Thanks - you were posting this as I was talking to the Birmingham proof house. They have confirmed as follows :

The Proof Acts lay down that no small arm may be sold, exchanged or exported, exposed or kept for sale or exchange or pawned unless and until it has been fully proved and duly marked. The Maximum penalty is £5000 for each offence, but with provision for higher penalties where, for instance, the sale of a number of guns constitutes one offence. Alteration to or the forging of proof marks is a more serious offence.

The offence in dealing in unproved arms is committed by the seller, not by an unwitting purchaser.