New here and in need of wisdom ;-) / No.1 Mk.III* Identification

[Frederick303]

Maxwell,

If they were sold for use in the UK and did not have mutually accepted proof marks on them, then they would have to be proofed prior to sale. As the US does not have any formal proof, all US arms have to be proofed prior to sale in the UK, or at least that is my understanding. Again I am writing from memory but I seem to recall that around 1969 there was some sort of European committee that did all the cross recognized proofing. I think as a result of this Law that is the first time the republic of Ireland set up a Proof house.

Now in 1988 so so the UK saw all self loading arms banned. I hope that UK chaps will correct me if I am full of "it", but I recall reading that when this law went into effect there were only 4,700 permitted shooters with such rifles. I gather this was because in most cases in order to own one you had to be a shooter in one of the practical rifle clubs, which did not really have the support of the NRA. The total number of arms were more than 4,700, by how much I do not recall. In any case it is possible that some of these arms were then sold sold to Australia, as at the time the Military rifle club members from any State could purchase such arms for competition. Back in those days (circa 1989~1991)I seem to recall the Australian rifle shooters coming over to Camp Perry and they were quite entranced with the M14 rifles. It seemed that they had an excess of M14 action bodies, while at the time we have a excessive number of M14 rifle kits that had been sourced out of Israeli less action bodies. Here in the US of A, because of the once and automatic always and Automatic you cannot ever have a ex-full auto, even if the full auto capability has been blanked off. In any case they were cheerfully figuring ways to buy and ship back home those parts that they lacked. Given the great desire fro such arms at that time, if already auto blanked complete rifles were available from mother England, I do not doubt that Australians would have bought them if so allowed. I do seem to recall there were some import restrictions that were giving the military rifle club shooters fits at the time.

I also saw my first No 4 heavy barrel competition rifle at that time on commercial row @Perry. One of the Australian shooters had brought it for the 1000 yard and Palma matches. The Australian shooters were fairly kindly received over at Camp Perry and they responded by being quite open to any questions from curious American shooters. Got to hold my first match No 4 heavy barrel that year. It was not a pretty gun but the hook was set.

regards

FRS

[Maxwell Smart]

I bought my M-14 in 1984; it was fitted with blanked-off full auto gear.

[SM377Y MKIII*]

Ok
so far so good thank you very much ;-)

BUT:
if a rifle came to germany and has to be demilitarized it has to have new valid german proof marks... either its a salute or a real firing weapon, only deactivated guns - as far as I know- have stamps from the Federal Criminal Police Office (Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So this particular rifle has none of them and the stamp on the sawn off bayo lug don´t look like something from germany...

I wish I could see the original stamps on the right hand side of the wrist ...

Summa Summarum: No.1 Mk.III*
- built pre ?1945? / FR for a new rifle makes no sense to me
- service pre ?1945? / after 1945
- Factory Repair 1945 Ishapore India
- at least until 1947 in India
- Export/Import in the 70´s / 80´s _ not quite sure who braught her back
- found it´s way to germany

@Frederick303:
I will answer as many questions as I can.
I am working on a hopefully precise and not book filling answer ;-)

@all: just a little question: WHAT WOULD YOU PAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR RIFLE


greeeeeeetz
SM377Y

[Beerhunter]

I do know that Interarms operated their own proof facility in Manchester after 1973,

Forgive but it is simply not possible under English Law that: "Interarms operated their own proof facility". One of the two Proof Houses MAY be allowed to run a satellite operation but Interarms would not be allowed to. This is because the two Proof Houses: The Gunmakers Company and The Guardians of the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House are the only Proof Houses allowed by Law.

Over the years, I have seen many un-Proofed military arms that have had to be Proofed before onward sale. I have always assumed that this is because when the British Government sold them off, it claimed Crown Immunity from the Proof Acts. In addition there is no evidence that that the British Government had these weapons Proofed before sale which anyone else would have to or would be in breach of the Act. (Which is probably why Sam Cummings was hacked off that he was left with the task, complete with its accompanying extra expense.)

I'll take another look at my copy Deadly Business when I can find the thing!

[Thunderbox]

Ok
so far so good thank you very much ;-)

BUT:
if a rifle came to germany and has to be demilitarized it has to have new valid german proof marks... either its a salute or a real firing weapon, only deactivated guns - as far as I know- have stamps from the Federal Criminal Police Office (Federal Criminal Police Office (Germany) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

So this particular rifle has none of them and the stamp on the sawn off bayo lug don´t look like something from germany...

I wish I could see the original stamps on the right hand side of the wrist ...

Summa Summarum: No.1 Mk.III*
- built pre ?1945? / FR for a new rifle makes no sense to me
- service pre ?1945? / after 1945
- Factory Repair 1945 Ishapore India
- at least until 1947 in India
- Export/Import in the 70´s / 80´s _ not quite sure who braught her back
- found it´s way to germany

@Frederick303:
I will answer as many questions as I can.
I am working on a hopefully precise and not book filling answer ;-)

@all: just a little question: WHAT WOULD YOU PAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR RIFLE


greeeeeeetz
SM377Y

Your rifle has London proof (from c.1970s); most European countries recognise each other's proofs - so there is need for your rifle to have a separate German proof.


Your rifle was probably built at Ishapore in 1941-44, as the overall "look" of the rifle resembles this period of production. It is common to find WW2 Ishapore rifles also FTR'd ("FR" in India) by 1945 - most of these rifles were used in the Burma campaign and suffered considerably from the jungle conditions.

The rifle may have come to UK directly as a surplus sale, or via USA. Once in Britain, it will have been proofed before going anywhere else.

[Peter Laidler]

I don't know if I'm alone here Fred, but Beerhunter has made the point first. I am open mouthed and eyes like soup plates at some of the statements you are making.............. The proof house do not have the authority to sub-contract their work..................... Listen. the UK Military do not proof nor have they ever, proofed their kit before they sell it on. I have seen thousands of rifles and Bren guns ready for disposal at the big Ordnance Depot at Xxxxxxxx. I can tell you that even when they have bought commercially proofed weaponry in the past, they have point blank refused to pay for the commercial proofing part of the sale because the Crown are exempt. And in any case, they have their own proofing facilities.

Things are slightly different now but that is not comparing like with like

[jrhead75]

Firearms International Corp (I think that is the correct name) had these RIC carbines for sale and in the ads I saw from this period indicate they will sell to the US of A. So at least some of these carbines were sold out of Canada and were shipped to the US of A

That makes perfect sense in light of two RICs proofed at the same time and place ending up with only one "ENGLAND" stamp.

[Frederick303]

Capt. Laidler and Beerhunter;

As I have said, after my gaff with Woolrich/Weedon I am fully willing to accept correction from those who have more facile and correct memories than I and understand anyone's reticence to accept anything I wrote on face value. Mea culpa.

Now in my defense we are dealing with a topic not generally included in standard texts and I was writing these statements without aid of any of my notes, which I generally need. It was during a marathon Friday-Saturday work session, writing up these statements was my rest break(s) and I suppose the brain fart that confused Woolrich and Weedon came out of that. That said there is no excuse or bad posts, Mea culpa once again.

Capt Laidler, I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote on the surplus proof. I did say specifically those rifles not sold to commercial firms did not have to be reproofed. Now nowhere did I say the MOD did the reproofing; I indicate that the Gun trade required it and it was done at either London or Birmingham, both of which are not military proof houses. This information came out of the “Deadly Business”, a book I have used as a reference for some years. In general I have found most of what is in it to be valid, subject to the inevitable mistakes made by any book by a journalist who is not an expert in that specific field. Here is the specific chapter and verse from Deadly Business that discusses this:

Deadly Business, Patrick Brogan and Albert Zarca, 1983, W.W. Norton & Company, chapter 16, page 308

"It was decided that all of the British army surplus rifles he bought and exported to America must be proofed. Cummings failed to see the necessity for it. If the guns had been good enough for the British Army, they were good enough for him and more to the point, they were good enough for the Americans who would buy them and had no use for whatever antiquarian British rituals that had long ceased to have any useful purpose. A proof mark on the barrel of a lee Enfield .303 made for the British army by the Royal Small Arms factory merely states the obvious. Proofing sporting rifles was a different matter, and in due course when Cummings started making them, they too were submitted to the worshipful Company. But for the .303s, it insisted on its prerogatives and proofed them all. ……..(Cummings} soon became the chief though involuntary contributor to the Worshipful Companies finances.”

Elsewhere in the book it indicates some of these rifles so proofed were sent to Australia and Canada, so it was not just on arms sent to the US of A.

Now for some of the details on this topic that I put up prior, I must confess that I had a relative that lived in Alexandra Va and was on social terms with Peter Winters (Interarms VP) in the mid 1980s. I visited the Office in Jan of 1988. Through my Uncle I was able to get some clarification on these details. Being young I did not write it down and so now have to rely on my memory, which as I have said has reached the stage where at times it drops a relevant fact and pushes everything back together (such as dropping Weedon, which I am well familiar with and substituting Woolrich). Keep that in mind on the following:

Regarding proof in Manchester:

The statement in Deadly business is that in the mid to late 1970s Interarms Manchester started to make up L4 Bren Guns and .50 cal guns for export. Specific customers listed are Kenya and Swaziland. Here are the relevant passages, Chapter 16 page 310:

“When Interarms moved to Manchester and continued to deal in far more weapons than any other gunmaker, a proof office was opened in the Interarms building for security reasons. The Company (referring to the worshipful gunmakers) now goes to Interarms, not Interarms to the company and relations are better than they used to be”

What follows comes from clarifications that I got when I asked for info through my Uncle around the time of that visit, say January-February of 1988. These are my recollections, subject to the caveat above: I asked why there was no proof listed in the standard references for Manchester (only Birmingham and London) and none of the arms that came in had a Manchester proof, including the Whitworth rifles. What I recall was being told that these proofs were military proof / view marks; suitable for arms exported for military sale, and that none of the obsolete military arms going through Manchester for eventual civilian commercial sale had any Manchester proof applied. At the time, if my information is correct, Interarms had supplied Springfield Sporters with a large number of surplus bolt actions that had been stored at Manchester or at least passed through that facility, none of these arms had any British commercial proofs applied. It is also my recollections that the method used to transfer arms about between Interarms USA, Interarms Canada, Interarms Manchester on a non-retail basis allowed these arms not to go through re-proof as required in the pre 1968 days. That discussion was part of a far larger set of questions I had and was a very brief part of the discussion. Much of what I was interested in was why there were no big Interarms ads like in the Pre-1968 days. The answers were less than forthcoming.

I had not considered this much prior, but my bet would be the quote from page 310 above relates to the gun trade coming to Manchester for something besides commercial proof, what exactly I have no idea.

Now if anything I have written was in error or subject to be interpreted as error, please by all means fire away, no offense will be taken on my part. I do not want to be the purveyor of bad information. In particular since some bad information was put down by me, please be detailed as to where you take exception to any of the above.



Regards

Frederick303

[Beerhunter]

Frederick

As I alluded to earlier, one of the Proof Houses 'setting up shop' at Interarms in Manchester is long way from "Interarms operated their own proof facility".

There is no "Manchester Proof" because there is no Statutory Manchester Proof House. If the Gunmakers Company ran a Proofing facility at Interarms in Manchester, which seems to have been the case, the arms Proofed there would be marked with Gunmakers Company (often referred to as London) Proof Marks. Not because, as you said earlier, they had been bought at Woolwich.

The reason that some arms were exported without Civilian Proof and some were is still not clear but your post is helping us see through the murk.

I hope that other forum members are not bored by all this. Even fellow HBSA Members (Who themselves are mostly Anoraks extraordinaire.) will attest that I can get a little "anoraky" about Proof.

[Frederick303]

Beerhunter,

I have stated on three occasions on this thread of my mistake regarding the Woolrich and Weedon and how that occurred. I was quite embarrassed, I hate to put out false information and demonstrate the frailty of my memory. Thank you for kindly rubbing my nose in it in your last post.

Regarding the larger issue, you have failed to fully comprehend my last post, go back and re-read it again. I have not made any assertion regarding any guntrade set up of proof in Manchester; I have provided the source to back up my assertion that there was some sort of proof facility in the Interarm’s Manchester warehouse. I have provided the date and background relating to when I was told the nature of the proof / view marks and that they were related to military arms for export to former crown colonies and not commercial arms. That is all I have done. Any imputation as to a broader meaning was not implied by anything I wrote. That does not mean you are wrong, but I am making no such assertion.

Now, regarding the sale of arms out of Weedon in the late 1950s through 1968. You have misread what I wrote regarding the proof of arms sold out of service during this period. The Manchester facility did not even exist until 1972; it has nothing to do with this portion of the debate. You seem to not like my comment regarding the requirement for commercial proof on arms sold out of service in this period (less direct sales to former crown colonies). It had nothing to do with where the arms were sold out of, but rather the nature of the commercial proof houses/gun firms of London. That is what Sam Cummings alleged, that is what I am repeating in my posts. I have provided some documentation to back up my assertion, as well as some 24 years ago had a brief discussion with folks in Interarms about this very topic. While this opinion reflects the Interarms point of view and my rather not so reliable memory, if you wish to refute my assertion of the requirement for commercial proof in that period, please provide some material to back up your claim, as I have done. If you want to use evidence of arms that do not have this proof, please first be sure they were not part of any surplus lots that were sold into the trade in locations other then the UK. I have no problem being corrected, but would prefer that you at least respond to what I have actually asserted.

My comments about arms sold out of Weedon (got it right this time) being proofed in London was based on what I know of the Gun trade during this period of time. Certainly the evidence is, with the exception of the surplus lots that were shared between Parker-Hale and Interarms, those lots of arms that Interams bought from Weedon were proofed in London prior to being shipped out to Alexandria VA . If you care for the details I can put them is a separate post

Back to the original rifle that started this discussion. I now have access to my notes and am not working from memory.

A clarification on the London Proof, now that I have my notes. According to my notes you can date London proof starting in 1972. The date will be the last two digits of the year, underneath the letters”LPH”, later dropped to “LP” but I do not know what date that change occurred. Once again my memory was in error on the initial post, but that is what it is. That would indicate the rifle that this discussion started on was proofed at London before 1972, or no later then 1972 prior to when the data mark was introduce.

Second, I thought the SIA mark was a post independence mark, my 4th edition of “India’s Enfields”( Robert Edwards, 2004) indicates that it was a war time mark and could be seen on any rifle that went through the India inspectorate. So there is no evidence to me that the rifle had post independence Indian service, though perhaps Peter Laidler sees something that indicates otherwise.

I was informed by someone in the trade that large scale surplus sales out of India did not occur until a few years after the 1971 Pakistani-Indian war (circa 1973~1974). I was also informed that Pakistan was short of rifles right after the 1947 split and the known trade in Enfields by Interarms and Pakistan was the trade of Mausers out of Pakistan in exchange for 40,000 No 4 Enfield Rifles circa 1958~1959. There is no reference made to Pakistan selling off any No 1 MK III rifles, though by that time the No 4 was standard in Pakistan. I suspect the rifle that started this discussion somehow ended up back in Britain prior to that time, perhaps it came home with the British regiments when they pulled out of India in 1947. In more than one book I have seen Indian Enfields with their distinctive nosecap that does not have the sling swivel milled out in the hands of English regiments assigned to Indian Brigades. On Page 59 of India’s Enfields, 4th edition there is a picture of a British soldier of the Royal West Kent Regiment (1st Queens) armed with an Indian No 1 MKIII. So it is quite possible this arm came back to the Home Counties with the British regiments leaving India in 1947.


Regards

Frederick303