A little something more for the weekend sir?

[mrclark303]

It's interesting, I would have to say on average, of the British L1A1's that I have ether owned or passed though my hands, most have had hand stamped TMH's, very few were done via the engraving machine (with the oval slot). At what level (Unit Armourer perhaps) would hand stamping generally be employed in the British system?

The only Lithgow L1A1 I ever saw re-stamped (Machine restampted), was an ex NZ Lithgow 1961 dated rifle with a replaced new build receiver.

[Peter Laidler]

Hand stamping was not permitted on the TMH as it would/could cause the wrapped steel housing to distort the steel insert behind the buffer plate (it's not really a buffer as such.......) that housed the threaded return spring tube and body locking catch. So we said engrave only. And that could only be at the workshops where it was permitted to replace the TMH. Larger Field workshops as stated by Tankie

[browningautorifle]

Ours were done, as I'm sure you guys know...opposite side to the body locking catch. I guess it was where there was some support. Still, I liked the engraving...

[mrclark303]

I guess what I assumed to be hand stamping Peter, must be quite deep engraving, just covered in a lot of paint.

Would that have been done with a stencil or just a very steady hand?

[browningautorifle]

I'm sure they'd use the pantograph. That has a pattern or alphabet laid out for a tech to follow...everything clamped in place tightly...

[tankhunter]

I'm sure they'd use the pantograph. That has a pattern or alphabet laid out for a tech to follow...everything clamped in place tightly...

Yes Jim, it was a generally a Pantograph Machine.

[mrclark303]

Cheers guys, that clears up that question, so the examples with numbers clearly done by hand, must have been forced matched after being surplussed, by a Sec 5 dealer I would guess...