Strange history to this one.

[BurtonP]

A local gun auction has this No4 sporter for sale, with clues to a very strange history. I noticed it because it is a good candidate for restoring, and sure enough, it's a "Surrey" imported from the UK as a minimally modified sporter - a type I've worked on a few times. I'm excited because it's a Long Branch product with New Zealand service, which seems interesting. Then I notice many of the parts are stamped DP.
How and when could this have occurred? Did the English gun company export a Drill Purpose rifle for hunting use, knowingly? That seems extremely dodgy.
Thoughts?

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

It is profusely marked, all over the metalwork and the furniture so there is no possible argument that it is not a DP, or that it is a 'live rifle' that someone has put furniture from a DP rifle onto.

IT SHOULD NOT BE FIRED.

How do you know that it was not the Canadian importer that bought a DP rifle not knowing what DP meant and are now selling it as a live rifle.
Many gun dealers are like secondhand car salesmen, they don't know the detail about what they are selling, they just want to make a sale and make their profit - maybe they were told it was one of the rare DP (Durban Police) rifles.

Does it have any UK proof marks ?
If not, then it was not sporterised and sold into the UK civilian gun market, as a live firing rifle, and, (never say never) but I'm pretty sure that our military didn't make sporters out of issued rifles.

[Gil Boyd]

I concur...............I would certainly check the proof marks and test pressures before I even considered doing anything with that. Its certainly a bitza, and if thats all you have to go on, DON'T SHOOT it and let the Dealer do the honours!!

[BurtonP]

How do you know that it was not the Canadianicon importer that bought a DP rifle not knowing what DP meant and are now selling it as a live rifle.

Entirely possible. However, the UK company, that sporterized the rifle for the Canadian market, as evidenced by the "Surrey" stamp on the barrel, was also negligent. I forget the name of the company, but this is a typical "Surrey" conversion. Other "Surreys" in my collection are complete rifles, not Bitsas and only minimally sporterized. This rifle IMO is not a good rifle using DP parts, it's clearly a Drill Purpose rifle, and therefore dangerous. I hope it has not had much or any hunting use in Canada since.

---------- Post added at 07:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 AM ----------

I've had another look at the pics and I can't see any UK proof marks, but the pics are not in the right spots. I suppose the Surrey stamped barrel could be a replacement, but why? Anyone with the tools and skill to replace a barrel should be able to see the rest is junk - no?

[Lee Enfield]

It is profusely marked, all over the metalwork and the furniture so there is no possible argument that it is not a DP, or that it is a 'live rifle' that someone has put furniture from a DP rifle onto.

IT SHOULD NOT BE FIRED.

How do you know that it was not the Canadian importer that bought a DP rifle not knowing what DP meant and are now selling it as a live rifle.
Many gun dealers are like secondhand car salesmen, they don't know the detail about what they are selling, they just want to make a sale and make their profit - maybe they were told it was one of the rare DP (Durban Police) rifles.

Does it have any UK proof marks ?
If not, then it was not sporterised and sold into the UK civilian gun market, as a live firing rifle, and, (never say never) but I'm pretty sure that our military didn't make sporters out of issued rifles.

It has British commercial proof markings, so whatever resulted in it being designated DP wasn't a safety issue.

Having said that as far as I'm concerned it is a parts gun

[Alan de Enfield]

It has British commercial proof markings, so whatever resulted in it being designated DP wasn't a safety issue.

Having said that as far as I'm concerned it is a parts gun

I cannot see any proof marks on the photos, and the OP says he cannot see any - do you know more about the rifle than is shown ?

[Thunderbox]

It won't have had that "Surry" marked barrel at the time it was stamped up "DP" in service, so the rifle has evidently had some sort of post-DP shooting career.


DP rifles do get repaired and used, so the rifle just needs inspecting by someone competent to do so. For a No4 to be unsafe to shoot it has to glaringly obvious what the fault is - usually some form of deliberate deactivation such as cut lugs or drilled barrel.

[BurtonP]

It won't have had that "Surry" marked barrel at the time it was stamped up "DP" in service, so the rifle has evidently had some sort of post-DP shooting career.

This is exactly my thought. Is there wiggle room in what the military considered DP, but that a casual shooter might be safe with? If not, someone has been negligent. Should I write to the auction house before it is sold?

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

It has Britishicon commercial proof markings, so whatever resulted in it being designated DP wasn't a safety issue.

There are more pics on the auction site here: https://www.icollector.com/Non-Restr...tish_i41122402
I can see a stamp in the right place, but it's not clear to me that it's a proof mark. Maybe?

[Woodsy]

About 33 years ago the NZ Army sold a large batch of DP No4 rifles to an outfit called Springfield Sporters in the USA. They were DP'd from good condition fully serviceable rifles by breaking the end off the firing pin and stamping the DP marks. They were intended for cadet use but never saw much work as the school cadet system was winding down from the late 1960's and by the '70's only a handful of Boys schools had a cadet unit for volunteers (as opposed to the old compulsory system). Any of those rifles with matching numbers and new firing pins should be safe to use, subject to the normal headspace check of course. I was one of the unsuccessful bidders on the DP rifles and also the entire NZ Army stock of No4 parts (the parts were sold to another US bidder). I was successful in buying 1,000 L1A1 SLR's, 2,000 Bren mags, 236,000 rounds of .303 Mk7 ball, and 80,000 7.62x51 ball, so I was quite happy!

[Lee Enfield]

I cannot see any proof marks on the photos, and the OP says he cannot see any - do you know more about the rifle than is shown ?

sorry, I attempted to post an answer at least 3 times yesterday and each time I ended up losing it somehow.

1. yes I have had this rifle in my hands (it is from a friend's estate), no I did not gauge it and only gave it a cursory exam.
2. the fact that it is marked "Surrey" means that it was turned into a commercial sporter after military release.
3. I believe that there are British commercial proof marks on the muzzle.

**not a comment on this specific rifle**: I have seen a number of military re-activated rifles with the "DP" barred out. In the last few years, I have seen at least 2 of them with the Canadian Arsenals inspection (red) hang tag still attached and legible.

too often we as collectors think that procedures stayed the same thru the entire service life of rifles - for example, I have access to a (minty) Sht MLE MkI and a "Long Lee" which are marked DP, but gauge perfectly - I can only assume they were marked when they became obsolescent in service.

to misquote Laidler regarding SMG's and Bren's at unit level, perfectly serviceable arms were often marked as "DP" in order to confine and minimize wear on the rest of the issued arms.