Does the "FR" stamp on the butt always mean an Indian field repair?
"FR" Mark on Buttstock
44 Shooter
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Joined
·
9 Posts
From: Ian Skennerton <idskennerton@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 1942 Savage Mk1/3 FR marking on Furniture (pics)
To: lucky dog
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 8:49 AM
Hi from chilly Salt Lake City UT,
From the looks of your rifle, it does not seem to have been to India or Pakistan. And if there are no other POF or Ishapore markings, I would say it is not likely. The butt manufacture and view markings are English, so maybe the FR was not an Indian/Pakistan marking after all.
The more we see, the more we learn, obviously. So if we encounter more rifles that have obviously not seen Indian subcontinental use or issue, with an FR marked butt, such a Factory Repair marking can be extended to some British rifles as well.
Enjoy the knowledge,
Ian Skennerton
Subject: RE: 1942 Savage Mk1/3 FR marking on Furniture (pics)
To: lucky dog
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 8:49 AM
Hi from chilly Salt Lake City UT,
From the looks of your rifle, it does not seem to have been to India or Pakistan. And if there are no other POF or Ishapore markings, I would say it is not likely. The butt manufacture and view markings are English, so maybe the FR was not an Indian/Pakistan marking after all.
The more we see, the more we learn, obviously. So if we encounter more rifles that have obviously not seen Indian subcontinental use or issue, with an FR marked butt, such a Factory Repair marking can be extended to some British rifles as well.
Enjoy the knowledge,
Ian Skennerton
SL, William Sykes Ltd.
http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia8/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia8/index.html
Because the rifle has a forend screw does not mean it went to or saw Indian service. The screw is a M O D repair or strengthener for GL the Indians took it on enmass.
Joined
·
28,359 Posts
While it is true that the screw is a MOD approved repair, the very large preponderance of rifles with them are clearly of Indian service.
I have yet to see one with the screw that doesn't have "the look".
I have yet to see one with the screw that doesn't have "the look".
Joined
·
14,769 Posts
I recall that one of our most knowlegeable members stated that the "Ishapore screw" was also fitted in Malaya by the British armourers.
Joined
·
2,495 Posts
Speaking of stock stamps, can anyone venture an opinion of what this large "FNR" stock stamp may stand for?
It's on this 1942 dated Maltby I have that is still in mint unfired, since proofing, and in unissued condt. The rifle has a war expedient, rear sight, cocking piece and safety and has no US import stamps and no British added proof stamps, (tons, England, etc). The stock has a large FNR stamp on the stock which one opinion I received was that it may stand for Felixstowe Naval Reserve. Felixstowe being a port town on the East coast of England in the county of Suffolk. My guess is that it may have walked across the border to the US from Canada years ago because absent of import, export, stamps. Does anyone have any another idea or opinion as to what it might be. Ray
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It's on this 1942 dated Maltby I have that is still in mint unfired, since proofing, and in unissued condt. The rifle has a war expedient, rear sight, cocking piece and safety and has no US import stamps and no British added proof stamps, (tons, England, etc). The stock has a large FNR stamp on the stock which one opinion I received was that it may stand for Felixstowe Naval Reserve. Felixstowe being a port town on the East coast of England in the county of Suffolk. My guess is that it may have walked across the border to the US from Canada years ago because absent of import, export, stamps. Does anyone have any another idea or opinion as to what it might be. Ray
1. The British stamps that you note were not 'export marks'. They were applied to ALL ex-service/sold-out-of-service firearms that were auctioned off for sale on the commercial market within the United Kingdom.
2. Felixstowe was not and is still not a naval base of any kind. Your FNR stamp is therefore a mystery.
tac
If they do not have import marks they are pre 1969 imports. Enfield rifles that came over to the US that did not come out of UK sales will lack the Commercial proofs (London or Birmingham). Most of the British Arms in Canada, not of Canadian origin, came from the same commercial sales in the UK from ~1954 to 1968.
The two most obvious candidates for sources are Holland and Belgium, both of which received sizeable stocks of British arms from the UK and Canada. No idea when Belgium sold off their arms, but Holland most likely sold theirs off post 1960 when the reequipped the army with FAL rifles. One of those countries, I forget which, got most of their UK equipment from Canada.
Another possibility is Denmark, which had a number of No4 and No1 MKIII rifles which according to the Danish arms site they got rid of in the early 1950s (1954~55?) to Interarmeco. it was at that time Denmark got rid of the Swedish M96 and other obsolete arms, and reequipped themselves with M1 (M50) and M1917 (M53) rifles. They could have come from that source.
The two most obvious candidates for sources are Holland and Belgium, both of which received sizeable stocks of British arms from the UK and Canada. No idea when Belgium sold off their arms, but Holland most likely sold theirs off post 1960 when the reequipped the army with FAL rifles. One of those countries, I forget which, got most of their UK equipment from Canada.
Another possibility is Denmark, which had a number of No4 and No1 MKIII rifles which according to the Danish arms site they got rid of in the early 1950s (1954~55?) to Interarmeco. it was at that time Denmark got rid of the Swedish M96 and other obsolete arms, and reequipped themselves with M1 (M50) and M1917 (M53) rifles. They could have come from that source.
Joined
·
2,495 Posts
Darn it, I was corrected about that once already, and with out thinking again wrote "export" stamp and not "proof" stamp.
So I'm to assume that the rifle was not sold to the commercial market in the UK because of the lack of the British proof stamps, would that be correct?Ray
It might be more correct to say it was not sold in the large surplus sales that the UK MOD did between 1953 and 1968 that entered the US market. From speaking to Canadians who were still able to receive these rifles post 1968 it would appear the reproof was required for some time after the end of the US market in 1968.
A lot of the M1917 rifles that were sold supposedly off out of the UK in this period do not seem to have UK proofs on them. These guns were for the most part advertised as being straight from the crate. Of course with the large number of M1917 coming from France, Canada and Ireland, it is possible that very few if any M1917 rifles were sold to the US, as after 1958 no lend lease was allowed back in. However only 119,000 of the 785,000 the Brits received were lend lease.
By the same token, many if not all of the 38,000 M1 lend lease rifles sold off by the UK prior to 1958 seem to have the re-proof markings. Every one I have ever seen in that grouping with the correct early features is so marked.
The Red star M1903 rifles that were discovered a few years ago and were purchased by an Air force officer circa late 1940s to early 1950s do not seem to have been reproofed.
I seem to recall that the reproof requirement was imposed by the worshipful Gunmakers society in 1953 at the very beginning of the huge UK sales program.
Surplus rifles coming out of the UK after 1986 and prior to the end of surplus sales in 1999 do not have the commercial reproof marks. So sometime between the early 1970s and 1985 the requirement seems to have been dropped.
A lot of the M1917 rifles that were sold supposedly off out of the UK in this period do not seem to have UK proofs on them. These guns were for the most part advertised as being straight from the crate. Of course with the large number of M1917 coming from France, Canada and Ireland, it is possible that very few if any M1917 rifles were sold to the US, as after 1958 no lend lease was allowed back in. However only 119,000 of the 785,000 the Brits received were lend lease.
By the same token, many if not all of the 38,000 M1 lend lease rifles sold off by the UK prior to 1958 seem to have the re-proof markings. Every one I have ever seen in that grouping with the correct early features is so marked.
The Red star M1903 rifles that were discovered a few years ago and were purchased by an Air force officer circa late 1940s to early 1950s do not seem to have been reproofed.
I seem to recall that the reproof requirement was imposed by the worshipful Gunmakers society in 1953 at the very beginning of the huge UK sales program.
Surplus rifles coming out of the UK after 1986 and prior to the end of surplus sales in 1999 do not have the commercial reproof marks. So sometime between the early 1970s and 1985 the requirement seems to have been dropped.
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Yes.
Here is a little explanation as to why some rifles have English civilian Proof marks and others do not. The British Government is exempt from the Gun Barrel Proof Acts and so can sell or otherwise transfer small arms without the statutory need for Proof carried out by the Gunmakers Company or the Birmingham Proof House. So you can imagine Sam Cummings reaction when, having bought huge number of un-proofed surplus rifles from the British Government, was told that in order for him to sell them on they would need Proofing.
Sam Cummings was told all of his purchases had to be reproofed, wither or not they were being sold in the UK or being exported. It was the view of the UK gun business, which is where the guns were sold (the firm had to be UK firm to purchase), that the surplus arms were out of proof, and to do anything with them they had to be reproofed. While he did nt like it he had no choice in the matter. The details are contained in the 1983 book "deadly business".
British/commonwealth arms coming from Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Spain and France had no such requirement. The same is true of the later Portuguese SMLE MK III/ P14 purchase by Century Arms.
British/commonwealth arms coming from Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Spain and France had no such requirement. The same is true of the later Portuguese SMLE MK III/ P14 purchase by Century Arms.
Joined
·
22,893 Posts
Back to "FR" on butt stock.
1. Its found by me on mostly Savages: not conclusive but a trend.
2. Wood on rifles with FR is usually very good indeed: is FR just a
wood marking for replacement wood put on by MOD work shop or
NOS wood found and put in place by previous owner (civilian or
some other military with tons of spare wood in stock)
3. Could FR be a marking used by not just one nation ? Not just India?
I think it safe to say that if you see FR, the weapon has been modified in some way
and it may be new wood or more than just wood replacement. I have seen rifles
with FR on butt and the rifles were pristine condition (wood and metal/ all matching).
At this point, my view is FR is not just an Indian marking but its still a basket of fog on
who all used it and why.
1. Its found by me on mostly Savages: not conclusive but a trend.
2. Wood on rifles with FR is usually very good indeed: is FR just a
wood marking for replacement wood put on by MOD work shop or
NOS wood found and put in place by previous owner (civilian or
some other military with tons of spare wood in stock)
3. Could FR be a marking used by not just one nation ? Not just India?
I think it safe to say that if you see FR, the weapon has been modified in some way
and it may be new wood or more than just wood replacement. I have seen rifles
with FR on butt and the rifles were pristine condition (wood and metal/ all matching).
At this point, my view is FR is not just an Indian marking but its still a basket of fog on
who all used it and why.
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Because that was/is the law.
Joined
·
2,095 Posts
Donnington Ordnance depot was owned by the government and hence exempt.
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
