[Fritz]

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.

 

[Fritz]

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.

 

[Fritz]

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.

 

[Fritz]

Why did the exports from Donnington surplus sales in the 1989 to 1999 period not have the proofs applied?

Was an exemption made for exports at that time?

 

[Fritz]

But so was Weedon in the 1953 to 1968 period, most of the sales came out of that facility. In fact all of the sales in that period were out of one or more of the government storage facilities.

 

[Fritz]

Ahhh.. that makes sense. So the difference is that when the MOD sold off arms in the 1989 to 1999 period they sold them directly to foreign companies that then exported them. They never went through the UK local affiliate. Is that interpretation correct?


That would explain why the UK had to re-import Enfield rifles from the US, unlike the pre 1968 days when Parker Hale/C&W, etc would retain a portion of the arms for local supply, all of the arms were exported to Canada in the case of century, or the US in the case of Navy/PW arms.

That does raise the issue though, I have seen arms imported into the US post 1986 that were marked with the Interarms import mark, but lack commercial proofs. Now in this period Interams was a UK company and had a warehouse in Manchester. How did Interarms get around the Proof requirement? was it a case fo Interams USA stored the arms at Interams UK or something like that?

I know these are petty points but of some interest in understanding the arms trade.

 

[Fritz]

Jrhead75..

so....... what was the mark for according to this source?

Was the explanation by way of an old WWII armorer who spoke to Capt P.L.?