Which Enfield P-07 Bayonet do I need?

[4thGordons]

I received a reply on another forum regarding the lack of date. What do you guys think?

Hmmm I will have to check I have a couple of LSAs I had not noted that their barrels were undated.

I shall investigate but it may take a while to get to them.

Chris

[TonyE]

One point that intrigues me. The normal Enfield based inspection mark at that time was Crown over E over Inspector's number. This barrel has the Enfield monogram of a combined "E" and "D". When did that come into force? I thought it was in the 1920s.

Any ideas Chris?

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

One point that intrigues me. The normal Enfield based inspection mark at that time was Crown over E over Inspector's number. This barrel has the Enfield monogram of a combined "E" and "D". When did that come into force? I thought it was in the 1920s.

Any ideas Chris?

Regards

TonyE

I suspect I am going to have to consult Skennerton and probably Stratton too and delve into my safe and notebooks

My initial impression was this was a post war replacement barrel (probably govt surplus) and I still think there is a '30 lurking under the civvy proofs. If you are correct on the ED date then this would be consistent

However, this was before it was suggested LSA did not date their barrels (I was not aware of this and will need to investigate)

Chris

[4thGordons]

OK so I got at a couple of LSAs

1917 LSA untouched all matching numbers and HAS A DATED BARREL - I would have sworn this was the original barrel - dated the same year as the rifle BUT... is stamped with an R which Skennerton notes as "Replacement" or "Reserve" barrel ? (The question mark is Skennerton's)

1915 LSA not all matching (mismatched nosecap) has a barrel with markings very similar to those on the original rifle, including the ED mark and no obvious date (I did not disassemble this rifle)

HOWEVER this rifle has been FTRd in 1918 and 1938.

SO...at this point I am not really sure what to think although I think I still favour the idea that the orginal rifle has had an interwar rebarrel

I have a 1914 LSA but it is rather difficult to get at but I will make an effort because it seems to be the closest to the original rifle.

Chris

EDIT: Sean - is there any indication of an FTR stamp on the left side of the rifle wrist where mine has the '38?

I had a look again at your pictures and I do not see one that shows this area.

Edited 1 February , 2011 by 4thGordons

[smac61]

Sean - is there any indication of an FTR stamp on the left side of the rifle wrist where mine has the '38?

I had a look again at your pictures and I do not see one that shows this area.

Nope. Nothing but virgin metal...

[shippingsteel]

Just a couple of points regarding the markings on the barrel (I'm sure this is probably already known by all involved but will add anyway)

The following, taken from Skennerton :-

British inspection marks, crown/letter/number format - the letter X indicates LSA. (meaning we definitely have an LSA made barrel)

Enfield inspection mark, combined E-D symbol - found on production dating from 1903 through to the late 1930's. (not of much help to us at all)

Year date stamped on barrel, ie. '18 - year of acceptance for service (doesn't indicate year of manufacture, so lack of date should equate to no acceptance, ie. no service.?)

Don't know if any of this helps, but to me it suggests the barrel at least was never accepted into military service, may also help explain the very clean condition it is found in.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Year date stamped on barrel, ie. '18 - year of acceptance for service (doesn't indicate year of manufacture, so lack of date should equate to no acceptance, ie. no service.?)

Don't know if any of this helps, but to me it suggests the barrel at least was never accepted into military service, may also help explain the very clean condition it is found in.

I have been puzzling over this exact thing - I thought that in general the "broad arrow" mark "indicated acceptance" for service? Granted the broad arrow and date are usually found together on barrels but in these two cases the borad arrow is present but the date not...

I know there is some controversy over the issue of barrel dates but thought the weight of opinion was that the barrel was dated when it was assembled onto the reciever I know I have seen lots of rifles where the barrel date is later (obviously many from rebarrelling in mid service etc) but also some (often Lithgows actually) where the barrel date is the year after the reciever date suggesting the receiver was made in (for example) 1915(perhaps late) but the rifle wasn't assembled until 1916 (perhaps early). If barrels were dated when produced you might expect to find examples where the barrel was dated earlier than the receiver but I do not believe I have ever seen that...ever.

It would help I think if there was a definitive answer on whether LSA dated barrels. I will enquire on one of the specialist enfield lists.

Chris

[4thGordons]

OK after some interesting discussion and debate amongst individuals in Enfield emblazoned anoraks.

It appears the LSA Co indeed did NOT date their barrels (at least on the basis of half a dozen examples), not it seems did Ishapore, interestingly (at least mine are not dated and I have a few. Enfield, BSA and SSA/NRF rifles all do appear to have dated barrels

This makes my 1917 something of an anomaly but the "R" on the barrel probably explains that. I still have not managed to get to my 1914 LSA to confirm.

Australian barrels (Lithgow) were apparently dated when made as I have seen pictures of several new in the wrap Lithgow barrels with dates spanning several decades (post WWI but...) So this would appear to be the standard order of events: Barrel was Dated (except LSA and Ishapore) and "Barrel-proofed" when manufactured; and proofed again when fitted to the receiver, and then finally serial numbered to match the receiver to which it was fitted.

So - given this, I think the original rifle is indeed probably sporting its LSA Co original barrel.

During the discussion someone also described a couple of rifles where barrels dated earlier than the receiver were observed...once again demonstrating the wisdom of "never saying never" where these things are involved.

Chris