Just got an SMLE

[shippingsteel]

I do understand that Mick, and I have no argument about what is or isn't CORRECT, that's not my point.

I may be alone here, but I just think that sometimes this 'hardline' approach is counterproductive to facilitating open discussion on this forum.

I fear there may be many shooters, enthusiasts, collectors and other mildly interested parties out there who may be somewhat afraid to even venture a thought, because of this.

After all, TonyE IS a scary guy .... (Just my 2 cents FWIW)

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

Thank you , Mick.

....but I stil think you have been peeking in my wardrobe!

Regards

Tony

You left the door open and I'm attracted to the smell of mothballs.

S.S you are right of course, I suppose there is a difference between a forum as a social, knowledge sharing place and a strict learning environment where every mistake is leapt upon, I think on the whole it hits the right balance.

[TonyE]

I do understand your point S>S, and it has some validity.

However, I do believe these small points matter. I can think of a couple of well respected authors in the small arms/ammunition field whose books contain quite serious errors of fact. Because they are thought to be the so called "experts" these errors get repeated as fact and before we know where we are the correct details are dismissed as "..that's not what xxxxx says in his book". I am sure exactly the same applies in fields of which I have no knowledge.

I would not want anyone to be intimidated from posting here and I certainly don't mean to be scary as I always try to be polite when posting. I would like to think though that the Forum should be regarded as a centre of excellence in all matters Great War, and certainly we have some very learned discussions on matters military, political and social.

As Chris says, we need to strike a balance such that both beginner and expert can happily coexist here.

Regards

TonyE

[stephen p nunn]

Nearly all weapons deacivated pre 1995 have fully moving parts, Therefore weapon can be cocked, Stripped Dry fired etc. Most weapons after 1995 have very limited moving parts. I think Maldon was referring to the "DP" Drill practice rounds which can chamber and be ejected without the fear of going off! Just my pennys worth

Cheers

James

I was indeed and it has full certification.

Regards.

SPN

Maldon

[stephen p nunn]

I think Andrew's concern was that the rifle could chamber any round, not the type of round, since post 1995 de-acts should have the chamber blocked. As you say though, pre-1995 weapons had functioning actions.

On a minor point of pedantry, the correct terminology is "Drill rounds", not "DP" rounds. "DP" was normally used for weapons, often fully functional, that had been sentenced for drill purposes only.

Regards

TonyE

They always called them DP by serving soldiers when I had anything to do with them many years ago - but you are the expert. At least people knew what I meant which is good.

Regards.

SPN

Maldon

[Andrew Upton]

Andrew, while I cannot comment on the current deactivating standards in the UK - the SMLE bolt face is always flat! Perhaps something is done to the extractor?

Andrew, the bolt faces on post '95 are ground to a 45 degree angle with the firing pin cut or removed. I don't know much about pre '95 de-acts so cant comment on them.

I think Andrew's concern was that the rifle could chamber any round, not the type of round, since post 1995 de-acts should have the chamber blocked. As you say though, pre-1995 weapons had functioning actions.

This is my own 1916 BSA, deactivated in 2000. As Garron says, the bolt face is ground down to a 45 degree angle, removing the extractor at the same time. A bar has also been placed across the breech. Under the woodwork, about a quarter of the barrel has also been removed along about 90% of it's length.

http://postimage.org/image/2koqonhk4/

http://postimage.org/image/1o9bgs3z8/

Tony, I'm pretty sure that even pre-95 deacs should have the blocked breech and ground bolt, as otherwise it would be a simple matter to reactivate the rifle with readily available replacement parts. Even the action on my 2000 deac still "works", but the changes mean it cannot grip a round or chamber it if it could.

It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of a collector modifying the changes of the deactivation process on a weapon to allow it to do things it shouldn't...

[TonyE]

I always thought that the older de-acts could chamber rounds, but others wil know better. I have never owned a de-act, only having had live weapons on an FAC for the last forty nine years!

Cheers

TonyE

[Andrew Upton]

I always thought that the older de-acts could chamber rounds, but others wil know better. I have never owned a de-act, only having had live weapons on an FAC for the last forty nine years!

It's certainly true for some earlier handgun deacs, eg Webleys that you could put inert rounds into the cylinder, whereas now a ring is usually welded into place to stop this. I just can't recall ever handling a pre-95 rifle that was ever different in respect of the bolt and breech bar being in place.

[18th Battalion]

Tony, I'm pretty sure that even pre-95 deacs should have the blocked breech and ground bolt, as otherwise it would be a simple matter to reactivate the rifle with readily available replacement parts. Even the action on my 2000 deac still "works", but the changes mean it cannot grip a round or chamber it if it could.

It wouldn't be the first time I've heard of a collector modifying the changes of the deactivation process on a weapon to allow it to do things it shouldn't...

My 1918 MKIII* was deactivated pre 95, and it has a receiver which can accept rounds, although it has a slot milled through the feed ramp and down the length of the chamber. The bolt has the end of the firing pin cut off and the hole welded over on the bolt head, but the ejector is still functional; the left side locking lug has been ground off, but otherwise it will chamber, dry fire and eject rounds. The barrel is completely open but the milling of the receiver does extend into the barrel.

[stephen p nunn]

My 1918 MKIII* was deactivated pre 95, and it has a receiver which can accept rounds, although it has a slot milled through the feed ramp and down the length of the chamber. The bolt has the end of the firing pin cut off and the hole welded over on the bolt head, but the ejector is still functional; the left side locking lug has been ground off, but otherwise it will chamber, dry fire and eject rounds. The barrel is completely open but the milling of the receiver does extend into the barrel.

Yes - thanks. Similar to my one. 1989 de-activation.

Thanks for your post.

SPN

Maldon

[herbie4798]

Yes Maldon, they were called DP rounds when i was in, and that was only 2 years ago! However Tony and co are the experts so they can correct me.

[SiegeGunner]

However Tony and co are the experts so they can correct me.

I don't think 'correct' is the right word. Soldiers' parlance and the official technical term are often different, but both are valid in their own context.

[4thGordons]

This is my own 1916 BSA, deactivated in 2000. As Garron says, the bolt face is ground down to a 45 degree angle, removing the extractor at the same time. A bar has also been placed across the breech. Under the woodwork, about a quarter of the barrel has also been removed along about 90% of it's length.

Andrew - it looks like the locking lug has also been removed from the underside of the bolt body too.

Chris

[Andrew Upton]

My 1918 MKIII* was deactivated pre 95, and it has a receiver which can accept rounds, although it has a slot milled through the feed ramp and down the length of the chamber. The bolt has the end of the firing pin cut off and the hole welded over on the bolt head, but the ejector is still functional; the left side locking lug has been ground off, but otherwise it will chamber, dry fire and eject rounds. The barrel is completely open but the milling of the receiver does extend into the barrel.

Andrew - it looks like the locking lug has also been removed from the underside of the bolt body too.

Chris

Thanks Chris - never spotted that before!

Thanks 18th - I can see why they tightened up the process later on as to my mind it seems like scarily too little has been done if you can still work any sort of rounds through the action on something that's now supposedly harmless!

[stephen p nunn]

Yes Maldon, they were called DP rounds when i was in, and that was only 2 years ago! However Tony and co are the experts so they can correct me.

Thanks for your support mate.

SPN

Maldon

[auchonvillerssomme]

I served from 1980 to 2000 and I never called them or heard them called DP rounds, always dummy or drill rounds. But maybe the more you have to use drill rounds rather than using live rounds the more likely you are to come across different terms .

[herbie4798]

The only time I ever used drill rounds was when we were first allowed to even pick up a Rifle!, Apart from that never used them. Ive probally fired more live rounds then most I can assure you of that I think we have come to the conclusion that there are many names for them and not just one is right. Im not getting my pants in a twist over someting so trivial. Enjoy the Rifle mate!

[auchonvillerssomme]

This is one of mine with lug intact but some heavy grinding going on.

Only just noticed the DP stamp on the bolt.

It has had a varied life. India stamp plus a MMP disk!

[stephen p nunn]

The only time I ever used drill rounds was when we were first allowed to even pick up a Rifle!, Apart from that never used them. Ive probally fired more live rounds then most I can assure you of that I think we have come to the conclusion that there are many names for them and not just one is right. Im not getting my pants in a twist over someting so trivial. Enjoy the Rifle mate!

Thanks - I will. Very kind of you. Thanks also to all who have advised me about my SMLE.

Best regards.

SPN

Maldon

[stephen p nunn]

Well Done Maldon and congratulations on your new baby...

I'm no expert (there should be one along shortly ) but I posted a similar query to yours some time ago about my .22 version and I was advised to gently prise off upwards (carefully please!) the wooden hand guard in front of the bolt and behind the sight and examine the marks on the barrel proper which is revealed when you remove it.

Enjoy.

Dave

Dave - have just had the courage to do this and it has the following marks:

On one side -

M

16

SH

(a crown)

GR

(crossed flags?)

P

In the top -

BN

406

.410 (in a diamond)

2 1/2"

31/4

(?? nsper)

On the other side -

3278

R

Any thoughts?

Regards.

SPN

Maldon

[TonyE]

The Crown/GR/Crossed Pennants/P is the original military proof and it looks like you have the original 1916 barrel judging by the inspection marks.

Also, at some time in its life it was commercially converted to a .410 shotgun indicated by the ".410" in diamond and the cartridge case length of 2 1/2 inches. The other mark says "3 1/4 tons per square inch" (although the square is usually stamped as an actual square symbol.

A photo would help on the other marks as the serial seems to be 3278R.

Regards

tonyE

[stephen p nunn]

The Crown/GR/Crossed Pennants/P is the original military proof and it looks like you have the original 1916 barrel judging by the inspection marks.

Also, at some time in its life it was commercially converted to a .410 shotgun indicated by the ".410" in diamond and the cartridge case length of 2 1/2 inches. The other mark says "3 1/4 tons per square inch" (although the square is usually stamped as an actual square symbol.

A photo would help on the other marks as the serial seems to be 3278R.

Regards

tonyE

That's great Tony. Thank you very much. What a mixture of parts - 1916 to 1946! The booklet is really interesting as well - 'Musketry Regulations 1909 (reprinted with amendments 1912)'. At least I now know what the parts are called!

Thanks for all your help and support.

SPN

Maldon