4thGordons Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 In my experience it would be relatively unusual in British and Empire/Commonwealth service for rifles to be permanently marked to particular unit. The point about marking disks and even the extended tangs on buttplates (the relatively shortlived replacement on some MLEs) was that they were no permanent (also soft brass - easier to mark at the unit level). Marking the reciver is usually reserved for proofs, serial numbers and armourer type markings DP/EY/*/R or "sold out of service" marks etc relevant to the condition or status of the weapon. There are exceptions of course to the extent that there are Canadian (C>), Australian (D^D) and Military District (MD and State / State Police NSW etc) marks, New Zealand (NZ) and South African (U), Ireland (FF)etc as COUNTRY ownership/issue marks but I am struggling to find other examples in my notes of rifles being permanently marked (on their reciever) to a specific unit. Bayonets of course (pre WWI) were often unit marked, but in my restricted experience, I cannot recall seeing any rifles marked to particular units by stamping in the metal. Some Indian issue rifles and Candian Ross rifles have unit designations stamped into the wood of the butt but I do not recall seeing units stamped into metal. Unit designations are also more common on handguns (in my even more limited experience) - but often marked to individual officers in particular units - with the unit mentioned. I would be intersted to see other examples of rifles permanently marked to units in this way, as unit markings in general are not very well documented - Skennerton's list perhaps being the most complete but even that routinely fails to answer some questions, particularly regarding Indian markings. Frustratingly, I cannot put my hand to my copy of "The Broad Arrow" at the moment - does Skennerton identify WR specifically as a serial prefix, or just WR as a unit stamping? I hasten to add, I only own a couple of South African marked rifles and know little about marking practices specific to South Africa and nothing about the Witwatersrand Regiment; beyond what I read on their website in connection with this thread. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Chris, Attached are copies of pages 127 & 130 from Skennerton's " The Broad Arrow ". On page 127 - South Africa - Unit & Issue Markings - he shows the South African National Issue Marks, then below is the heading - Individual Units - ( Unit & Issue Markings ) Continued on page 130 of Individual Units ( Unit & Issue Markings ) - 3rd from bottom, is " W.R. " for Witwatersrand Rifles. Also remember that as far a my rifle is concerned, it is a 1909 rifle, and I have no idea of the Unit Marking practices of the South African Forces back then, or during WW1, and it seems I am not the only one. Presumably, they could have been using a marking system back then which none of us are aware of. Also, and significantly, considering Skennerton seems to have gone to great pains to research and include every marking he could find, he makes absolutely no mention of any " W.R. = Weapons Registry ". In 140 pages of markings, the only two references he makes to " W.R. " are Witwatersrand Rifles, and in the British section, " W.R. " for Worcestershire. Surely if the " W.R = Weapons Registry " theory existed, he would have presumably found it during his extensive research, and included it in his comprehensive book on the subject. Even the South African website link quoted, could not give a clear answer to the supposed connection between " W.R " and " Weapons Registry ". It sounds like the connection between " W.R " and " Weapons Registry " is nothing more than a good guess. Without clear documentary evidence to the contrary, I am still going with Skennerton of this. On a separate subject, I took a look at your interesting 4th Gordons website, and in the main heading photograph, are the soldiers carrying Lee-Enfield " Long Lees " ?, and do you know the date of the photograph ? LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 page 130. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Thanks for that -- I just turned my office upside down looking for my copy! Without success. I would happily accept WR on a unit disc or butt tang (with a date and rack number) or on a Bayonet would signify the unit. I am not convinced that is the meaning when stamped into the reciever and accompanied by a replacement serial number. but beyond what has already been discussed I can offer no further insights. I can say, as I said in an earlier post, it is an excellent example of the rifle type, regardless of the meaning of this stamping. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Chris, I just added a p.s. regarding your website. LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Chris, I just added a p.s. regarding your website. LF. Hi , to answer the PS....i was taken at Tain Camp in Summer 1909. I have several pictures in the series. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Shippingsteel, ... as clearly based on Skennerton's research, which is extensive and usually extremely reliable, the prefix of " WR " on a rifle issued to South African Forces stands for Witwatersrand Rifles ... I agree with you on the work of Skennerton, however in this case you are taking a reference in his book completely out of context, in a way which is again totally incorrect. I do have the book and it lists the unit abbreviations in there usual format as abbreviated words, for example W.R. can stand for the Witwatersrand Rifles in South Africa. The dots here are very important, and in my experience are nearly always used as such by armourers to identify which part of the wording is abbreviated, and not left out. As you mention above, the manner in which the WR (without added dots) is used as a prefix to a six-digit number is different, and is not to be associated with unit marks. Regarding the lack of mention in the book of the WR prefix, if you read the front cover Skennerton was principally concerned with the military markings, not civilian issues. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 100% with you on that one, S>S. Skenny's Broad Arrow book lists unit abbreviations that are to be found on butt disks, woodwork and other parts as placed by unit armourers, ofter with a unit rack number. It was not the practice of British or Commonwealth unit armourers to actually renumber the weapons. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 The "WR" serial number prefix on rifles out of South Africa has been confirmed to me as meaning "Weapons Register" (actually "Wapens Register" in Afrikaans..) and is a number applied to a firearm where either the weapon has no visible number or where there is any ambiguity/conflict with existing records (presumably so many Long Lees have "WR" numbers because of their typical double or triple apparent numbers). Apparently this marking system has been in effect since the 1970s, which tallies with the apparent age of the markings on some of these rifles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 It is quite humorous to note the rather silly, duplicitous and self-serving arguments put forward in this thread. On the one hand, when it suits the poster, they promote and demand documentary evidence in support of another's point of view, and on the other hand, when it suits their purpose, they are willing to promote a guessed theory which has no documentary foundation whatsoever, and then there is the " Polly Parrot - Lemming " syndrome, when the equally ill-informed post their half-penny worth in supine support, obviously knowing it is just subservient mimicry. A classic example is " WR " supposedly meaning " Weapons Registry ", then we have the foreign version " Wappen Registry ", none of which is supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever, in reality you are all guessing, so why not be honest and say that, why try to make out that you are speaking with authority or knowledge, we may as well use " Waffen Regiment ", " Weapon Replica ", " Wappen Reich ", " Washed Raspberries " or better still " What Rot ". At least I admit I am guessing as to the meaning of "WR ", and quote Skennerton, but then we are told, Oh no! his comprehensive books does not cover Civilian Markings, so it would not include any reference to " WR ", how convenient - Duh! Why not have the decency and honesty to admit " I am guessing ", you will not be demoted. Hopefully, some kind member will provide us all with the documented answer as to the real meaning of " WR ", as currently I do not know the answer, and nor does any other member posting to this thread, we are all guessing, and that is the only accurate and documented fact so far. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 On a South African issued rifle the prefix " WR " is not for Weapons Registry but rather stands for the South African Regiment designation " Witwatersrand Rifles ". LF I am sorry, but this does not look like a guess to me. It looks as though it is a definitive, unequivocal statement claiming to know. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 I am sorry, but this does not look like a guess to me. It looks as though it is a definitive, unequivocal statement claiming to know. Chris Yes, a guessed statement based on link to the information in " The Broad Arrow ", at least I had a semblance of documented information to fall back on, and no one else, including yourself has offered any documentary evidence to the contrary. You seem more concerned with scoring Brownie Points that providing soldid, documented information, why waste your time posting. As I said I am guessing, and you are guessing, why not admit that! LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 It is quite humorous to note the rather silly, duplicitous and self-serving arguments put forward in this thread. On the one hand, when it suits the poster, they promote and demand documentary evidence in support of another's point of view, and on the other hand, when it suits their purpose, they are willing to promote a guessed theory which has no documentary foundation whatsoever, and then there is the " Polly Parrot - Lemming " syndrome, when the equally ill-informed post their half-penny worth in supine support, obviously knowing it is just subservient mimicry. A classic example is " WR " supposedly meaning " Weapons Registry ", then we have the foreign version " Wappen Registry ", none of which is supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever, in reality you are all guessing, so why not be honest and say that, why try to make out that you are speaking with authority or knowledge, we may as well use " Waffen Regiment ", " Weapon Replica ", " Wappen Reich ", " Washed Raspberries " or better still " What Rot ". At least I admit I am guessing, and as to the meaning of "WR ", and quote Skennerton, but then we are told, Oh no! his comprehensive books does not cover Civilian Markings, so it would not include any reference to " WR ", how convenient - Duh! Why not have the decency and honesty to admit " I am guessing ", you will not be demoted. Hopefully, some kind member will provide us all with the documented answer as to the real meaning of " WR ", as currently I do not know the answer, and nor does any other member posting to this thread, we are all guessing, and that is the only accurate and documented fact so far. LF Fair enough. My sources were a South African Enfield collector and a South African major arms auctioneer & collector, both with long-standing links to the SA military and police. Its true they have not so far supplied documentary evidence to me - I'll see what they can produce. On the other hand, most of us are inclined to a process of deduction based on our individual and collective experience, rather than blind guess, as you put it. Some of the above arguments against "WR" being a regimental marking are completely valid; e.g. most of us know that military units almost never permanently mark the action body of a firearm. The "WR" observation has been discussed for at least five years now, and earlier iterations have pointed out that since "WR" numbers also appear on non-military and modern civilian guns of all descriptions, it is a reasonable deduction that it is not the property mark of a military unit. Skennerton has made a valient effort to document all aspects of the Enfield rifle system, but (a) he is as fallible as any researcher, which is why he is into the fifth(?) edition of his main tome; (b ) he has managed to document only a small fraction of the thousands of different marks seen on Enfield rifles. Unfortunately it has become normal for people new to Enfield collecting to seize upon Skennerton as a 100% comprehensive primary source, and thus make sweeping assumptions or extrapolations without regard to other bodies of evidence - i.e. those who are serving or retired soldiers who may have a much better insight as to what may or may not constitute military practice. A good example is the "aterisk mark on the receiver ring of a No4": the chorus will point to page x of Skennerton (which happens to refer to markings on No1s) and proclaim "rust in the bore"!. Does it mean that, on the receiver of a No4......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 (edited) I hasten to add, I only own a couple of South African marked rifles and know little about marking practices specific to South Africa and nothing about the Witwatersrand Regiment; beyond what I read on their website in connection with this thread. Chris I rather thought that this was what I was saying here. and in post number 6 when I said "The musuem number or other reference (perhaps private) seems a good guess." I believe I did indeed say I was guessing. Chris Edit: sorry this was in response to LF suggestion "that I admit I am guessing" - Thunderbox's post was not present when I started. Edited 27 January , 2012 by 4thGordons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Fair enough. My sources were a South African Enfield collector and a South African major arms auctioneer & collector, both with long-standing links to the SA military and police. Its true they have not so far supplied documentary evidence to me - I'll see what they can produce. On the other hand, most of us are inclined to a process of deduction based on our individual and collective experience, rather than blind guess, as you put it. Some of the above arguments against "WR" being a regimental marking are completely valid; e.g. most of us know that military units almost never permanently mark the action body of a firearm. The "WR" observation has been discussed for at least five years now, and earlier iterations have pointed out that since "WR" numbers also appear on non-military and modern civilian guns of all descriptions, it is a reasonable deduction that it is not the property mark of a military unit. Skennerton has made a valient effort to document all aspects of the Enfield rifle system, but (a) he is as fallible as any researcher, which is why he is into the fifth(?) edition of his main tome; (b ) he has managed to document only a small fraction of the thousands of different marks seen on Enfield rifles. Unfortunately it has become normal for people new to Enfield collecting to seize upon Skennerton as a 100% comprehensive primary source, and thus make sweeping assumptions or extrapolations without regard to other bodies of evidence - i.e. those who are serving or retired soldiers who may have a much better insight as to what may or may not constitute military practice. A good example is the "aterisk mark on the receiver ring of a No4": the chorus will point to page x of Skennerton (which happens to refer to markings on No1s) and proclaim "rust in the bore"!. Does it mean that, on the receiver of a No4......? I respect your theory as to the meaning of " WR ", but at this time it is just a theory, with no documetary support. Are you an expert on Witwatersrand Rifles, did you ever serve in the Witwatersrand Rifles, can you say catgorically that you know how any and all rifles were marked, do you actually know beyond all doubt the meaning of WR as marked on any rifle, can you prove your theory, the obvious answer is NO. There seems to be a proliferation of experts in this thread, yet their expertise seems to be in their own perception, I am a Collector, not an expert, trying to find as much information as I can. Yes, I do make an informed guess, and when someone proves to me otherwise I am pleased to learn from that information, but I have no time for arm-chair " know all " experts claiming to know everthing about everything. As I said every one who has posted to this thread, including myself is guessing the meaning of WR, respectfully, including yourself, and yet I am the only one willing to admit to it. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 100% with you on that one, S>S. Skenny's Broad Arrow book lists unit abbreviations that are to be found on butt disks, woodwork and other parts as placed by unit armourers, ofter with a unit rack number. It was not the practice of British or Commonwealth unit armourers to actually renumber the weapons. Regards TonyE Hmmm. I wonder if your little tirade of "...then there is the " Polly Parrot - Lemming " syndrome, when the equally ill-informed post their half-penny worth in supine support, obviously knowing it is just subservient mimicry. could possibly have been directed at my post above? If no one else will say it, I will. I believe you are being gratuitously offensive with some of your remarks, not just to me, but to the community of well informed, experienced and knowledgable people who post on this forum. You seem to wish to ignore what people actually say and put your own interpretation upon it, as Chris has pointed out. It may have escaped you, but Skennerton's book is called "The Broad Arrow", i.e. it deals with the military markings on Enfields. I and others have tried to point out that armourers do not routinely give weapons new serial numbers so the reference to "WR" in that book is in respect of a unit marking. It will not cover a civilian marking, whether used in Ireland as I originally postulated, or in South Africa. I thoroughly respect Skennerton's research. I have known him for forty years, but also realise that not every marking used in every depot and armoury in the last one hundred years has been recorded. There will be markings that we cannot explain at present, but research is dynamic; new information turns up all the time. It will be interesting to see what Seth can turn up in South Africa! TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Hmmm. I wonder if your little tirade of "...then there is the " Polly Parrot - Lemming " syndrome, when the equally ill-informed post their half-penny worth in supine support, obviously knowing it is just subservient mimicry. could possibly have been directed at my post above? If no one else will say it, I will. I believe you are being gratuitously offensive with some of your remarks, not just to me, but to the community of well informed, experienced and knowledgable people who post on this forum. You seem to wish to ignore what people actually say and put your own interpretation upon it, as Chris has pointed out. It may have escaped you, but Skennerton's book is called "The Broad Arrow", i.e. it deals with the military markings on Enfields. I and others have tried to point out that armourers do not routinely give weapons new serial numbers so the reference to "WR" in that book is in respect of a unit marking. It will not cover a civilian marking, whether used in Ireland as I originally postulated, or in South Africa. I thoroughly respect Skennerton's research. I have known him for forty years, but also realise that not every marking used in every depot and armoury in the last one hundred years has been recorded. There will be markings that we cannot explain at present, but research is dynamic; new information turns up all the time. It will be interesting to see what Seth can turn up in South Africa! TonyE With regard to your first paragraph, I named no names, however there is the old addage that " if the cap fits - then wear it ", and I do sincerely believe that the " Polly Parrot - Lemming " syndrome exits, and it has certainly been true of this particular thread. Again, you make another wasted post, just regurgitating the same old beat around the bush, document nothing, prove nothing, post, and I shall answer you in the same way as the other " experts ", you are just guessing as to the real meaning of " WR ", you do not actually know the true meaning of " WR ", nor can you prove your theory, you have even gone so far as to decide that you yourself designate " WR " as a purely Civilian marking! and again you do so without a shread of evidence for that theory. I would suggest that rather than we all continue to waste each others time, let us drop the subject and wait until someone who really knows what they are talking about, and can prove it with documenatry evidence, comes along and finally enlightens us all, " experts " and the uninitiated alike. LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Look up "postulate"! tONYe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Look up "postulate"! tONYe I shall not look up anything, as I have wasted enough time already, and you will excuse me if I have little or no confidence in your posts, as I am sure your definition of " postulate " will probably be as meaningless as your definition of " WR ". LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 I see that the jolly banter continues... Update: My SA contacts still say that the WR mark is definitely a serial allocated by the Registrar of the South African firearms database, and is still applied to NVN firearms going through the licensing system (bit like the way UK Proof applies an arbitrary number to NVN firearms here). The SA "Firearms Act 60 of 2000" contains an authority to issue and impose replacement firearms numbers at Sect 23 (4). Unfortunately this Act, an update of decades of other Acts, doesn't mention the actual format of the numbers in question. Since this system has been in place for over 40 years, its going to be tough to find a source for whoever came up with the number format in the first place. Next stage is to track down a SA gunsmith who has renumbered a weapon recently under police instruction. My contacts observe that the numbers are getting higher, so they are evidently all from the same original "block". Interestingly, one of my contacts is awaiting a couple of "WRxxxxx" marked Sniders, which would cast doubt on the "Witwatersrand Rifles" theory (guess, sorry) - a unit formed in about 1903 and presumably on LE1*s by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Thunderbox, Your post is very interesting, and seems to be going in a direction, which hopefully, it will lead to an accurate and documented definition of the " WR " prefix when used in conjuntion with a South African issued rifle ( firearm ). If when you next talk to your SA contacts, could you ask them when exactly this marking system may have actually started, and the original Law/Regulation which required this new numbering system. My rifle is a 1909 BSA model - described in their 1909 Catalogue as a 1909 Pattern Long Lee-Enfield Territorial Service .303 Target Rifle. With regard to the issue of numerous serial numbers, mine has only the original matching serial numbers on the bolt arm, the underside of the back sight, and the receiver, and it is just the receiver number that was xx out, and replaced with the " WR " pre-fixed number. This rifle may have originally found its way to a South African Force/Regiment, and was subsequently sold out of service, at which time, it was possibly given a new South African serial number under the " WR " Law. Presumably that Law was not in operation pre-WW1, so this rifle would have kept its orginal serial number at that time. Your date for the Witwatersrand Regiment's formation is correct, it was 1st May, 1903, they were previously the Railway Pioneer Regiment formed in 1899. LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Thunderbox, I do not know if you have seen the rifle, so I will attach 2 photographs. LF # 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 Thunderbox, In connection with your SA enquiries, on an Enfield related website, they list numerous National and Unit markings found on Enfields. Under the South African section, and as shown in the photograph on my post #19, the South African issue mark with the Broad Arrow within a " U " was issued after 1910, which ties in with my rifle's date, and the second South African issue mark with the diamond within a " U " was used after 31st May 1961. LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 January , 2012 Share Posted 27 January , 2012 On a South African issued rifle the prefix " WR " is not for Weapons Registry but rather stands for the South African Regiment designation " Witwatersrand Rifles ". ... in reality you are all guessing, so why not be honest and say that, why try to make out that you are speaking with authority or knowledge, At least I admit I am guessing as to the meaning of "WR " ... Just a quick one in reply to your earlier outburst - I never made a statement regarding the meaning of WR - it was your statement that initiated this discussion. "Nuff said" Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 January , 2012 Share Posted 28 January , 2012 Just a quick one in reply to your earlier outburst - I never made a statement regarding the meaning of WR - it was your statement that initiated this discussion. "Nuff said" Cheers, S>S I have read back over the posts, and you are correct. If you read #22-#25, I do tell you that I do not know if it is one meaning or the other, or both. But as you say - Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now