SMLE No1 MkIII with DP marking on stock

NaviDave

CGN frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
149   0   0
Location
Manitoba
I recently acquired a SMLE that appears to be in good shape. The end is not shot out and the bolt head space looks fine.

However, I spotted a DP stamp on the stock. There is no such stamping anywhere else on the firearm and I see an 18.5 tons per inch stamp (same as the other two SMLE's that I own). From my research, this indicates a maximum pressure of about 39,000 psi.

What are the odds that this is safe to fire? Is it even worth taking it to the gunsmith to look over?
 
Dp

I have read that DP stands for "Drill Purpose" and means the rifle is not safe to fire. It could be that the stock from a DP rifle has been put on a sound gun, but I would check it out very carefully!
Geoff
 
I am not sure how it can really be checked. I will bring it to the local gun smith - but the risk/reward is poor.

I think I may have my first write-off...
 
Id wait for the LE experts to chime in. I think you can check it yourself. Im pretty sure DP rifles had the chambers drilled.....but wait for someone more knowledgeable then I
 
There are different reasons why a SMLE might have gotten the Drill Purpose mark. It may be ok to fire; good gunsmith will provide good advice, so yup, good idea to go and ask.
 
It sounds like a DP stock was put on a sporterized rifle. There's a quantity of such wood so that's my guess if there's no DP stamps anywhere on the metal.
 
Yes - I have triple checked - no DP stamp anywhere on the metal. I will measure the headspace as well. The local gunsmith is only a few blocks away...

The 18.5 tons per inch stamp seems to indicate mild 150gr jacketed loads only - perhaps using H335. I was going to get the Lyman 200gr .314 GC mold - but I will look for something in the 160-170gr range for plinking.

Thanks all!
 
18.5 long tons is the standard for .303" rifles. It means that it was commercially proofed after release from stores. The rifle was judged suitable for use with standard .303" ammunition.
It sounds as if a stock from a DP rifle was used.
Usually DP stamps are on major metal components.
Standard British practice was NOT to drill holes in chambers. Stop and think about this - it doesn't make the rifle unfirable but does make it very dangerous.
Arms were classified as DP for many reasons. Being unsafe to shoot may have been one reason, but certainly not the only one.
 
The DP mark would have been applied while in military ownership. The commercial proofmarks would have been applied after being sold by the military and test fired in a proofhouse. The DP marks would not get applied after that. I think your rifle will be just fine.
 
....sounds like you might have a shooter there, but I did read of one incident, where someone fired a chamber-drilled DP-marked No1MkIII, and kinda wrecked his thumb... messy pictures...

Yeah, if it's close by, it might be worth your while to get a knowledgeable eyeball on that gun. So far, all I've heard is internet-based commentary, if you know what I mean... !!
 
D.P. As above, = butt, fore end, "body barrel, bolt"

Page12Secs63-64.jpg


Page-03.jpg


And the vary obvious that cost people the end of their thumb. (just for you Badger) ;)

DPvent.jpg


snapshot22a.jpg


L59A1_vent.jpg


L59A1_unidentified_bolt.gif
 
I still cannot get that thread out of my mind from Milsurps.com where the gent actually fired a DP rifle (the one you have in your post, BigEd). I know he took it to a gunsmith to have it checked out and brought back but how can you miss those two huge holes in the left and right sides of the receiver ? A quick search online would have shown otherwise and the alarm bells should have been ringing at that point.

Granted some DP rifles were brought back at arsenal level and made into a shooter again despite being DP marked in some places but this gent's rifle was one that forever stayed a DP rifle.

In any event, it is a shame he lost his thumb but it teaches everyone here, new or old shooter, that we must know our firearms inside and out.

NaviDave, if you see similarities on your rifle with those reference pictures above, DO NOT SHOOT HER!. If you do not, I advise you to take her to a gun smith that you not only trust but also knows a thing or two about milsurps.

Worst case scenario, pull her apart, take detailed pictures of anything that looks out of the ordinary and post them here and the experts can chime in.
 
As a few have already stated, not all DP marked rifles are unsafe to fire. There are those that the damage or deactivation is obvious, but there are some that still serviceable.
I have one No.1 Mk.3 that shoots good groups and has taken many deer since the early 50s without incident. There is no oversized chamber, failed bore or grooves, drilled barrel or any such thing in fact, the rifle is in very good shape! Those knowing more history of these LEs have surmised, amongst other reasons, that a perfectly good rifle could have been pulled from stock and DP marked just to fill the need of a drill rifle as they were damaged or as training numbers increased.
With that said, see a gunsmith and get a professional opinion...and let us know how it turns out. Good Luck!
 
According to most experts (real ones) DP or EY rifles may have issues that are not visible to the casual observer, cracks that a casual inspection might miss, or fractures in critical locations. But if it's not in the metal, it's not DP or EY.

As far as Ed's complaint goes, he provided a wealth of collected, government published material in PDF form, to several forums to which he belonged. Most of which was published by the various Queens printers in the Commonwealth. Steve Redgewell of 303 British felt that a copyright infringement was taking place and wrote to the admin of each forum explaining how the sky was about to fall on them for hosting these images online. Many of those admins (understandably worried - no one makes money from these boards) not only removed the material, but also banned Ed, who protested (quite forcefully - and in my opinion accurately) that there was no copyright violation taking place - the documents in question were historical in nature and being used by the forum members for scholarly reasons in their original form, not being redrafted and sold for profit (!). Ed's not happy, which I understand, after the effort he put in collecting and converting those documents to PDF. Badger (Doug)'s not happy either, and I get that too - no one wants to see lawsuits flung around for people who invest their time and money building up a forum, and I'd certainly protect myself from that kind of thing. I feel sort of like Rodney King on this one, as I'm sure both Ed and Doug had the best intentions.
 
Last edited:
Ed I want to thank you for posting those images and documents, they really helped me understand my SMLE where other websites did not even briefly go into detail on the markings.

I hope this can be solved quickly so we can get back at the task at hand; helping this Navidave with his rifle.
 
Back to the issue at point.

Many times, a rifle would be marked DP simply bcause they needed drill rifles and didn`t have enough. These would be looked after at a lower standard, of course, appearance being everything in drill. Sometimes, DP rifles would be rebuilt and issued for live-fire use, given that rifles were needed. Remember, Parliament has kept the Army as broke as possible for the last 350 years: since the end of the Civil War.

NOT ALL DP rifles are unsafe to fire. I have a DP SMLE Mark I*** which I have been shooting for the last 45 years with no problems. Out of respect to something more than a century old, I keep my pressures sane, that`s all.

British rifles were proofed for a SERVICE pressure of 18-1/2 Imperial Long Tons per square inch which is 41,440 pounds per square inch. That is the standard pressure which you were supposed to get from military mmo: a 174-grain bullet at 2440 ft per second, fired with Cordite, which is hot stuff. The Imperial Long Ton is made up of 20 hundredweights (c`wt) each of 112 pounds, each cw`t being 4 quarters each of 28 pounds, each quarter being of 2 stone of 14 pounds each. The overpressure required was obtained by using a fully-loaded Mark VII-type Ball round with the bullet replaced with a 215-grain RN slug of the old Mark VI type. This was the Proof round Mark III - Q Mark III. It generated about a third overpressure. Following this Proofing, the rifle was subjected to a SECOND proving, this with a Mark VII Ball round which had been dipped in lightweight motor oil (Rangoon Oil) and allowed to drain for a few seconds. This put ALL of the thrust onto the bolthead and MATED the locking-lugs into the locking-recesses of the rifle. THIS is why you shouldn`t go changing bolts about in Lee-Enfield rifles: because they are individually MATED as sets.

At times, OLDER rifles would be DP-marked even though still safe to fire. This likely is how my Mark I*** became DP`d...... before it was scrapped. I rebuilt it from scrapped parts at the time that the British were clearing out most of their remaining SMLE stuff, selling it for scrap.

The marking to be absolutely TERRIFIED of is a two-inch "ZF" painted on the right side of the Butt. This means that there is something terribly amiss with the rifle (the "Z") which cannot be cured at anything short of Factory (the "F") level.

DP is not a death sentence for a rifle, although ZF IS a death sentence, the Factory now having been turned into a Museum and a housing estate.

Hope this is of some help.
.
 
smellie

18.5 tsi is the normal operating pressure of the Mk.7 round, the proof test rounds were 23 to 25 tsi. ;) Also after proofing with the oiled proof cartridge the Enfield was checked with a .067 headspace gage. If the bolt closed on the .067 gage the Enfield failed proofing for excessive lug setback.

PagesfromPam-11-2a-1.jpg


PagesfromPam-11a.jpg


And this is why if anyone tells you to lube your cartridge cases to fireform them or for any other reason, they should be hit over the head with a ball peen hammer to leave an impression on their mind..

TBOSA-1.jpg


TBOSA-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Big Ed! My bad! Don't have the 29 book handy, so I work from the 09 version. Proof rounds have been improvised from Mark VII with the bullet swap, though, and pressures are in about the same range.

Several years ago I needed a Proof round and didn't want to fire the only one in my collection, so I loaded up a round a couple grains over absolute MAX for a 150 and stuffed a 180 into it. Worked okay. Rifle went "pop" but the brass was finished. P-14 still shooting one-holers.

Thanks for the specs. They are now in my references.
.
 
I have several ross rifles with DP stamped all over them. However with new barrels they shoot great.
Big Ed, it really bothers me stuff like that. I am a bit of a lurker here as I am not real knowledgable but I do enjoy the posts from people who are. I hope you continue.
 
Back
Top Bottom