|
|
Post by britplumber on Mar 31, 2010 20:29:07 GMT 1
Today I picked up a couple of Enfield DD Brens I bought last month via e-mail. I was quite suprised to see one had a matching Mk1 barrel nut still fitted which was nice.
When I got home I went through the usual strip down for a quick clean and inspect the quality of the chop job.
I removed the first lower slide and the slide still had its original M serial number which I thought to my self, never mind, it dosn't match the gun but its a nice early Inglis lower to fit on my 1941 Inglis DD with a incorrect Mk1m lower. I had a quick check on my register to see if anyone owned the matching gun, and it was there, and, it was only my blooming DD Inglis! So a quick change over and there back as one again, unfortunatly the one on the Inglis didn't match the Enfield gun.
The second gun had a Mk1m lower, also with the original F serial number intact, a quick check on the register showed this gun is a UK deact and I've now contacted that owner to see what he has. This gun also had a early, rounded cocking handle which I'll be removing and fitting to one of the 1938s
Anyway, this got me to thinking about a thread for people who have mismatched parts and I wondered if it was worth a thread? I've matched 3 upper to lowers now so the chances must fairly reasonable.
What do you guys think??
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Mar 31, 2010 21:47:25 GMT 1
Not wishing to be negative, but is it wise to mix parts between different deacts in this way? In the case of post-95 spec deact Brens you could end up with guns that have non-matching proof house deactivation stamps on their slides - not something I would personally want.
Happy to be corrected if I'm worrying unnecessarily.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by britplumber on Mar 31, 2010 21:57:16 GMT 1
Not wishing to be negative, but is it wise to mix parts between different deacts in this way? In the case of post-95 spec deact Brens you could end up with guns that have non-matching proof house deactivation stamps on their slides - not something I would personally want. Happy to be corrected if I'm worrying unnecessarily. Mark I can see where your coming from, I cant see a problem with mixing difrently marked parts as that is a stamp to prove its deactivated, that wouldn't change. There may be a problem with fiiting a pre 95 lower onto a post 95 gun due to the differing spec. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Mar 31, 2010 22:04:57 GMT 1
You and I know it makes no odds in the real world, but from what I've read the authorities tend to take a dim view of any form of 'interference' with a deact. There's a 2005 thread on the WWII Reenacting forum that mentions a similar scenario: www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=6712Obviously there's no evidence of a swap if you're swapping between two pre-95 spec Brens that have no proof house mark on the lower, or two post-95 Brens that have the same proof house and year mark on them. But otherwise I would personally avoid it. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by britplumber on Mar 31, 2010 22:51:37 GMT 1
Agh, that is my thread! It was complete rubbish and after many arguing letters to the Police (And some items being sent to the forensic science labs) my Items were returned to me. Basicly, some one in the Police had turned a routine misdaminer (I hadn't realised I need to inform the Police that as a Sect. 1 firearms licence holder I had moved address, despite the weapons still being held in a safe at my parents house) into a full blown criminal investigation. All my collection was confiscated, and initially about half was returned, the other half were with held for silly reasons like the serial numbers not matching between upper and lower, pre 95 STENs that can be cocked etc. In the end, a request was made to the proof house and a number were taken to the Birmingham proof house for them to check (At public expence), they were returned to me by another police man who told me the investigating officer had been asked by the proof master, why my weapons had been confiscated when they were OK. The last thing they tried to pin on me was possesion of a prohibited weapon, namely a .32 revolver. I sent a copy of the Home office guide to firearms (which they would have had) highlighting the line that states my S & W .32" Rimfire revolver No.1 1/2 is obsolete calibre. They wouldn't beleive this so it was sent to the forensic science lab and they returned it as Obsolete, and could find no trace of it being fired and as there was a piece missing, unlikely to ever operate again!
Did I ever get an appology, NO
Did the investigating officer get a reprimand, No, Promoted Yes!
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Apr 1, 2010 9:16:03 GMT 1
Aha! It's a small world.  Interesting - so was the upshot (on the Brens) that the Proof House didn't care about non-matching deactivation stamps, or did they - as a formality - re-certify them as deactivated? It does rather illustrate that: (a) the Police dislike deacts, and; (b) the original 1968 Firearms Act wasn't very well drafted when it comes to things that aren't straightforward licensable firearms. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Apr 1, 2010 17:10:43 GMT 1
That was a nice stroke of luck brit,well done :-)
Mark,does your IP address resolve to a desk at the Home Office ? LOL (only joking)
ATB Kevin
|
|
|
|
Post by britplumber on Apr 1, 2010 20:11:02 GMT 1
Kev, My luck dosn't extend to a ZGB to display my New mag on though!
Mark, the proof house really wern't intrested. As far as they were concerned, they got there money (They are a business after all) from the public coffers, and didn't need to anyhting to the guns. They were retuned to me without an appology, and as no remedial work was required, I assume all was all OK. The best part of the excercise was that my firearms were lost and the licencing department had to ring around the various regional HQs looking for them. When they were found, they had been in a basement flood and there was some considerable damage to both my rifle and my matched shotguns, they didn't tell me this untill I collected them and noticed the damage. More public money wasted on repairing and replacing parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by britplumber on Apr 2, 2010 12:03:57 GMT 1
Heres my Revolver that was confiscated as a prohibited weapon, as you can see, it was returned missing a major part, this is another story all on its own. When it was returned to me as a 'Antique Weapon' I asked where the cylinder was, and the reply was 'Oh was it there before', after some discussion with the officer, he said 'If we can't find it, we would have to pay for a new one to be made', I replied, 'You Would be breaking the law as its not an antique'! He shut up after that.  |
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Apr 2, 2010 20:37:59 GMT 1
Mark,does your IP address resolve to a desk at the Home Office ? I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you... ;D Nothing so exciting I'm afraid. I have worked for a couple of government departments in the past (I'm a researcher by trade) but not at present. I merely like to keep abreast of what the legal state of play is with these things. My own experience with the London Proof House last October suggests they're a sensible bunch. You can read about it here: www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=55823Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Apr 2, 2010 21:38:57 GMT 1
".....I got the Bren to and from the Proof House using public transport"
.......you are a braver man than me ! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Apr 2, 2010 22:39:58 GMT 1
you are a braver man than me ! ;D It was certainly an 'interesting' experience. The Bren was partially dismantled, well concealed and I had a valid excuse. However, should it have come to attention of the members of Her Majesty's Constabulary, I dread to think how much grief would have ensued before it was finally established I wasn't doing anything illegal.  It's the third occasion I've taken a deact through London using public transport. The previous two occasions were taking deact rifles back from Detling and Beltring. There were no problems and they were in gun covers whereas the Bren was in a large sports bag. I live near a mainline station that goes straight into central London, so there is a bit of logic behind this. Honest. Cheers, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Apr 3, 2010 0:05:15 GMT 1
you are a braver man than me ! ;D ......The Bren was partially dismantled, well concealed and I had a valid excuse. However, should it have come to attention of the members of Her Majesty's Constabulary, I dread to think how much grief would have ensued before it was finally established I wasn't doing anything illegal. Cheers, Mark Mark,your innocence may well have been proven at your inquest .......or maybe after a couple of public inquiries ? The truth usually gets out in the end ;D  ATB Kevin |
|
