DP Enfields

[Green Glow]

What should be the final word on DP'ed Enfields is: they have two holes in the receiver. Drilled. Steel bar inserted. Take out the steel bar, still two drilled holes in the reciever. I've never seen this actually stated in plain English. How/why would you try to fire one? There's a pair of holes drilled in the reciever dude.

 

[Demi-human]

There’s a pair of holes drilled in my Savage receiver. They let out the gas in case of a head separation.

I assume there is an ejection port in it as well. Do these weaken the receiver?

Many rifles are parts kits which have had the receiver sawn in twain. These are them welded together to rebuild the firearm.

The point being, like hunting, it’s the size and location of the holes that’s important.

Have you recently come across a story of one blowing up?

 

[CapnMac]

It was my understanding that Drill Purpose (DP) rifles were so designated as having failed one or more fitness tests for being a serviceable, firing, rifle, per the standards of HM Ministry of Defence. Now, I could have that wrong. The way the UK does "drill" is unique.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

My understanding is that DP Enfields have been found unfit for firing with live ammunition.

 

[Demi-human]

My understanding is that DP Enfields have been found unfit for firing with live ammunition.

Ah. So it’s not just the holes, per se.
I have a better understanding of what we’re talking about now, thanks!

So it could be anything from the metallurgy to simple headspace.

Hmm. Yup. I agree, why try to fire something like that, when the work could be put into a job that buys a new rifle. Especially nowadays.

I’m not very sentimental though…

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

If a critical component such as the bolt, barrel or receiver is actually marked with the DP stamp, it's a non-shooter period.

Some were relegated to Drill Purpose because critical parts failed QC inspection for various compelling reasons; some were salvaged after a fire or submersion and their metallurgy was considered compromised.

Drill can mean things like bayonet practice and parachute training, where a rifle needs to be present but not actually fired.

 

[lysanderxiii]

According to Ian Skennerton, Drill Purpose Rifles were for cadets where a rifle was required, but a real rifle was not considered desirable due to UK gun laws. They were made from both rejected rifles and fully serviceable, but surplus rifles, and parts. I have several DP magazines that are perfectly serviceable. The receivers were machined, cut or drilled so as the actions was so weakened to be unserviceable, the barrel was welded to the receiver and the bolt and bolt head were also cut so as to weaken them. Since the conversion to DP was done at various places, from units to the factory, the exact nature of the alteration varies.

 

[Mosin77]

The problem as I recall is that the official spec says “drill purpose rifles shall be assembled as far as possible with parts which do not meet the standards required for service.” So although undoubtedly there are some (a minority) of perfectly fine rifles that were relegated to DP because some base needed guns for the cadets pronto, the reality is that today we have absolutely no idea why a gun may have been relegated to DP status, and unless someone has access to a set of armorer’s gauges and the know-how to use them, shooting one of these has to be considered a very risky proposition. They could have all sorts of issues: cracked or warped receivers, steel whose temper has been lost in a fire, bolt lugs worn, etc. Not worth my face to save some money on an old rifle.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The problem as I recall is that the official spec says “drill purpose rifles shall be assembled as far as possible with parts which do not meet the standards required for service.” So although undoubtedly there are some (a minority) of perfectly fine rifles that were relegated to DP because some base needed guns for the cadets pronto, the reality is that today we have absolutely no idea why a gun may have been relegated to DP status, and unless someone has access to a set of armorer’s gauges and the know-how to use them, shooting one of these has to be considered a very risky proposition. They could have all sorts of issues: cracked or warped receivers, steel whose temper has been lost in a fire, bolt lugs worn, etc. Not worth my face to save some money on an old rifle.

Whether they were serviceable or not before conversion is really immaterial. During conversion there were cut, or otherwise mutilated so as to be so weak they are unserviceable. They were intentionally made unsafe, so shooting one would be the ultimate folly.

 

[Mosin77]

Whether they were serviceable or not before conversion is really immaterial. During conversion there were cut, or otherwise mutilated so as to be so weak they are unserviceable. They were intentionally made unsafe, so shooting one would be the ultimate folly.

Agreed. Though I’m not sure all were mutilated. It would have been better if they were. Say, a big hole drilled in the chamber right where it can be easily seen but wouldn’t detract from the ability to work the action in any way.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Agreed. Though I’m not sure all were mutilated. It would have been better if they were. Say, a big hole drilled in the chamber right where it can be easily seen but wouldn’t detract from the ability to work the action in any way.

Sometimes that's exactly what they did, but the DQ processes were all over the place depending on who was doing the work:



I looked into the DP processes a few years ago after I bought a Pattern 14 with a number of DP-marked parts. After a close inspection, my best guess was that the action had been lightly sporterized and then later 'remilitarized' using surplus DP-marked stock and furniture. The barrelled action was completely unaltered and lacked DP markings (nice bore) and I trusted the previous owner when he said it shot just fine.

I shot it a few times myself before investing in a brand new walnut military stock and new barrel bands:

 

[Demi-human]

Wowza! I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing this type of rifle. But if I had, judging by Dave’s pics, I sure as the sky is blue wouldn’t have tried to fire it! Holy cow.
I had three different smiths look at a blemish on a pump rifle, just to be certain the weld was factory done.

I suppose some human’s will to survive isn’t as strong?

 

[Slamfire]

This is a drill purpose receiver











I will bet the receiver was tack welded to the barrel using an acetylene torch and welding rods. That removed the heat treat, and when the receiver was rebarreled and fired, the receiver set back.

The thing is, drill rifles were never meant to be fired again. They could have all sorts of mis treatment that a builder won't found out till later! Like Big Badda Boom later.

Be afraid, be very afraid of drill rifle conversions.

 

[lysanderxiii]

This is a drill purpose receiver

View attachment 1113081


View attachment 1113082

View attachment 1113083


View attachment 1113084

I will bet the receiver was tack welded to the barrel using an acetylene torch and welding rods. That removed the heat treat, and when the receiver was rebarreled and fired, the receiver set back.

The thing is, drill rifles were never meant to be fired again. They could have all sorts of mis treatment that a builder won't found out till later! Like Big Badda Boom later.

Be afraid, be very afraid of drill rifle conversions.

Exactly!

Size and shape being correct are meaningless if the material properties have been changed by heating or welding.