Page 1 of 1

Markings that shouldn't be?

Posted: Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:28 pm
by GrampyTom
Hi, Guys.
On page 11 of the latest edition of the journal, 2Q 2019, I had a mystery solved; that crazy Q with two legs I puzzled over is a two leafed apple. So far, so good...... The info about the dates this mark was used has opened a whole new mystery.......My 81D has not just one, but two of these fruity entities stamped side-by-side with an illegible character next to them that looks kinda like a shamrock with a couple of berries under the bottom leaves...........The real mystery here is that this is not a 1925-1928 model 8 rifle, it is an 81D dates from 1948! I love this stuff! Anybody have any ideas what's up? One thing over 60 years of collecting have taught me is that the "rules" have many unexpected exceptions.

Re: Markings that shouldn't be?

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:09 pm
by 81police
Hi GrampyTom,

For one, love your 81D. I keep a database on existing 81D (very few of them) and Id love to know yours to see where it fits into the range!!!

Those markings are fitters/inspectors stamps. For normal rifles they would have been located at the bottom of the receiver, but for a grade level such as yours they wanted to keep everything clean and as much room for engraving so they could, so they moved them under the forearm.

Re: Markings that shouldn't be?

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:14 pm
by GrampyTom
The problem is that these apples are only supposed to have been used on guns ,mod 8s, from 1925 to 1928.

Re: Markings that shouldn't be?

Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:18 pm
by 81police
You're probably taking info from the Henwood book. Henwood, supported by many others, did a fantastic job of gathering research, original documents, and making observations. The bit about the apple marks were probably his observations. Your markings are normal.

Re: Markings that shouldn't be?

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:11 pm
by GrampyTom
Thanks, Cam.