Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom
That continues to be the oddity. If it entered British service “officially” in that time period, it should have the Enfield acceptance marks. And the fact that it just coincidentally should also have missed the commercial proofing post-war? It might indeed come down to the gun having been “diverted” somewhere along the line, unprovable and unreconstructable, and never entered any official duty.
|
The diversion of the SA revolvers was on account of "the parachute menace" immediately following Dunkirk. Given the urgency (of an expected invasion) I doubt that Enfield inspection was seen as top priority! Other BPC purchases of the same period are found without inspection stamps.
We have discussed diversion before, and it is quite likely that this particular revolver was one such case.
Peter