What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

3 Pounder Primer query...

A

ammofo

Well-Known Member
Picked up this naval 3 pounder (Mk II?) dated 17.7.00, but is that a date on the primer of 9/14 ? It looks to have been re-used due to all the arrows, but as ever I look forward to the more informed opinions of others !!
DSC01268.jpg
 
The case is 1900 & I think the `crows feet are acceptance ones.
Usually a reload would have dates & lot No`s stamped out & new ones added.
There are some `defaced` marks so could have been reloaded.
Therefore I think the case was made in 1900 but not loaded or primed until later - hence the older primer
I have a lot of 3 pr cases from as early as 1900 to 1970`s that have been used as blanks so there are lots of defaced stampings plus blank - some must have had an interesting life!
 
Are you happy that the 9/14 is a date on the primer then?

(14 years seems like a long delay, unless of course it did have a few reloads)
 
That will do me !!.....it can now 'sneak' into my WW1 collection despite the 1900 date.
Thanks for the help.
 
The case was made by B - Birmingham Metals & Munitions Co., Adderley Park Rolling Mills, Birmingham.

I can see at least three 'F's - indicating that it has been filled at least three times.

The case been converted to take a screw in primer (asterisk after mark) and has been annealed after firing at least twice (encircled 'A' and two punch dabs).

TimG
 
Last edited:
Tim,

Is that an asterisk by the Mark, or might it be head-to-head pheons showing the case as scrap?



Tom.
 
Thanks for all the extra info Tim. All that filling and tinkering would definitely account for the 14 year gap between case creation and current primer.
 
I'd looked at that (as I'm used to seeing it occasionally on military tools). Even with a magnifying glass it's hard to see whether it is one mark or two. Either way, there are only five lines rather than the six that both possibilities would be. So either it's a poorly struck asterisk or two arrows overlapping (or two with one being badly struck).




Snufkin said:
Tim,

Is that an asterisk by the Mark, or might it be head-to-head pheons showing the case as scrap?




Tom.
Click to expand...
 
Tom,

I see your point. However, on 3PR and 6PR cases, an asterisk following the Mark Number denotes the case has been converted from percussion cap to screw-in percussion primer. (It's an Admiralty thing)

TimG

P.S. The condemned mark of two tip to tip pheons should be encircled.
 
Last edited:
Tim,

Thanks for that. One reason why I was questioning an asterisk was that I thought the convention (and I'm very probably in error here) was that the Mark notation was such that the top of the Roman numeral was towards the case rim; in which case, if an asterisk, then it was preceding the Mark number - as Mark *II.

I agree that a condemnation mark should be within a circle, but I'm convinced I've seen otherwise... (Edit: having subsequently browsed various sources I can't find any evidence for a condemnation mark without a circle.)




Tom.
 
Last edited:
As a slight aside on this matter, I've never seen a circle around the double arrow mark on military tools 'sold out of service', but I acknowledge that this may be a little like comparing apples with oranges. To be fair, to see the double arrow on tools is in itself VERY rare as most were pilfered or sold as unused surplus - especially during times of mass over production such as at the tail end of WW2. (I collect, buy and sell hundreds of WW1 and WW2 military tools)
 
Tom.

You're quite right, the asterisk should be a suffix and not a prefix. But, without any orientation clues it would be an easy mistake to make.

TimG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top