[Ron Wood]

The question is not whether the British proof marked weapons, the disparity lies in the use of â??captureâ? and â??spoils of warâ?. Just like the common use of â??capture papersâ? is a misnomer. The paper no more indicates that the weapon was â??capturedâ? by the individual possessing it than the markings on a British proofed weapon indicates it was â??capturedâ?. The â??capture papersâ? are merely authorization to possess and transport a weapon by a soldier. It may have been captured, won in a poker game or swapped for a carton of cigarettes. Likewise as I understand it, the laws of Britain require that all guns not made in England and brought into country, military or commercial, be proofed to British standards, therefore there is no connotation of â??captureâ? involved.

Tacâ??s statement that â??we never 'capture marked' anything we took off the enemyâ? is accurate in light of the above. The assertion that â??Nor do we put import marks on any weapon like you do in the USA to show the importer's name/companyâ? may be splitting hairs a wee bit, since the proofing requirement and â??Not English Makeâ? are de facto import marks.