Yet another Aussie.

Recently picked up a 1944 WW2 Australian SMLE to go with my '21 (rebarreled in '42 and a real sweet shooter). It looked good with obvious bolt problems keeping the price down ($300.00). At home found No. 4 innards in the bolt which i've switched out for proper No. 1 parts and with some stoning on sear and trigger now works perfectly. The rifle is very similar to the example in the knowledge library, with similar finish and non-numbered but dated barrel shank. Forend and butt are both serialed to the rifle. The wood is in excellent condition with perfect fit to body and copper blocks with uniform contact on lugs. Bore is very good to excellent with very sharp rifling and no darkening. The bolt is not original but is a Lithgow. It has been re-numbered to this rifle. Many parts are locally sourced as with the library example but some are clearly re-cycled and I'm curious if this is typical of the time period or clearly later replacements. Specifically, the nosecap, and buttplate, are both Lithgow but not as on the library example, and the rear sight protector and hinged band don't appear to be Australian. If it shoots as well as my '21/'42 it may be a keeper. Otherwise I'll probably sell it on to help someone get a nice first SMLE at a very reasonable cost.

Lithgow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

obvious bolt problems

---

By that you mean a forced match bolt?

BAR: I suspect an armourer replacement bolt that later suffered some kind of part breakage leading to a private owner inserting very poorly fitting and incorrect parts (ie. No. 4 striker and cocking piece). The striker was loose and the rear end stood a few threads proud of the cocking piece. I neglected to mention that there are traces of yellow paint on the nose of the forend so perhaps the rifle had bolt issues while still in service? As of now i have a very nice two-stage pull with crisp let-off.

Ridolpho

Have had this rifle to the range a couple of times now. Found that, in addition to the original bolt problems, the rifle was not even close to zeroed (about 8 inches low) even though the front blade is staked and has the yellow paint on it which, I gather, indicates "Cadet use". In keeping with the general excellent condition of wood and metal it wants to shoot and my bolt repairs and trigger pull adjustment seem bang on (Thank you P. Laidler and other technical contributors on Milsurps!). My question is to the Aussies out there- what were these yellow painted Cadet rifles used for and by whom? This one's obviously been handled a fair bit but shot not much at all. Might they have been used in training armourers with things like bolt parts/ sight blades replaced repeatedly? In any case, it's fast becoming one of my favorites. Attached photo shows a 5 shot group at 100 yards with sight set on 200 and six-oclock hold.

Ridolpho

Cadet use yellow. BLOODY SQUARE BASHING or going bush training. Green = range practice smaller number to maintain.

Bindi2: So are we talking about cadets at an academy or school or merely local youth organization types? As shown back in the original post, whilst it does have normal handling marks the overall appearance and condition don't suggest intense use- rather careful maintanence.

Ridolpho

Schools ranging from public to private with abuse and care from both ends of the spectrum. Don't forget the armoury will have had more rifles in it than the maximum # of cadets. May be a square basher from the back racks. Then there was the naval and air cadets