My most interesting rifle.

[5thBatt]

The only Lithgow part on the rifle is the receiver dated 1939 with no cutoff slot, everything else appears to be from the original rifle.
No FTR, DP...etc markings.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Son]

There's a short bit in one of Ian Skennerton's works that tells of receiver replacements being done at Lithgow. Much the same as John R's story over on the ZF thread, except IIRC these were only done at the factory.

In trying to get my head around the need for replacing a receiver, I suppose (and this is all supposition) at a time when Great Britain had just lost many thousands of weapons at Normandy and was under threat of invasion... Australia was gearing up and needing more weapons than we could produce.

Production figures put new rifles at only about ten per day in 1939-1940. Perhaps it was shortages of good aged stock blanks that controlled new rifle production... They would have only been cutting enough to replace the slow useage through the thirties. I don't know how long they had to dry for, but by the fiscal year from 1941 to 1942 rifle production got to around 375 per day.

Shortages of stocks would make repairing/ replacing receivers on otherwise functional old weapons very attractive. Every one that came from repair was one more than they could assemble new, without being a strain on wood supply.

I don't know what your thoughts are, but it is a very interesting rifle indeed.

As an afterthought, does it have an assembly number on the rear top of the receiver?

[5thBatt]

There's a short bit in one of Ian Skennerton's works that tells of receiver replacements being done at Lithgow. Much the same as John R's story over on the ZF thread, except IIRC these were only done at the factory.

In trying to get my head around the need for replacing a receiver, I suppose (and this is all supposition) at a time when Great Britain had just lost many thousands of weapons at Normandy and was under threat of invasion... Australia was gearing up and needing more weapons than we could produce.

Production figures put new rifles at only about ten per day in 1939-1940. Perhaps it was shortages of good aged stock blanks that controlled new rifle production... They would have only been cutting enough to replace the slow useage through the thirties. I don't know how long they had to dry for, but by the fiscal year from 1941 to 1942 rifle production got to around 375 per day.

Shortages of stocks would make repairing/ replacing receivers on otherwise functional old weapons very attractive. Every one that came from repair was one more than they could assemble new, without being a strain on wood supply.

I don't know what your thoughts are, but it is a very interesting rifle indeed.

As an afterthought, does it have an assembly number on the rear top of the receiver?

Hi Son, yes it does have a assembly number, that one of the most interesting things about it.
I have seen this number refered to as the 'batch number' or 'Proofed Action Assembly (PAA) number' if it was a 'batch number' which implies to me a number given to a 'batch' of receivers for quality control reasons, all is fine
but if it a 'PAA' number which indicates assembly & proof firing, then why use the original BSA bolt when the action allready has a bolt fitted & matched???
as the action is a 1939 Lithgow MkIII* with no cutoff slot (normal Lithgow production in 1939 was MkIII with cutoff) saying it a normal production receiver stolen from another rifle (as some have implied) does not seem to fit.
In short
PS Ian used this rifle as an example in the new book The Lee-Enfield.

edited to add, The assembley number has not been applied to the underside of the bolt handle.

[Bindi2]

The PAA was used to keep proofed action and bolt together before the serial # was stamped on. Your rifle is a bitzer, Lithgow body with BSA bolt etc. So what original reciever damaged in action every thing else ok part from spares bin out the door back in action. When shortages were the norm use what you can when you can. The FTR programme on No4s show mix and match was normal. The returning of borrowed rifles by Britain to Australia that needed repairing was highly likely

[Thunderbox]

The trouble with "replacing the receiver" is that a new receiver is going to have to perfectly match the bolt, sear, cocking piece, barrel indexing, barrel headspacing, forend & draws bedding of the old receiver...... It makes much more sense to strip a rifle completely and throw the good bits into bins to be refinished.

You see a few rifles with odd receivers in UK, but its usually where someone has found a nice all-matching deactivated rifle and then inserted a renumbered receiver & barrel to match the woodwork...

[5thBatt]

The trouble with "replacing the receiver" is that a new receiver is going to have to perfectly match the bolt, sear, cocking piece, barrel indexing, barrel headspacing, forend & draws bedding of the old receiver...... It makes much more sense to strip a rifle completely and throw the good bits into bins to be refinished.

This is my point exactly, why just replace the receiver when it would be so much easier to drop a complete 'Proofed Action Assembly' into the woodwork!!???? either way you are going to end up with good spare parts left over, why breakup what is basicly a new rifle, to repair an old rifle!

This rifle is just too easy for people to just dismiss as a parts/bitzer rifle & believe me, if it had a cutoff slot (as it should for a 1939 & where i come upto a brick wall ) i would have long ago sold it off as just that.

[Son]

This is my point exactly, why just replace the receiver when it would be so much easier to drop a complete 'Proofed Action Assembly' into the woodwork!!???? either way you are going to end up with good spare parts left over, why breakup what is basicly a new rifle, to repair an old rifle!

.

Maybe that's exactly the point. You are looking at the period prior to the feeder factories being set up begining late 1941. Lithgow were most probably making parts in runs. Doing receivers for a period, then making other castings eg nosecaps, triggerguards, bolt bodies etc and steadilly assembling rifles at a rate of ten per day as I said above. Once the feeder factories started, Lithgow could concentrate on receivers, barrels and assembling while the rest of the components came from elsewhere. Looking at Lithgow's production figures, they never did better than 40,000 per year on their own even at peak production during WW1, yet after the feeder factories were up and running they hit 82,000 then after the woodwork went to Slazengers, 136,000 then 113,000 rifles during the peak years in WW2.

No, I still think that the demands for quantity in late 1939-40 required minimum parts used for maximum repair numbers as time and parts availability were the crucial points.
Once again, only an opinion based on available information. I say the rifle is a significant piece.


Although, if you are selling that particular bitsa, I'll give you a couple of hundred for it....

[5thBatt]

Hi Son, i know where you are comin from & maybe i am being a bit pigheaded assuming a complete PAA consisted of a bolt,barrel & receiver & you had 3 rifles that needed repair ie one needing a barrel, one a bolt & one a receiver & no spare parts availible, stripping a PAA down for parts would be the way to go, but you would expect the receiver to have the cutoff slot if it was removed out of normal production for use as spares but as i have said before this receiver has no cutoff slot & so does not appear to be from a normal Lithgow production run of receivers for 1939 & so appears to be a purpose built replacement receiver or was Lithgow producing MkIII*s with no cuttoff slots in 1939?

[Son]

According to the book, they were cut for the cut off until late '41. He does say "The successive order SEEMS to have applied for the following production years" (LES P312) ... so... never say never?

I'm sure the number on the bolt and receiver are to indicate a set that has had the locking lugs lapped together to be sent to the assembly line for fitting of a barrel and bolthead ready for first proofing. The only thing that had to be taken off the receiver to use it as a replacement was a bolt body, and that would have been lobbed back in the bolt body bin.

Not pigheaded at all, mate. If the receiver only had a bolt body in it, then there goes any concern over them having to pull stuff off it or throw stuff away or having wasted too much time to be worthwhile to strip it back. Once it had a barrel fitted and a bolthead headspaced- I'd think it was definately too far along to use.

[Bindi2]

Maybe the bolt body failed inspection before numbering. Was the slot milled before or after proofing considering the changes from a slot to nil to slot