Help with MA 1945 Lithgow SMLE III* made .22 cal. Trainer SN. T1825

I have a few Questions that U may be able to help with. I have purchased an "MA 1945 Lithgow SMLE III* made .22 cal. Trainer SN. T1825" with all matching letters on Receiver, Barrel (not sleeved), Nose (sight adjustable), Rear Leaf Sight & then on the small pieces the letters MA. The Wood is All New (4 pcs.) with no signs of Oil whatsoever. I'm told it is "Un-Issued & Un-Fired" which after breaking it down one could believe. The Parkerized Finish is Perfect on the Metal & the Wood may be bare or a very, very light non-colored finish of some sort. It has a New Nylon Web Sling OD Green & a "Stripped Magazine". Two things bother me about it after reading up on it. 1. It is stamped on the Receiver "JJ CO NY. NY." which says to me it was imported by John Jovina of New York at some time. 2. The Recoil Shims & Screws are missing (never there) but 2 small dabs of Glass Bedding or Epoxy are. Having owned this now for 5 years, I still haven't fired it, but as it is only .22 caliber, I'm not worried about "safety" over this. Some comments however warn that without these "Shims" it could be a "Fake Parts Gun". I bought it for it's pure Beauty canceling a $150.00 debt I was owed. Will it hurt its' Value to fire it? With All Parts Stamped the Same would it be a "Parts Gun"? And is that Bad? Is there any Interest in collecting these & if so what are they selling for? BTW, Love Ur Site, it's packed full of "Goodies". John

Hello, moosemose and welcome to the forum. Lots of very friendly and knowledgable people here, all very keen to help new members.
Your questions probably won't get much response on this thread, being it was set up for Lithgow Sniper rifles, (EDIT: since been moved from there by Badger) but I'll help with what I can.
Your rifle was imported by JJ Co who bought container loads of Aussie Lee Enfields and piles of parts. Once they had sold off complete rifles, they started assembling thier own from the parts. A couple of indicators that yours may be a parts gun- it probably will have a 1942 dated foreend. These were made for a period without the recoil plates, but were re-instated a few months later. (There have been a lot of 1942 dated foreends surface over the years unissued and without the plates). If it was a factory conversion it would have had them.
Next, Lithgow serial numbers didn't go any where near "T" prefix. I'm no expert on the Aussie trainers, but I understand they retained their original serial numbers from when they were .303 cal.
I wouldn't be too upset about anything about your rifle. The JJ Co ones I've seen pictured are very tidy, and reportedly shoot very well. It sounds like somebody has used a bit of modern bedding material to tighten up the foreend. With the non-existant recoil of .22 LR I'd just take it out and enjoy it, knowing it's not likely to cause a problem. It's accuracy will be a pleasant surprise too.
Let us know how it shoots and post some pictures in the main forum. Quite a few Stateside members will probably be jealous of your rifle.

(Thanks again, Badger. Moving this down to here will generate some more attention than it would have gotten in the sticky.)

Ok, there must be some more of these out there... Hasn't been much discussion about trainers lately...

It's exactly as you stated. A rifle built up from new surplus parts at John Jovino's in Brooklyn, New York who bought and imported much of the remaining SMLE stores from Lithgow in the 1980's. However, for what you paid for it, you certainly aren't hurt and it will probably shoot like a champ. Get some oil on the stock, get out to the range, shoot and enjoy it.

Hi Brian & Son! Thanks for the Response. I have really wanted to punch some paper with this piece, so maybe I will now? I forgot one other detail in that on the Receiver with all the rest of the stampings these were to have been marker SHT .22 & this is not? I re-Checked the "Nose Piece" & there is no date stamping? How would this have gotten the "T" prefix Stamping in the SN.??? I thought it stood for "Trainer"??? I also heard that this could have been converted "In the Field" by an Armorer causing it to not be "Fully Stamped" as that tooling was not necessary to convert the pieces & kept at the "Factories"??? In the SN. markings on the Barrel & Receiver the "T" precedes the 1825(T 1825) VS. the stamping on the "Round End of the Bayonet Lug" where the "T" is centered "ABOVE" the 1825 as if there were individual "Stamps" that they used??? Can the Trigger Pull be lightened by first thinning the Sear Leaf Spring & then addressing the Firing Pin Spring & then Stoning the "Surfaces"??? I personally like a 2 stage trigger so I'm not interested in changing that. John

Hi

I just picked up a 1942 MarkII* at auction. I do not have the rifle in hand yet but here are a couple auction pics. It also has the T prefix T1681 with new new wood and sling. Sounds like the older brother of yours. When I have the rifle I will post some more details.

Regards

Don't quote me but if I remember correctly, Jovinos used a "T" prefix on their "new build" rifles. Maybe someone else can remeber? Check the '42 Mk.III* for the copper recoil plates when you get it. Some had them and some didn't.

"...if I remember correctly, Jovinos used a "T" prefix on their "new build" rifles.'

You remember correctly---I've seen six of these, including the one I used to own and the "T" prefix has been on all of them...along with the Jovino import mark, of course.
One of these had a properly marked butt and socket, but that was the only one---mine had a converted but unmarked bolthead and a handmade firing pin. Made from a 16d nail, by the way it looked.
Shot OK, though.
-----krinko

Skennerton mentions A,B & C suffix's used on the Jovino rifles but no mention of a T prefix for their trainers, but this would seem so from the few i have seen.

I've got a couple of brass/copper recoil plates if anyones looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riotsquad

Hi

I just picked up a 1942 MarkII* at auction. I do not have the rifle in hand yet but here are a couple auction pics. It also has the T prefix T1681 with new new wood and sling. Sounds like the older brother of yours. When I have the rifle I will post some more details.

Regards

---

Your "MkII*" is actually a MkIII* marking miss-struck. I have a '42 marked the same way. The serial number should have been somewhere in th "B" prefix range. I'd say by the look of it, it was also assembled from parts, that '42 receiver was never a complete rifle untill it got the "Jovino .22 assembly job". By the look of it, the furniture is screaming out for some BLO!

No doubt for the most part they are very nice rifles and shoot very well- just not as valuable from a collectors standpoint, thats all. You will really enjoy shooting yours too- don't forget to show us some target groups too!

It has been noted that some trainers may have been converted by armourers at unit level. This could well be so, but they would have still complied with the pattern and although the extent of the markings varied, the serial numbers on the receiver would not have been touched. The stamped number shown looks to be the wrong font too- I don't have a pic handy to show comparison at the moment...

moosemose,
Trigger pull adjustment is not achieved by altering the sear spring or the striker spring. You can polish the full bent (front surface of the cocking piece) to reduce friction, but any more than that really requires an expirienced hand.