"Unissued" (not JJCO) Lithgow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

---

Definitely. The problem became apparent very early on whilst Queensland maple was being used. Its a bit of a grey area but what Ive come to understand from skennertons books and examination of my own rifles is, the first attempts to reinforce the draw area was in the late 20's when walnut inserts were used. Then early to mid thirties, steel pins attached to the stock bolt plate were used. Both methods were shortlived but keep in mind, rifle production was very low during this period so examples are scarce. After this they adopted the copper plates but I'm not sure exactly when because all my late 30's actions were assembled into rifles in 1939/40 leaving a bit of a black hole in my research. I'd say late thirties but definitely by 1940 and they remained in production throughout except for a one year period approximately from sometime in 1943.

Ah, I see what you mean about the fit of the wood. There is a sizeable gap there. The rear sight ramp isn't blued or battered: that's just an effect of the camera flash. The fore end does not have a SN on it. My No.4 does, so I know what you mean. So the wood isn't original to this metal. Armory refurb?

What are your doubts regarding the serial numbers on the action and the barrel?

Okay, so what do I have here? I have a No.1 with an apparently unfired barrel, a pristine bolt head, no JJCO mark, and unoriginal wood. Is it a sporter that's been renewed?

To me the most important question is: should I fire this rifle? I don't want to spoil something that's this well kept if it does have some undeniable historical value in this current condition. I'd sooner just go buy a $300 non-matching SMLE beater I can take to the range.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

Recoil plates are copper, and the screws appear to be copper as well.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

3MD: 3rd Military District, Victoria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRoberts06

Ah, I see what you mean about the fit of the wood. There is a sizeable gap there. The rear sight ramp isn't blued or battered: that's just an effect of the camera flash. The fore end does not have a SN on it. My No.4 does, so I know what you mean. So the wood isn't original to this metal. Armory refurb?

What are your doubts regarding the serial numbers on the action and the barrel?

Okay, so what do I have here? I have a No.1 with an apparently unfired barrel, a pristine bolt head, no JJCO mark, and unoriginal wood. Is it a sporter that's been renewed?

To me the most important question is: should I fire this rifle? I don't want to spoil something that's this well kept if it does have some undeniable historical value in this current condition. I'd sooner just go buy a $300 non-matching SMLE beater I can take to the range.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

Recoil plates are copper, and the screws appear to be copper as well.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

3MD: 3rd Military District, Victoria.

---

So the sight ramp surface is not blued? Should be shiny.

The serial number on the action and barrel looks a too big and too deep. Also doesn't quite match the font of the bolt. But I'm not suggesting that with certainty, it just leaves a little question mark in my mind. As Son pointed out earlier, the wood is marked slaz43 so cant be original to your rifle. I don't believe its a refurb either. I think its a build up from a barreled action with no historical value other than being an SMLE. Shoot the hell out of it.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

Yes 3MD is 3rd Military district but unusual for it to be stamped into a 40's dated action. Anyone else have a comment on that.

One of the books I have says "late on" they went to aliminium plates? is this correct? I have only ever seen copper plates and being target rifles no idea when these were added.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

---

Would be interesting to know.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

In terms of firing given its age and its probably rebuilt, I'd headspace it and check that both bolt lugs are load bearing so at least you know its safe.

It's a discussion that has come up in the past. I personally have rifles with aluminium plates but I think it's not likely they are a factory job and More likely a civilian job. Im open to other views or information though.

Now that you mention it, the "1" on the receiver and barrel SN does appear to be hammered in there pretty deep. But how would a rifle like this come to be? You say it's rebarreled: does that mean someone bought an unused No.1 barrel from government surplus, and put it on this receiver, then stamped them both to match, and put new (old) Slaz wood on it?
Also, I read somewhere that the nose cap sn wasn't always applied on some arsenal refurbs. Opinion?

I'd be more inclined to agree with the sporter refurb suggestion if the barrel and bolt head weren't in such good condition.

I don't know mate. The numbers look a bit sus but maybe not. It does appear to have the correct proofs and the assembly numbers match.

Yes that's right about unnumbered nosecaps on some refurbed rifles. Its very common on rifles refurbed in Lithgow end 1945, 1946 and 1947. Those are marked R over MA over the date on the butt, but I don't think yours is one of these. The dates and characteristics of the wood don't match up and I've never seen one that wasn't rebarreled. Plus your butt has no stamps. These refurbs were stocked up very nicely as new rifles were, with nice lines and no gaps.

That's a beautiful rifle you have there. I have a No.4 that I purchased for $200 USD in a pawn store years ago that has a similar aged patina to it.

So we have a bit of an enigma here with this rifle? Good. I like a bit of mystery behind my surplus rifles.

Too bad the No.1 isn't a true historical piece, but at least I can shoot it with a good conscience now. It really is in wonderful shape mostly.

Well, not to bring you down, but that isn't much of a mystery. I had one of those back in the early 90's. It looked the same, same wood, same dates. Mine did not have an alpha-prefix serial number, and it too was dated 1941. It was a J. Jovino import. I have attached 4 pics of two of my rifles. The first two are of a 1913 dated lithgow. The second two are of a 1907 dated Enfield (with 2MD Australian ownership marks). J Jovoino did a vey good job of hiding their import mark, as you can see by the pics.

The "un-issued" lithgow I bought had the faintest, "JJ NY" stamp at the base of the charger bridge. Jovino cleverly applied the finish OVER the import stamp, and it was nearly invisible.

I think it is still a beautiful looking piece. So long as you dont feel you payed too much or bought a mis-represented piece, enjoy it.

SSJ - copper 2 x small brass screws at least that's what my Mk III's have sometimes there is shim material behind either plate to get the right fitment.
Homer - I hope that is not a spot of rust at about 17:30 just @ 1/4 " inside the bore on your Mk III :yikes: