hi there, a differen type of HT low mount and history??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

....The vast majority of the rifles were converted from WW1 manufactured rifles. The reason was that they "flexed better due to superior metalurgy". Also the machining tolerences in the actions were tighter originally making them easier to work into an individually fitted and finished unit for accuracy.....

---

This is rather surprising to say the least. Were Lithgow actions built in peacetime not in all respects superior to anything made during WWI? That defies logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

This is rather surprising to say the least. Were Lithgow actions built in peacetime not in all respect superior to anything made during WWI? That defies logic.

---

The early actions were very well made, basically lovingly made.........in order to show their Brit. masters that they were able to build a good firearm.
In the 1915 campaigns in the desert, the tight tolerences of these rifles was causing a few problems with sticky bolts due to ingress of sand(and later mud in the european battlefields) so the body channel was relieved slightly and the chamber modified to relieve the problems.
This became standard from late 1916, early '17, hence most of the HT's being '15 and '16 actions.

Post war rifles were finished very well, rifles selected for rifle club use post 1934(H pattern) were very tight chambered and incredibly accurate as expected with a heavy barrel and tighter tolerances.

muffett, were all of the lithgow H barrels made to this tighter chamber spec or was it only the inter-war H barrels?

edit, do you know if the tolerance loosening in late '16 applied to the other manufactures?

thanks.

All H barrels were to the tighter specs, can't comment on the other manufacturers, though their chambers were already a bit loose........BSA were the pick of them, but had to conform to the requirements dictated to them, whereas India and Australia had adjusted their manufacturing process to better suit the machinery they had.

given that, would you go for a new old stock lithgow H barrel or a new Lothar Walther H profile barrel for a bitsa build? with the aim of usable accuracy rather than 100% perfect matching numbers collectible.

not that i'm working on a build, just gathering info incase the right rifle doesn't come along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

All H barrels were to the tighter specs, can't comment on the other manufacturers, though their chambers were already a bit loose........BSA were the pick of them, but had to conform to the requirements dictated to them, whereas India and Australia had adjusted their manufacturing process to better suit the machinery they had.

---

And wasn't the Australian SMLE built on mostly US machinery with a reduced amount of hand work compared to the UK production?

The contract to supply the machinery for the Lithgow SAF was awarded to Pratt and Whitney over a couple of bids from England. The basis for that was the quoted production cost per rifle being well under that of the British bids.