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.
Printable View
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.
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. :dunno:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
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:dunno:
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.
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
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...
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thBatt
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....
Hi Son, i know where you are comin from & maybe i am being a bit pigheaded:banghead::) 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?
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.
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
I've probably missed something but is there a chance that someone has 'acquired' a later un-numbered Lithgow no-cut off body and made it up, say, after the war using an old worn out BSA as a donor for the parts.
I say this because the lower legs of the '939' in the 1939 date look like they are more modern 'unhooked' format and the lettering looks a bit uneven as opposed to a roll-stamp or made up impact-stamp although we can't see it very clearly.
I know this is hardly a forensic analysis but re-bodying is one thing for your damaged £15,000 VW Golf but re-bodying at a Field or Base workshops or even at a factory for a £13 rifle (the Ordnance VAOS list price of a part worn No1 Mk3 in 1965, when a brand new No4 was list priced at £22-10 shillings) isn't the kind of economics that would keep you in business for long. It's like putting new uppers on your old shoes
Or am I missing something
Heres a better pic of the markings.
PAA no A2810
Yep, they look pretty original to me............. But there's still this niggling question about re-bodying a rifle
Had it for years now & its niggled at me for the entire time :sos:
To me so much is wrong for it to be right yet so much is right for it to be wrong:banghead:
The strongest argument for it being a 'stolen' receiver i feel is the lone NZ marking on the receiver, i can not recall ever seeing a NZ marked rifle (in this style, with its original barrel) not being marked the same on the barrel, maybe you can answer this one Peter, was this the way NZ marked it rifles in WW2 or later?
Theres somthing strange about the markings on this action. The star afetr III has a A in it. I've had a look at some other MkIII* Lithgow actions and they are normal like these with solid lines through the centre. I think this action started life as a MkIII unfinished action and then it was given a star with a similar stamp.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2_green3-1.jpg
Well spotted but not uncommon, would appear the early 1941 MkIII*s were marked the same way, i have 2, heres some pics of 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber