FrankenLithgow or Fun De-sporter? (**photos)

I recently purchased this SMLE No 1 Mk III* 1944 Lithgow (see pics below). The price was right, er, seemed good at the time.

I’d hoped I was onto one like 1944 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) No.1 MkIII* Infantry Rifle, although I had no illusions that it was in quite such good shape.

Nevertheless, it came advertised as full wood, good bore, most parts matching, shoots fine.

On the plus side, it’s in good shape, the bore does seem very good, it cycles smoothly, the metal seems good overall (Ozzie parkerized), and the wood is pretty nice, particularly the butt stock and the front lower. Metal parts have BA and MA marks. There are a bunch of marks on the butt stock that seemed familiar and a few others elsewhere on the wood that looked promising. The handguards both looked a bit inconsistent.

However, it turns out that pretty much nothing matches (bolt, receiver, band, nose cap, etc). The main receiver serial looks like it might be one of those US Franken-Lithgows although no recognizable importer mark. The receiver’s been drilled for a scope (anyone know what kind?) and patched and has a series of three small holes drilled (bad scope work? venting?). As well, the rear hand guard is marked DP.

I’ve got some more research to do, and a happy ending will be that it’s perfectly functional but a bit of a mixmaster de-sporter.

I know that I should look for recoil pads for what appears to be soft coachwood and would love to know how to check – especially if there’s a way to do without complete disassembly.

Your thoughts most welcome. I’d appreciate any advice/deciphering from all.

See photos for the deets:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/07/11-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/07/41-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/07/111-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/07/91-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/07/81-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/07/101-1.jpg

Would love a complete picture. The holes on the side are for venting, they all have them and from what I read, they work a treat so don't touch them! It's hard to tell without seeing the whole side of the reciever but it looks like it could be a Field brand mount which were common way back when. The mounts come up on EBay from time to time but go for around $150
The woodlooks like coachwood to me as it looks like the ones I have. You really do want to pull it apart to have a look as there is no other way to look for the plates.. that and it is always interesting to see if there is anything unusual going on under there.. perhaps I am just curious ? :)
MA is Lithgow, BA is the Bathurst factory which is a feeder to the Lithgow factory, amongst others. Check that the draws aren't worn (ie: the stock fits properly ) and take it out and give it a thrashing and see how it goes.

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

Oh, I don't see DP anywhere else so I expect you are right and it is just the handguard used to desporterise or fix it.

You can inspect for recoil plates through the top of the action either side of the sear but sometimes if there is a build up of grime it can be hard to tell. I would agree with the previous post that it's probably a good idea to pull it down and inspect the draws.
The action serial number looks normal for a 44 date.

Thanks gents. Will take/post a couple more pictures, tear down and inspect, and give her a go.

I have been resisting this but now can't help it .. perhaps it was Mao's personal weapon ( MAO on the butt ), used against the forces of Chiag Kai-Shek and is worth a fortune ?? :)

sorry, feeling sick.. poor humor is likely ....

That would be confirmed by the mark "HV" for "High Value." :cheers:

Hi again all,

For xa-coupe, a complete photo:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF2167-1.jpg

And following a quick strip down, a shot of the rear forestock, where the recoil pads should be:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF2161-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF2162-1.jpg

Sigh, looks like nothing, although it's definitely an OA product:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF2154-1.jpg

It all seems to be in reasonable order otherwise - a few loose threads and bumps etc.

Thoughts on how best to proceed? Is this a scream bloody murder with the vendor scenario, or should I suck it up and get it fixed?

my opinion is that if you paid a good shooting non matching price for it then maybe keep it and just enjoy it as it looks like a nice clean rifle. If you paid a price that reflects matching parts and so on then take it back.
As for the lack or recoil plates, if it is nice and tight I wouldn't sweat it.

From this thread and the lack of the copper recoil plates in Arlo's fore-end, are we to believe that some Lithgow rifles/fore-ends were manufactured without them. Or are they just missing?

If they're just missing Arlo, might I suggest that you just replace them by wood patching. If you can't do it, thgere will be someone nearby who can. Just follow the photographic instructions on a sub thread here. Afterwards, you'll have a nice tight fitting fore-end too

There was a period in lithgow production when they left the plates out.

There was a period where they were left out as a "wartime manufacturing expediency". The dates escape me at the moment, but they were re-instated when Slazengers took over wood production IIRC.
Point of interest, there were a lot of coachwood foreends about a while back, raw timber, no recoil pads fitted and all 1942 dated. It was a supply of these which were used by John Jovino Co to assemble many rifles from parts he bought from the Aust.Govt. The absence of the recoil plates and more so, a suffix on the serial number were the ways of identifying likely JJ Co built rifles.

I have a few clues/ theories as to why so many foreends all '42 dated were still unissued, but haven't been able to confirm it. Anyone have any ideas they' care to share...?Attachment 24879

Thanks all. Looks like I'll keep it as it's nice and tight otherwise.

Will send in a range report. Although I think I'll skip any "mad minutes." :wave:

I wouldn't get too carried away without reinforcing the draw area of your forend.

[QUOTE=Son;182095]There was a period where they were left out as a "wartime manufacturing expediency". The dates escape me at the moment, but they were re-instated when Slazengers took over wood production IIRC.
Point of interest, there were a lot of coachwood foreends about a while back, raw timber, no recoil pads fitted and all 1942 dated. It was a supply of these which were used by John Jovino Co to assemble many rifles from parts he bought from the Aust.Govt. The absence of the recoil plates and more so, a suffix on the serial number were the ways of identifying likely JJ Co built rifles.

Son before I make a suggestion why, I need to confirm, who installed the plates, Slazengers or lithgow after receiving to forend from Slazengers?

[QUOTE=Demo;182306]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

There was a period where they were left out as a "wartime manufacturing expediency". The dates escape me at the moment, but they were re-instated when Slazengers took over wood production IIRC.
Point of interest, there were a lot of coachwood foreends about a while back, raw timber, no recoil pads fitted and all 1942 dated. It was a supply of these which were used by John Jovino Co to assemble many rifles from parts he bought from the Aust.Govt. The absence of the recoil plates and more so, a suffix on the serial number were the ways of identifying likely JJ Co built rifles.

Son before I make a suggestion why, I need to confirm, who installed the plates, Slazengers or lithgow after receiving to forend from Slazengers?

---

Not sure... I've seen a lot of Slaz foreends that were cut identically, suggesting they were machined that way and possibly fitted the pads at Slaz (or Lithgow- I suppose it wouldn't matter). Logic would say they would have been set a bare spot tight so they could be hand finished for fit at assembly of the rifle.
On the other hand, I've seen quite a few that looked to be hand cut out for the pads, to a totally different shape, but all very similar. This made me think these were cut out by the tradesmen at the SAF at the time of assembly. All supposition of course, and I have nothing to back up my thoughts other than my observations. Machined & identical vs slightly irregular...

Mate all the surplus unused forends I've seen floating around have not had plates installed and no machining to allow for them, exactly like yours pictured. I always assumed because of this, they were installed at the factory by armourers on assembly. Incidentally, the dates noted on all these forends have been slaz 42 or 43. Also, the deletion of the plates seems to have coincided with the transfer of assembly to the Orange plant. So what if it was the case that lithgow installed the plates after receiving the stock from Slazengers, but, when assembly was transferred over to Orange, they were deleted for speed of production, until it was realized that they were in fact again required and they were required to be installed by Slazengers. This would have left the factory with a surplus of forends without the plates installed and these placed into stores as a reserve if required, but by mid 1944 production was ramping down and they weren't used.

Something else I've noted with these unused forends floating around is the barrel channel seems to have been machined way off center so perhaps they were out of spec and rejected.

Probably way off, but just a couple of thoughts.


---------- Post added at 06:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 AM ----------

Just had a quick read of TLE and Ian has written that the plates were fitted by armourers, but then he writes further on that when it was decided to re-install the plates as previous, Slazengers were so advised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demo

I wouldn't get too carried away without reinforcing the draw area of your forend.

---

Makes sense. Any guidance on how to do this (for me and anyone else who hasn't done before)? Thanks.

[PS: no JJ Co marks anywhere to be seen on the metal or wood.]

There's a full photographic article on how to patch or reinforce the draws in a fore-end in the start threads part of the Lee Enfield forum. It's quite simple if you follow the instructions