Printable View
I'm new to this board, so greetings everyone. I'm looking for a little assistance in understanding what a couple of markings might represent on a 1943 Lithgow No.1 MkIII* I recently got my hands on. First, an "R" I find on the bottom of the butt stock grip next to the trigger guard: Attachment 44775 Next, the prominent "B" on the bottom of the fore stock: Attachment 44776 Here are a couple of views showing the general condition and configuration of the rifle: Attachment 44777Attachment 44778
I'll look the markings up for you, but I'm sure someone will get in first.
That rifle appears to be in beautiful condition though mate, good job.
Thank you very much Aussietom, I hope you can turn something up. The rifle is indeed in remarkable shape - the condition of the wood and finish on the metal so much so it makes me suspicious that they have had some help along the way, but I am yet novice enough to not be able to determine that on my own for sure. All I know without Kennerton's book or the help of someone such as yourself is that other than the expected manufacturer's marks from Lithgow and other appropriate Aussie part suppliers - I'm unable to recognize any markings to indicate how or to whom the rifle was issued or did service. This puzzles me. Oh, yeah - the numbers all match and there is no importers mark on it anywhere I've found.
Stumblebum: Very nice rifle. I can't help with the mystery markings but as to the general appearance and finish, it looks very similar to my '21 Lithgow ('43 refurb)- especially the colour of the parkerizing. Mine doesn't appear to have been used hard after the refit as the bore is like a mirror. Has proven very accurate. Have you shot yours yet?
Ridolpho
No I haven't shot it yet Ridolpho. It does not have the recoil pads inside the forestock, which until I know more (or do something about it) makes me slightly nervous. Apparently it's one of the ones made during the run at Lithgow where they omitted them.
Ridolpho, I'm curious about your rifle. What detail indicates it was refurbed in 43?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
Stumblebum: If the wooden draws are nice and snug it should be OK to shoot. If the forend fits tightly against the butt socket and the front triggerguard screw is clamping the forend nicely then the draws don't really deal with much "recoil" force (my opinion, anyway). And Homer- I was going from memory (big mistake) at work about the dates of refurb on my Lithgow. Looking at it now, it has two dates stamped on the right side of the butt: "MA Lithgow SMLE III* 1942" and further forward, "R MA 5/46". The buttstock and forend are both replacement Slazenger and the barrel is a replacement though I can't recall if there is a date stamped on it. The bolt serial# matches the body: A91999 (1921). Got a chance to shoot it on a proper range with real scorers at 400m and was surprised how well it did. My favorite MkIII*.
Ridolpho
The recoil draws absorb all of the impact snd the trigger guard screw does little to assist. Its a trigger screw and the clamping force between trigger guard, bush snd action is perpendicular to the forces created from recoil.
If there is no wear or shrinkage present in the draws and the fit between action and forend is snug without any allowable movement, it maybe ok to shoot as is but there are other factors and I believe some risk. If there is any notable wear and movement, you need to rectify it. How you do this is another debate.
Homer: The analysis that makes the most sense to me is that upon firing, the recoil is primarily transfered directly through the action body into the butt and shoulder (this is rather obvious). A secondary effect is the alteration of the angle between barrel and butt which is where the forend comes into play (or is stressed). If the forend fits tightly and is held firmly by the front triggerguard screw then the forend resists this bending. Note that the lugs on the body are never referred to as recoil lugs in any original drawings or descriptions- always "sear lugs". Now, on the other hand, I believe it's Son who feels that a tight grip on the forend with left hand and pushing out with the arm on firing actually sees the draws supporting some direct recoil which does make sense. I do believe the front triggerguard screw is very important and would refer to examples RJW shows in his accurizing book of old target rifles that had transverse ridges milled on the underside of the body to increase the resistence to slip between body and forend. Excuse the lengthy post but I find this aspect of Lee Enfields fascinating and enjoy the debate.
Ridolpho
Well fellas, you've given me some things to check on the rifle in more detail, and some thoughts to mull over, that's for sure. Here's a peak at the appropriate point inside the stock if it helps with further discussion: Attachment 44790
The one time I've disassembled the rifle so far, it took some gentle persuasion with a wooden dowel and hammer on alternate sides of the stock at the back of the receiver in order to get them apart.
Stumblebum, yes, that is the way it should fit. Just remember never pull the foreend away at the muzzle, always take it off at the rear first otherwise you will damage the draws.
As for the front trigger guard screw... it does next to nothing with regards to recoil unless the draws are loose... then it isn't the screw that has hold as the metal bush correctly fitted only allows .020" crush on the coachwood foreend by tightening the screw. (Yes, that figure appears in the fitting instructions, and there is a special jig/tool for measuring and filing the bush to the correct size.)
If there is movement at the draws then the next part the forrend has stopping it from moving forward is the bush. The foreend will not last long at all with the bush taking the force as the round surface acts as a a wedge and will split the foreend longitudinally from the bush forward.... tell you what. It's all a bit hard to fathom from descriptions, I'll do some pics and stick up hopefully in the next couple of hours.
First pic, the area of the front of the trigger guard, wood only, bush removed. Note the small area of wood around the screw/ bush hole where any clamping force would be concentrated
Attachment 44798
Second pic, the same shot, bush installed
Attachment 44799
Third pic, the same bush/ foreend from a low angle showing bush approx .020" below the wood line. The bush would be against the front trigger guard screw hole and the foreend would be in contact with the underside of the receiver ring and front of the magazine well, also the barrel knox. Locking the screw through the trigger guard will easily crush the foreend the .020" under screw pressure over the small area of contact until the screw bottoms out the trigger guard to the bush to the receiver. It cannot do any more!
Attachment 44800
Here's the same foreend. It never had the copper plates fitted. You can see the depressions either side of the middle where the sear lugs have contacted and impacted their way into the timber over time and firing. This shows the foreend relative to the action, does move forward under the forces of firing due to the barreled action moving back and the front hand holding the foreend against the recoil, which is mainly transferred through the butt to the firer. This damage can probably be minimised by pulling the rifle back into your shoulder with the right hand on the grip, and leaving the foreend sitting on your open palm... but that is just the way I shoot... others will have their own techniques proven for accuracy, but maybe not longevity of the foreend...
Attachment 44801
Next, back to the front trigger guard bush. Note the gap between the front of the bush and the foreend. This gap is almost as big as the indents where the sear lugs have compressed the foreend. The distance between the sear lugs and the bush is fixed- cannot change. So, whatever happens at the sear lugs, happens at the front trigger guard bush
Attachment 44802
Last pic... death of a foreend? No, it was doomed long before it got to this. The bush is now very slightly further rearward than the indents at the sear lugs. The combination of the bush not moving, the shape of the bush and the surrounding hole at the rear, and the loose fit at the draws means the forces absorbed at the bush have wedged it back in the hole and opened a crack forward the full length of the foreend
Attachment 44803
This rifle had always been locked up tight in the front trigger guard screw. In fact it was staked and very hard to release. It did have a little crush on the foreend, as prescribed, but that did not prevent what happened.
I suggest anyone who chooses to think otherwise regards the relationships of the parts discussed should conduct an experiment to prove these wrong.
1. Take the recoil plates out of your Lithgow foreend. ( This will simulate the gap giving loose draws like the pics above without actually damaging anything) :confused:
2. Ensure the front trigger guard bush does allow .020" crush on the foreend when the screw is locked up. :rolleyes:
3. Go and fire a hundred rounds of mkVII from the prone unsupported position. :eek:
4. Check if there is any forwards- rearwards movement in the foreend :yikes:
5. Check ebay for a new foreend. :crying:
Son: great post- I hope a lot of new No.1 MkIII/III* owners read it and apply the knowledge. I am dismayed by the number of Lee Enfields I buy that have serious to terminal forend damage- some that look virtually unused. Recently I bought quite a collectable MkIII that an enthusiastic shooter had owned and put a lot of rounds through without checking it out- beautiful old forend ruined. Of my couple of dozen Lee Enfields I see significant problems in about half. I have a couple that had very snugly fitting draws that were neatly sheared off in rifles that had very poor clamping at the front screw which is why I would humbly suggest that this aspect of fit is quite important. In fact, my next repair job is the forend on a No.4T that appears very lightly used with a gorgeous forend. Very snug fit at the draws but, unfortunately, a hairline shear on one side. Cause? I'm not sure but as purchased the collar at the front triggerguard screw was significantly too long and no clamping was happening.
Ridolpho
Wow Son, what a clear, thorough, and well illustrated explanation. Very helpful indeed. Now I have to agonize over how tight my lug-to-stock fit is. As you can see, there aren't huge depressions beaten into the stock by the lugs at the moment. But is that from a tight fit; or simply because the rifle hasn't been fired a million times? Or has some of the rifle's furniture been replaced at some point?
Which brings me back to the two unfamiliar markings on the stock... Anyone? Anyone?
To err on the side of caution I will no doubt keep my eyes open for opportunities to get some recoil pads or have some made, simply to help insure the longevity of the gun. In the meantime, I'd certainly put a few rounds through it at the next opportunity just to see how it shoots!
If I were you Stumblebum, I woul;dn't waste time with recoil blocks. I'd just cut out the old worn out draws and fit a newsection, made from oak. BUT with the grain running down the angle of the draws in the body. This patch will still be there, working well in another 100 years.
You'll find a pictorial thread of how to do this elsewhere. Will take about an hour or so
The reason I say this is that the mere notion of holding recoil blocks securely in a fore-end with small brass screws that screw into the end grain of wood is just alien to my miniscule understanding of woodwork
Peter: Intriguing, and it makes a fair amount of sense. I hadn't run across any of those threads yet, but I will take up a pointed search on the topic now - thanks!
Any chance you have a clue what my "mystery markings" are?
Peter not all of us are blessed with being able to just pick up a piece of oak and fit it in the draws. Customs have a strong idea on what we can bring home in our cases hence the copper plates and brass screws. Modern compounds will be the only way to repair these old girls in time. I know i know lost skills etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Here's an idea Bindi.......... Get over to TBones wood yard. He knows a bit about carpentry, cabinet making and building ships from wood! Ask him for a nice chunk of Aussie hardwood that you can use. Tell him that it must have a nice dense grain and be compatible to modern wood adhesives.
I'll let you into a little secret.............. That's just what I did when I wanted a bit of Australian hardwood to make a set of 1.5:1 No5 bayonet grips for a display 1.5:1 scale bayonet at the Infantry HQ oiver the road from my office. That's the new one on my avtar - the old No5 one is inside!
T Bones is on the east coast so no can do, local quarantine. We have some hardwood on the west coast that you can not drive a nail into without pre boring the hole. The older and dryer it gets the harder it gets to work like chisels and planes dont cut the mustard as they say. Angle grinders are the go or blades with tungsten tips on the grinder. Only other problem with it it twists and skrinks as it drys unless cut well. How do i know this we use it for grating in shearing sheds so you put it down on the green side for ease of work. Have used 20+ yr old battens never again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
What do you mean he's on the other side of Australia................ I've just looked at my map and it's only about 7 inches
I take the point though........ The trouble with REALLY hard wood is that the stuff just won't accept/take the adhesive and it just won't adhere....
Peter the Aussies actually used hardwood inserts for a short period of production. I think it was walnut and I have a few examples. Any walnut around your parts bindi?
No wanut over here they need water. White gum (wandoo),jarrah,karri, marri,tasmanian blue gum are the main hardwoods listed from hardest not the best construction or furniture types order. There are other hardwoods but getting timber in size or quanity is difficult at best. Though some are very pretty. Peter you are quite right it is only a few inches over to T Bones about an inch per hour in a large plane. The density and glue problem has had me thinking (dangerous that ). T Bones can you tell me if a serious of small holes ( Many) drilled into the hard wood solve the wood density glue issue. Think draws blocks, holes on inside side and bottom not rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
I could just send you some round blocks of oak Bindi, labelled as 'CHRISTMAS CAKE' To be honest, if your customs blokes were in 8 RAR, they'd just think it looked and tasted the same as the Xmas cake that one of our cooks, Jock McQarry would make and dish up at Xmas. He was one of the nasho cooks, called up from one of the big mining stations in NW Australia. Xxxx knows how they ever survived his cooking!
hahaha because of blokes like him we are tough over here (survive or die) just like the army. hahahaha love it PeterQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Hey, Bindi.. and anyone else in the same boat regards a suitable block of wood for repairs...
Here's a link to a mob called trend timbers. They offer over 50 species of aussie wood and 80 odd imported varieties too. My dad had some dealings with them a while back and found them to be a bit pricey for what he wanted, but for small pieces they shouldn't hurt too much. They will do all sorts of sizes, perhaps the turning blanks section would have suitable sizes.... They will send through the post as well... check them out, might be an option...
Trend Timbers