Printable View
Picked up an SMLE No 1 Mk 3 of Lithgow Mfgr. It does have the crude JJ import markings
but seems complete and correct. Stock markings at the rear of the trigger guard & under the forend are faint but visable. It does not have the A prefix which research seems to indicate a parts gun. Bolt and reciever numbers match none on nose piece.All the small parts have the MA or OA markings ant the bore looks decent, Any thoughts?
47 views and no comments ,is their that much distain for John Jovino imports?
No, need more and better pictures
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My uneducated guess is that it's an honest rifle. Only a small percentage of the JJ Co. imports were assembled from parts after arrival in Brooklyn. A shop in Montgomery, Alabama, bought a thousand of them and I was into them heavily at the AGCA shows in Birmingham when I first got licensed in 1990. I never saw and of the rifles assembled here in the USA from original parts until several years later. There were some very nice rifles, early and late production. The good old days for a youngster like me!
Yep not enough clear pics, the rifle appears to have been restocked & without good pics etc there is no way to tell by who, be it Lithgow or Jovino.
I will post more (hopefully better) pictures this evening.
Thanks
5th please share the clue/clues that indicate this rifle has been restocked. Very interested to see what you see i cant. I know i need new glasses and some more Kiwi windup juice.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thBatt
Bindi, it's the vertical reinforcing rods at the rear of the forend that make me believe the forend is a later replacement, they are not present on my 1941 lithgows (Coachwood) but they do start appearing in 1941 production(& around the change to the MkIII*) I'm not sure if they were retro fitted at all so it being a replacement is only a quess at the mo.
The rifle may not have been assembled till 1941, cant see the serial # or butt stamps. Now i have to go and look at mine BUGGAR what a lousy job.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by 5thBatt
Yep it's not likely to be original 1940/41 forend unless the vertical reinforcing pins were fitted later as 5th said. I've noted 1941 dated actions serial numbered up to B85000 without the pins present if that helps.
Honestly with respect HOH your going to have to do way better with your photos if you want any sort of an accurate appraisal. You'll need a butt broadside, action, barrel, bolt, rear sight, forend and nosecap as close up and clear as possible.
The action looks like it may have been parkerised so probably a refurbished rifle with a mix of parts if that's the case. An unnumbered nosecap could indicate a 45/46/47 refurb as would an unnumbered forend and barrel. Butt would be stamped to indicate this but it's only speculation without better photos and more information.
5th i have a 39 Mk3 without, a 40 Mk3 with original furniture, a 40 Mk3* replacement with. Now Homer has sunk me because i did not check the serial #s. The pins are missing from the early/mid 20s onwards.it would seem in my lot.
Here is B69002 1941 MkIII all matching original numbers, barrel date 7 '41
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../09/4cpe-1.jpg
& B68727 matching other than bolt.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../b68727c-1.jpg
I hope that my limited photograpic skills have improved. I omitted the closeup of the triple JJNY marks as it was to painful for a closeup. Is this Coachwood or Aussie Maple? The wood is exceptionally smooth but no sanding marks visable.
I'm guessing it's a legit '44 or '45 FTR. The rebuild markings would be on the right side of the butt but appear sanded out.
The stock must have been sanded at some point as is is very smooth and the remaining markings are faint at best. Shouldn't there be some FTR markings on the knox form?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Is it SLAZ47 on the underside of the forend? If it is its, good chance its been refurbed in 1947 in which case the butt would have R over MA over the month/year on the right hand side. These were mostly unserial numbered barrel, wood and nosecap. The cut-off would not have remained through any late/post war refurb.
On the other hand it could be completely built up and restored but who could say with any certainty.
Butt looks loose - gap between socket and butt looks too wide (your pic No. 2). Can you tighten up the butt stock bolt or is there another reason for the gap?
I noticed that gap as well. When work & hunting preperation permits that issue will be examined.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
About 25 years ago (give or take) when John Jovina items appeared on the surplus market, I understood that the company had imported like-new rifles as well as issued rifles in varying states of finish and refurb. I seem to remember the dealer who sold these locally (East Tennessee) had both unissued rifles as well as issued rifles on the shelves. I purchased two of the unissued rifles and, since I had several issued rifles dating from the 1960s, I never really looked over the issued rifles on sale. Perhaps this is one of the issued rifles.
Regarding the fit of the butt and the gap between the buitt and the butt socket, then there SHOULD be a gap. This is to prevent the butt socket picking up on that shoulder of the butt and splitting off a chunk of the wood. We used to say that there should be a distinct gap that as a handy reference, you could wiggle in the BACK of a hacksaw blade but not the toothed front edge of the blade.
Don't forget that the butt fits and it locked in place not by the front surface meeting up with the inside of the socket or the shouldered edge contacting the rim of the butt socket but via the tapered nore of the butt engaging the internal taper of the butt socket, locked by the bolt of course
I noticed the gap but had not checked for movement. I checked it nast night and what do you know no movement. Thanks Peter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler