"Unissued" (not JJCO) Lithgow

I just bought a 1941 Lithgow Rifle No.1 Mk III, which I was assured was "unissued". You can image my fear when I did some more research and discovered the JJCO issue with "unissued" SMLEs. Had I just gotten hosed by a shifty gun store?
Nevertheless, I've subsequently done my homework: the coachwood is immaculate and has the correct markings (SLAZ), the bolt head has never been used (fired), the bore is mirror clean, the recoil plates are there, all the numbers match that should match (except there is no s/n on the muzzle cap), the correct proof, issue, and inspection marks are all there, I cannot find a single FTR stamp anywhere, the s/n is a C##### (1941), the factory marks are correct...

... and I cannot find a single JJCO NY mark anywhere on this gun, or any import mark for that matter...

I've poured over this rifle looking for anything that would tell me it isn't a factory fresh '41 Lithgow, and I've come up short. I'm sure you guys will help me out with this.

Two questions, then:
1) Is a mint condition 1941 Lithgow too good even to be true?

2) If, IF, this rifle turns out to be an unissued, unfired 1941, do I have something of rare enough historic value that I should refrain from shooting it?

If it does turn out to be a refurbished rifle, I won't be disappointed. It's a beautiful gun still.

Attachment 53185Attachment 53202Attachment 53201Attachment 53200Attachment 53199Attachment 53198Attachment 53197Attachment 53196Attachment 53195Attachment 53194Attachment 53193Attachment 53192Attachment 53191Attachment 53190Attachment 53189Attachment 53188Attachment 53187Attachment 53186Attachment 53203
Thanks everyone.

Here's a similar one, but 1944, on Gunbroker. Been wondering if it's authentic.

WWII Lithgow Enfield Australian Unissued C&R : Bolt Action Rifles at GunBroker.com

What I've researched, as SN like #####A means the rifle is a rebuilt parts rifle. The correct SN should be A#####. Furthermore, the "A" wouldn't go with a 1944 model.

The C prefix is consistent with a 1941 build, even with an early '42 made barrel (will take corrections here, Homer and Muffer?) But the woodwork is all later made Slaz and I don't think original to the rifle. Even in wartime production, fitment was much better than seen here. The metalwork seems very good and all matching... does it look like it's been refinished? The nosecap should be numbered, so I would be inclined to say it had been sporterised previously and re wooded. If the foreend is early '43 it may not have the copper recoil plates fitted.
My opinion.... Overall a very nice but I think obvious rework. Barrel condition might give a better idea of it's prior use. Check for the recoil plates.

Copper recoil plates are both there. Barrel is mirror smooth and shines like a new dime. The condition of the barrel and the bolt head appear unfired. I've got several milsurps and many new hunting rifles, and the barrel on this rifle looks more like a NIB hunting rifle than a 70 year old war horse. What do you see with the fitment of the wood? It fits very tight to the metalwork. Very. I mean lots of profanity was involved in getting the wood off. The metal doesn't appear to be refinished, either. The pitting on the ears of the rear sight gives me some pause, though. If someone did sporterize this rifle, they must've got it fresh off the line, and never shot it.

Robert I'd have to agree with Son. The first clearest indicator is the butt that is void of any markings. It would have been marked up as pictured. Also the wood looks unfinished and untreated. It doesn't have the appearance of a genuine factory assembled rifle. The forend and handguards usually fit very well together on an unmolested rifle with smooth lines and no gaps because they were finished off assembled. The jjco rifles similarly to this one don't appear to have had that final fitment. The rear sight protector looks like its been rusty and then refinished and yes the nosecap would certainly have been serial numbered. The rear sight bed ramp is blued and it wouldn't have been from factory and it looks a little battered to me. I wonder if this part was tampered with also. I've even got some doubt with the serial numbering of the action and barrel. Interesting the 3MD on the action. Cant say I've seen that on a 40's dated action.

Sorry forgot the pictures. Just for you to compare.

Also Robert, the forend would have been serial numbered. Is it?

My understanding is and Im happy to be corrected is that recoil plates are an armourer or after market addon and not a factory install.

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

What are the recoil plates made out of?

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

what type of screws are holding the recoil plates in position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

---

Definitely. The problem became apparent very early on whilst Queensland maple was being used. Its a bit of a grey area but what Ive come to understand from skennertons books and examination of my own rifles is, the first attempts to reinforce the draw area was in the late 20's when walnut inserts were used. Then early to mid thirties, steel pins attached to the stock bolt plate were used. Both methods were shortlived but keep in mind, rifle production was very low during this period so examples are scarce. After this they adopted the copper plates but I'm not sure exactly when because all my late 30's actions were assembled into rifles in 1939/40 leaving a bit of a black hole in my research. I'd say late thirties but definitely by 1940 and they remained in production throughout except for a one year period approximately from sometime in 1943.

Ah, I see what you mean about the fit of the wood. There is a sizeable gap there. The rear sight ramp isn't blued or battered: that's just an effect of the camera flash. The fore end does not have a SN on it. My No.4 does, so I know what you mean. So the wood isn't original to this metal. Armory refurb?

What are your doubts regarding the serial numbers on the action and the barrel?

Okay, so what do I have here? I have a No.1 with an apparently unfired barrel, a pristine bolt head, no JJCO mark, and unoriginal wood. Is it a sporter that's been renewed?

To me the most important question is: should I fire this rifle? I don't want to spoil something that's this well kept if it does have some undeniable historical value in this current condition. I'd sooner just go buy a $300 non-matching SMLE beater I can take to the range.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

Recoil plates are copper, and the screws appear to be copper as well.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

3MD: 3rd Military District, Victoria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRoberts06

Ah, I see what you mean about the fit of the wood. There is a sizeable gap there. The rear sight ramp isn't blued or battered: that's just an effect of the camera flash. The fore end does not have a SN on it. My No.4 does, so I know what you mean. So the wood isn't original to this metal. Armory refurb?

What are your doubts regarding the serial numbers on the action and the barrel?

Okay, so what do I have here? I have a No.1 with an apparently unfired barrel, a pristine bolt head, no JJCO mark, and unoriginal wood. Is it a sporter that's been renewed?

To me the most important question is: should I fire this rifle? I don't want to spoil something that's this well kept if it does have some undeniable historical value in this current condition. I'd sooner just go buy a $300 non-matching SMLE beater I can take to the range.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

Recoil plates are copper, and the screws appear to be copper as well.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

3MD: 3rd Military District, Victoria.

---

So the sight ramp surface is not blued? Should be shiny.

The serial number on the action and barrel looks a too big and too deep. Also doesn't quite match the font of the bolt. But I'm not suggesting that with certainty, it just leaves a little question mark in my mind. As Son pointed out earlier, the wood is marked slaz43 so cant be original to your rifle. I don't believe its a refurb either. I think its a build up from a barreled action with no historical value other than being an SMLE. Shoot the hell out of it.

---------- Post added at 11:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

Yes 3MD is 3rd Military district but unusual for it to be stamped into a 40's dated action. Anyone else have a comment on that.

One of the books I have says "late on" they went to aliminium plates? is this correct? I have only ever seen copper plates and being target rifles no idea when these were added.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

---

Would be interesting to know.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

In terms of firing given its age and its probably rebuilt, I'd headspace it and check that both bolt lugs are load bearing so at least you know its safe.

It's a discussion that has come up in the past. I personally have rifles with aluminium plates but I think it's not likely they are a factory job and More likely a civilian job. Im open to other views or information though.

Now that you mention it, the "1" on the receiver and barrel SN does appear to be hammered in there pretty deep. But how would a rifle like this come to be? You say it's rebarreled: does that mean someone bought an unused No.1 barrel from government surplus, and put it on this receiver, then stamped them both to match, and put new (old) Slaz wood on it?
Also, I read somewhere that the nose cap sn wasn't always applied on some arsenal refurbs. Opinion?

I'd be more inclined to agree with the sporter refurb suggestion if the barrel and bolt head weren't in such good condition.

I don't know mate. The numbers look a bit sus but maybe not. It does appear to have the correct proofs and the assembly numbers match.

Yes that's right about unnumbered nosecaps on some refurbed rifles. Its very common on rifles refurbed in Lithgow end 1945, 1946 and 1947. Those are marked R over MA over the date on the butt, but I don't think yours is one of these. The dates and characteristics of the wood don't match up and I've never seen one that wasn't rebarreled. Plus your butt has no stamps. These refurbs were stocked up very nicely as new rifles were, with nice lines and no gaps.

That's a beautiful rifle you have there. I have a No.4 that I purchased for $200 USD in a pawn store years ago that has a similar aged patina to it.

So we have a bit of an enigma here with this rifle? Good. I like a bit of mystery behind my surplus rifles.

Too bad the No.1 isn't a true historical piece, but at least I can shoot it with a good conscience now. It really is in wonderful shape mostly.

Well, not to bring you down, but that isn't much of a mystery. I had one of those back in the early 90's. It looked the same, same wood, same dates. Mine did not have an alpha-prefix serial number, and it too was dated 1941. It was a J. Jovino import. I have attached 4 pics of two of my rifles. The first two are of a 1913 dated lithgow. The second two are of a 1907 dated Enfield (with 2MD Australian ownership marks). J Jovoino did a vey good job of hiding their import mark, as you can see by the pics.

The "un-issued" lithgow I bought had the faintest, "JJ NY" stamp at the base of the charger bridge. Jovino cleverly applied the finish OVER the import stamp, and it was nearly invisible.

I think it is still a beautiful looking piece. So long as you dont feel you payed too much or bought a mis-represented piece, enjoy it.

SSJ - copper 2 x small brass screws at least that's what my Mk III's have sometimes there is shim material behind either plate to get the right fitment.
Homer - I hope that is not a spot of rust at about 17:30 just @ 1/4 " inside the bore on your Mk III :yikes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

SSJ - copper 2 x small brass screws at least that's what my Mk III's have sometimes there is shim material behind either plate to get the right fitment.
Homer - I hope that is not a spot of rust at about 17:30 just @ 1/4 " inside the bore on your Mk III :yikes:

---

Could very well be, don't own it anymore though.

Personally I would be extremely wary of an "unissued" 1941-dated Lithgow because Australia had been well and truly involved in WWII for two years by that point and things would soon be heating up in the country's backyard (particularly New Guinea) so the Australian troops needed every rifle they could get. Add to that Australia still using SMLEs in Korea a few years after WWII finished and it just doesn't seem likely a rifle of that year would somehow end up in storage without an exceptionally good reason (production archetype for that year for SAF Lithgow, for example).

I could see a late 1944 or early 1945-dated Lithgow SMLE managing to avoid being issued and eventually surplussed off, but a 1941? I'd be taking that with a Himalayan salt mine.*


*And having said all that, I'm sure someone will be along presently to show us pics of their genuinely unissued 1941 Lithgow SMLE Mk III*, complete with papers and/or an Advisory Board thumbs up. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Enfield

Personally I would be extremely wary of an "unissued" 1941-dated Lithgow because Australia had been well and truly involved in WWII for two years by that point and things would soon be heating up in the country's backyard (particularly New Guinea) so the Australian troops needed every rifle they could get. Add to that Australia still using SMLEs in Korea a few years after WWII finished and it just doesn't seem likely a rifle of that year would somehow end up in storage without an exceptionally good reason (production archetype for that year for SAF Lithgow, for example).

I could see a late 1944 or early 1945-dated Lithgow SMLE managing to avoid being issued and eventually surplussed off, but a 1941? I'd be taking that with a Himalayan salt mine.*


*And having said all that, I'm sure someone will be along presently to show us pics of their genuinely unissued 1941 Lithgow SMLE Mk III*, complete with papers and/or an Advisory Board thumbs up. :p

---

Ha your small print is very funny. Never say never with enfields. I hate the word unissued, but there are 1941/42/43/44 and 45 dated lithgows around that appear almost as new, as if unissued i suppose.

No pictures though.

Just my two bobs worth, Bitza.
OA and BA stamped parts were not available until late '42, wood is too pristine, even for unissued storage racks.
Probably worth a look for JJCO mark on the foresight, cleverley hidden behind the nosecap.
Attachment 53257

I took the nose cap off and didn't see anything. I've gone over everything twice with a flashlight, and still no JJ markings. I'm fairly certain this rifle either isn't a JJCO, or the stamp was shallow enough to have been filed off. But the dates on the wood don't match, so it was all added later. Glad to know.

Alright, anyone have any ideas as to where this pristine barrel and bolt face came from?

I always yawn and roll my eyes skywards when I hear the 'unissued' word simply because having been in the system for a long time, I know and often repeat an old saying related to me by a LONG serving quartermaster. Who told me that items in storeage are simply an expensive way of storing fresh air. Not only that, it's a damned xxxxxxg expensive way of storing fresh air too. We just don't do it. And furthermore, when we do, we ROTATE the stockpiles.
That's only my experience in these matters not having been a stores bloke but.......

As for how a bolt face is soooooooo gleaming. Simple. Armourers do and teach it every day, Clean it. Barrels are an entirely different matter and I have explained here several times, barrels are measured in quarters-of-life. Generally this only relates to machine gun barrels in the small arms world but applies equally to rifle barrels. Given a barrel life of 7-9000 rounds that drops off dramatically towards the end but remains pretty-well constantly perfect for the first couple of thousand, who but only an experienced Armourer could safely categorise a barrel in its first quarter of life. I'll tell you what.......... It's not me and I call myself fairly well experienced at barrel viewing. But those real experts, like Corporal Taffy Txxxxx could. They could view a perfectly clean, crisp barrel even without the use of gauges and put into, say, its late 2nd quarter of life.

What some call pristine, a barrel viewer might look into, both eyes open, take a sharp intake of breath, rotate it a few times on the rollers and............ Well.......

That's the difference between an amateur looking at a barrel and an Armourer viewing a barrel. The question was asked, and the answer given.

So someone -with the correct machinery- took the time to polish the bolt head, rebore a barrel, and then attach it to a new action, stamp them both with matching numbers and the correct proofs, just to pass the rifle off as unissued?

That's a little bit on the far edge of Occam's razor.

No....., listen again MR. You simply polish the bolthead as Armourers and shooters have been doing ever since they were issued with emery sticks for JUST that (and other) purposes.

It is only YOUR word - and I say this carefully - as an amateur that your barrel is unused/unissued. Just let a skilled 'viewer' and with the gauges be the best judge of that, please! Same as a 'new' action! Where are your gauges that tell you that. I'll let you borrow mine if you like.

Matching numbers............ Of COURSE they are.......... That's how they are! That's what we do! That's what makes them a matched set! Armourers replace and refit bolts, properly of course and then renumber with monotonous regularity

Proofed......... Of course it is.......... they all are prior to being sent out to Ordnance stores. Barrel, bolt assembly and body!

I'll stick with my original opinion. I think most of the contributions so far go towards the same train of thought.

It's a rifle that likely was sportered or had woodwork and fittings missing that has been put back to standard post service. The woodwork is newer than the rest, not fitted or finished. Just to add here, if it was unissued, it would not have an "S" butt on it either. Some small parts have been refinished, the nosecap isn't original. The receiver, barrel, bolt and sight leaf are all numbered together, and I think even though some of the stamping looks questionable, we have all seen worse. The bolthead is just another part like the rear swivel... I have a jar full of unmarked pristine bolt heads... The bore may well have had little use, or been very well cared for. This may help it shoot well, but may not have as much influence as the foreend if it hasn't been fitted right.

It's a very nice looking rifle, take it out and stick a few rounds through it. Take care of it and you will not be able to pick the wear for at least the first 3 to 4 thousand rounds. I hope it shoots well!

I meant "new" action, as in the action is unoriginal to that barrel. Not necessarily "new" like "brand new".

As for the matching numbers, someone in an earlier post questioned the authenticity of the s/n on the barrel and the receiver. I was applying his hypothesis -that the s/n are both civilian re-stamped as a forgery to match- to yours. Previous posters have said they don't believe this rifle is a refurb: what do you think? I think we've established it isn't an unissued No.1, but it's in a helluva lot better shape than any of my other milsurps. If it is an aftermarket attempt to pass off a used rifle as new, someone put a MST of effort into it. There are more plausible explanations.

But who is "we", regarding "that's what we do!"? Armorers?

I know that barrel, bolt assembly, and body are all stamped with matching numbers upon assembly. I'm not quite as much of an amateur as you seem to think: I'm new to this thread and forum, but that doesn't mean I'm a neophyte when it comes to rifles, old and new. People commonly make that assumption on new members of all these gun forums: "This guy is new to here, he must've just bought his first rifle yesterday."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRoberts06

I'm not quite as much of an amateur as you seem to think

---

It's because of the way you're talking here that causes that train of thought.

Example, the numbering is no problem nor is the finish. I've redone lots of rifles and can tell you for a fact, we renumbered and then re-parkerized or blued rifles and it looks exactly as this one does. Just like new. It's not that hard to make one look like the first day again. I knew once I looked at the rear sight guard pitting this is a refurbish. Doesn't matter how it looks, or the accompanying story.

And yes, the "We" would be armorers. Most here are acquainted with the armorers on this forum. There are several...we use them regularly.

Yes and quite a solid lot I may add cheers

I noticed the rear sight pitting before I'd purchased it, but didn't pay it much mind: a 70 year old rifle in any state of issue, non-issue, refurb, etc. is allowed to have some minor pitting. For what I paid I was willing to overlook some cosmetic issues.

So, we're of the mind that this rifle has been refurbished, most likely not back at the factory, but by a dishonest civilian gunsmith who took a sporter rifle, re-stamped the sn's so they'd match, put new furniture on it, and sold it as a numbers matching, unissued No.1 MkIII*.

I'm glad I didn't pay too much for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRoberts06

dishonest civilian gunsmith

---

That may be, but usually we were doing a rifle for an individual. What he does at that point is anyone's guess...but it's pristine, so there's that...

Were any 1941 Lithgow rifles Parkerized at the factory when new? I think they were blued but could be wrong. I thought Parkerizing became the standard Lithgow finish in 1942. I'm just guessing from the number of wartime Lithgow SMLE's I've had through here. All of the factory original 1941 rifles I've seen were blued. John Jovino had thousands of them in the late 1980's including many rifles that were in parts. They were completed and sold off along with many beautiful original rifles at the time. I bought a butchered/chopped 1941 Lthgow many years ago that had been Parkerized during it's service and rebarreled it with a new 1945 Lithgow barrel and fitted all new, original wood back to it. It's one of my favorite shooters to this day and looks exactly like your rifle!

I have a matching 1940 that is blued, but my '41 is a '52 FTR so cannot help you there Brian. Homer or Muffet will know almost for sure.
I don't think any of the numbers have been restamped. Anyone who has done any stamping of parts will tell you the "1" stamp requires a much lighter hit to get the same depth. It's not surprising to see the 1 so heavilly hit especially when it was the first number in the sequence. The rest of them were probably hit with the same force, but bigger surface contact means less penetration. Here's an example of a Lithgow SN with a heavy 1. The first number was a bit light so he gave the rest a bigger hit

Attachment 53272

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

SSJ - copper 2 x small brass screws at least that's what my Mk III's have sometimes there is shim material behind either plate to get the right fitment.
:

---

The ones Ive seen are copper but have used steel screws, which btw took the "hammer" So on my one I replaced them with brass ones (Ive kept the "originals") and yes Ive seen brass shim.

Brian they started parkerising around the time rifles were serial numbered B80000 at the end of 1941.
Son I only put a question mark over the serial numbering because of the weight on every number and the font is a little different to the bolt. I looked through pictures of about 12 maybe 15 1941 actions and couldn't find one stamped so heavily. Doesn't mean it's not right though, I just thought it worth raising for discussion.
Maybe this barrelled action was never completely assembled into a rifle and jovino or someone bought it as a barrelled action.

---------- Post added at 07:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssj

The ones Ive seen are copper but have used steel screws, which btw took the "hammer" So on my one I replaced them with brass ones (Ive kept the "originals") and yes Ive seen brass shim.

---

The factory used brass and steel screws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Ha your small print is very funny. Never say never with enfields. I hate the word unissued, but there are 1941/42/43/44 and 45 dated lithgows around that appear almost as new, as if unissued i suppose.

---

You're absolutely right on the "Never say never" thing with Enfields - Even something as simple as trying to categorise an SMLE as a Mk III or Mk III* is fraught with complications! I've seen Mk IIIs with magazine cut-off and volley sights removed but the windage adjustable sights still on them, Mk III*s with the slot and wood cutout for the magazine cut-off still present, Mk IIIs with the magazine cut-off but not windage adjustable sights... There's a reason Skennerton's book is (fortunately) so hefty!

I agree there's some nice, outstanding condition 1941-1945 Lithgows out there but I think there's a huge differece between "Unissued" and "Issued to people who didn't use them very much". There are plenty of reasons a WWII-dated Lithgow would come through the scrape in tip-top shape (even without an FTR somewhere along the way) - issued for guard duty at a base or depot in Australia, for example.

To me, "Unissued" implies the rifle went straight from the factory to a warehouse (Raiders of the Lost Ark-style or otherwise) and was promptly forgotten about until after all the brouhaha was over, at which point somene doing an inventory said "Why have we got these obsolete rifles in storage?" and arranged for them to be surplussed off.

In other words, a totally different kettle of fish to a rifle which went from said warehouse to the Waikikamukau Tank and Vehicle Repair Depot where it sat in the armoury rack for 95% of its service life, except for being used for target drills occasionally, until well after the war somene doing an inventory said "Why have we got these obsolete rifles here?" and arranged for them to be surplussed off.

Thank you for the reply, Colonel.

Here is a very good example of a heavy 1 stamp.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...42Lithy3-1.jpg

2 1941 Lithgows both with a black finish
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727c-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LithyTM6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727e-1.jpg

& a good close-up showing paint chipped off from the stamping.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LithyTM8-1.jpg


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ITHYmain-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002b-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002c-1.jpg

Still, it's a nice looking rifle. The bit that intrigues me the most is the BA stamped charger guide.
Was this an unfinished action that the guide was attached to later?........not that I remember them being stamped in this position, but then I don't look at everything these days, let alone remember them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

Here is a very good example of a heavy 1 stamp.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...42Lithy3-1.jpg

2 1941 Lithgows both with a black finish
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727c-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LithyTM6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B68727e-1.jpg

& a good close-up showing paint chipped off from the stamping.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LithyTM8-1.jpg


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ITHYmain-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002b-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../B69002c-1.jpg

---

I thought it was black paint mate. I had a number of rifles assembled 1940/41 all had what appeared to be painted barrels. Also all my 1935/36 barrels were painted.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Still, it's a nice looking rifle. The bit that intrigues me the most is the BA stamped charger guide.
Was this an unfinished action that the guide was attached to later?........not that I remember them being stamped in this position, but then I don't look at everything these days, let alone remember them all.

---

Muffer Ive never seen it on one of my rifles but I did have a charger guide years back that have never been fit onto a rifle and it had the BA stamp. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Also all my 1935/36 barrels were painted.

---

I just checked mine & they are blued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

I just checked mine & they are blued.

---

Your 35/36?

Here you go Colonel, I knew I had some photos somewhere. This is Neds old rifle and I know the bloke that bought it off him. Call it issued, unissued or whatever but its fairly obvious it wasn't used much. I've seen a few of these around, dated 41,42,43,44 and 45. Had one just like it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

I thought it was black paint mate. I had a number of rifles assembled 1940/41 all had what appeared to be painted barrels. Also all my 1935/36 barrels were painted.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------




Muffer Ive never seen it on one of my rifles but I did have a charger guide years back that have never been fit onto a rifle and it had the BA stamp. Interesting.

---

I have an unused charger bridge here somewhere stamped BA in the same spot. I will try to find it and get a pic up.... Never seen one stamped on a rifle either. This may be another clue, good pick-up Muffer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Here you go Colonel, I knew I had some photos somewhere. This is Neds old rifle and I know the bloke that bought it off him. Call it issued, unissued or whatever but its fairly obvious it wasn't used much. I've seen a few of these around, dated 41,42,43,44 and 45. Had one just like it myself.

---

Too bad rust isn't protective. That's a very clean looking rifle even with the oxidation. I like the the display stand, might have to build myself one too.

The charger bridge, the nose cap, and a few other parts have the Bathurst stamp on them. The rifle isn't with me right now, but I'll post here which parts when it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MRoberts06

Too bad rust isn't protective. That's a very clean looking rifle even with the oxidation. I like the the display stand, might have to build myself one too.

The charger bridge, the nose cap, and a few other parts have the Bathurst stamp on them. The rifle isn't with me right now, but I'll post here which parts when it is.

---

No oxidation that is grease bloody grease as it left Lithgow in its crate with 7 buddies and 07s.

I see it now. Grease looked like rust on my phone.

BA on nose cap, charger guide, and trigger. OA on rear sight leafs and buttplate. I don't think the Orange feeder factory started producing until '43. Is that correct?

Bathurst began component production 24th September 1941, the rifle in question would not have been assembled till 1942 so if the receiver was made in the last few months of 1941 then BA on the charger guide would be correct, i have a BA marked charger guide on one of mine but its a '42 action assembled in 1943 s/n D38xxx.

---------- Post added at 07:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Your 35/36?

---

Yep, both the cut-away & the 1935 with a barrel date of 3 '36

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

Bathurst began component production 24th September 1941, the rifle in question would not have been assembled till 1942 so if the receiver was made in the last few months of 1941 then BA on the charger guide would be correct, i have a BA marked charger guide on one of mine but its a '42 action assembled in 1943 s/n D38xxx.

---------- Post added at 07:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------



Yep, both the cut-away & the 1935 with a barrel date of 3 '36

---

Ok that's interesting. I'll have to check mine and make sure I've got my facts right. The best 1935 rifle I had that sticks out in my mind as having a painted barrel is sold but I might be able to follow it up still.

My 42,43,44,45 and all my Mk6s are stamped with BA on the charger bridge the 53s are not.

Mk6s.. plural.

:thup:

My '35 is painted.............green:rofl:
.......in reality it is blued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aussietomcatter

Mk6s.. plural.

:thup:

---

:D:thup:

It's a John Jovino. Just trust me. (No, you'll never find the JJCO NY NY).