LE #1 Butt Plate -- Different sizes for different length butstocks?

Hi all. New member. I'm not exactly a collector of LEs, but I have owned two for a number of years. A #1 Lithgow from '42, and a #4 Mk1 from '49.

My question is about the brass butt plate. I recently purchased a "Long" buttstock to try on my Lithgow, which currently has a "Regular" length buttstock. The new Long one is in perfect condition, Aussie coachwood. But it's taller at the back end than the butt plate I have on the rifle now. I was wondering about this when I purchased the longer buttstock; makes sense that a longer stock might also be taller. But I have not been able to find any evidence of different sized butt plates for either the #1 or the #4 LEs, let alone any such sized parts being sold. What say you genuine collectors on this subject?

I fitted a 'S" short butt to a 1918 No 1 Mk 3 de-sporter project I recently finished and noticed the same trend. I checked against two butt plates I had around, one was cast-zinc and the other was brass, both fitted the same way you describe with the long butt. From my reading of Skinnerton's book I do not recall any mention of different sized plates, I am sure someone can verify that as a second.

The butt plates are all the same size. The difference you will see is in the angle of the butt from the toe to the small of the butt.

What you may notice is that the butts all differ slightly and Armourers always had to fit butt plates to the individual weapon. They like to get the butt plate to just sit inside the end profile of the butt so it wasa qui9te common to file a butt plate down to suit the butt

The wood should be proud of the butt plate not flush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What you may notice is that the butts all differ slightly and Armourers always had to fit butt plates to the individual weapon.

---

The butt plates are generally all the same for both No.1 and No.4 rifles (one of the few parts that are interchangeable, from what I understand). The problem, as Capt. Laidler implies, is that manufacturing techniques around the world often produced a more generous portion of wood than necessary for an instant perfect fit. Be prepared to plane, file, and sand the stock to fit the butt plate. The problem this might create is the destruction of the wood patina where you cut off the old oxidized wood. Staining is one approach that might work. Another way to go is to attempt to oxidize the wood with a propane torch, using the very soft touch of a wide flare flame. Go slow, moving the torch across the surface, trying not to burn the wood, and if you do, go over the scorched area with steel wool, gradually taking off the burned area until it matches the patina.

Thank you all. In comparing it again I do not think it's too far off. What do you folks think?

Blending the wood a little, rounding that edge and doing what is needed to get that top 'tongue' to fit into the stock in a flush way should not be an issue. Since as Bindi says, it ought to be proud of the brass anyway. (I only just learned the meaning of that Australian expression very recently. )

Looks within spec? I am still trying decide if I want to switch to the Long buttstock.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3550-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3549-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3548-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_3547-1.jpg

I might do something along the lines of what Seaspriter describes. Ultimately it'll be getting many thin coats of BLO.

It's a nice piece. "New" technically, as a replacement that was never used. Marked "SLAZ 54". Guessing that means it was made by Slazengers wood shop in '54.

Here is a pic of the left side. Has a few handling/storage scratches. Not surprised and I don't really care about that. It's going to get some mount of sanding anyway.

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

The idea was that wood gets shabby a lot faster than metal.

So, if you make the butt oversized, there is a fair bit of "fair wear and tear" that can occur and be easily dealt with by basic woodworking skills.

The recoil is transferred via the buttplate, and it certainly doesn't exactly fit "the fleshy part of the shoulder" with precision, either.

The buttplate on a Lee Enfield is there to stop the wood getting smashed up either on the parade ground (not that the butt should EVER strike the ground with force if the movements are performed correctly), or on the battlefield.

It also allows the inclusion of the nifty little trap that retains your basic cleaning gear, not to forget, easy access for the armourer's big screwdriver.

When things go really pear-shaped, it also serves as the striking edge of a very expensive fighting stick / club.

Buttplates generally require a small amount of "fitting", but it's not a big job.

If the brass / mazak etc. plate overhangs the wood, it becomes a snag hazard for all manner of things, webbing, for starters.

If you look at the blunt end of a correctly presented specimen of Mr. Garand's rifle, you will see that the wood overhangs the fancy steel buttplate as well.

Mrgriso, would appreciate your Lithgow info for the Lithgow Survey, located in the stickies at the start of this forum page.

That the No1, Lanchester and No4 butt plates are interchangeable is not strictly correct.according to our (UK) instructions - so I presume the same will apply to the rest of the Commonwealth nations too. We could fit No4 butt plates to No1 rifles (and did to Navy Lanchesters too.....) after slightly modifying the heel recess (thread 6, top photo....) in the butt to accommodate the larger radiussed (?-word) No4 butt plate overhang. But fitting No1 butt plates to a No4 rifle was not permitted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Mrgriso, would appreciate your Lithgow info for the Lithgow Survey, located in the stickies at the start of this forum page.

---

I saw that above. I will do it at my first opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

We could fit No4 butt plates to No1 rifles (and did to Navy Lanchesters too.....) after slightly modifying the heel recess (thread 6, top photo....) in the butt to accommodate the larger radiussed (?-word) No4 butt plate overhang.

---

Thanks for the information! This being the case, I might try to obtain a #4 butt plate in brass that's on the biggish side, and fit that. #4 plates seem to be much more plentiful in these parts than the #1 plates. It might look a little better in the end and require less sanding etc on the wood.

Last year, by chance, I happened to have the brass butt plates off a No1 rifle and a No4 rifle at the same time and so took the opportunity to compare them side by side/back to back etc. I found that with the examples which I had in front of me the overall profile of the No4 butt plate was slightly larger all the way round with the largest difference at the bottom. There may of course be slight differences between manufacturers.

Thank you Flying10. Interesting. I have not made the same comparison between my two rifles, but I have always thought my #4's plate seems bigger somehow. In fact the stock itself seems girthier overall. Even though they're both "Regular" length stocks.

The difference between the outside world and the cloistered world of the Armourers shops, especially the larger Field or Command workshops was that if we were fitting a new butt, we'd simply go over to the racks of new and used spare parts and select the best fit from what was there (.....and there'd be dozens, believe me.....) and then fit that butt plate to the rifle. Get a perfect plate to butt fit by filing or rasping wood from the butt end face. Perfect fit with no gaps or wobbles.......... Then get the side clearance by filing/adjusting the sides of the butt plate. During your apprenticeship or later, at trade test time you'd aim for a clearance of 3/16"-1/8" all round.

Occasionally you'd find that the butt screw holes were slightly mis-aligned. That means drilling out the misaligned screw hole,, glueing and then knocking in a deep hardwood dowel to suit and next day, re-drilling correctly and screwing down correctly.

And don't forget MrGrisso that there is also a method of actually fitting the butt to the rifle, getting the tapered butt socket perfectly matched to the tapered butt socket of the rifle. Absolutely NO wobble or slack permitted

The out-inspectors were uncompromising men.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The out-inspectors were uncompromising men.........

---

And rightfully so Peter, us Infantry goons can break any good piece of kit, no reason to give us the slightest excuse "like the rifle came out of the shop already broken". LOL.

An EME friend of mine who used to work on our LAV 3 fleet often quote the old adage:

You can give an Infanteer a rock and an anvil, then leave him alone on a hill for 2 hours and when you come back the rock will be lost and the anvil will be broken. When you ask him what happened, he'll shrug his shoulders and say "I dunno".

I see from Springfield Sporters in Pennsylvania that I can buy the following #4 butt plates:

• Used brass butt plate, complete
• "New" brass butt plate with all parts (except screws), but disassembled and requiring fitting of the trap door
• Various other steel butt plates that I am less interested in

How much work is it to fit the trapdoor to a new/unused butt plate? Anyone know?

Here is a link, in case anyone is interested:

Butt plate


I figure that a new one might be the way to go since it is guaranteed not to have be shaved down by anyone, as some used ones might be.

Butt plates only came from Ordnance as a complete assembly like Bren change levers. Maybe they've just had a load of parts or stripped a load of complete assemblies down to the individual components.

Reminds me of when I saw a zillion used Mk2 Bren backsights. Yep...... each one stripped down to its component parts! For what? The only thing that ever wore out so far as I remember was the detent clicker spring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

The butt plates are generally all the same for both No.1 and No.4 rifles (one of the few parts that are interchangeable, from what I understand).

---

Well maybe I've got some funny Enfields. But (at least on my examples) the No.4 butt is "chubbier" than the No.1 butt. And the tang on the No.4 buttplate is also a bit wider. On the No.1s the tang is somewhat "pointier". The difference is small, but the tangs on the No.4 plates will not fit in the cut-out in the No.1 butts, and if I put a No.1 plate in position on a No.4 butt, there is an ugly gap around the sides of the tang.

It would be enlightening if someone could make the same test and confirm/contradict my observation.
BTW, my Enfields are in ex-factory configuration as far as I can tell, with the exception of the No.8 fitted with an No.4 butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

It would be enlightening if someone could make the same test and confirm/contradict my observation.

---

I think Peter covers this difference regarding the interchangeability of the two types:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

We could fit No4 butt plates to No1 rifles (and did to Navy Lanchesters too.....) after slightly modifying the heel recess (thread 6, top photo....) in the butt to accommodate the larger radiussed (?-word) No4 butt plate overhang. But fitting No1 butt plates to a No4 rifle was not permitted

---

I think what he's calling the plate overhang is what you are calling the tang.

Thanks for the info. I had missed that. Nice to know that my Enfields are OK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

And don't forget MrGrisso that there is also a method of actually fitting the butt to the rifle, getting the tapered butt socket perfectly matched to the tapered butt socket of the rifle. Absolutely NO wobble or slack permitted

---

Good point! Been thinking about that step as well. It is probably the first thing I'll be working on, seeing if it slips in easily but not TOO easily, and how it all lines up once the bolt is tightened down. And as you say, with no wobble.

If not, do what needs doing. The stage of making the wood look pretty will have to come after that.

And thanks for the tip on how to re-do the screw holes. I will keep it in mind.

I would read the article on fitting the butt but there muist be a gap between the butt socket and the wood when the stock bolt is pulled up tight. The width of a hacksaw blade was the accepted norm.

Thank you again Peter. I assume you mean the article titled. "BUTTS, fitting new or refitting old...". Just skimmed it so far. Good stuff. Seems to be very useful instructions. My girlfriend found the title hilarious for some reason.

I will print it out so I can give it a proper read.

Is it correct that I must pull off the handguard piece before removing the buttstock screw? I read somewhere that this is true of the #1 but not the #4.

No need to remove the fore-end of the No4 before removing the butt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

No need to remove the fore-end of the No4 before removing the butt

---

Okay, so it is true of the #1? That's the type in question. I don't worry about doing that. I've done it often enough over the years.

Peter, a couple of questions which I like to ask you, please. Will the brass butt plates withstand much careful tweaking/bending without breaking if we feel the need? I'm guessing they wont because they are cast brass. Also did the WW2 manufactured No4 rifles still in British service post war that you came into contact with normally have the aluminium alloy butt plate replaced with the brass one or were there quite a few rifles about still with the alloy butt plate? I think that all the No4 rifles which I saw in the cadets during the 1980s all had brass butt plates; I don't remember ever seeing alloy ones. Thank-you.

There were still plenty of alloy butt plates around in the 80's and 90's when they were withdrawn. The trouble with the alloy ones was that they were not cast but sintered (? might not be strictly correct I fear but close.....) so they'd fracture and snap VERY easily. Whereas the cast and machined brass were a lot more forgiving. The true answer re longevity is that if they weren't broke, we didn't replace them. I don't think that there's a reason to bend a butt plate to fit. You rasp-to-shape the butt to fit the butt plate

No1 buttplates do vary in length, and its almost as if some were intended for different size butts. Given that tapered butts would require different length plates if a perfect fit was intended (looking at the way they made Long Lee and No1 rifles), it makes sense that someone at least must have calculated the dimensions required. However, as different dimensions for "sized" buttplates don't appear in any of the usual sources, perhaps they were abandoned - or perhaps they were in instructions to contractors that have now been lost to history?



These two were random specimens from the small stock of butt plates I had at the time. Although the length difference doesn't look much in the photo, the length x width increment gave the two very different "fit" onto butts. The right one was a perfect fit on "L" butts, whereas the left one fit "N" or "S" nicely. Note that the top screw hole and tang are perfectly aligned, which is what you find in all of the buttplates, and which is to be expected if the top of the butt was used as the fixed datum point.


You can't tell from the photo, but both were relatively unworn and properly finished - i.e. neither was a repro or something similar. Given the very high tolerances evident in other No1 components, it is odd that these decently manufactured plates can have so much variation.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...93511487-1.jpg

Sorry to disagree Thunderbox - and we've never disagreed before, but if it was anything but a manufacturing tolerance or having been 'shaped-to-fit' by an Armourer or so in the past then there would be a different part number to indicate such a difference.

Hi Peter,

I don't think we're disagreeing, as its perfectly clear: no part number = no such part.

I was just musing that it is odd - but no doubt coincidental - that you do find "large" and "small" No1 buttplates that happen to perfectly fit "L" and "S"/"B" butts. By contrast, No4 butt plates are pretty much all identical length, regardless of manufacturer.

I suspect that these butt plates had quite a generous manufacturing tolerance on the overall size of the profile and I doubt they were even measured before leaving the factory. Probably after casting any roughness/unevenness was removed and then it would have been drilled, tapped etc etc followed by a final buff/polish.

You can be rest assured that there will have been a tight and enforced spec, right down to the exact composition of the brass and the steel axis pin, finish and exact distance between the holes.

Here's an option for the OP. Send me your new butt and I'll hand select a used but excellent condition Lithgow buttplate to fit. I've got a good supply now but the bulk are going to England on export so don't wait too long if you want one.

This thread prompted me to have a look at my rifles to make a comparrison. The butt plate on a 1921 Lithgow with short butt is identical in size to the butt plate on a 1921 Lithgow with long butt. So in the case of the butts on my lithgows, there's an extension in length of 1 inche, but the end profile remains the same. Interesting, I never thought that was the case.

Peter, do you think that the tight spec that you mention would include the size of the outside profile, please, or would it just be what it came out as after casting?

I would imagine that there was even a spec for the outside profile/edge that would have been linished to size and blemish free. Everything had a spec. It would be chaotic without

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Everything had a spec. It would be chaotic without

---

To support Capt. Laidler's assertion, there are numerous stories of British Inspectors holding manufacturers to very tight tolerances and standards throughout the histories of the Winchester and Remington contracts for the P-14 rifles in WWI and the Long Branch and Savage-Stevens manufacture of the No.4 MkI* rifles. This is not just an Enfield issue. The inter-changeability of parts was critical for M1 Carbines, with a dozen prime contractors and scores of subcontracting parts suppliers who resupplied other prime contractors if inventories ran low. The same thing happened during the evolution of the Rolls Royce Merlin engines -- the US standard of inter-changeability was actually higher than the British standard, which enabled faster mass production.