-
No.3 MK 1, need a little id help *photo heavy*
-
Not a "No.3 MK 1" but rather an SMLE MK III* (No.1 MK III*), made at Australia's Lithgow factory. See https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...Infantry-Rifle for details including an explanation of the aftermarket "JJCO" marking.
-
As he says...just a clean example of an Australian rifle produced for WW2. Nice end war marks and the marking disc...Artillery? Cocking piece is Enfield, otherwise looks to be all Aussie...
By the way, welcome to the forum...
-
Nice Lithgow. J. Jovino must have imported containers full of the Lithgow inventory back in the day. Everything from nice been there don that originals like this on to Bitsters assembled in house.
-
I think the 5/45 mark is a refurbishment to store mark.
-
AGA - Australian Garrison Artillery.
The butt is originally off another rifle but the stamps indicate a refurb in the orange factory in 1945.
-
Well I picked the right spot to ask, thank you all for the comments and information it is much appreciated. This is a great site I plan on spending more time on.
Cheers to you all!
-
beautiful, I love the really dark looking timber you see on some LE's
the "CMF NSW" markings show that at some stage the buttstock was on a rifle in the Citizen Military Forces (in in the state of NSW Australia), sort of an army reserve. i'm far from an expert but I thought that the buttstock disks were long gone by 1941, plus doesn't show the normal Lithgow cartouches, hence the butt originally being on an other rifle. the stamp on the underside of the stock looks to be a british inspectors mark (note the crown) but no idea which company.
the "HV" shows the sights were correct for the "high velocity" ammunition aka the standard ww1/ww2 mk7 ball ammunition.
the trigger guard shows an English government broad arrow stamp and a BSA? inspectors stamp. so I expect was originally on a british built rifle.
as stated above the cocking piece was made at Enfield and that style went out of production at enfield during ww1.
the crown over L over crossed flags on the knox form is the Lithgow proof mark.
the marking over the VII on the knox form looks to be a poorly stamped "OA" which is an Orange Arsenal manufactures mark. the Lithgow rifles included parts from various manufacturing plants, "arsenals" named after the towns where they were situated.
I think the top mark on the underside of the fore end may once have been a "SLAZ over 4?" showing Slazenger manufactured timber made in 194?. Slazenger in this case being the Australian arm of the british sporting goods company.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...63d7de1c-1.jpg
-
MA LSAF post 1926 (on both rifles & bayonets)
MAO Rifle Factory No.3 Orange (butt marking)
-
No one has picked up on the 10/12 date on the butt.
-
I saw that but wasn't sure if it was a date or a unit marking so figured it was best not say anything. I just checked and the unit I thought it just might have been is the 12/16th (hunter river lancers), the local reserve unit and formerly a CMF unit.
-
The number next to the 12/16 date(?) is 13762. Presuming that this is the original rifle number, that would go some way to assuming that the butt was originally fitted to another rifle.
Off subject a bit...... I remember the old CMF's as the sort-of equivalent of our TA's at the time. Do CMF's still exist in Oz.
-
You gentlemen are good, I'm impressed! Thank you!
-
Yes they still are Peter but are now known as the Army Reserve;
From - 1 March 1901 – 1980 (as Citizens Military Force) 1980 – present (as Army Reserve)
Source Wikipedia
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Parashooter
Does anyone know what years the John Jovino Co imported these?
-
Well I found it was the 80's and 90's. Interesting history on Jovino as well with it being the oldest gun shop in NY and claimed as the oldest in the US too. I guess the modern version of Henry Rifles is part of the Jovino family too.
-
The "rounded" cocking piece was the "correct' one for early SMLE's, even those built a Lithgow. That specimen is certainly an Enfield product, but there was a fair bit of 'cross-pollination" going on almost from the beginning.
The rounded shape was supposed to "minimise" hand damage during bayonet fighting. Remember that the rifle was seen as a "bayonet extender" that could, occasionally, lower the "tone" of the battlefield and actually be used to fire bullets in the general direction of the enemy.
The "block with grooves" cocking piece was a "temporary" WW1 "relaxation"; much cheaper to make the grasping end.
That "simplified" pattern ended up staying to the end of Oz SMLE building in the mid 1950's.
BOTH patterns were acceptable in repairs / rebuild, as long as they were dimensionally and functionally correct.
The number of Lithgow rifles that ended up buried in French / Belgian mud, rebuilt in British arsenals or dumped at sea post war, certainly skews any analysis of production. And then there was the sizeable quantity shipped to Britain, post Dunkirk, during the Second Great Unpleasantness and subsequently lost, rebuilt, "dumped" or "surplussed".
And then there are those like the "J. J. Co" multitudes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bruce_in_Oz
The rounded shape was supposed to "minimise" hand damage during bayonet fighting.
Interesting concept. The least of issues during bayonet fighting...yes, I've heard that one before about that part.
-
not to belabor a point , but it sometimes crosses my mind that those who use incorrect nomenclature dont actually realize why it is so important to the discussions , this one startsed with NO3 mkI - here is what a no3 mkI actually looks likt , the dark one here made by eddystone in the USA ................ nothing like a no1 mkIII/III* brit and ausie [yours] or a no1 mk3 [india]
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8f43a2fd-1.jpg
