Here is a 1953 Lithgow,less than 1000 made.
Short Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle, Lithgow No.1 Mark 3* - Collector's Source, Military Collectibles Online
Printable View
Here is a 1953 Lithgow,less than 1000 made.
Short Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle, Lithgow No.1 Mark 3* - Collector's Source, Military Collectibles Online
And it looks to be a very good one. Just for interest, it seems a very high proportion of these have either short or long butt.
That's a quality rifle.
But why less than 1000?
Possibly because of the mismatch bolt?
---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------
Oops, thought you meant price.
Ha yes Brian, my question could easily be taken that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
that high gloss finish on the wood? Is that origonal? I've seen several None had a higloss finish
civilian proofs or military?
I also wonder why the bolt does not match the gun.
Finish looks ok to me. Maybe bright flash of the camera.
No civilian proofs.
Bolts get mismatched for numerous reasons, who knows. It's not the first 1953 Lithgow I've seen with another 1953 bolt. I've had one.
too glossy I'm guessing. Only because I ruined a few my self that way and bought others that had been "restored" to that level. I cry sometimes when bubba restores a rifle.
That rifles not bubba'd mike. I've collected a few of these in my time, It's about as right as they come.
Hmmmmm?
I reckon that would be a good buy has the long butt wish it were here in Aus I could be sorely tempted, as far a price goes a No.4 just sold on used guns here in Aus for $2k straight out of the grease now thats expensive for just a normal run of the mill. And yes I know they do not make them any more.........!:)
Wasn't Lithgow's "1953" run 1,000 rifles total?
If that was for a Mk2 not uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Regarding this '53, I see no stampings on the right butt- had Lithgow stopped this practice for 1953? The outfit selling this rifle is not known for bargains so I'm wondering why the low price.
Ridolpho
Mine is marked the same as they always were on the right side of the butt socket. It's matching throughout and pretty much excellent except for a few handling marks. It also sports a short buttstock as mentioned above.
Yes 53's were never marked on the butts like earlier rifles. Butts are cleanskins
Ditto on my 1953 Lithgow.
Long butt-stock, no markings on the furniture.
The 1953's Lithgow's here is the serial range for them so there was a 1000 made ~ F39581 to F40580 (1953) Manufactured Lithgow SAF (machinery trials)
Looks like it sold.Didn't think it would last long.
Lasted longer than I thought it would given how quickly Corwin Arms entire inventory of SMLE's and Longbranch No. 4's went , last week. The SMLE's in that batch, strangely, appeared to be mainly or all WW2 BSA "dispersal rifles" leading one to wonder how a large group of that type would end up all in one place in 2017!Quote:
Originally Posted by superbee
Ridolpho
I picked my 1953 Lithgow up pretty cheap a small gunshow. Arm was surplused with the big lot of guns that came out through John Jovino back in the late 1980s. Back in the late 1980s to early 1990s was a great time for Enfield collecting in the US, lots of material and not a lot of interest.
I have two 1953's, and one has a mis-matched bolt. Aggravating, but still a neat and rare piece. The No4's that came back from China all had mis-matched bolts, but in the serial number range of the initial shipment. Just a factoid, so
just because it's mis-matched doesn't mean it can't hold a good place in your collection.
What is an untouched 1953 Lithgow worth today , matching numbers ? .