1916 Lithgow SMLE Mk. III

Hi all,

Well a 1916 Lithgow SMLE Mk. III happened along my way, and I decided to buy it. Hopefully this turns out better than my last attempt at a Mk. III (which turned out to be a restored sporter).

In any case I haven't stripped her yet, but here is some photos. The Bolt, Receiver, and Nose cap are matching, and the rear sight has a different number (maybe a assembly number, I shall find out later). Only thing that has me questioning it so far is the rear volley sight is missing, but otherwise everything seems to be MA marked and or matching.

In any case please let me know what you think and any info you would like to share. I will have more photos later on once I strip it down.

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1505345932

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...2&d=1505345944

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...3&d=1505345949

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...4&d=1505345955

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...5&d=1505345960

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...6&d=1505345965

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...7&d=1505345969

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...8&d=1505345973

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...9&d=1505345978

Lithgow heavy barrel?

What do the markings on the right side of the butt look like?

Forend looks very early English with pin in front of the front band.
Definitely a heavy barrel.

Have a look to see when the barrel was changed my 1916 5MD was changed to a heavy barrel and was stamped on the butt wrist as such think that happened in 1937 for a lot of them for some reason here is a couple of pics it still has the original wood mine is a 4/16 build, it wears a Lithgow 5MD 1916 '07 bayonet which with the 5MD Lithgow 1916 Scabbard plus a black (not blackened) Wright 1916 sling which together cost me 5 1/2 times what the rifle cost which was a a miserly $100 for the rifle. But it was missing the mag & safety & sling.

The circle with the question mark in the circle on the reinforce no one on this site has been able to decipher it I cannot find anything on it either.

Has this one been re-blued? The metal finish and polish is extremely shiney for original.

My thoughts exactly Jim.

The bluing is suspect to me as well. That being said though, I don't know if it was refinished as the stock doesn't have any marks either (other than the odd scratch here and there) as well as no obvious refinishing signs (like sanded stock, finish changed, finish over the metal on parts, etc.). It could possibly just be a barely/never used piece, I don't know it isn't my forte. In any case here is some more photos, I am going to start stripping it down now and will share what I find.

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...3&d=1505420153

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...2&d=1505420145
This is on the forend right before the nose cap
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1505420141

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...0&d=1505420137
This is the only marking on the right hand side of the stock, the left hand side is blank

The stock shows signs of sanding at the disc for instance, dished in. The stock looks to have tru-oil or some such applied. I'm sure the blue is a recent polish and hot blue...specially at the Lithgow marking seems evident.

I'd say the wood has definitely been sanded. Maybe it was completely redone/restocked when it was changed to heavy barrel configuration? My 1916 Lithgow is stocked in Queensland maple which is a much lighter wood and the buttstock has all of the typical Australian manufacture and issue markings.

I could be wrong and am not prepared to make a federal case of it but it sure looks like it to me too. Maybe when it went to HB.

I concede to the experts, in any case at least it was a nice job.

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...7&d=1505421962

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...6&d=1505421957

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...5&d=1505421948

https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...4&d=1505421939

If I understand correctly the 4.36 would be the month and year the barrel was installed? So that would correspond to April 1936? Also the 4 MD on the barrel means 4th Military District which is Southern Australia if I am correct? Also the missing rear volley sight would that likely have been removed when the barrel was changed or later?

So with all these pictures, is it still a all matching Lee Enfield even if refinished? And the other question what would be a rough value on it in Canada if you guys were buying it. I am just curious how I did this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

If I understand correctly the 4.36 would be the month and year the barrel was installed? So that would correspond to April 1936? Also the 4 MD on the barrel means 4th Military District which is Southern Australia if I am correct? Also the missing rear volley sight would that likely have been removed when the barrel was changed or later?

---

I think all those assumptions are correct. I would say too that it's correct or factory rebarreled, but just term it a reblue, possibly at the time. My best guess. The polish looks like a paper polish that would have been done then, it gives that kind of result. I'd think without effort, at least $700 up to$900 CDN at the Calgary show...Maybe the high end...??? Ridolpho...where are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I think all those assumptions are correct. I would say too that it's correct or factory rebarreled, but just term it a reblue, possibly at the time. My best guess. The polish looks like a paper polish that would have been done then, it gives that kind of result. I'd think without effort, at least $700 up to$900 CDN at the Calgary show...Maybe the high end...??? Ridolpho...where are you?

---

Watching with interest BAR. If it is a genuine Lithgow assembled H-barrel I know I would still value it fairly highly, in-spite of the probable post-service cosmetic changes. Two or three years ago I payed $450.00 for a sporterized H-barrel apparently built at Lithgow on a '18 Peddle Scheme Mk III*. I suspect your suggested price range is right on the money. Curious to hear if the Aussies see anything to raise doubts about it origins. Nice rifle Eaglelord- may be a great shooter!

Ridolpho

I'd have doubts about the early English forend and non matching butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

I suspect your suggested price range is right on the money.

---

Thank you...we'll see what the experts see that we can't. Just as a full wood and H barrel it would command good money...sum total of parts really.

Pretty sure on the list of changes the volley sight was deleted prior to 1916 and the stock on mine has no provision for the front pointer nor the rear volley sight arm, as for the bluing my 1921 Lithgow raised similar responses but the blue is not as deep and shiny as the rifle portrayed in this thread.(see Pics).

My 1921 Lithgow;
This is my sleeper safe queen, as far as it has been ascertained has not been fired by its original owner a WWII vet or my gunsmith friend I got it off Terry (he is now deceased) who owned the weapon for 30+ plus years before I wrested it from him 8 years for $650/Au it came with its serialed to the rifle 1921 07 Lithgow Bayonet & Lithgow 1921 scabbard it has not been fired by myself either and still retains the 1921 barrel. All the fore woods are in the white and have not been sanded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

my 1921 Lithgow raised similar responses but the blue is not as deep and shiny as the rifle portrayed in this thread.

---

It depends on the way you remove the blue too. If you use a liquid to remove the blue, you can go straight into the salts after boiling. If you polish it's much longer and more involved. I've heard of using lemon juice to strip off blue. Coca Cola too...miuriatic acid, except it leaves a flat finish. Navy Jelly too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

I'd have doubts about the early English forend and non matching butt.

---

The number on the buttstock matches the second serial number on the receiver. As a side note does anyone know why there would be two serial numbers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Pretty sure on the list of changes the volley sight was deleted prior to 1916 and the stock on mine has no provision for the front pointer nor the rear volley sight arm, as for the bluing my 1921 Lithgow raised similar responses but the blue is not as deep and shiny as the rifle portrayed in this thread.(see Pics).

My 1921 Lithgow;
This is my sleeper safe queen, as far as it has been ascertained has not been fired by its original owner a WWII vet or my gunsmith friend I got it off Terry (he is now deceased) who owned the weapon for 30+ plus years before I wrested it from him 8 years for $650/Au it came with its serialed to the rifle 1921 07 Lithgow Bayonet & Lithgow 1921 scabbard it has not been fired by myself either and still retains the 1921 barrel. All the fore woods are in the white and have not been sanded.

---

If I remember correctly the modification to omit the volley sight from production was roughly in the 1915-1916 era with different factories starting at different times. Since this isn't a Mk. III* it makes sense that it would have had it.

Also as another side note did the forend have to be modified for the heavy barrel or did the standard No. 1 Mk. 3 forend fit the heavy barrel?

Think I will leave it as is Jim as with my luck it would turn out like a Hyena coat splotchy as heck and ruin it, put it this way if it was raining soup I would pick up a fork or probably win a steak in a chook raffle! that's my type of luck.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

The rear sight bed would not fit over the barrel where it was located they usually split the bottom ring on them soldered into position with the locating pin inserted

Not two serial numbers, one is the inventory number for the military district it was issued. That is the number that is also stamped into the butt.....although, I'd question the origins of that stamp, it looks more recent to me. I could be wrong of course.
Yes, forends were modified to suit the larger diameter of a heavy barrel.
And yes, this rifle would have been manufactured with volley sights, but this forend is not the original to this rifle. Again, it looks to be very early English. Highly likely the original forend would have been Queensland maple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Think I will leave it as is Jim

---

I agree completely, that was just conversation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Think I will leave it as is Jim as with my luck it would turn out like a Hyena coat splotchy as heck and ruin it, put it this way if it was raining soup I would pick up a fork or probably win a steak in a chook raffle! that's my type of luck.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

The rear sight bed would not fit over the barrel where it was located they usually split the bottom ring on them soldered into position with the locating pin inserted

---

Nothing wrong with the bluing on that rifle cinders. That's how those 44 refurbs came out.
Lovely rifle, if your ever sick of it, I'll buy it off you.

The BARREL was, in the tradition of the '53 Enfield, the "controlled" part.

They were a "consumable" item, bearing "batch numbers" but not an official "serial number" until assembled into a rifle.

Back in the "good old days", rifle club armourers had boxes of bodies as "spares" and they would fit them to whatever barrel the shooter wanted.

Given the peace-time ratio of "drills" to live firing, it is not surprising that bodies and bolts expired before the barrels did. Flogged-out bolt raceways and bolt-head retaining "ribs" would be noticeable long before a barrel was "past it".

I gather Homer it was not an after market bluing but possibly done on 5/44, thanks for the appreciation of it with the "if I get sick of it................." but I will politely say "No Thanks" Homer I sorta made a promise to Terry and even though he has passed I still feel obliged to keep the promise "Not to shoot it" even though he has been gone 2 years now it just would not sit right with me.
I have tried to put a .300 gauge into the muzzle and there is no way known its was going it I think the .295 may have gone in very snugly I mean I did it when I first got it home which was like 8 years ago......geez the last bit sounds like got up to shenanigans with the wife better stop there...................:madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

I gather Homer it was not an after market bluing but possibly done on 5/44, thanks for the appreciation of it with the "if I get sick of it................." but I will politely say "No Thanks" Homer I sorta made a promise to Terry and even though he has passed I still feel obliged to keep the promise "Not to shoot it" even though he has been gone 2 years now it just would not sit right with me.
I have tried to put a .300 gauge into the muzzle and there is no way known its was going it I think the .295 may have gone in very snugly I mean I did it when I first got it home which was like 8 years ago......geez the last bit sounds like got up to shenanigans with the wife better stop there...................:madsmile:

---

Of course mate, exactly the reply I expected. It's just something g you say when you like something.👍🏻

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

The BARREL was, in the tradition of the '53 Enfield, the "controlled" part.

They were a "consumable" item, bearing "batch numbers" but not an official "serial number" until assembled into a rifle.

Back in the "good old days", rifle club armourers had boxes of bodies as "spares" and they would fit them to whatever barrel the shooter wanted.

Given the peace-time ratio of "drills" to live firing, it is not surprising that bodies and bolts expired before the barrels did. Flogged-out bolt raceways and bolt-head retaining "ribs" would be noticeable long before a barrel was "past it".

---

Sorry Bruce, I'm not following this. Batch numbers, are you referring to Proof Action Assembly numbers?

"Sorry Bruce, I'm not following this. Batch numbers, are you referring to Proof Action Assembly numbers?"

Yes. Just could not come up with the correct jargon.

Even barrels were marked and remarked with various proofs and inspection marks as they made their way through the myriad processes to becoming a "finished" barrel.

The PAA numbers were applied to action and bolt when they were mated and proofed to identify them as a pair before being serial numbered. Only done at Lithgow and only from 1918 onwards. The OP's rifle won't have them.

Well got it to the range today, and I can say it seems to be fairly accurate (better than me at least). I also attempted a Mad Minute, which starting with a 5rd loaded magazine, I got 20rds off in total on my big black circle target at 100m (I count hits on both the black circle and rest of the paper). I might just start trying to practice it regularly now that I have a good Lee Enfield to do it with.

Here's my 1916 Lithgow MkIIIH which is just under 700 rifles earlier to compare.
Rifle serial number on the forend is next to impossible to read but that is not uncommon on QM stocks but i have no doubt the forend is original.


Attachment 87226Attachment 87228Attachment 87229Attachment 87227Attachment 87225Attachment 87230Attachment 87231Attachment 87232

Very cool to see rifles which are so close in serial number pictured. Interesting that they both received Heavy Barrels as well. Here's a question for you, does your rifle have the screw in the bottom of the stock as well as the bushing that goes around the barrel and screws into it?

I just noticed today mine is lacking that, and was wondering if that was part of the heavy barrel replacement (as it might be possible they didn't feel it was a requirement for heavy barreled rifles), or if it is just missing on mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

Very cool to see rifles which are so close in serial number pictured. Interesting that they both received Heavy Barrels as well. Here's a question for you, does your rifle have the screw in the bottom of the stock as well as the bushing that goes around the barrel and screws into it?

I just noticed today mine is lacking that, and was wondering if that was part of the heavy barrel replacement (as it might be possible they didn't feel it was a requirement for heavy barreled rifles), or if it is just missing on mine.

---

No innerband used with the Heavy barrel so no screw or spring in forend & unlike the HT the hole is left unplugged.

Excellent to hear that, I figured that would be the case, expecially considering they had to make the forend wider. Did Australia switch many rifles to the heavy barrel configuration, or was it only done once a barrel had been worn out?