Changing the buttstock on a '42 Lithgow, have a question about the screw

Hi all. New member here. I'm a fairly longtime owner of this '42 SMLE. I decided recently to change the buttstock to a "Long". Bought an Aussie-made buttstock that's 'new' unfinished. And I have it fitted nicely into the rifle's butt socket now. However, the screw, my original one, doesn't really come through the receiver much. Barely above flush with the surface in fact. I am sure screw's square head is supposed to protrude more so it can nest with that metal piece in the rear of the handguard.

Anyone run into this situation? Is there such thing as a "long" screw? Or do I find a for-wood drill bit of the same size as the oiler/access hole and deepen it a little more? What would be the standard solution to this problem?

Thanks in advance.

For what it's worth, I just did a slip-fit of the screw into both buttstocks. In the new stock, the screw protrudes out the front 0.15" LESS than it does with the old stock. Is this a really bad situation for a #1 Mk. 3*?

If so, I'm kind of thinking it might be simplest for me to weld some steel to end of the screw, then file it to the proper box shape. I lack the proper tooling to make that hole in the stock deeper while keeping it squared. I don't think a hand drill would be the right approach, assuming I could even find a drill bit for wood that's the right diameter and long enough. Something like that would cost me a lot more than I paid for this stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDWriter

For what it's worth, I just did a slip-fit of the screw into both buttstocks. In the new stock, the screw protrudes out the front 0.15" LESS than it does with the old stock. Is this a really bad situation for a #1 Mk. 3*?

If so, I'm kind of thinking it might be simplest for me to weld some steel to end of the screw, then file it to the proper box shape. I lack the proper tooling to make that hole in the stock deeper while keeping it squared. I don't think a hand drill would be the right approach, assuming I could even find a drill bit for wood that's the right diameter and long enough. Something like that would cost me a lot more than I paid for this stock.

---

Just a thought, but I once had a similar issue, turned out there were TWO of the tensioner springs in the hole. Took one out and all was well, plus had a spare spring! So take a look in the hole first.

Hmm. Nah. This was a never-issued replacement stock. 100% wood. No metal in it when I received it. So now it's even worse. I just pulled out a plane washer from the old stock, didn't even know it was in there; found it with a magnet. And there's another item made of steel there that I cannot get out of there. Might be that spring washer, I don't know. If I put those in the new stock'd I'd be in even worse shape.

Attachment 90706

It might only affect the looks of your rifle honestly. If there are all the right washers in there with the bolt then I can't see why there would be much issue with the square not protruding as far. Only reason it has the square is to stop the bolt coming loose in harsh environments like war, which I suppose you don't plan to join with that rifle.

That being said if you wanted to remove some wood to let the bolt sit further forward I reckon you could get some dowelling about the size of the butt-screw access and fix some sand paper to the end, then just spin it around, clean it out, and repeat until you have the correct protrusion. DON'T TRY THIS until the experts give their input however.

As we never know what life these rifles have had a canny person may have had the front woods off for some reason and decided to dock the stock bolt that way the butt can be removed without having to take to hand guards and lower fore wood off, the only way to check that stock bolt is to compare it to one that is known to be original, as I feel they would not be docked in service by the armourers at all....

Don't go deepening the hole in the butt to suit that bolt if you want it to be like an original buy a NOS stock bolt they are out the for about $10-20/Au

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nijalninja

Only reason it has the square is to stop the bolt coming loose in harsh environments like war, which I suppose you don't plan to join with that rifle.

---

Well heck, if that's the only reason for the square head to stick out, then I can easily not worry so much. I assumed it must be to support the handguard structurally in some way. You make sense though, since the #4 rifles don't have this feature but instead use that spring-washer as a lock washer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Don't go deepening the hole in the butt to suit that bolt if you want it to be like an original buy a NOS stock bolt they are out the for about $10-20/Au

---

I was thinking about buying a new one. A company here in the states has new/un-issued Australian stock screws for only $8 US, plus mailing. However, since my existing bolt is recessed when used with the new stock, without threads on the end it's not getting as good of a purchase as it should. And that situation will be worsened when employ a washer under the screw head. A screw from a #4 rifle might work better here because it's threaded out to the end, assuming they are the same all other ways. I don't like mixing the rifle-type parts, but it may make sense in this case. I think I'll pull out the screw from my #4 to compare with the #1's.

They may share the same lineage but some parts are not interchangeable between the MkIII & No.4 some of the more experienced here may shed light on the stock bolts between the two if they are the same thread & pitch and same length.

Actually I just pulled out the screw from my #4 and used it to attach the new stock to my #1. Works fine. The #4's screw is actually slightly longer overall than the #1's screw, which works out fine. When I add the spring washer and flat washer to the assembly the end of the screw sits just a little lower than flush with the front of the receiver. If I omitted the spring washer (and just went with blue Locktite), the screw end would likely be perfectly flush with that surface.

I think I have the screw issue sorted out now. I figure I may as well ask one more question about the buttstock. My other, "standard" stock's buttplate is too small to cover the end of the stock perfectly. You can see that 'ledge' it leaves all the way around, especially around the top half. Plus, I don't think the screw holes match up 100%, thought I managed to get it installed.

From what I was able to determine, there is only one size of buttplate; no such thing as a "Large" version. I'm not sure how the armorers dealt with large/long stocks, but I was just thinking I'd kind of give that wood edge a bevel, or maybe a bit of a radius and call it good. It's perfectly functional in this state. Looks a little odd maybe, but after all, it's just an old army rifle.

I figure I would run this buy you good folks. I'm curious if anyone else has dealt this this situation.

From what can be seen in the photo, the plate is sitting too far down, leaving a large "ledge" at the top and little or none at the bottom. This probably means the screw holes are in the wrong place for that particular plate.

Remedy is to remove the screws, drill out the holes a bit larger, fit and glue hardwood dowels in them, finish off flush, mark new screw locations that will center the plate (with uniform "ledge" - up/down and left/right), drill new screw holes, and reinstall.

A bevel or radius would look out of place since we don't usually see such embellishments on as-issued buttstock assemblies.

Thanks. That's a good idea. Although, one has to wonder, would an armorer bother redoing the holes a mm or two away if he wouldn't bother sanding off a few sharp edges?

So I happened to have some 3/8" dowel in the garage, bought at Ace HW a while back. Some kinda hardwood. I've got that process going with the top screw hole, which I think was the most off, i.e., lower than ideal. Got a piece of dowel in the stock now and will let the wood glue dry for a day or two. Depending on how the top hole procedure goes, I may or may not even mess with the lower hole.

I think it'll turn out better this way. Thanks much.

Ugh. I cannot drill a straight hole to save my life. Not with a hand drill anyway. The hole I made is actually darned near perfect, but not quite. It's maybe over to one side a few thousandths, and a degree or two off in both axes. Curse my perfectionism. It's almost not enough to care about. I just want to start putting some BLO on this stock.

Eyeballing your pic. of the buttplate, both screws seem slightly out of position, the wear pattern on them looks like they should be swapped around.
Correctly tightened, these screws may pull the buttplate up a tad(just going on the position of the heads in the pic.) but it is normal to have a shoulder of timber exposed around the plate...........bevelling the edges would not be correct.

Armourers would always fit butt plates to the rifles so that as well as bearing evenly over the underside, there would be an even width of wood all the way around. Mind you, we had a tray of used butt plates on the shelf and we'd select the best fit and then hand fit that. With yours, I'd adjust the heel of the butt (the top bit in the photo) to suit the butt plate. No rounmded corners...., square edges please!

Does the bolt hole in the butt stock align with the trap door hole?

If it does, don't be moving any screw holes around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Armourers would always fit butt plates to the rifles so that as well as bearing evenly over the underside, there would be an even width of wood all the way around.

---

I agree, that would be ideal. Of course I only have this one buttplate to work with, so I have to make do. FWIW, below are some earlier pics that I took shortly after buying the "L" buttstock, a couple of years ago. I was trying to decide what to do about it. That upper screw hole seemed to be drilled at a slightly downward angle. I don't know if that's normal but it seemed odd to me. Mind you, this is only the second #1 stock I've examined and the first pristine, never-used example.

I did have to relieve that inlet at the top to make room for the tongue to fit. And I'm really, really sorry, but I had to do a wee bit of rounding at that edge. I don't like sharp edges on wood. Tends to snag on things and can cause splintering. I'm sure in service, these edges would round on their own anyway from extended use. But this rifle won't see that much use.

Moving on, I have the first coat of linseed oil on this stock as of yesterday. Starting to look nice. How many coats of linseed oil is typically applied? Is there a rule of thumb. Been a few years since I've re-finished a Lee-Enfield.

Till it wont suck up anymore leaving say 12 hours between coats, the factories where produced not sure about Peters base workshops they used to soak them for a long time days in warm baths of the stuff then drain them but none of use here could explain to the MFWAF why we needed 1 -2 gallons of RLO to soak a MkIII or No.4 stock in........