Two interesting Lithgows serial number-wise.

I have two Lithgows in my collection of which neither are anything out of the ordinary save one thing: they are both very close to the beginning or end serial number range of the 1922 change from the MkIII* to the MkIII, then the subsequent 1941 change back to MkIII* production. The first, a MkIII* serial # B5806 was built in 1923 and was only serial numbered 100 away from the end of MkIII* production (A97165 to B5906). The second Lithgow, a No1 MkIII produced in 1941 serial # B64738 is only a few hundred into the range for the return to MkIII* production (B64240 to B76898). Some authors may want to narrow the published serial number range of when the change over took place.

Unfortunately, the No.1 MkIII* is a bitzer but the No.1 MkIII has a matching bolt, action body, and nose cap. I just recently picked it up at an auction for $400 and I'm looking forward to it being a good shooter.

I have 2 1915 lithgows one has a rack number 35302 ( serial is 26752 ) then i have another 1915 with serial number 35302.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

I have two Lithgows in my collection of which neither are anything out of the ordinary save one thing: they are both very close to the beginning or end serial number range of the 1922 change from the MkIII* to the MkIII, then the subsequent 1941 change back to MkIII* production. The first, a MkIII* serial # B5806 was built in 1923 and was only serial numbered 100 away from the end of MkIII* production (A97165 to B5906). The second Lithgow, a No1 MkIII produced in 1941 serial # B64738 is only a few hundred into the range for the return to MkIII* production (B64240 to B76898). Some authors may want to narrow the published serial number range of when the change over took place.

Unfortunately, the No.1 MkIII* is a bitzer but the No.1 MkIII has a matching bolt, action body, and nose cap. I just recently picked it up at an auction for $400 and I'm looking forward to it being a good shooter.

---

I have A97167

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

I have two Lithgows in my collection of which neither are anything out of the ordinary save one thing: they are both very close to the beginning or end serial number range of the 1922 change from the MkIII* to the MkIII, then the subsequent 1941 change back to MkIII* production. The first, a MkIII* serial # B5806 was built in 1923 and was only serial numbered 100 away from the end of MkIII* production (A97165 to B5906). The second Lithgow, a No1 MkIII produced in 1941 serial # B64738 is only a few hundred into the range for the return to MkIII* production (B64240 to B76898). Some authors may want to narrow the published serial number range of when the change over took place.

Unfortunately, the No.1 MkIII* is a bitzer but the No.1 MkIII has a matching bolt, action body, and nose cap. I just recently picked it up at an auction for $400 and I'm looking forward to it being a good shooter.

---

Mate I’m not following this thread, can you please explain the point you’re trying to make.
Sorry not trying to be a smart arse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Mate I’m not following this thread, can you please explain the point you’re trying to make.
Sorry not trying to be a smart arse

---

I personally found it interesting that Lithgow switched back to MkIII production again after making MkIII* for decades. It was the proximity of the serial numbers of the two Lithgow rifles I own to the changes and that Lithgow switched back to MkIII production is what prompted me to research the change. Like many Lee Enfield collectors I'm into details.

Oh I see, but not quite. MkIII* from mid 1918 to early 1923 roughly, so not quite decades.
I think your data is incorrect. What’s your source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Oh I see, but not quite. MkIII* from mid 1918 to early 1923 roughly, so not quite decades.
I think your data is incorrect. What’s your source?

---

The information I posted was gleaned from Table B-15 on page 131 and Table B-19 and B-20 on page 133 of Charles Stratton book "Volume 1 SMLE (No. 1) Rifles MkI and MkIII" According to the book you've got your dates wrong for years of production: MkIII* were made from 1913 to 1918, then again from 1940 to 1953. Mark III's were made continuously from 1913 to 1945. It's all in the book unless Mr. Stratton got it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

The information I posted was gleaned from Table B-15 on page 131 and Table B-19 and B-20 on page 133 of Charles Stratton book "Volume 1 SMLE (No. 1) Rifles MkI and MkIII" According to the book you've got your dates wrong for years of production: MkIII* were made from 1913 to 1918, then again from 1940 to 1953. Mark III's were made continuously from 1913 to 1945. It's all in the book unless Mr. Stratton got it wrong.

---

Mate it’s absolutely incorrect

Stratton is wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Stratton is wrong

---

I tend to put too much faith in what I read in the books I have by Stratton, Skennerton et al. I'm always happy to be of assistance to others when questions are asked but on more than one occasion what I post from the experts turns out to be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

I tend to put too much faith in what I read in the books I have by Stratton, Skennerton et al. I'm always happy to be of assistance to others when questions are asked but on more than one occasion what I post from the experts turns out to be wrong.

---

The best most up to date resource for this sought of data is “The Lee Enfield” by Ian Skennerton.
The Lithgow SAF produced MkIII no star from 1913 to 1918, MkIII* from 1918 to 1922, MkIII no star again from 1922 to 1941 and then MkIII* from 1941 onwards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

The best most up to date resource for this sought of data is “The Lee Enfield” by Ian Skennerton.
The Lithgow SAF produced MkIII no star from 1913 to 1918, MkIII* from 1918 to 1922, MkIII no star again from 1922 to 1941 and then MkIII* from 1941 onwards

---

Yeah, I've got a copy of "The Lee Enfield Story" which I need to delve into to confirm what I read in the much handier "For Collector's Only" series of publications. TLES is a weighty tome and I tend to get lost in it for hours every time I open it. Mr. Skennerton's books have the odd mistake in them too which sometimes lead to interesting discussions on these forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

Yeah, I've got a copy of "The Lee Enfield Story" which I need to delve into to confirm what I read in the much handier "For Collector's Only" series of publications. TLES is a weighty tome and I tend to get lost in it for hours every time I open it. Mr. Skennerton's books have the odd mistake in them too which sometimes lead to interesting discussions on these forums.

---

Ian has openly admitted (as have many other techinlcal authors) that they can only use information that was known or 'correct' at the time, but, as archives open up and 'new' period documents become available more information comes to light that will either support, or disprove previous knowledge.

The spread of the internet and the freely available information provided by (collectors of the LE) helps increase our knoweldge base, and one obscure document found by a collector in some remote corner of the world would never have become known were it not for the internet & forums such as this.

I remember Peter Laidler saying (something to the effect)

"you can put all of your years of experience, research & knowledge into a book, but once he has read your book, the collector who has that one little snippet of information you did not find, now knows everything that you do, plus a little bit extra"

There is a reason(s) that books are reprinted with updates.