My "Brand New" 1917 Lithgow

[aussietomcatter]

Secured this 1917 Lithgow today, after much umming and ahhing on my part. Is mostly matching, other than the barrel, which is a close serial number match. Bore is 7/10.





















I think I would be right in saying that this would have been sent out of the factory with a Mag Cut Off, but this would have been removed by an armorer?

Also, my research tells me this won't have recoil pads, which is okay, as I only intend to shoot it once just to say I have shot a 1917 Lithgow before it becomes a safe queen.

How did I do guys?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[tbonesmith]

Looks good to me. I just think you should shoot it any time you feel like it. Won't do it any harm.

[Ridolpho]

aussieT: Nice looking acquisition. Looks like a good tight fit between rear of forend and body which should mean the "draws" won't be unduly stressed if the front triggerguard screw is clamping the wood properly. But have a look at the draws before you shoot it and see if they show any signs of suffering.

Ridolpho

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

A very nice rifle, congratulations. It's hard to tell from where I'm sitting, but could the forend be made from beech? If so, no need for metal recoil pads in the draws.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The whole cut-off caper can get a bit interesting.

I once had a "B" series Lithgow Mk 111* (late 1930s) that had the slot, etc. for the cut-off, but was otherwise as per Mk lll* spec.

The cut-off was officially deleted in British production at the beginning of 1916, as a "wartime expediency". Along with the cut-off, the long-range dial sight and aperture, the rear sight windage mechanism and the swivel lugs on the triggerguard also disappeared. The striker lost its little forward lug to be replaced by the simple notches for the armourers wrench and the matching slot in the back of the bolt head was deleted.

Post WW 1, a lot of the "fruit" started re-appearing on SMLEs, as wartime pressure had passed and things went back to "normal", albeit at a greatly reduced pace.

The catch is that it was apparently quite common for components to be held up or diverted at various stages of completion. Thus it is not surprising that "odd" features appear from time to time, especially in wartime production. Note that, at its peak in WW 1, Lithgow was pushing them out the door at a tremendous rate for what was a quite small facility. In the 1915-1916 financial year alone, they produced 30,460 rifles. The BIG year was 1918-1919, when 42,129 left the big shed. Post war, more equipment was acquired from Pratt and Whitney to bring production capacity up to 50,000 rifles per year. Just by comparison, in WW2, FY 1942-43 figures are 136,262.

And then there are rifles that were passed around on the WW 1 battlefields or in "aid" packages. After Dunkirk in WW2, Australia sent a large quantity of SMLEs to Britain. WW1 Brit. rifles were rebuilt in Australia with Queensland maple etc. and many new Oz bits, Lithgows were rebuilt / repaired at several UK facilities and turn up with beech stocks, for instance. In the final years of the SMLE at Lithgow, 1000 rifles were built on receivers dated 1953. However, the LAST of these did not leave the factory until February 1956.

You can have everything from a rifle virtually untouched from the day it left the factory, to a complete "bitzer" that is covered in stamps and has lots of miles on the clock. Both may be equally "authentic" and both have their own place in history. In military service, if a part needs replacing, the gun-plumber does not care who made the new component, as long as it has the correct part number and works "as advertised". Even "mint" Lithgows can be full of parts from every feeder factory but Lithgow. It doesn't matter, as long as, at the time of manufacture or repair, the part is correct, as per the appropriate manual.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I forgot to mention previously that ALL "Lithgows" made between 1924 and mid-1941 had Cut-Offs fitted, hence the prevalence of the slot..

The fact that the Cut-Off has "gone missing" on so many rifles is due to the final reversion to the lll* pattern during WW2 and the cycling of almost every weapon in the system through post WW2 "triage": Repair, Rebuild or Scrap.

Samples of Lithgow Cut-Off plates seem to be a bit scarce, probably most went to the great parts box in the sky, along with many other choice morsels.

[aussietomcatter]

If I reattached one on, would that be a great sin? I kind of want one on it just to be able to demonstrate how it works to people at the range. I get the feeling though I'm better off leaving it as it is!

[Son]

Be careful, I made the mistake of going all "historical" at a match one weekend, many moons ago electing to use my Mk1***.
All was going well until the rapidfire string. At the end of it, adrenalin coursing strong as it does in a young bloke after a frenzied 50 seconds, until the bloke alongside me asked where the blood was coming from....
Using the "pinch the bolt knob between thumb tip and forefinger" grip, I had managed to take a couple of big fillets off two knuckles on the meat slicer (back edge of the disengaged cut off) evident by the pile of flesh sitting on it and the blood running down the foreend..dripping off the magazine. that's when it started to hurt!

All up it was only the second most serious injury on the weekend... I was beaten by a bloke who had managed to near skin his forefinger opening a beer can that night after the tab broke off. Ha! At least I was wounded in battle!



It isn't going to hurt anything sticking one in it... they can be a bit finicky to fit if they have the right tension, but not too hard to put it in and take it out again later.

Just a quick note for Ridolpho... if it is fitted correctly, the foreend doesn't need the front trigger guard screw. In fact, all the fitting instructions will tell you it has to be a tight fit with no hardware installed. The front trigger guard bush is also adjusted in length once the foreend is bedded correctly to the action so it only allows a few thou of crush applied by the screw onto the foreend via the trigger guard when tightened. It is the front trigger guard bush that eventually cracks foreends longitudinally if the "draws" are not tight to start, allowing some movement no matter how tight the screw is.
Its a common misconception perpetuated in some places... like the rear of the draws cracking because the butt screw pokes through too far and contacts the foreend when firing ... and other fallacies too numerous to name

Brad.

[Ridolpho]

Son: Thanks for the comments. I struggle to get a mental picture of the stresses in a Lee Enfield forend during firing. What seems clear to me is that most recoil is directly imparted to the buttstock while the forend is stressed by the angle between barrel and cheek/ butt closing a bit during firing. If fit at the rear and main screw is tight the assembly should be rigid- if the main screw is loose the assembly resembles two beams anchored at the rear but free to shear relative to one another upon firing. In Wadhams book on accurizing he shows examples of high end target rifles with ribs machined on the underside of the action body to help lock the pieces together. Clearly the draws are stressed- I have a lineup of No. 1's waiting for repair with draws neatly sheared off from front to rear along vertical and horizontal cracks. Anyway, sorry for the babble but I find this endlessly fascinating.

Ridolpho

[Son]

It can be very difficult to get your head around.. especially the next bit... Yes, the recoil from firing is imparted directly to the firers shoulder through the butt socket of the action and the butt. There is one other thing that helps absorb recoil, though.. and that is the front hand on the foregrip. No matter how tight you think you are pulling the rifle in (and tighter isn't always better for accuracy anyway, I prefer a flat open hand under the foreend) the barreled action will be moving rearward under recoil and the foreend will be held static by the front hand. This means the contact between the rear of the foreend and the front surface of the butt socket is attempting to open up under recoil, leaving the "draws" at the other end (the area at the front of the wood draws or copper recoil plates in contact with the rear of the sear lugs) being the only area to stop this movement. The adjustment of the front trigger guard screw bush (exact measurement escapes me at the moment, but I can find it if needed) is set so the screw cannot crush the foreend with the trigger guard. Any movement here can upset the overall bedding and therefore accuracy of the rifle. Even worse, the very slightest change in position of the trigger guard of just a few thou will begin to change the relationship between the trigger and the sear, meaning possible loss of the two stage pull and extending of creep, maybe even loss of contact all together.
With the rest of the hardware in place, the inner band should do nothing if the bedding is correct, and must be secured tight. Another well traveled myth is the inner band screw was a tuning screw for accurising... Also the outer band in conjuction with the top handguard serve to hold the foreend at the correct angle, as does the nosecap the same way. Once again, the barrel centering stud an spring will do nothing if the foreend is correctly bedded. These things way out front have a much more significant effect on holding the foreend up than the front trigger guard screw.
In sportered rifles, with cut down foreends, removing the nosecap and inner band make the foreend rely on the front trigger guard screw entirely to secure it to the rifle... and as such, they wouldn't last as long in use.

So, in a rifle in full military form, the front trigger guard screw only has to hold the foreend a little and be tight to it's adjusted position to help keep the trigger- sear contact right.

Now, if a foreend has movement front to back because of worn or oil softened draws, it will be moving past the locked down front trigger guard bush. The hole it sits in will elongate a bit, but eventually cause a wedging action inside the foreend which will split it longitudinally.
You might want to check your damaged foreends for signs of cracking forward of the bush hole... would be a good thing to find and fix while doing the other work.

Sorry for hijacking your thread, AussieTC... but it's probably something you need to be aware of also, especially now you are hooked and will be buying lots and lots and lots and then more Lee Enefields.