1916 Lithgow No. 1 Mk. 111

[smlemk111]

Hi,

I picked this up at the Puyallup, WA show three weeks ago. Interestingly enough, the fore-end is marked "1941 Slaz." I didn't think that Slazenger's made anything but coachwood fore-ends. The barrel is dated 1941 and has the Lithgow proofs but has no 'HV' marks and the barrel is almost like new and shines with excellent sharp rifling. Sold-out-of-service marks are present on both the butt-stock and the receiver. The nosecap has a matching serial number however it is not Lithgow marked nor does it have any marking on it for that matter.

Pretty nice old lady for ninety-eight years old!

Best,

Al

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.

[muffett.2008]

Nice, I'd pinch the timber off you.

[Aussie48]

The HV stamp is on the butt and will be on the barrel knox as well when and if you strip it down

[Homer]

Geez that's lovely wood. Can we see a photo of the Slaz41? Should be able to see the HV stamp on the barrel without stripping it down. Is the barrel and forend serial numbered and do those numbers on the butt match the rifle?
Its an interesting one.

[smlemk111]

The slaz 41 is very faint, but there. the forend is matched to the rifle but also faint. There is no HV behind the rear sight as there should be. The numbers on the but match the numbers on the receiver, barrel, bolt, foreend and front band. the number blotted out on the but match the one blotted out on the receiver. The rear sight is a replacement.

[Homer]

So can you tell if the rear sight ramp is suited to MkVI or MkVII? Sounds really interesting for a few reasons and in lovely condition by the look of it.

---------- Post added at 08:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 AM ----------

The front band being numbered is a little odd.

[ufo8mydog]

Nice timber work. There is a guy here in Australia selling a 1916 Lithgow H rifle that is only 38 numbers out from yours.

[muffett.2008]

I would be inclined to think this should have a heavy barrel, if it has it will not be stamped HV.
Most of the 16's I have seen went through a repair program in the '41 to '46 timeframe. There are some marks up the wrist, cannot make them out.
Attachment 53028
It should also have T for tapered pin on the side of the rearsight.

[Homer]

I would be inclined to think this should have a heavy barrel, if it has it will not be stamped HV.
Most of the 16's I have seen went through a repair program in the '41 to '46 timeframe. There are some marks up the wrist, cannot make them out.
Attachment 53028
It should also have T for tapered pin on the side of the rearsight.

Muffer why would a heavy barrel not be stamped HV. Surprising if it is a heavy barrel, being dated 1941.

This rifle to me, doesn't fit the same category as one marked R over MA over 45.

[muffett.2008]

Good question Andrew, I am probably wrong, but all my heavy barrels do not have HV near the rearsight.
As the H barrels were produced from 1933 on, the same time as the Mk.7 round was allowed to be used by the Rifle Club movement, I just made the assumption.
The Mk.6 rounds were used up by 1934, the HV round effectively introduced at the same time as the H rifles in 1933.
1930 saw trials with the modified LE barrel, 1932 saw the production of the first dedicated H barrel and it's subsequent issue to Rifle Clubs thru 1932-34.
The H rifle was for sale at four pounds, a barrel without sights one pound sixteen shillings.

Just noticed that I have one heavy barrel with SC/HV on it, but it is a shortened LE barrel.