Which is a more accuraate rifle? The No1 MK 3 or the No 4 MK1

[5thBatt]

Skennerton does give it the nod, he also states that some unfinished MkIII receivers were set up as MkIII*, the I prefix is all that gives claim to this action being restamped to match a British barrel.
To my mind if the only part on a firearm that was salvageable, i.e: damaged receiver, than the complete firearm would have been scrapped.
As the Australian system was fully geared up by 1939, the only shortage may have been barrels, were we such obediante slaves to the british system that we would have followed their allready superseded system with a barrel because it was the control part? I doubt it.

It's not a barrel change! every single part (barrel, bolt, trigger guard, sear, safety, nosecap, woodwork, etc) that's fitted to the receiver is of BSA manufacture, all parts that normally carry a s/n are stamped I84115 The Lithgow receiver (the lone Lithgow part) is a MkIII* WITHOUT A CUTOFF SLOT which should not exist for normal Lithgow production.
Not legit because you say so?? I doubt it.