My Anzac Day Lithgow 1915 Range Rifle--Comments? Which Aperture Sight is Correct?

[Troglodyte]

Looking for the thoughts of some of our experts on Australian rifles.

The GunBroker auction for this rifle coincidentally ended yesterday, on Anzac Day.

As Australia has been America's most faithful ally ever since our first side-by-side fight on July 4, 1918, the Battle of Hamel, I'm proud to have become caretaker to this particular piece of history on this particular day.

I don't have possession of the rifle yet, but post-auction the seller sent me some additional pictures. I'll give my inexpert assessment of the rifle and post photos below.

Two questions:
What aperture sight is most correct for this interwar Range Rifle?
What did I get wrong in my writeup below? I'm sure there's a lot.

My assessment: Rifle is a "mutt," with only the buttstock/woodwork, receiver, and nosepiece matching. Out-of-service parts replacement has largely spoiled its collector value. The bore on the heavy barrel is reportedly "very good," so it should turn out to be a fun shooter, giving happy days on the range to another generation of shooters as it likely has to several generations past. As a century-old rifle that's still functional, it remains a thing of beauty to be treasured and enjoyed.

Originally manufactured at Lithgow SAF in September 1915 [see buttstock], the rifle was surplused out from the Australian 4th Military District after WWI and in the 1930s became a Range Rifle for a member of the Citizen Military Forces [CMF on buttstock, surplus symbol on buttstock, original woodwork, with volley sights removed, and opened up for the heavy barrel profile]. As a Range Rifle, the left side of the stock was professionally cut down to accomodate an aperture sight. With the outbreak of WWII, the rifle was recalled by the Australian armed forces [surplus symbol on buttstock obliterated].

After WWII I'm guessing the rifle was again surplused out, with the surplus symbol on the top flat of the now-replaced barrel. After its military service, the rifle received several parts replacements--a WWII-era bolt, a 06/37 heavy barrel previously factory-installed on a different rifle, sloppily (toolmarks on Knox form) added to this one, and a new rear sight leaf. I'm assuming these replacements were out-of-service because if done by military armorers, the parts would have been "force matched."

Am I close?

Thanks,
Trog

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.