Bitsa's - What to do with them?

[Bindi2]

How do you tell between a bitsza and field repair,SSA,NRF,Maltby or Lithgow with a FTR stamp and dont forget the rifles returned to Australia after WW1 From England that needed rebuilding just to work.( got new ones returned worn out older ones)

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.

[Claven2]

How do you tell between a bitsza and field repair,SSA,NRF,Maltby or Lithgow with a FTR stamp and dont forget the rifles returned to Australia after WW1 From England that needed rebuilding just to work.( got new ones returned worn out older ones)

In fairness to the Brits, it would have been unfeasible to find all the Lithgows still in service and return those specifically, plus after wastage, they could never have returned the proper number.

I also doubt they selected worn rifles specifically. Many MANY of the SMLE's in inventory had spent a long hard war shooting cordite and being dragged in the mud. The AEF rifles, for that matter, largely needed rebuilding.

Personally, I like the lithgow-rebuilt Brit rifles - they have an interesting history.

[Bindi2]

In fairness to the Brits, it would have been unfeasible to find all the Lithgows still in service and return those specifically, plus after wastage, they could never have returned the proper number.

I also doubt they selected worn rifles specifically. Many MANY of the SMLE's in inventory had spent a long hard war shooting cordite and being dragged in the mud. The AEF rifles, for that matter, largely needed rebuilding.

Personally, I like the Lithgow-rebuilt Brit rifles - they have an interesting history.

They got new rifles they were still building rifles they could have returned new rifles. I have some of those returned rifles one is a HT the others ,well enough said. Apart from the action there is little remaining (WW2 ,Malaya then Korea i suppose is a good run) But some of the actions are still older than any we made.

[Claven2]

They got new rifles they were still building rifles they could have returned new rifles. I have some of those returned rifles one is a HT the others ,well enough said. Apart from the action there is little remaining (WW2 ,Malaya then Korea i suppose is a good run) But some of the actions are still older than any we made.

In the early 1920's, only BSA was still producing No.1 rifles in quantity and those were primarily for foreign sale and commercial use. The UK MOD only bought enough to keep the production lines from closing. They would never have had enough unissued rifles on hand to send them to Australia. In all liklihood, they simply selected a muster point near Australia, perhaps India or Singapore, and had a bunch of rifles made surplus by the size of the peacetime army gathered together, counted, and sent to Australia.

As I said, had Australia retained those lithgows (and not sent them to the UK), they would have been used and abused by diggers for the whoel war and would still have needed rebuilding in similar proportions. In general, most militaries were disposing of guns anyway - Australia, by exception, rebuilt a lot of guns to like new again - I'd be interested to know when exactly though - was it in the 1920's (I doubt...?) or predominantly in the 1930's and later when the state of world affairs and its deterioration was becoming more evident?

All that to say, I doubt hte MoD did this on purpose as a snuff to Australia's armed forces. To the brass at the war office, an Enfield listed in stores as serviceable is as good as any other - regardless of the reality of the abused state of many of the rifles coming back from the front.