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

[Peter Laidler]

Head above the paraphet and steel helmet on and here goes............ I don't think that Australia supplied the 'master component' as a spare part. They NEVER did in our big Base Workshop at Bandiana or even the training school nor did we ever get a body in Malaya or Singapore for our L1A1's (nor from Britain either) or Brens or Owens although they were almost finished by then, or indeed our AR15/M16's. In SVn, a battle damaged body meant a scrapped rifle even if the rifle went back for 'certified salvage' stripped of its decent spare parts. It is just simple economics.............. why replace the uppers on a pair of shoes just because there's life left in the soles?

I realise that we're getting off the subject here but I'm in agreement with Muffer

[5thBatt]

There have been many critics about this rifle & its origins, i would agree with most if it was a MkIII body but its not..... its a MkIII* without a cutoff slot! made at a time when Lithgow was producing the MkIII with a cutoff, it even has the Lithgow star as the * which is correct for production of the MkIII* without the slot which Lithgow reverted back to in late 1941.
Ian Skennerton says in his book (Pg 340 TLE) that Lithgow produced replacement receivers in basic MkIII* configuration early in WW2.
You will also find this rifle mentioned on Pg 566.

[Homer]

The only thing on this rifle that is 1918 is the barrel. probably rebarreled with an early barrel by persons unknown and the serial number stamped on.
Note the finish of the knox on the right hand side in relation to the left, and the very faint marks above and behind the S/N.
When you compare the S/N on the Receiver with the one on the Barrel under magnification, they were not done with the same stamp.

Muffer the serial numbers look different because if the rifle is legit they were done 20 years apart

Why would you not agree that all parts could be 1918 EFD?

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

Head above the paraphet and steel helmet on and here goes............ I don't think that Australia supplied the 'master component' as a spare part. They NEVER did in our big Base Workshop at Bandiana or even the training school nor did we ever get a body in Malaya or Singapore for our L1A1's (nor from Britain either) or Brens or Owens although they were almost finished by then, or indeed our AR15/M16's. In SVn, a battle damaged body meant a scrapped rifle even if the rifle went back for 'certified salvage' stripped of its decent spare parts. It is just simple economics.............. why replace the uppers on a pair of shoes just because there's life left in the soles?

I realise that we're getting off the subject here but I'm in agreement with Muffer

Peter,

Do you think that this is a civilian job?

[Peter Laidler]

Peter,
Do you think that this is a civilian job?
Answer, yes! But only based on what I know of the Australian, NZ and UK Military systems

[Homer]

Ok, but if you didn't know anything about the Australian Military system and had to rate the rifle. Anything look incorrect?

[5thBatt]

Ian Skennerton has personally viewed this rifle & felt it was legit, obviously strongly enough to write a small bit on it in the TLE
The receiver is a MkIII* WITHOUT a cutoff slot, this is not the normal production for a 1939 Lithgow, it would have a cutoff slot if it was taken from normal production or from another rifle.

[JerryB08]

I thought none of the Lithgows had stacking swivels? yes my serial number is F397XX. I also thought they all lacked mag cut off's. I'm new to all this and maybe not following the conversation correctly. In 1918 was the rifle NOT originally a Lithgow? Then in 39 Reproduced at Lithgow? Ahh I have the ability to scroll up... lol

I'm sorry scrolling up educated me better.

[JerryB08]

I wonder if i should replace the butt stock on mine with one with no markings then. To make it as historically accurate as possible.

[muffett.2008]

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.

[5thBatt]

I thought none of the Lithgows had stacking swivels? yes my serial number is F397XX. I also thought they all lacked mag cut off's. I'm new to all this and maybe not following the conversation correctly. In 1918 was the rifle NOT originally a Lithgow? Then in 39 Reproduced at Lithgow? Ahh I have the ability to scroll up... lol

I'm sorry scrolling up educated me better.

Lithgow produced the MkIII with cutoff & with the narrow pattern of piling swivel up untill late 1941.