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

[JerryB08]

Well there's something common between the two rifles. The year 1939 the beginning of the 2nd world war. Perhaps they were also repairing rifles at the beginning because NO ONE knew how many rifles they were going to need. The common wealth were pretty much on their own. I certainly wouldn't be throwing material away in 1939. Which ever it is interesting. And is what makes collecting this old steel so enjoyable. Each one tell's a story. Never a complete story mind you or one that makes any sense hahha.

Well I thought someone said the other one was 1939

[muffett.2008]

Attachment 31901Attachment 31902Attachment 31903Attachment 31900

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Mr303]

Well 5th Batt beleives it to be genuine, I concurr, and Ian Skennerton believes it to genuine, to the extent of mentioning it in his latest book (look it up if you care to) While 5th Batt and I might not know everything about Lee rifles, we have seen in our years of collecting over a thousand of them and I personaly have catalogued hundreds of them for New Zealands largest annual auction of militaria. If you don't believe 5th Batt and I, can you at least believe Ian? He's the man who should really know.

[Homer]

If that is part of an L over crossed flags, I believe it to be a Lithgow proof. Hard to say for sure but it looks like it to me.

[5thBatt]

This appears to be a MkIII.

What on earth makes you think this is a MkIII & not a MkIII*?

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

If that is part of an L over crossed flags, I believe it to be a Lithgow proof. Hard to say for sure but it looks like it to me.

Yep, not too clear in the photo, will try to get a clearer one up tonite.[COLOR="black"]

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

[5thBatt]

Here's another photo of the proof stamp, there is an indent running though it, so only the toe of the L is visible, part of the P is also missing but definitely a Lithgow proof stamp.

[JerryB08]

In my amateur opinion it is authentic. I don't know it to be. But I believe it is. The Germans, when their K98's needed repair didn't take them back to Mauser or Styer. They were done in the field by the Army. I have seen this countless times with German rifles. Would you take your truck to the Manufacture to have it rebuilt or tune up? No you would take it to the shop. I am not as familiar with the Commonwealth's practices. But if they were fixing half destroyed rifles when would they have time to build brand new ones?

Another thing I will bring up just because it angers me is the availability of actual factory stamps. I know they make new German ones for the World War 2 era in Austria. I saw a Springfield Armory one on Ebay for stocks last night. I see them every where. That should be a serious crime. And HOW in heavens are the manufactures and armors that careless? If it wasn't for these clowns have the matching rifles that exist now wouldn't. The percentage now on German K98s is probably more like 75 percent. It's pathetic the fact they are available makes EVERYTHING a guessing game at the end of the day. Sure you can look at font's but you still don't KNOW. Font's changed when worn out at the factories all the time. I have no idea if English weapons have this same issue or not but I suspect they do.

BTW Anyone know where I can get my SMLE Bolt stamped, the importer grinded off the numbers. HAHAHAHAHA I'm seriously kidding. I could careless for the difference in money about matching numbers. I'll never pay that premium again. As long as it's period correct and everything is from the same manufacture. It's good enough for me. I also would never buy a gun I wouldn't shoot. What's the point?

[muffett.2008]

No, you didn't send me scurrying under a rock, But I did spend a day going through my collection to check proof marks. As I new I had a BRIT/LITHGOW proofmarked rifle, I just had to locate it, not so easy in large collections.
So several rifles drew my attention for closer inspection, a trusty old laptop, camera and a hand electronic microscope and I have a result.
Skennerton calls this rifle and one other occasional discrepancies, hence the need to make comment about them, and annomalies they are.
Below is a montage of proofs, the first is your rifle, the overlay is of one of mine enhanced with a digital microscope, the remainder are slight variations of British Proofs.
As I did not have your firearm at hand, I did not attempt to scale your proof as an overlay, but I did with the ones of mine.
The measurements if you are interested in checking, are: Brit/Lithgow barrel=3/8HX3/16W.
Receiver=5/16HX1/4W, Brit proofs 3/8HX1/4W, Lithgow proof 5/16HX1/4W






Attachment 31944 [ATTACH=CONFIG]31945[/ATTACH

There are similarities, therefore the benefit of doubt is in your favour, however, I still think this proof, if correct, was applied in Britain, the same period Australian proof shows a different L and the late lithgow proofs did away with the crown.
As I stated in my post 57, there are no certainties this far down the track, Skennerton looked at 2 firearms that were not the norm, there are probably thousands out there that do not fit our idea of normal, that is the great part about collecting, finding that odd one and attempting to trace the reasons for the variation, even if it raises conflict.

[Homer]

I'm not sure I'm following. Is it an L in the proof in question? If so doesn't that make it lithgow. You'll find this same proof on lithgow actions but with slightly different font ranging over 20 years up to 1941. What Australian proof from the same period are you comparing that has a different font L? Is it the rifle with 1927 dated barrel in your photo's? That would be understandable given the many years between actions.

The crown is present on late lithgow production as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you mean the royal cypher is not.

These are 1940 and 41 lithgow actions. The style of the L looks very much to be the same as the OP's rifle to me.

[JerryB08]

There are so many different way's and reasons it could have happened, really everyone of them is a guess. I don't understand at all why they would be placing parts from an old rifle on a brand new one at the factory to build to sell to NZ. Maybe there is a batch of them because they ran out of receivers????? I wouldn't have even found it to be odd if it had been done in later in the war in the field by a division Armour as they had stamps and would have renumbered it to the rifle as well.

The crown is present on very late model no1 MK3* Lithgows