Lithgow Lee Enfield Rifle I suspect is a John Jovino?

[Slater]

If I was you Slater, I wouldn't even bother with the recoil plates. In fact, they were nothing of the sort but a decreasing cam that between them and the butt socket, would draw (hence the word 'draws' - after their purpose in life) the rear end of the fore-end into contact with the butt socket. I'd just replace the draws as per an article some time ago about replacing them in a worn out fore-end.

The notion that you could hold them in place with 7mm or so long screws, going into the end grain of the wood was a fairy story

Interesting. I was led to believe that they were a requirement in coachwood-stocked SMLE's because of the tendency of this rather soft wood to split under repeated recoil. So they proved to be ineffective?

[Homer]

I think the copper plates were an effective way to fix the problem. The screws have held up fine on rifles I've examined and Lithgow must have been satisfied with the design considering they continued with the practice during the 50's.

Nice gun bear. I'd be happy to have a 1915 lithgow with butt and forend from new manufacture. Good chance the dial plate has had the post or boss ground off and this was someones effort to restore the volley sight.

[Ridolpho]

Mr. Laidlers comments answered a question I've had for a while- specifically, are these small wood surfaces (the draws) actually recoil lugs? They are not referred to as such in old engineering drawings of MLM's, MLE's or SMLE's. As Mr. Laidler asserts, they simply help draw the forend back against the butt-socket against which (and via a large cross-sectional area of wood) most of the recoil is directed. I have an Ishapore #1 MkIII with virtually no draws left that shoots very well which I have always attributed to an excellent fit of forend to socket. Looking through my small collection it is interesting to note the two rifles with the best fit in this area are my 1895 MLE and a 1960 POF #4 Mk2. The draws in the latter hold the forend tightly against the socket but don't appear to have taken any punishment at all via recoil.

[Peter Laidler]

Homer, and well they might but without going into it all again, the notion has been fully explained in earlier threads. it's down to surface area. As for 7mm screws going into the end grain of wood............ you don't need to be an Armourer....., just mention this to any carpenter or cabinet maker and see what he says. But like I say, that'd just my 2c's worth and as ever, I could be wrong

[Frederick303]

The spring holding the rear lobbing sight on is a WWII replacement. I have never seen a rifle with lobbing sights that had such a spring. The screw holding the front lobbing sight in is not the correct part, there should be a flat head screw with two spanner holes in it, underneath of which there should be a washer.

Not sure what conclusions to reach but I would guess someone added these parts post service.

[bear2003]

Any idea where I can find a flat head screw with two spanner holes in it for the front volley site and a pre WWII spring holder for the rear volley site?