1944 Lithgow

[Detroit-1]

Here is the picture.

[muffett.2008]

It's a bodgy, more than likely renumbered by the people that own those horrible import/export markings.

[Detroit-1]

Was that a joke?

[jmoore]

Was that a joke?

Nah, that's Australian. But he's possibly correct. At this point either Post #10 or 12 are possible. Jovino's was known to do some put-togethers, but this isn't one of theirs. A detailed study of the individual S/Ns and other markings in the various locations and the overall build quality will provide further clues.

[Homer]

I don't think it's dodgy because the FTR and MA51 stamp look completely authentic and the receiver doesn't look to have been scrubbed and renumbered. What was the suggestion in post #10 actually? I don't think the butt disc has any relevance here and the stamp under the bolt handle only indicates the action manufacture date that is 1944. That's what makes this unusual. I agree closer examination of the rifle and numbers will help but the fact is this action has been through an FTR in 1951 so the serial number was applied either at that time or before but not after. It would seem unlikely to me that a new action was allocated an old serial number at the time of the FTR when the major consideration for a rifle to be considered for an FTR was a good action within specs.

[jmoore]

What are the markings on the wrist (right side) under the bolt handle that should tell you its story as it is it was FTR in 1951 at Lithgow so no letter prefix,

The 1944 serial number was surely removed at some point. Mostly likely during FTR. But why? Usually they're plenty deep. I reckon it's going t otake some clarification by those more familiar with this "subspecies".

[Peter Laidler]

We certainly did have a method of re-numbering bodies (the what we call 'master component') according to a special register. I don't remember anything similar in Australia but then again, I didn't do Base workshop work there but there must have been a re-numbering system for the occasion when it arose. Anyone oiver there got the old EMEI's - management/small arms section handy? Anything that old in the Tech Library Son?

[Homer]

The 1944 serial number was surely removed at some point. Mostly likely during FTR. But why? Usually they're plenty deep. I reckon it's going t otake some clarification by those more familiar with this "subspecies".

Jmoore I hope they all join in soon and fill us in.

I'm not sure why Detroit hasn't posted all of his photo's but I've had a good look at the action serial number on gunboards and as good as my eyes can tell it hasn't been scrubbed or re-numbered. Without further light being shone on this subject by the experts, my bet is the action on an earlier rifle was replaced during or shortly after 1944 with the 1944 dated action and the old serial number 36662 allocated to it. Then some years later in 1951, the rifle went through a further refurbishment and was FTR'd to it's current state.

[jmoore]

I've had a good look at the action serial number on gunboards and as good as my eyes can tell it hasn't been scrubbed or re-numbered.

Three things working against you. Lack of high resolution detailed photos. The refinish. And the probability that the work was done well enough to eliminate a multitude of sins. Which was the whole point of the FTR. Best solution would be a set of Mk.I educated eyeballs on the subject.

Not even this level of detail (disregard the subject matter):




More like this level or better:



And that was with an old "not fancy" camera.

[muffett.2008]

If this was a spare '44 manufactured action, it would not have a S/N until mated with a barrel, there have been a couple of rifles posted either here or on Gunboards that had no prefix when they should.
The question is, if this action was assembled post 1945 as a complete rifle, who would make the decission as to what prefix, if any would be assigned?
If we tried to use a 1944 prefix, they were all issued, we could use F, or leave it blank, I recall something about a set allocation of numbers for new replacement receivers, clarification anyone?