My new 1916 SHt LE III Looks MINT

[Ridolpho]

Bruce In Oz: In your experience did WW2 Lithgow refits include Parkerizing with a relatively light gray color? My '21 has both '42 and '45 dates on buttstock and barrel, respectively, but the most striking feature is the Parkerizing which is similar to but lighter gray than that on the featured rifle. By recollection (not at home) there is no recognizable "FTR" mark but the new furniture and barrel are Australian.

Ridolpho

[Brian Dick]

The metal on this rifle shows definite signs of having been blasted with sand or some sort of heavy grit that is used for automotive blasting. I use a very fine AAA grade of glass beads in my blast cabinet before I Parkerize and it doesn't heavily etch the surface of the steel but really just cleans it nicely. The resulting finish is very smooth. It won't hide deep scratches or pitting like a coarse sand blast finish will.

[Homer]

Bruce In Oz: In your experience did WW2 Lithgow refits include Parkerizing with a relatively light gray color? My '21 has both '42 and '45 dates on buttstock and barrel, respectively, but the most striking feature is the Parkerizing which is similar to but lighter gray than that on the featured rifle. By recollection (not at home) there is no recognizable "FTR" mark but the new furniture and barrel are Australian.

Ridolpho

Ridolpho your rifle finish sounds typical of the parkerized finish lithgow was practicing during and after WW2. It wont be stamped FTR into the receiver if it was refurbed in 1945 that your butt indicates because stamping rifles with FTR only began in 1950. The only indicator that a rifle was refurbed during WW2 is the singular date stamped into the butt and the appearance of the gun of course. After the war during 1945/46/47, refurbed rifles had R over MA over the date stamped into the butt and I have never seen a butt stamped 48 or 49. Rifles FTR'd during the 50's and stamped as such on the action had nothing stamped into the butt and in the case a used butt was used again, any dates and markings from the previous rifle were removed. Most of the time these stamps are still just barely visible but have no relevance to the gun.

[jmoore]

Basically, you cannot get a decent phospate finish unless the work is "blasted" beforehand, and the item goes in the phospahing tank as soon as possible after the blasting stage... Apart from all that: A heavy "blast" will also "hide" rust pits and other "imperfections". This may or may not be a good thing.

Was all of that for me? It is the last bit of the commentary that seems pertenent. But blast heaviness usually seems more dependent on the shop doing the work. It varies even amongst US military overhauls. I don't know it a test strip for blast intensity is required similar to shotpeening (Almen test strips). If so, I've never heard of such.

BTW, I believe the real purpose of a roughened finish is improved oil or other surface coating adhesion. Phosphating a surface does passivate it to a small degree, but it's probably more than offset by the induced stresses of the sharp edged blasting media. In actual fact the acid etching done by the solution works fine on any clean metal, polished or otherwise. But the finish itself isn't all that great a protection, and relies on the oil/paint/etc. retained on the surface for most of the corrosion protection. A rough surface is more effective in doing said.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Was all of that for me?

Not at all; it was a bit of a non-targeted post.

I have had all sorts of fun trying to get consistent colour and texture in phosphated components over the years. In one way, SMLEs are relatively easy, because ALL of the steels are specified as Carbon steels or "special iron"; alloy steels could only be used by "suppliers" after test pieces were submitted and accepted.

You are right about the "blast heaviness". As it is an essentially manual process, there would be the occasional "moment" or two when things got a bit variable. My local friendly phosphater uses garnet grit and what he describes as "moderate" pressure to do gun parts. Crankshafts, (though NOT the journals) and the like, are a different matter.

I have had very mixed results with just dropping a degreased part into a phosphating tank without the blast prep. Mild steel comes out reasonably well. Alloy steels that have been heat-treated/hardened often come out with a very pale and oddly coloured surface.

As for blueing: In the past there have been issues with different components being made from different alloys, and thus requiring different polishing techniques AND different times in the blueing tank. I discovered some years ago that a light bead-blast also works a treat before dropping bits into a modern "blueing" tank. Pre-blasted parts come out of the DuLite tank a deep, satin BLACK; nice finish on serious hunting rifles. The blasted surface holds oil a lot better than a gloss blue, and as you point out for phosphating, holding oil is EXACTLY what blueing is supposed to do.

If someone wants an "Olde English" slow rust blue that is so deep you could drown in it, they will need to set aside a several weeks and a prodigious amount of cash.

And then there is the "French Grey" finish found on some very expensive shotguns.......................

[LithgowHT]

It looks like a Standard Small Arms rifle as rebuilt in Australia. Not really sure. It sports a Parkerized finish and what looks to be coachwood furniture. Are there any FTR markings on the top of the receiver ring? I don't see any on the buttstock.

The Lithgow factory didn't use small hand guards with re-enforcing slots across the top. That was generally a British thing.....

[Brian Dick]

My guess would be a restoration done in the USA with nos British woodwork and commercial Parkerized finish. The Parkerizing isn't quite the right color for Lithgow either.

[Galf]

I have a No.1 with SSA 1917 receiver, completely fitted with Australian wood and Lithgow parts. According to the specs/markings it was at least used until 1956.
It seems that some shiploads of british No.1's were send to Australia in return for the supplies send to GB during the first years of the war from AU.

[Surpmil]

From the modern and recent looking number stamps and mismatching finish, I would assume it is a Jovino build up from parts obtained from Australia. These build ups have been discussed here before.

Fine looking rifle though.

[Brian Dick]

It's got a new post WWII British forend and handguards. Wood that's still available here in the USA as imported from England. All of the Jovino rifles I've seen that were assembled after import in the late 1980's and early 1990's were stocked in Coachwood. It would be clearly marked with their import stamp, (J.J. Co. NY NY), on the right side of the charger bridge.