1940 Lithgow SMLE No 1 Mk3 JJ Import Bitster Yes or No?

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

Picked up an SMLE No 1 Mk 3 of Lithgow Mfgr. It does have the crude JJ import markings
but seems complete and correct. Stock markings at the rear of the trigger guard & under the forend are faint but visable. It does not have the A prefix which research seems to indicate a parts gun. Bolt and reciever numbers match none on nose piece.All the small parts have the MA or OA markings ant the bore looks decent, Any thoughts?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

47 views and no comments ,is their that much distain for John Jovino imports?

[gsimmons]

No, need more and better pictures

[Brian Dick]

My uneducated guess is that it's an honest rifle. Only a small percentage of the JJ Co. imports were assembled from parts after arrival in Brooklyn. A shop in Montgomery, Alabama, bought a thousand of them and I was into them heavily at the AGCA shows in Birmingham when I first got licensed in 1990. I never saw and of the rifles assembled here in the USA from original parts until several years later. There were some very nice rifles, early and late production. The good old days for a youngster like me!

[5thBatt]

Yep not enough clear pics, the rifle appears to have been restocked & without good pics etc there is no way to tell by who, be it Lithgow or Jovino.

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

I will post more (hopefully better) pictures this evening.
Thanks

[Bindi2]

Yep not enough clear pics, the rifle appears to have been restocked & without good pics etc there is no way to tell by who, be it Lithgow or Jovino.

5th please share the clue/clues that indicate this rifle has been restocked. Very interested to see what you see i cant. I know i need new glasses and some more Kiwi windup juice.

[5thBatt]

Bindi, it's the vertical reinforcing rods at the rear of the forend that make me believe the forend is a later replacement, they are not present on my 1941 lithgows (Coachwood) but they do start appearing in 1941 production(& around the change to the MkIII*) I'm not sure if they were retro fitted at all so it being a replacement is only a quess at the mo.

[Bindi2]

Bindi, it's the vertical reinforcing rods at the rear of the forend that make me believe the forend is a later replacement, they are not present on my 1941 lithgows (Coachwood) but they do start appearing in 1941 production(& around the change to the MkIII*) I'm not sure if they were retro fitted at all so it being a replacement is only a quess at the mo.

The rifle may not have been assembled till 1941, cant see the serial # or butt stamps. Now i have to go and look at mine BUGGAR what a lousy job.

[Homer]

Yep it's not likely to be original 1940/41 forend unless the vertical reinforcing pins were fitted later as 5th said. I've noted 1941 dated actions serial numbered up to B85000 without the pins present if that helps.
Honestly with respect HOH your going to have to do way better with your photos if you want any sort of an accurate appraisal. You'll need a butt broadside, action, barrel, bolt, rear sight, forend and nosecap as close up and clear as possible.
The action looks like it may have been parkerised so probably a refurbished rifle with a mix of parts if that's the case. An unnumbered nosecap could indicate a 45/46/47 refurb as would an unnumbered forend and barrel. Butt would be stamped to indicate this but it's only speculation without better photos and more information.