"Unissued" (not JJCO) Lithgow

[MRoberts06]

I just bought a 1941 Lithgow Rifle No.1 Mk III, which I was assured was "unissued". You can image my fear when I did some more research and discovered the JJCO issue with "unissued" SMLEs. Had I just gotten hosed by a shifty gun store?
Nevertheless, I've subsequently done my homework: the coachwood is immaculate and has the correct markings (SLAZ), the bolt head has never been used (fired), the bore is mirror clean, the recoil plates are there, all the numbers match that should match (except there is no s/n on the muzzle cap), the correct proof, issue, and inspection marks are all there, I cannot find a single FTR stamp anywhere, the s/n is a C##### (1941), the factory marks are correct...

... and I cannot find a single JJCO NY mark anywhere on this gun, or any import mark for that matter...

I've poured over this rifle looking for anything that would tell me it isn't a factory fresh '41 Lithgow, and I've come up short. I'm sure you guys will help me out with this.

Two questions, then:
1) Is a mint condition 1941 Lithgow too good even to be true?

2) If, IF, this rifle turns out to be an unissued, unfired 1941, do I have something of rare enough historic value that I should refrain from shooting it?

If it does turn out to be a refurbished rifle, I won't be disappointed. It's a beautiful gun still.

Attachment 53185Attachment 53202Attachment 53201Attachment 53200Attachment 53199Attachment 53198Attachment 53197Attachment 53196Attachment 53195Attachment 53194Attachment 53193Attachment 53192Attachment 53191Attachment 53190Attachment 53189Attachment 53188Attachment 53187Attachment 53186Attachment 53203
Thanks everyone.

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.

[Baal]

Here's a similar one, but 1944, on Gunbroker. Been wondering if it's authentic.

WWII Lithgow Enfield Australian Unissued C&R : Bolt Action Rifles at GunBroker.com

[MRoberts06]

What I've researched, as SN like #####A means the rifle is a rebuilt parts rifle. The correct SN should be A#####. Furthermore, the "A" wouldn't go with a 1944 model.

[Son]

The C prefix is consistent with a 1941 build, even with an early '42 made barrel (will take corrections here, Homer and Muffer?) But the woodwork is all later made Slaz and I don't think original to the rifle. Even in wartime production, fitment was much better than seen here. The metalwork seems very good and all matching... does it look like it's been refinished? The nosecap should be numbered, so I would be inclined to say it had been sporterised previously and re wooded. If the foreend is early '43 it may not have the copper recoil plates fitted.
My opinion.... Overall a very nice but I think obvious rework. Barrel condition might give a better idea of it's prior use. Check for the recoil plates.

[MRoberts06]

Copper recoil plates are both there. Barrel is mirror smooth and shines like a new dime. The condition of the barrel and the bolt head appear unfired. I've got several milsurps and many new hunting rifles, and the barrel on this rifle looks more like a NIB hunting rifle than a 70 year old war horse. What do you see with the fitment of the wood? It fits very tight to the metalwork. Very. I mean lots of profanity was involved in getting the wood off. The metal doesn't appear to be refinished, either. The pitting on the ears of the rear sight gives me some pause, though. If someone did sporterize this rifle, they must've got it fresh off the line, and never shot it.

[Homer]

Robert I'd have to agree with Son. The first clearest indicator is the butt that is void of any markings. It would have been marked up as pictured. Also the wood looks unfinished and untreated. It doesn't have the appearance of a genuine factory assembled rifle. The forend and handguards usually fit very well together on an unmolested rifle with smooth lines and no gaps because they were finished off assembled. The jjco rifles similarly to this one don't appear to have had that final fitment. The rear sight protector looks like its been rusty and then refinished and yes the nosecap would certainly have been serial numbered. The rear sight bed ramp is blued and it wouldn't have been from factory and it looks a little battered to me. I wonder if this part was tampered with also. I've even got some doubt with the serial numbering of the action and barrel. Interesting the 3MD on the action. Cant say I've seen that on a 40's dated action.

[Homer]

Sorry forgot the pictures. Just for you to compare.

Also Robert, the forend would have been serial numbered. Is it?

[ssj]

My understanding is and Im happy to be corrected is that recoil plates are an armourer or after market addon and not a factory install.

[Ridolpho]

Just checked on this in Skennertons Small Arms series on Australian Lee Enfields and he claims they were original fitment during certain time periods. Can find the precise quote if need be.

Ridolpho

[ssj]

What are the recoil plates made out of?

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

what type of screws are holding the recoil plates in position?