Lithgow Rifles Survey

[muffett.2008]

Looks nice Brad, I would love to see the other side of the barrel, if it has the same S/N and steel batch stamp, and how many stars on the barrel in front of the nocks?
I am inclined to think it was a rebarrel job in '39, War was declared in September and there would have been a big rush to get every firearm up to a serviceable standard.

Just noticed the year stamp on the receiver, it is misaligned, maybe a spare one? usually the factory stamping is very straight.

Aussie48, what month and year on your barrel?

[Son]

Hi mate... finally got a bit of serial number info. He said it is B254XX. from my interpretation of your sheets and the pics and info from the owner, it was likely assembled in 1935 and refurbed at the start of WW2... Dec 1939 to early 1940, and then had a foreend replaced in service later (still depending on a number on the foreend. Main reason is there are several other rifles within a couple of hundred either side of his in the 1935 column. The '39 dated barrel was a replacement at time of refurb and the later manufacture foreend was a replacement (probably in service) a couple of years after this.

I am still trying to find out the serial number on the foreend (Slaz made, so will be 1942 onwards) to confirm it was replaced in service. Not likely a bubba rifle rebuilt, as it still has it's matching nosecap.

Very interested on your perspective please....

[Aussie48]

Hi Muffett,

Barrel date is February 1941

Dick

[muffett.2008]

Brad, Two points, first the different crown on the proofs, which tells us it was not the first barrel fitted, secondly the JJOVINO stamp on the charger bridge, which makes it suspect, along with the misaligned wrist date.
There are not a lot of '29's around, I have only looked at a few, I don't have one(working on that) but what I have seen have the date neatly centred like this Attachment 63614 The one in the Lithgow collection is also centred.
But I have seen a receiver with the crooked stamp, actually wondering if its not the same component.Attachment 63615

Just eyeballed the two receivers, not the same, one is a Mk.III the other has a large view mark star for the asterick.

[Homer]

Gents my view is the barrel is not a replacement. I've never taken much notice of proof stamps but a quick examination of other like rifles in my photo album and I can't see anything out of place with this one. The serial number B254xx fits in with early 1940 production and the barrel and butt dates support this also.

[Homer]

Thanks for the info Muffet I will have another look at the 45 tomorrow at is is pretty easy to get to safe wise.
The 45 had on the left side of the barrel where the 6-59 was and that was an L atop number 24 and the broad arrow underneath that (Armourer ?)
Just a question what was the anomaly with the '21 if you could help there as I am interested in why the fore woods are still in the white how would that happen not being finished.
You can see the difference in the pics.

Thanks for the info on the 1916.

Funny thing is on the 45's butt it has MAO atop SMLE funny that !

I have a teak full wood on the 45 at present and the original stock is being preserved infact it is due for its BLO.

Cinders have we discussed this 1921 Lithgow once before? I think it's had a reblue as well at the time it was restocked probably in 1944. Ive owned and examined quite a few like this one.

Nice rifle.

[Homer]

Thanks lads, keep them coming.
Cinders, your '21 was down as 1921, when the date range actually changed at the end of 1920 to show the month/year.

Muffer for your records, I think it was a little earlier than end of 1920. At least 4'20 and I thought I had one earlier than that but I can't find it just now.

[5thBatt]

The change of the GR proof must have been later than 1940, both of these have 1941 dated receivers.

[muffett.2008]

Interesting pic's Andrew, you have not added those to my survey, if you had I would have seen that the barrel dates were earlier than the sample was showing.
As to that '39 barrel, blind freddy can see the two proofs are slightly different, It was the practice to stamp both the receiver and barrel when proofed, obviously using the same stamp.
The JJovino stamp on the charger bridge is an indicator that it could be a bitzer, I think it was JB White did a bit on the Jovino stamps, an intact rifle had an inocuous stamp on the front sight block, made up rifles had it on the charger bridge.

[Homer]

Kev there's a lot of data I could have contributed at one time, but the rifles are no longer mine. I asked permission from the now owner of these if I could post the picture.