-
Legacy Member
OP
Order of operations for disassembly. Someone before you took it apart improperly. See attachment
Former Prairie Submarine Commander
"To Err is Human, To Forgive is Divine. Neither of Which is SAC Policy."
-
Thank You to AFJon For This Useful Post:
-
04-07-2019 10:59 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member

Originally Posted by
jakebevt48
Bindi2 can you elaborate? I hadn’t removed either piece of wood before I shot it. What does the butt have to do with the forend since they are separated by the butt socket?
The bolt holding the Butt in place has a square end, it goes thru' the Butt-Socket and into a slot in the forend wood.
If the butt is removed first then the 'squares' of the bolt force the sides of the forend 'slot' open and split the wood, resulting in the damage you describe.
With an Enfield you NEVER remove the butt first - when 'stripping down', always start at the muzzle and work backwards.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
-
Legacy Member
don’t right it off it is repairable
-
-
Legacy Member
The correct piece of wood is U shaped so there is equal force on both sides of the forend when hit. Cut the block to fit. When the forend is replaced it should snap into place. The square end to the bolt was cut off in later rebuilds to allow for shrinkage of the butt allowing easier tightening procedures using a spring washer to keep the bolt tight.
-
-
Legacy Member

Originally Posted by
Bindi2
The correct piece of wood is U shaped so there is equal force on both sides of the forend when hit. Cut the block to fit. When the forend is replaced it should snap into place. The square end to the bolt was cut off in later rebuilds to allow for shrinkage of the butt allowing easier tightening procedures using a spring washer to keep the bolt tight.
Good point.
The forend must be removed by 'tapping' down near the butt-socket.
I have seen folks grab the barrel in one hand, and the forend in the other and pull them apart like the 'Turkey
's Wishbone' - with pretty much the same result (except it was probably not what they wished for)
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
Legacy Member
While I’m fixing all of this stuff, is there anywhere it is good to glass bed on an Enfield stock?
-
-
Legacy Member

Originally Posted by
jakebevt48
While I’m fixing all of this stuff, is there anywhere it is good to glass bed on an Enfield stock?
I'm sure Peter will remember this 'modern way of bedding' using beer cans and credit cards, from a well known 'expert' * on another forum.
* Ex - as in a 'has-been' & Spurt - a drip under pressure.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
New to the site; been picking up a few Enfields here and there.
2 Lithgow III*s
Rifle 1 - 1942 - with armorers mark of MA R 5/46 on the buttstock.
Not an FTR, but fairly extensive refurbish. Forend, fore and rear upper wood was all replaced with SLAZ46 with recoil plates. Nose cap and leaf sight are not serialized (replaced with OA "Orange Armory" parts), but no "R" stamp on the receiver indicating a barrel replacement. The barrel has a different SN starting with a W and no replacement date. This would indicate that this is a UK
and not a Lithgow barrel.... pristine bore.
Question to the guru's is
#1 Was replacement of barrel normally done with barell from another rifle? and is W a replacement SN from OA?
#2 Are the copper recoil pads common or necessary on the SLAZ furniture. I read that this was a corrective mod on the coachwood furniture and SLAZ didn't need them..... Or was it common place for the armorer's to apply the mod regardless of the furniture? Pictures to follow
Rifle 2 - 1941 DD (Nock's form stamp indicates Department of Defense)
Nose cap, bolt, and receiver S/N match. Didn't realize the relevance of JJCO issues until after the purchase was made. But it doesn't look to be all that bad (I hope)
All furniture was replaced with SLAZ42/43 and is in near new condition... (I don't think it has seen a drop of linseed oil
yet) So that being said, I have lost any armorer markings that could have shed light on the history of this rifle. The fore-end is also missing the traditional recoil pads, which I read was part of the issue with JJCO frankensteining Lithgow III*'s and advertising as never issued.
Leaf sight and guards look to be brand new OA (surplus). Upon disassembly for inspection (sorry Old Marine, it's a habit to insure everything is where it is suppose to be and there are no welds, cuts or other unforeseen SNAFU's to encounter).
Barrel is S/N matched but has a date of 11/61 on it, looking like it was replaced..... but by whom? It looks to have the star A I and star A II stamps; so the barell looks legit. I am figuring that the buttstock markings would have answered this.
She's a beautiful specimen, but may not be worth what I paid.
Questions on this one:
#1 Barrel is stamped like it's a replacement. Would a refurb not mark a replacement of the barrel and that normally marked during FTR?
There are no markings for FTR, but also no "R" for a barrel replacement. However, the barell is stamped with the S/N, and shows 11/61 above it with additional Australian
markings. Pristine bore on this one also.
#2 question from above also applies concerning recoil pads. If they are necessary on SLAZ furniture also, does anyone have a resource on diagrams to make them, or a source to purchase them to install?
Pictures to follow
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
GySgt S.
Last edited by GySgt-6469; 09-13-2019 at 02:05 PM.
-
Legacy Member

Originally Posted by
GySgt-6469
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Rifle 2
If the serial number has a prefix letter it is virtually guaranteed to be a Lithgow
manufactured rfle.
If the serial number has a suffix letter (probably an "A") is it virtually guaranteed to be a JJ 'Frankenstein put-together' with no quality control.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed

Originally Posted by
Alan de Enfield
Rifle 2
If the serial number has a prefix letter it is virtually guaranteed to be a
Lithgow
manufactured rfle..
SN Prefix C.... I figured those were right from the JJCO articles. My concern was the barrel, but it is a C also, just no rebarrel mark. But it has some other markings I am unfamiliar with. One looks like a '44 mark (first image).
I also noticed some bafoon sanded the buttstock - AGAINST the grain. I figure that I am going to have to work through a slurry mix of linseed oil
and light steel wool to rub in and get it to fill those scratches.
I wish people who didn't understand vintage firearms and basic wood working would leave well enough alone.
RIFLE 2 Images
Attachment 102810Attachment 102811Attachment 102812Attachment 102813Attachment 102814Attachment 102815Attachment 102816Attachment 102817Attachment 102818Attachment 102819
Last edited by GySgt-6469; 09-13-2019 at 06:39 PM.