My most interesting rifle.

[Son]

There's a short bit in one of Ian Skennerton's works that tells of receiver replacements being done at Lithgow. Much the same as John R's story over on the ZF thread, except IIRC these were only done at the factory.

In trying to get my head around the need for replacing a receiver, I suppose (and this is all supposition) at a time when Great Britain had just lost many thousands of weapons at Normandy and was under threat of invasion... Australia was gearing up and needing more weapons than we could produce.

Production figures put new rifles at only about ten per day in 1939-1940. Perhaps it was shortages of good aged stock blanks that controlled new rifle production... They would have only been cutting enough to replace the slow useage through the thirties. I don't know how long they had to dry for, but by the fiscal year from 1941 to 1942 rifle production got to around 375 per day.

Shortages of stocks would make repairing/ replacing receivers on otherwise functional old weapons very attractive. Every one that came from repair was one more than they could assemble new, without being a strain on wood supply.

I don't know what your thoughts are, but it is a very interesting rifle indeed.

As an afterthought, does it have an assembly number on the rear top of the receiver?

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.

[5thBatt]

There's a short bit in one of Ian Skennerton's works that tells of receiver replacements being done at Lithgow. Much the same as John R's story over on the ZF thread, except IIRC these were only done at the factory.

In trying to get my head around the need for replacing a receiver, I suppose (and this is all supposition) at a time when Great Britain had just lost many thousands of weapons at Normandy and was under threat of invasion... Australia was gearing up and needing more weapons than we could produce.

Production figures put new rifles at only about ten per day in 1939-1940. Perhaps it was shortages of good aged stock blanks that controlled new rifle production... They would have only been cutting enough to replace the slow useage through the thirties. I don't know how long they had to dry for, but by the fiscal year from 1941 to 1942 rifle production got to around 375 per day.

Shortages of stocks would make repairing/ replacing receivers on otherwise functional old weapons very attractive. Every one that came from repair was one more than they could assemble new, without being a strain on wood supply.

I don't know what your thoughts are, but it is a very interesting rifle indeed.

As an afterthought, does it have an assembly number on the rear top of the receiver?

Hi Son, yes it does have a assembly number, that one of the most interesting things about it.
I have seen this number refered to as the 'batch number' or 'Proofed Action Assembly (PAA) number' if it was a 'batch number' which implies to me a number given to a 'batch' of receivers for quality control reasons, all is fine
but if it a 'PAA' number which indicates assembly & proof firing, then why use the original BSA bolt when the action allready has a bolt fitted & matched???
as the action is a 1939 Lithgow MkIII* with no cutoff slot (normal Lithgow production in 1939 was MkIII with cutoff) saying it a normal production receiver stolen from another rifle (as some have implied) does not seem to fit.
In short
PS Ian used this rifle as an example in the new book The Lee-Enfield.

edited to add, The assembley number has not been applied to the underside of the bolt handle.