1917 LSA No I Mk III Aussie rifle?

[Anzac15]

Once again, I would like to hear from the experts out there regarding a LE that has been somewhat of a mystery to me for some time. I have a LE that started life as a 1917 LSA No 1 Mk111 that has been almost entirely converted to an Australian service LE. Original serial number has been crossed out, and all replacement numbers match. Aussie star proof marks all over barrel, 'D D' marking on top of receiver, buttstock marked with 'Australia'. My question is, knowing Lithgow made the Mk III, and ONLY the Mk III, why would they bother converting what was probably a worn out British manufactured rifle? Any answers or speculation would be appreciated. Will try to put some pics on.

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.

[smellie]

Australia got its first SMLEs from Britain, same as it got all of its older equipment. The Lithgow factory only started turning out rifles shortly before the Great War erupted (1912), and production at the very beginning was slow. Australian rifles in that war would have been a mixture of British and Aussie-made.... and the rifles were absolutely identical, made to the same specs and with all parts 100% interchangeable.

The only difference would have been that a mere Colonial product could not possibly rival those from the Mother Country, especially as to fit an finish.That's the official story, of course. The ACTUAL difference would have been in what species of wood was used for the woodwork.

In a way, the Lithgow plant was due to the Ross Rifle Company in Quebec. Britain refused to sell SMLEs to Canada, refused to set up a plant here, refused even to allow BSA to set up a plant here..... so Ross and his rifle were in almost by default. Ross demonstrated that it COULD be done in the Colonies and Canada demonstrated that the Colonies had the gumption to stand up and demand to make their own equipment. So when the Aussies (well known already as a particularly hard-headed bunch of b*****ds) wanted to build their own, Britain actually helped. The result is all those beautifully-made Lithgow rifles, not to mention the tiny little fact that the Japs did NOT occupy Australia in the Second War, as definitely would have happened had not Australia had the wherewithal to manufacture its own weapons.

You fellows demonstrated much the same idea when you started up Springfield Armory in 1793; I don't remember reading that you got England's permission to do that!


That old "MA" stamp has a lot of history behind it.... and a lot of pride.

So does your London Small Arms rifle with the Australian markings. This is definitely unusual from any point of view: LSA made only 5% of British-manufactured SMLEs in the First War and NONE in the Second.

If you really don't want it, you are entirely free to bundle it up and send it here for disposal..... or whatever.

A fine toy!
.

[smellie]

Just thinking (I do that from time to time, but try not to make a habit of it)....

If you really wanted to satisfy a whole bunch of people who would like to see precisely what you have, this would be a good spot to put a few photos. You would doubtless make a lot of people happy, and without the mess and bother of having them all drooling on that lovely old piece of history you have.

BTW, I notice that this is a very low-numbered post. Welcome aboard!
.

[Bindi2]

Australian Goverment sent most of our early produced rifles to England at the out break of WW1. England returned the same number but not the same quality after the war. That rifle is more than likely one of those. There was also other times when English rifles came Australias way that needed a FTR. Lithgow made both the No1 mk111 and the No1 mk111*

[Brian Dick]

There's another example of this on my website. A 1917 SSA No.1Mk.III* that's MA FTR 1945 so has seen allot of Australian service, possibly right through Korea. It's got Queensland maple, coachwood and some of it's original walnut furniture that matches quite well since it's all been together so long. I've also got a 1913 LSA No.1Mk.III in my collection that's Australian owned and totally original except that it has an Australian 1918 date barrel and bolt head fitted post WW1. When John Jovino in NY imported the surplus Australian rifles back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were many Australian owned/issued British SMLE's in the lot. The good old days!

[Anzac15]

Many thanks to all the responses..,the history that these rifles possess far outweigh any monetary value to me. I am now on my way to a friend's house who is by far more versed in technology than I am, so that I can get some pics on here!

[Anzac15]

Attachment 23741
Attachment 23742
Attachment 23757Attachment 23756Attachment 23755Attachment 23754Attachment 23753Attachment 23752Attachment 23751Attachment 23750Attachment 23749Attachment 23748Attachment 23747Attachment 23746Attachment 23745Attachment 23744Attachment 23743Attachment 23758

[Paul S.]

... the Ross Rifle Company in Quebec. Britain refused to sell SMLEs to Canada, refused to set up a plant here, refused even to allow BSA to set up a plant here..... so Ross and his rifle were in almost by default. ...
.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read multiple sources, Marching to Armagaddon for one, stating that the selection of the Ross Rifle was the result of crony-ism, politics and wheeling and dealing at the highest levels of Canada's government of the day.

[Demo]

The factory original serial number is N857xx and the crossed out number is the military district number.
Coachwood forend and maple handgaurds adds character. There doesn't appear to be a return to stores date or refurb date on the butt and interesting that the cut-off remains. Is there a date stamped on the underside of the forend up close to the nosecap.
I love old guns like this one. Thanks for the pics.

[Bearclaw]

I have never seen Australia stamped like that is this common.

Myles