Lithgow SHT.LE Mk III 1916 info?

[Homer]

Muffer i only mention that the barrel is off an earlier rifle not that it isnt correct. I asked about the ammo because I have sight beds with higher serial numbers than this one made for the MkVI round and the sight bed on this gun resembles that for the MkVI also. Must be the angle of the picture.

[dcutter]

Thanks all. I am working on tracking down that book now.

Is a barrel change common? I will take another pic of the front sight when I get home (sadly the pic you asked for is the one I didn't take )

[muffett.2008]

The barrel should be correct, as it was the primary recorded number until 1st Jan. 1925, when LOC's recorded the change to Receiver, the sight replacement upgrade would only need to be a remarked slide arm, the barrel is marked for the Mk.VII upgrade.

[Ridolpho]

Muffet: I'm confused (but also on serious cold medication). If it's been re-barreled, when you say it's "correct" do you mean Lithgow installed a used barrel in a refurb or just that the barrel and it's components are appropriate for the receiver serial number?

Ridolpho

[muffett.2008]

No Ridolpho, the barrel is correct because it is dated 10/16.
Lets get back to the markings, we have a 1916 action, 6MD overstamped on a older one.
A struck out unit number and a later one.
A S/N 46955 in incorrect font.
MA - Lithgow post 1926
Early lithgow stamps and proofmarks ACP.
Viewers marks, VI ammo
10'16 barrel date.
Inspection stamps.

Receiver - Lithgow stamp and Mk.VII ammo
The 31355 is not the sight number, it should be under the arm. SC HV means it was upgraded for the Mk.VII ammo, bolt head is an Enfield one.
Now the variables, the assembly number on the sight should also be on the rear of the receiver.(31355)
The S/N should have been on both receiver and barrel, so which is correct? as the barrel was the primary part until 1925, I'D run with that, as the font for the receiver is incorrect, Why - no idea, but the original number should have been higher than the one shown.
What number is on the back of the bolt handle? We would need better and more photo's to place this one in it's correct bracket, the joys of not having it in your hands.

[Homer]

Muffer Lithgow didn't date barrels with the month until about 1920. This one reads just 1916 and serial numbered 31355 that is mismatched to the action. I don't see too much wrong with the action serial number, 46955. The 55 looks a little rough but you see this a lot on very early lithgows. I could probably dig something out for comparison. 46955 is certainly right for a 1916 dated action. The rear sight bed is also stamped with the serial number, 31355, (no batch assembly numbers on these early lithgows) that is matching the barrel. Sight beds were serial numbered in this manner up until about 50000 I think. The barrel may have been the master component, but I see a 1916 dated action rebarreled with a barrel from an earlier rifle, possibly a 1915 dated lithgow.
The two extra numbers on the action indicate it has served first with the 3rd MD in Victoria and ended up with 6MD in Tasmania and this is quite common.
Check under the rear sight for a serial number also.

[dcutter]

There are no numbers on the bolt handle Muffett and I can't find anywhere other than on the sight and the rear of the barrel where the 31355 is stamped. Would I be smart to strip the gun from the stock? I ask because at some point someone thought it would be a good idea to add what looks like wood fill to the gaps between the barrel and the stock.

[dcutter]

So it's been a little while I have been reading everything I can get my mitts on in regards to the Lee Enfield and I still have loads of dumb questions.

I'm in Yellowknife NT and the local library doesn't have any reference material on a 1916 Australian rifle in stock...big surprise right?

Are the SHT.LE and the SMLE the same thing? Also, I am seeing MkIII and Mk III* on similar rifles manufactured around the same timeframe. What is the difference?

Thanks for your tolerance guys, and I promise if any of you end up in Yellowknife, I will stake any one of you to a fish dinner for all your troubles

[Ridolpho]

dcutter: You need to order a copy of the big Ian Skennerton Lee Enfield book. To read it from cover to cover would get you through a Yellowknife winter. The MkIII* appeared during WW1 as a slight simplification with the main change (I believe) being the omission of the magazine cutoff slot from the action body. Other early MkIII features omitted included long range (volley) sights and windage adjustment on rear sight. Various factories returned to MkIII production after the war with the return of the cutoff (but not the other features). My only Lithgow is a 1921 MkIII*. In any case, get that book but meanwhile isn't the discussion between experts like Muffet and Homer wonderful? The knowledge available on this forum continually amazes me.

Ridolpho

[dcutter]

Honestly Ridolpho, I am fully blown away. I spent hours and hours combing the internets looking for anything I could find on this gun. I have PAGES of scribbles and doodles, but in about 3 posts on this string I found more than I managed to track down in days!

All that being said, if anyone has a copy of those books they are willing to part with, let me know! I think I'll go and browse the buy-and-sell now.