Happened upon an interesting No4 last weekend.

[mudgee]

I like the use of the 2 P-14 rear mounts...I guess it makes sense being a (relatively) flat receiver surface.

I guess I'm spoiled having seen the pics when it was offered for auction 2? years ago.

"...let's build a scoped target rifle using a 70year old obsolete scope and these extra 70 year old mounts we have laying around..."

Lee enfield,

You mention it was in an auction 2 years ago can you tell us what it was described as and what it sold for. If we can see what the auction described it and what it sold for it might just give us some more clues about it. It is starting to look to me like a very interesting rifle, Looking forward to seeing more pics from son he might be right it may well be something unique.

[Lee Enfield]

Lee enfield,

You mention it was in an auction 2 years ago can you tell us what it was described as and what it sold for. If we can see what the auction described it and what it sold for it might just give us some more clues about it. It is starting to look to me like a very interesting rifle, Looking forward to seeing more pics from son he might be right it may well be something unique.

Military Surplus Collectors Forums

The links are now dead and I deleted the pics I had saved to save a hard-drive....I might have them on disk, but the one or two from the catalogue really sucked anyway

[Maxwell Smart]

Looking at the geometry of the second ejector, it looks as though it is in the same (?) relative/linear position as tip of the ejector in the 7.62mm magazine.

Any comments from you wild antipodeans of how successful this modification is?

The second ejector screws on my 7.62 No 4's sit slightly forward and slightly higher than the position of the Enfield magazine ejector lip.

Ejection is quite positive when used with the 303 mag or the Sterling 7.62 magazine. I'd say as good as the Enfield magazine is, maybe even a little better.

The second screw can be an unmitigated nuisance if using an Enfield or Ishapore 7.62 mag; the two ejector faces (I modify the left hand rear lip on my Ishy mags) will sometimes seem to interfere. I back out the second screw when using these mags.

Naturally the strength of the extractor spring has a lot to do with this effective ejection.

[Peter Laidler]

Come off it chaps................. I know that I am a bin naive and soft in the head but how the xxxx can you have XP L8 L42 E on one line. And expecting anyone to believe that such a bodge would come from Enfield or Lithgow. What a load of butchered bollo............. What's the word that I'm looking for? As I always say. I could be wrong.......

[tbonesmith]

I Have seen stamping just like that on other experimental Lithgows, I wouldn't discount that it came from there at all. What I wonder is what for?

[Brit plumber]

I've a number of questions I can't answer.

Why use a No.4 when Lithgow had everything for the No1 and went down the route of the 7.62mm No.1 as you would expect.

I also note the rifle was originally a T sniper anyway so why go to the hassle of fitting another type of scope, and fill the holes from the correct scope pad screws? The hole from the front pad front screw is visible.

The markings are hand stamped and Lithgow were pretty good at using a pantograph and it would have been easier to pantograph the markings on that surface.

I did note the stock has a Lithgow marking so it's either a No.1 stock or a No. 4 reworked by Lithgow, they appear to remark other manufacturers wood with their own marks after a FTR.

Which brings me onto my next question. In the early to mid 50s Lithgow were FTR ing everything and they were finished in park and FTR marks, new markings were made in the park and so appear in the white. Does this rifle have any FTR markings? It isn't parked and the new markings are painted over by the looks of it.

Just a few thoughts.

[Peter Laidler]

Come on TBone.......... You're all having a bit of a laugh and no amount of dire stamping like that can overcome that the first bloke to fire it is going to get such a belt in the eye, that it's gonna hurt. Believe me, as one who's been whacked (but only once.....)

And who is going to use a 1900's telescope when there were 1940's telescope aplenty.

Let's stop making excuses and get our collective feet firmly back on the ground just a BP has done. My dopey son could make a better job than this using a Black and Decker (that is a cheap pommy made electric drill for all you colonials and wild antipodeans out there)!

[mudgee]

I Have seen stamping just like that on other experimental Lithgows, I wouldn't discount that it came from there at all. What I wonder is what for?

Tbone can you post anything that you have seen like that, might help with this rifle. You can tell Peter L has written it of and as he says he could still be wrong (maybe) Lithgow did nto adopt any sniper rifles from the HT snipers until the late 70's so they could have been trying to develop something in the mean while??????

[aussietomcatter]

I think some of you are being far too quick to dismiss this.

Think about the timeframe, the change to 7.62 that was underway, the fact that a separate mount was clearly crafted for this..

[Peter Laidler]

Aussietomcatter, really ......................... Words are failing me to the depths of suicidal dispair at the sheer niaveity of...............

The change to 7.62 was taking place in the 50's.......... That telescope bvelongs to the early 1900's, L8's belonged to the mid 60's, the L42 belongs to the late 60's/early 70's and letter/number stamping like that belongs to the stone age. What period of sheer childlike gulliable butchery does this fall into?

Far from being too quick to dismiss it, it wasn't dismissed as a piece of pure fantasy by the gulliable soon enough. Mind you, like I always say,a) you've never seen em all and b)I could be wrong.............

Now, for the very last time, please, someone out there please tell me what is going to happen to his eye when some gulliable clown shoots it.