New 1941 Lithgow! Did I get Fleeced?

[Lee Enfield]

Sure did. What looks to be a SLAZ 44 on the butt and a large L towards the brass plate.

where is the SLAZ 44?

The L means Long Butt

[Brian Dick]

The SLAZ 44 mark is on the underside of the wrist .

[BradJ]

To answer your original question, if you paid a huge amount of money for this rifle thinking it was a new unissued rifle from 1941, then yes you got fleeced. If you paid a reasonable price (even a fairly high price) for a very attractive rifle that's clearly in great shape knowing it wasn't factory new, then you did very well. That rifle is 100 percent refurbished but the best part for you is the bolt and receiver are original matching items and the timber work looks brand new. Some JJCO rifles were complete parts build ups. What markings are on the barrel? Photos of both sides of the barrel would be nice so we can see if its had anther barrel fitted. Try and get a set of recoil plates and have them fitted to the forend. Someone here might correct me, but I'm fairly certain the fitting of the recoil plates was unique to Australian SMLE rifles, in particular they were fitted where Coachwood stocks were used. That pretty stock on your rifle is all Coachwood. If the recoil plates weren't required, I'm sure they wouldn't have fitted them during the war. Speed of production was the order of the day, so why bother fitting recoil plates if they didn't serve a required purpose.

[Lee Enfield]

According to the guys who specialize in Lithgow rifles, the recoil plates were not fitted during all wartime production periods.

[BradJ]

I've read that before about the recoil plates being omitted from Australian production at some point during the war. I also read they were reinstated after a very short period which would indicate they may have had problems on rifles without them. I can't say for sure any of this is correct, I just recall reading it on the net somewhere. We know how things get twisted around on the net.

Does anyone know when they stopped fitting recoil plates on new Lithgow SMLE's and for how long?

Has anyone put a lot of rounds through a SMLE with a Coachwood stock without recoil plates and had issues or otherwise?

All I know is all Lithgow rifles as well as Lithgow FTR rifles I've seen here is Australia have the plates fitted. I've seen one rifle without them and it was a sporterized rifle in 303.25 that someone built, fitted a new forend and cut it back to a sporter profile. The only other Lithgow rifles I've see without them are very early rifles with Walnut Stocks. Its the JJ CO rifles we all read about that seem to have them missing. As far as I know the Brits didn't use them but they didn't use Coachwood stocks either.

[BradJ]

I searched the forums and found an old post "Australian Coachwood fore ends without copper recoil blocks?"

Muffett.2008 wrote

The woodwork was passed over to Slazenger in November 1941, recoil plates were a standard fitment on Forewoods at that time still being predominately Qld Maple.
When Coachwood became the predominant timber, these plates were still being fitted, but towards the end of 1942 and into 1943, the practice ceased.

With the increase of failure of Coachwood stocks the practice recommenced mid 1943 and continued until the factory ceased repairwork in 1960.
Several different methods of repair were tried from 1930 on, the copper plates being the most cost effective.

The Jensen Report and Tony Griffiths volumes cover part of this information.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=60359

If it were mine, I'd have the plates fitted for peace of mind.

[MJ1]

For goodness sake shot the thing and move the story on.