My Anzac Day Lithgow 1915 Range Rifle--Comments? Which Aperture Sight is Correct?

[Troglodyte]

Looking for the thoughts of some of our experts on Australian rifles.

The GunBroker auction for this rifle coincidentally ended yesterday, on Anzac Day.

As Australia has been America's most faithful ally ever since our first side-by-side fight on July 4, 1918, the Battle of Hamel, I'm proud to have become caretaker to this particular piece of history on this particular day.

I don't have possession of the rifle yet, but post-auction the seller sent me some additional pictures. I'll give my inexpert assessment of the rifle and post photos below.

Two questions:
What aperture sight is most correct for this interwar Range Rifle?
What did I get wrong in my writeup below? I'm sure there's a lot.

My assessment: Rifle is a "mutt," with only the buttstock/woodwork, receiver, and nosepiece matching. Out-of-service parts replacement has largely spoiled its collector value. The bore on the heavy barrel is reportedly "very good," so it should turn out to be a fun shooter, giving happy days on the range to another generation of shooters as it likely has to several generations past. As a century-old rifle that's still functional, it remains a thing of beauty to be treasured and enjoyed.

Originally manufactured at Lithgow SAF in September 1915 [see buttstock], the rifle was surplused out from the Australian 4th Military District after WWI and in the 1930s became a Range Rifle for a member of the Citizen Military Forces [CMF on buttstock, surplus symbol on buttstock, original woodwork, with volley sights removed, and opened up for the heavy barrel profile]. As a Range Rifle, the left side of the stock was professionally cut down to accomodate an aperture sight. With the outbreak of WWII, the rifle was recalled by the Australian armed forces [surplus symbol on buttstock obliterated].

After WWII I'm guessing the rifle was again surplused out, with the surplus symbol on the top flat of the now-replaced barrel. After its military service, the rifle received several parts replacements--a WWII-era bolt, a 06/37 heavy barrel previously factory-installed on a different rifle, sloppily (toolmarks on Knox form) added to this one, and a new rear sight leaf. I'm assuming these replacements were out-of-service because if done by military armorers, the parts would have been "force matched."

Am I close?

Thanks,
Trog

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.

[browningautorifle]

"force matched."

Well, renumbered. Yes, a parts rifle. Assembled by someone with minimum experience doing it and fractional tools... Hard to say if it'll shoot, guess you'll tell us soon?

[Troglodyte]

Well, renumbered. Yes, a parts rifle. Assembled by someone with minimum experience doing it and fractional tools... Hard to say if it'll shoot, guess you'll tell us soon?

"Renumbered," then! And yes, the damage to the Knox form is pretty noticeable.

I'll report back on how it shoots. To bed the muzzle in the enlarged nosecap hole, I'm thinking an appropriate length of properly sized neoprene hose would do the job?

[Warren]

Whomever cleaned it did a nice job!!
Even the screw slots are clean...

[browningautorifle]

an appropriate length of properly sized neoprene hose would do the job?

Wait just a minute, there's several here that have done it and will give you firsthand...

[Troglodyte]

Wait just a minute, there's several here that have done it and will give you firsthand...

I'll await their guidance I(or invoice!), thanks!

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

Whomever cleaned it did a nice job!!
Even the screw slots are clean...

Just looking at the photos I hadn't even noticed the screw slots.

Maybe I'll get lucky and get a rifle that had a skilled workman installing an already-marred heavy barrel.

We shall see.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Bashing a bit of hose around the muzzle to fit the rasped-out nosecap is the traditional "shade-tree" practice.

IF the barrel is "free floated for most of its length, the other "high-tech" method id to pump in a small quantity of black silicone rubber and trimming off the overflow. This nicely masks the "gap" an acts as a "soft" bearing. My very first SMLE was an ex-range H barreled version I picked up for a whole five Oz dollars in 1972, whilst still at high school. A Standard rear-sight base was "adjusted" and suitably attached to the barrel in the correct spot and it shot quite nicely for as long as I owned it.


YMMV, and all that.

[CINDERS]

There was no real correct rear aperture not sure on the lineage but could be any of the following Lane, BSA, Mues, ACE, possibly even a Central you'll need the mounting plate and the correct screws that pick up the rear trigger guard and safety catch.

[Troglodyte]

I now have the rifle--I'm pretty happy with it. Wood is all original walnut, in good shape. Seems to have a shellac on it, but I know the US Marines did that with their rifle stocks in the tropics to prevent warping, so I'll leave it alone on this rifle. Bore is very good, not bright, but not corroded. Barrel was marred on installation. Safety parts replaced after the aperture sight was removed.



A few questions:
- Did civilian gunsmiths mark the "H" on the top of the buttstock wrist?
- Is the rear sight base installed correctly? (Looks good to me, but I don't know what to look for.)
- Other thoughts?

Best,
Trog

[Nigel]

Given the original between the wars sale out of service then a Central sight would be a good match as it was originally patented in 1934. Probably the best demountable target sight for the SMLE. This one comes with the later No.4 bracket so it fits both SMLE and No.4 rifles. A E Clarke made an exact copy of the sight for use on their target rifles 9n the 1980's. Many were subsequently fitted on the Parker Hale 7.62x51 Cadet target rifles. This one has an original bracket and the sight is the AE Clarke.