[Doc Martini]

The brass barrel band was common on Lithgows during the war years, and originally did have a blackened finish I think.
The rifle is a JJCo assembled from spare parts, so if the trigger is the only thing that's sticky, you've done OK.
In my early collecting days I bought one of these in 22 cal thinking it was a brand new factory unissued rifle. I had to knock the bolt out with a mallet, the bolt would barely close on a 22 cartridge due to poor headspace, the extractor claw was a ground-down 303 claw, the sights weren't vertical, and the trigger creep was phenomenal.
It was a truly beautiful rifle though.

 

[Doc Martini]

Going back to Post #1 ...
I can see the receiver PAA number in photo 4 and the bolt PAA number under the bolt handle in photo 5 but can't see if they match.
These numbers were stamped by the armourer who originally matched and fitted the bolt to the receiver, so if they match (and were not bodgied by JJCo) then you at least have a properly fitted bolt. I suspect yours was originally a barrelled receiver (which is great), to which were then added the requisite parts.
As long as the receiver is well fitted to the wood (the so-called draws) you should end up with a good shooter. The fitting of the wood is both a science and a Dark Art, and the subject of many Enfield textbook chapters.

 

[Doc Martini]

Milprileb, I do recall discussion about that. I thought the “safety issues to the shooter” idea was shut down? I‘m no expert, but my understanding was that the plates were there to simply increase the life of the draws. They are still subjected to the same forces, with or without plates, just the pressure bearing surface is enlarged once fitted and therefore increasing the life. The same rule would apply with your rifle not having them, if the fit up is tight to the lugs on the action, the screws tight, the forend can’t go anywhere. Over time however, that timber will compress and then the problems may start. Unsafe to fire, I don’t think so. Having said all that, if I had a mint, untouched Lithgow with no plates, I probably wouldn’t use it. Yours being a rifle that’s most likely put together from parts, with an un-numbered forend, I’d have a go. Maybe find a second hand Lithgow forend with plates, take some time to fit it up to your rifle and put the original in the cupboard. My thoughts, 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Here's a pic of my 1943 Lithgow without recoil plates. It was FTR'd at Lithgow in 1955 and still didn't have plates fitted.
You can see how the timber has compressed slightly (perhaps 0.5mm). If it gets any worse I may be tempted to glue some small shims in there.

 

[Doc Martini]

Dated 1943

 

[Doc Martini]

This may be a dumb question, is it matching and marked FTR Doc?

Not a dumb question at all. It's marked FTR:

And it's ALMOST all matching:

• the serial numbers match on the bolt, barrel (12/43) and nosecap
• butt is stamped 1943
• receiver is stamped FTR and AF (for air force)
• the PAA numbers don't match
• the forewood almost matches (E72963 on metalwork, E72398 on wood).

I'd always attributed this almost-matching wood to a bit of carelessness on the part of the armourer, who was refurbishing these near-obsolete rifles for the air force. On reflection, perhaps the forewood was replaced sometime after FTR? That would explain the lack of recoil plates.