[Alan De Enfield]

Can anyone read it?

Does it say :

"I know its a JJco put together bitsa but I still love it" ?

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Tell me more about the spare parts story? The bolt and receiver have matching serial numbers. It was made in 1941, how did it avoid any hard use?

When Lithgow stopped production JJco bought up all of the stock of finished rifles, millions of component parts and (allegedly) even the workshop benches and stools)

Once everything was back in the US they assembled all of the components into completed rifles (with NO quality control) and sold them as new rifles.
They are a US assembly of mixed Lithgow parts but could not realistically be classed as a Lithgow rifle.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Not all JJCO were junk or bitsa's.

As I said in post #8 JJco bought everything that wasn't screwed down (and some that was) they purchased, (firearms wise), everything from the smallest screw to part builts, to rifles in for refurbishment, to finished rifles.

The rifles that were fully built and assembled by Lithgow were perfectly good, normal quality, lithgow rifles.. the rest ............ well ........... the put togethers leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Double check those blocks for correct angle and equal engagement.

You bought it second hand. There was the time when nearly every owner was installing their own. Some knew how. Some only thought/believed they knew how.
Don’t be surprised if they remind you of an electrical contact.
Perhaps bits of aluminum flat stock.

As I'm sure you know these 'blocks' are identical in shape and size to the 'blocks' that trap the wiring in our old type domestic 240 volt mains 'plugs'.

They have been used for many years to fit into Lithgows assembled without the correct 'blocks'.

Many of the commonwealth nations used the same system of 'cable clamping' and speculation has it that they are what Lithgow used (and then had manufactured themselves) for the 'blocks'.

The modern plugs simply use the screw to trap the wires, with the old ones the screw pressed the 'brass block' down onto the wires and actually made a better contact, but, that's progress for you.

Modern plugs :

 

[Alan De Enfield]

The front tigger guard screw should be 'bottomed out' in the thread, no specific torque, just (to quote a well known armourer "F*****G tight")

His instructions :

"................... The COLLAR. You MUST have a collar and spring washer. This is what WE used to do. Put the front trigger guard screw into the trigger guard and body WITHOUT the washer or collar. Reverse it (that’s anti-clockwise …..) until you hear it click over the start thread and tighten it BUT COUNT THE TURNS UNTIL IT TIGHTENS AND LOCKS. Say, that it’s 7 ¼ turns to lock. Now do this with the collar fitted if it’s now, say 6 ½ turns, shorten the collar, a smidgin at a time, until the screw tightens up at exactly 7 ¼ turns. That way, you KNOW that the screw is tight, the fore-end is tight between the trigger guard and the screw and you are not crushing the living daylights out of the fore-end. And if it feels a little loose in a years time, then you can safely turn a few thou off the collar."

 

[Alan De Enfield]

I got really lucky in that reguard. Would you agree?

You got lucky compared to what you could have received, but unlucky in the fact that non of the parts were properly fitted (matched to the rifle) and no quality control or adherance to the specifications was applied during the assembly of your rifle. You may find it is not correctly bedded, the sights are not aligned, the woodwork is not correctly fitted etc etc,

The three major pressure bearing parts (action, bolt & barrel) at least (if assembled by Lithgow) would appear to be safe to fire.

Because of the inherent strengths built into the rifle it may work fine, but it would be worth letting an experienced ENFIELD gunsmith give it the 'once over'.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Unless someone can show me a Commonwealth military document that details the practice, I say it’s another figment of a fertile imagination.

Unless it is listed / written down in original period documentation it is only heresay or speculation at best. Even books produced by the best researchers are based on an element of memories and speculation mixed in with the documentary evidence.

Some folk are happy to believe their Uncle Jim's cleaner, whose brothers best mates wife worked in the NAFFI and heard two squaddies talking about 'it', others like hard evidence.

The difficult part is deciding which 'forum poster' is which.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Alan I’m sure you’ll present a very strong case against this and I’ll have nothing but heresay, but I don’t fully agree with this.
P for paint and unnumbered nosecaps are two things that come to mind. No official evidence to support it, but cases of both are prolific.

I am sure there is variation amongst the various Nations methods and there will be some documentaion for the un-numbered Lithgow forends/nose-piece, it just hasn't been found yet.

Whilst the Commonwealth countries were supposed to follow the British systems (we all know there are local variations - out of reach and unseen so 'anything goes' ?) an un-numbered nose piece would not pass inspection before release from the Armourers 'shed' in the British Army

Instructions to Armourers :