1941 Lithgow, looks un issued.
61 - 80 of 126 Posts
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
I'd need a photo of what you need a photo of? Ir do you just want me to take the top guard off and take a photo like I see above?
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
Here I go again. I’m in the SC = Small Cone camp. It’s been said the Short Cone was actually a misprint and caught on before being checked.
That and the fact the Small Cone (Leade in US English) was actually lengthened and not shortened.
No further rant on that unless….
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
The buttstock shown immediately above shows signs of being reworked/repaired. The faint original factory stamps along with the Lithgow R 8/1947 stamps
This thread is getting a little confusing to follow.
Rule of thumb for a JJCO shop built parts rifle has usually been determined by the serial number.
G or higher prefix
Any letter suffix.
So far none has been mentioned.
This thread is getting a little confusing to follow.
Rule of thumb for a JJCO shop built parts rifle has usually been determined by the serial number.
G or higher prefix
Any letter suffix.
So far none has been mentioned.
JB Im sure we’ve seen a number of built up barrelled actions with legitimate matching numbers as well with jovino stamps.
Joined
·
17,947 Posts
I did, kinda sorta. in a couple of places too.
Suffix & 4 digit # is bad
G or other non-issued prefix is also, supposedly.
Both rifles here are B +5 digit.
It was shot down in flames as unverifiable & unreliable.
Joined
·
17,947 Posts
Joined
·
17,947 Posts
flip the rifle upside down.
take a pic looking directly at trhe bottom of the magazine, & wide enough to show the big screw in front.
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Here you go
Joined
·
976 Posts
Not many do have a line there, centre punch yes. Line no.
Joined
·
17,947 Posts
No that was the line, it was a commonly used technique for individual fitting.
Now if anything changed, bolt wood, base metal, it would be invalid.
BUT if you were, for example , taking one down for "annual maintenance" or similar where all the same parts were reused then al you did was line them up.
The staking was usually at the end of the slot though because that's where more metal would be displaced into the slot, making the locking feature more effective.
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
For goodness sake, plonker, show the production marks on the foreend and the butt. i’ve wasted an hour of my life trying to make out what you hope to achieve with copious quantities of unsubstantiated hearsay. You said you don’t care what it is, how about you do something to help us determine it’s pedigree from the facts.
I have my theory, and you are not going to like it. Only the info I have asked for can change my mind.
I have my theory, and you are not going to like it. Only the info I have asked for can change my mind.
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
Witness marks for torque. The rifle comes apart a few times afterward and the torque setting could change. If using a torque wrench you’ll find the previous mark to be off a couple degrees.
Probably why witness marks aren’t often seen. It’s also why a rifle might have more than one staking punch.
That we have all seen or at least should have by now.
Witness marks only indicate where it was previously.
On many rifles a witness mark on the receiver to barrel, or sight to barrel etc is used to show proper indexing for alignment upon reassembly. Not the previous torque setting which changes position.
Even if only slightly, under torqued is under torqued. Although it could still be within range.
Probably why witness marks aren’t often seen. It’s also why a rifle might have more than one staking punch.
That we have all seen or at least should have by now.
Witness marks only indicate where it was previously.
On many rifles a witness mark on the receiver to barrel, or sight to barrel etc is used to show proper indexing for alignment upon reassembly. Not the previous torque setting which changes position.
Even if only slightly, under torqued is under torqued. Although it could still be within range.
Joined
·
4,508 Posts
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."
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."
Joined
·
20,312 Posts
First...I think MJ's rifle is a bitzer and he'll climb the walls I said that but it looks to be the case. Secondly MJ must have re done his deck as his back ground wood is new condition, one has to be here a long time to note this obtuse detail but like the deck, if MJ owns the rifle its got to be the best ever and if doubted he'll drag four more out to show you that he has more better toys than you. Its a bitzer MJ...congrats are in order. LOL but MJ will be not be amused. He really has some fabulous rifles
no doubt about it.
On the subject of Lithgow JJCO Drop Dead Gorgeous New Condition Lithgows, this thread does an admirable job of chasing details to ground for the original poster. I'm kinda lost what's going on with Plonker's rifle but if I read the clues, he thinks he bought a bitzer and is okay with it. If that is correct, Plonker kindly confirm .
The subject of proper barreled actions being re stocked into brand new wood by JJCO bears a bit more information based on the rifle that I bought in 2010 for 350 dollars and I knew it was an "assembled rifle' at the time. This rifle is truly metal condition brought up to new condition, has MA53 under the safety lever, batch # match, serial # to receiver # match, # under rear sight leaf match , barrel has a 53 date mark and is mint brand new, all this stuffed on brand new NON SLAZ marked wood with no other markings...No MA, no dates, No HV marks ...just naked new wood. JJCO on charger bridge , no # on nose guard bayonet stud and open ear front sight ears and (Drum Roll) no recoil pads installed in the fore arm. Metal...righteous MA53 rebuild by Lithgow barreled receiver factory thorough repair to new condition and JJCO re stocked it and slapped on NOS parts, and its the bastard bitzer...won't qualify as a full out JJCO bitzer and won't qualify as a true MA53 rebuild Lithgow rifle. It is and It ain't ...and the only reason I got it was two fold...it was almost right and if I held my nose, it could be a real MA 53 rifle which JJCO merely stamped and sold. Maybe ..well it would be if MJ owned it but a wretched peasant such as my self, its got to be a great almost correct bitzer . As soon as I refinish my deck, I 'll post a MJ lookalike photo of this near MJ tier rifle. Joking aside, if you got a rifle that looks as good as one of MJ's , its quite a score and he's been tenacious to find such jewels.
My rifle...the barreled action is a MA53 and totally correct for what that means, the rest of the rifle is parts and who put them onto the rifle could be Lithgow or could be JJCO and the clue I use to negate it being Lithgow is no recoil pads in fore end up in the draws. I just don't think Lithgow would restock a FTR rifle like that in 1953 (or ever in the 50's as I understand they did FTR's up to 57?).
My rifle is a wall hanger. Not firing it w/o recoil pads and while I bought such pads w/ screws off a member here long ago (Vulch in Oz), I'm not going to try to install them as I chance more harm than good. I paid 350 which I thought was 100 over market price but it was at least the best JJCO bitzer I had seen since late 90's and said to myself...DONE, just be done chasing the perfect Lithgow, pay the price and wall hang it and drool looking at it. Its up on the war room wall looking good----- looking Hollywood and I like it. Its the perfect Lithgow only don't look too closely !! 🙈
no doubt about it.
On the subject of Lithgow JJCO Drop Dead Gorgeous New Condition Lithgows, this thread does an admirable job of chasing details to ground for the original poster. I'm kinda lost what's going on with Plonker's rifle but if I read the clues, he thinks he bought a bitzer and is okay with it. If that is correct, Plonker kindly confirm .
The subject of proper barreled actions being re stocked into brand new wood by JJCO bears a bit more information based on the rifle that I bought in 2010 for 350 dollars and I knew it was an "assembled rifle' at the time. This rifle is truly metal condition brought up to new condition, has MA53 under the safety lever, batch # match, serial # to receiver # match, # under rear sight leaf match , barrel has a 53 date mark and is mint brand new, all this stuffed on brand new NON SLAZ marked wood with no other markings...No MA, no dates, No HV marks ...just naked new wood. JJCO on charger bridge , no # on nose guard bayonet stud and open ear front sight ears and (Drum Roll) no recoil pads installed in the fore arm. Metal...righteous MA53 rebuild by Lithgow barreled receiver factory thorough repair to new condition and JJCO re stocked it and slapped on NOS parts, and its the bastard bitzer...won't qualify as a full out JJCO bitzer and won't qualify as a true MA53 rebuild Lithgow rifle. It is and It ain't ...and the only reason I got it was two fold...it was almost right and if I held my nose, it could be a real MA 53 rifle which JJCO merely stamped and sold. Maybe ..well it would be if MJ owned it but a wretched peasant such as my self, its got to be a great almost correct bitzer . As soon as I refinish my deck, I 'll post a MJ lookalike photo of this near MJ tier rifle. Joking aside, if you got a rifle that looks as good as one of MJ's , its quite a score and he's been tenacious to find such jewels.
My rifle...the barreled action is a MA53 and totally correct for what that means, the rest of the rifle is parts and who put them onto the rifle could be Lithgow or could be JJCO and the clue I use to negate it being Lithgow is no recoil pads in fore end up in the draws. I just don't think Lithgow would restock a FTR rifle like that in 1953 (or ever in the 50's as I understand they did FTR's up to 57?).
My rifle is a wall hanger. Not firing it w/o recoil pads and while I bought such pads w/ screws off a member here long ago (Vulch in Oz), I'm not going to try to install them as I chance more harm than good. I paid 350 which I thought was 100 over market price but it was at least the best JJCO bitzer I had seen since late 90's and said to myself...DONE, just be done chasing the perfect Lithgow, pay the price and wall hang it and drool looking at it. Its up on the war room wall looking good----- looking Hollywood and I like it. Its the perfect Lithgow only don't look too closely !! 🙈
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
From the numbers that match and th info posted here I figure I got a rifle that was sold to JJCO as a barrled action with the matching bolt and they put it all together. I think I have a good shooter, I think I got really lucky in that reguard. Would you agree?
Joined
·
4,508 Posts
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'.
61 - 80 of 126 Posts
