[1918Militaria]

There is no missing part in the stock so far as wood nor any breaks. It is missing the stock bolt plate however. Should I add one? THe two SMLE's I had from RTI, one had that part and one did not. I noticed the one that did not had a cracked stock, Looked like someone tried to removet the butt stock before the forend stock.

 

[DisasterDog]

Should I add one?

I would definitely add one.

 

[1918Militaria]

I would definitely add one.

Got one on the way.

 

[SDigger]

Got one on the way.

It looks like from the photo’s you posted that you have a flush (round head type) butt stock bolt & not the extended square head bolt just to note.
Cheer’s.

 

[DEMO]

It looks like from the photo’s you posted that you have a flush type butt stock bolt & not the extended square head bolt just to note.
Cheer’s.

That’s how it looks unless it’s obscured by the angle.

 

[Doc Martini]

Whatever, he asked I replied.
You can actually see where it split away, but WTF do I know.
Dear O.P.
Go ahead fire it.
Just ignore all the evidence & have at it.
Do NOT blame me later though.

That really is no way to respond to a new Enfield shooter who's just asking advice on their new rifle.
Don't ignore the evidence at all - take note that recent Australian coachwood stocks should NOT have any wood behind the king screw bushing. There's nothing missing - apart from an acceptance of reality, perhaps.

 

[1918Militaria]

What reality have I rejected?

 

[DEMO]

What reality have I rejected?

No mate, read his post again. Not directed at you.

 

[plonker]

I give up

 

[plonker]

Coachwood stocks omitted this piece, it’s correct.

The comparison photo is a No.5 stock, the No.4 & 5 series having the screw further forward hence more wood.

Thanks for the heads up.
With anything else its a broken stock.

 

[hb9z]

Not all JJCO were junk or bitsa's. As with any rifle, you have to carefully inspect and do your due diligence. I've made my share of mistakes and have a box of worthless "collectables" to prove it! However, I also have a 1941 JJCO Mk III Lithgow that is a great battle rifle with the magazine cut-off and the original barrel. Numbers match bolt, receiver, barrel, sight and nose. No number on the forestock. No FTR marks but at some stage it received a new bolt, which was numbered to the rifle - I don't think JJCO did this. Head spaces correctly (using Forster Field & Go gauges) but I have not fired it. Barrel is dated 3 '41, receiver dated 1941, stock dated 1941.

Agree have one with a bridge and a weaver 2.5 x held 9 ring at 300 yards and 8 ring at 600 in vintage sniper match. , it was likely a war gun cause the bore is pitted when I placed the borescope , jjco stamped,

I did however upgrade the trigger to a Huber trigger