Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have had this Lithgow for a few years and never got around to posting it here. It is completely matching and the bolt has 2 matching numbers to the receiver. No number on the mag, but it is marked OA. Its jjco stamped but what I have read here about this importer this rifle should not be
3790800
3790801
3790802
3790804
3790807
3790808
3790809
3790810
3790811
parts gun? Being that its 43 dated I would expect more wear. Do the stamps on top of the barrel indicate it was built in 44 or rebarreled in 44? Thanks for any info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Sadly, not too much special.

The original barrel manufacture date of march 1944 is roughly 6 months after the receiver was numbered.

Do you have matching proof action assembly numbers (PAA) the small engineer's punched 4 to 5 digit numbers on the top right hand of the rear receiver above the butt socket and on the underside of the bolt arm? There were stamped in the factory when the body and the bolt were matched after proofing and remined wedded until the bolt was replaced.

The 1960 barrel date is an interesting addition and not the usual numbering. JB White might be on the money with a Base Wksp refit prior to cadet service. Is there any trace of green or yellow paint on the muzzle cap? Or of a band painted around the butt about 3" down from the pistol grip?

The absence of any Lithgow marking or stamps on your butt suggest a new spare set of timber grabbed from a stock barrel and whacked on. At some stage. It's rare to see rifle numbers stamped on the RHS of the butt in post 1930's vintage rifles. The practice stopped in late 30's and was not use din WWII onwards. So it's been used as a rack number for accounting.

The lack of definition in your photos makes it difficult to see the detailed stampings and marks that help provide an indication of its life.

Its a real Lithgow, its just not in the same condition it was in when it was assembled at the Orange Annex in 1943 when E52867 was made.

The bayo deserves proper pictures, as the leather Patt '08 frog is outstanding. Lets see the year on the ricasso.

EDIT: Aaahhh, right. Laptop highlights the ills of the photo. Its a repro frog and not original. My mistake on the iPhone screen. Not that flash, after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,484 Posts
The "E" prefix ran from 1942-1944, it very well could be the original barrel but I sure ain't authorized to make that judgement.

I strongly suggest checking out the Lithgow Survey sticky. Serials are all over the place.

Example:
E34174 - 1944
E62023 - 1943
E89541 - 1942
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Yes the bolt numbers match both receiver numbers. There is no evidence of yellow or green paint on the stock or that it was sanded. The date on the bayonet is 12/41 and I can make out 41 on the sheath. I will try to get clearer pictures.
Thanks AM. A 1941 bayo will usually be one that's had some life. I can't tell much form the photos even on the puta. Matching bayo and scabbard (not usually numbered) is damn rare. They're commodities and not too tightly controlled except by smaller Units who have zealous Blanket Counters who invent work to do.

Bodies were usually made in batches and then stockpiled prior to next operation in manufacturing. This is why the PAA number is essential, as it matched a 'fit and tested' bolt and body. The barrels were made in batches too. The date stamping was applied when the bbl was mated with the body. So the bbl will tell you when the steelwork was assembled. Then there's the butt, which is usually year dated.

Of interest to your Northerners, the Australians have always worked on a Financial Year of 01 Jul through 30 Jun. So a 'year' spans two calendar years. This confuses some people when trying to decipher production statistics and records. The bbl date of March 1944 was in the Financial Year 1943 (July 43-June 44). So this was, for better or worse, a "1943" rifle... albeit finally assembled in 1944. Confused? Don't be!

The furniture looks a little too good to be true, so I'm sticking with the replacement idea. It's no where near as dinged as it should be for general use.

As long as it's got a good bore, no rust, and a sound crown, then it should keep shooting straight for some time yet.

A word of genuine caution. The timber that's missing between the magazine well and the trigger guard collar may possibly be a worry. The collar is that little cylindrical tube of steel which the front trigger guard screw passes through to clamp the stock between the trigger guard and the body. It is a key component of bedding of the body. The gap there may mean there's been movement between the body and the stock. If there has been, and additional timber has broken out of that hole, the bedding and snugness of fit of the draws is likely to be inadequate. Loose draws (no innuendo here...) are a mechanical and functional problem. Too much movement between body and stock will cause mechanical damage to the timer, leading to splitting and failure of securing the body to the stock. This leads to movement in the stock on each firing, meaning that the bullet won't be leaving the barrel in a controlled and repeatable manner and therefore inaccurate.

EDITED to clarify statement about front trigger guard screw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
You and Alan keep mentioning that the collar is supposed to be surrounded by wood yet two companies that make new replacement stocks have the cut exactly like this rifle, with the section missing. My 3 lithgows have the same cut, missing section.

Is there any original source material for the cut of the forend?

Thanks AM. A 1941 bayo will usually be one that's had some life. I can't tell much form the photos even on the puta. Matching bayo and scabbard (not usually numbered) is damn rare. They're commodities and not too tightly controlled except by smaller Units who have zealous Blanket Counters who invent work to do.

Bodies were usually made in batches and then stockpiled prior to next operation in manufacturing. This is why the PAA number is essential, as it matched a 'fit and tested' bolt and body. The barrels were made in batches too. The date stamping was applied when the bbl was mated with the body. So the bbl will tell you when the steelwork was assembled. Then there's the butt, which is usually year dated.

Of interest to your Northerners, the Australians have always worked on a Financial Year of 01 Jul through 30 Jun. So a 'year' spans two calendar years. This confuses some people when trying to decipher production statistics and records. The bbl date of March 1944 was in the Financial Year 1943 (July 43-June 44). So this was, for better or worse, a "1943" rifle... albeit finally assembled in 1944. Confused? Don't be!

The furniture looks a little too good to be true, so I'm sticking with the replacement idea. It's no where near as dinged as it should be for general use.

As long as it's got a good bore, no rust, and a sound crown, then it should keep shooting straight for some time yet.

A word of genuine caution. The timber that's missing between the magazine well and the trigger guard collar is a worry. The collar is that little cylindrical tube of steel which the front trigger guard screw passes through to clamp the stock between the trigger guard and the body. It is a key component of recoil transfer and bedding of the body. The split and absent timber means there has been movement between the body and the stock. That's not good. That's saying the bedding and snugness of fit of the draws is inadequate. Loose draws (no innuendo here...) are a mechanical and functional problem. Too much movement between body and stock will cause mechanical damage to the timer, leading to splitting and failure of securing the body to the stock. This leads to movement in the stock on each firing, meaning that the bullet won't be leaving the barrel in a controlled and repeatable manner and therefore inaccurate.

If you're OK with carpentry, you've got a task. If you're not handy at all, get some one who is at least half skilled to fix that gap in the stock. While you're at it, find some of Peter Laidler's excellent instructional papers on bedding and fixing stocks in Milsurps's archives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
You and Alan keep mentioning that the collar is supposed to be surrounded by wood yet two companies that make new replacement stocks have the cut exactly like this rifle, with the section missing. My 3 lithgows have the same cut, missing section.

Is there any original source material for the cut of the forend?
I stand corrected, thankfully. That area usually has a small cut. In worn stocks, this may increase with additional timber being split out.

Apologies for misleading, previously.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
Structurally that little bit is insignificant. Just a leftover between the mag well opening and the boring for the screw bushing hole. Left there because its an extra step in the stock making procedure. It doesn't need be there nor does it need removal.
So long as it locates the bushing in its proper location for tightening up, the bore hole has done its job. It doesn't need full circumference to do that.
I concur whoever made a new stock with that section removed either did so in error, or did it intentionally to avoid customer complaints should the piece be found loose later.

That bit can be tapped loose with a screwdriver and it wouldn't take much effort.
3/16 of an inch held in place by end grain. Shearing forces directional to that.
Think about it.

Set and tighten everything correctly and that bushing cannot move. Tighten incorrectly and that bushing is a hammer knocking out that little piece.

Why after all these years is that little nugget so important and suddenly needs replacing?
Be thankful the repros are so easy to spot.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,802 Posts
Structurally that little bit is insignificant. Just a leftover between the mag well opening and the boring for the screw bushing hole. Left there because its an extra step in the stock making procedure. It doesn't need be there nor does it need removal.
So long as it locates the bushing in its proper location for tightening up, the bore hole has done its job. It doesn't need full circumference to do that.
I concur whoever made a new stock with that section removed either did so in error, or did it intentionally to avoid customer complaints should the piece be found loose later.

That bit can be tapped loose with a screwdriver and it wouldn't take much effort.
3/16 of an inch held in place by end grain. Shearing forces directional to that.
Think about it.

Set and tighten everything correctly and that bushing cannot move. Tighten incorrectly and that bushing is a hammer knocking out that little piece.

Why after all these years is that little nugget so important and suddenly needs replacing?
Be thankful the repros are so easy to spot.
yes JB, you are correct. Offers little to no support against recoil.

The serial number on the butt of a WW2 dated lithgow is not rare. It’s not overly common, but it’s certainly not rare.

The draws look very sound.

Been so long since I’ve looked, Is that little piece even there on coachwood forends?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,212 Posts
I see forward of the magazine, an area that once had a band of paint on it and appears same area extends to wood behind rear sight assembly. I think this clue with other remarks by JB, clearly indicates this rifle's last life was in a cadet role.

Did anyone tell the owner its a nice rifle ...I missed that. It is a nice rifle and as time rolls on, a rifle in this condition stands out as a valuable find. Rare ...well, if this rifle were in Royal Tigers menu of No.1's....it would be totally stunningly rare. "Nothing Special" was remarked and I'd challenge that opinion greatly as Lithgows in this condition
are tough to find as a general rule. One only has to read the pain and agony of those who bought RTI Enfields to know a decent Enfield is not a easy find anymore.

JJCO marking denotes who imported this rifle. While they did import complete rifles, the also cobbled together bits to make rifles. Sometimes just replacing wood to existing rifle and sometimes re serial # a barreled action & bolt to match and slap on replacement wood for a true parts mix master bitzer.

Since this rifles serial # is stamped on the stock which is uncommon , I think JB is totally correct this rifle was restocked at a depot /base shop for cadet use. In sum: it is correct as it stands as a rifle re stocked by military.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Prestige stocks out of Canada , and these these guys in Australia, but I admit they maybe using the same source for furniture.


None. It is not an authorised design. There is no cut, it is a split.

That a repro manufacturer chooses to act out of ignorance or to make their production easier is no basis for assuming their authenticity. Sorry to be a party pooper here.

I’ll try and find a photo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I will get some better pictures today, what I have were taken years ago with an older camera or ipad. In hand there is no evidence of a paint band on the stock and there are clear stamps under the stock where paint is perceived. There is no residue of paint in this stamp. I do agree it looks like a depot rfurbished rifle that then had little use which accounts for the condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Ok, so here are some clearer pictures. You of course need good information to give me accurate information. Its not real clear, but under the forestock it is stamped SLAZ 43. There is a row of paralell dents that may have given the impression of a paint stripe having been there.
3791158
3791160
3791161
3791163
3791165
3791166
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,870 Posts
I can still see lighter wood where paint mark used to be. The proverbial DP ghost so to speak. The light spots come from where the grain is somewhat sealed and the oil does not penetrate or patina the same as the surrounding areas.

Way back when on a forum far, far away, the cadet 'build' program of the late 50's was explained. From '58 or '59 (I can't recall which) and into 1961 there was a push to outfit the cadets with some of the war surplus in store. Armourers oversaw civilian military employees at the depot/base workshop levels.
This was NOT an FTR program.
Of the rifles gone over, most went to cadets/schools etc. The remainder went back into storage. A sort of war reserve but the idea was to provide cadet rifle replacements for years to follow. This relayed by a few who actually participated hands-on at the time.
The look of the rifle was very familiar to me as my own rifle was identified as such. Mine same as this one both had 1960 dates stamped atop the Knocks form.

Militarily and historically correct as it sits today. Should be a great shooter. Congrats!
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top