Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey Guys,

I wasn't getting much feedback under the 22 Cal. Forum so I figured I'd try this Lee-Enfield group. Hope you guys don't mind.
Been meaning to do more research on this gun I've had in my safe for years. I've had it since 1996 (it was a Christmas gift from my mom, I was 11 at the time haha). I've never fired it, I got sucked into collecting U.S. Arms in the past several years, so this has been on the back burner.

I know almost nothing about it. I know it was purchased for $500 in the mid 90's. I can't find an import mark on it (not saying its not import marked, I'm just saying I can't find any and I'm looking in all the usual places you find them on the Lee Enfields). It's never been fired. I've just taken it out to oil it once and a while. Looks to be a 1943 Lithgow.

But I'm trying to find out whatever I can about it, so any help would be greatly appreciated. I'll leave it up to the jury. I haven't seen one ever in this condition just some older war horses once and a while on Gunbroker or Samco.

I tried to get all the pictures the best my phone can provide of all the markings and cartouches. I can get more if necessary.

Any ideas of value (I have no desire to sell it I'm just curious if it's worth at least the $500 of the original price) or helpful information.

 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
Can't tell from your pictures that the rifle is a .22.

Stamps on the butt would tell when the conversion was done, BUT the woodwork looks to be a replacement set, so these marks are likely not present now.

Value, in USA, have no idea.

$500, in Australia, now, would be a steal. Back in the 1990's would have been a lot less.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,617 Posts
Mate without examining your rifle more closely, to me it doesn't at all resemble a genuine factory conversion from Lithgow. It has all the features of those that were assembled by John Jovino or whoever else was building up rifles from new surplus parts for the civilian market. It looks a very nice rifle and might even shoot quite well but I'd certainly question its origins from the appearance.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
476 Posts
The diameter of the bore was a dead giveaway of the caliber way too small to be anything else, the empty magazine is also an indicator. I could be wrong, it was sold as a 22 cal.
Both of those things, plus also the markings on the bolthead and the buttstock will indicate a .22 trainer.

None of these 4 things is visible in the particular photo views you have posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
Saw your thread over on Culvers and the T prefix letter is what John Jovino used in their No2 MKIV SNs. They were built from brand new spare parts here in the US so that's why no import mark. John Jovino purchased a huge lot of Australian SMLEs and spares and used some of those spares to build new .22 trainers. I've seen these in the flesh once or twice over the years and they indeed look new because they are! While not of much interest to a serious collector, they are of interest to shooters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Parts build up.......would still like to have it though. I bought a .22 Trainer in 1995 in Australia and paid $195.00 for it and thought at the time that this was about the right price. I bought another in 2005 for $350.00 and once again thought it was about right. Now in 2014 I'm not prepared to pay $900.00........way too much for me :(
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top