[Greenjacket]

It's history is gone - it is now just a collection of parts - rebuild and it just becomes a mongrel / bitsa.

Part it out and let someone use the parts to rebuild their mongrels / bitsa.

I would think a Type 4 magazine should fit a 1912 SMLE which is relatively easy to obtain but unless there is a way to fit an unmatched bolt for the proper headspace for a reasonable cost I plan to follow your advice.

 

[waw44]

I have a couple of P14’s and a matched and unmatched smle so shooting isn’t the issue. Just hate to part out a piece of history.

Why add another unmatched SMLE to the bunch then? Ok, it's originally a 1914 rifle. If WW1 is your collection focus, then the 1947 FTR kinda makes this rifle a misfit. If your collection is more general, then you already have a mismatched SMLE. So, put your big boy pants on, get over the feelings and sell the free-to-you gun to raise some money toward a decent No.4 to round out the .303 collection .

 

[DisasterDog]

We still don’t even know the manufacturer, a Lithgow will likely be much harder to restore to a reasonable level than an Ishapore.

 

[waw44]

Isn't any rifle that's has been repaired/FTRd in service a Bitza. In reality just how many rifles are really original from WW1 through WW2 onto Korea or Malaya.
Late WW2 production can be.
Factory correct is a myth because LEs mostly were parts rifles.
Just read the stamps or read the lists of who made what.
Numbers on three parts that match does not make a matching rifle by manufacture only says they were assembled together at one point or renumbered at a later time.

This maybe so, but a No.1 was still a pre-ww1 design gun with hand fitting being a major part of the assembly. Even in FTR, the bolt and nosecap would have been numbered to the rifle, so no matter what the OP does, those will always be incorrect.

 

[Nirvana]

Pass. Waste of time and money and valuable parts.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

I would think a Type 4 magazine should fit a 1912 SMLE which is relatively easy to obtain but unless there is a way to fit an unmatched bolt for the proper headspace for a reasonable cost I plan to follow your advice.

#
Fitting a new bolt is not just a case of getting headspace correct - there are about 6 other functions that need to be 'hand adjusted', such things as locking lug matching/interface, bolt lift, bolt head lift, striker protrusion, cocking piece etc etc.

 

[DEMO]

Who made the action and what presents it as a 1947 refurb?

 

[Greenjacket]

#
Fitting a new bolt is not just a case of getting headspace correct - there are about 6 other functions that need to be 'hand adjusted', such things as locking lug matching/interface, bolt lift, bolt head lift, striker protrusion, cocking piece etc etc.

Well you convinced me. It makes me appreciate even more my accurate shooting SMLE with its 1916 receiver and 1924 bolt. It appears to be manufactured at the Lithgow factory in 1924 using spare parts. Would a #4 SMLE be as difficult to fit an unmatched bolt ?

 

[DEMO]

It appears to be manufactured at the Lithgow factory in 1924 using spare parts.

Can you elaborate on this ?

 

[DisasterDog]

Would a #4 SMLE be as difficult to fit an unmatched bolt ?

Same procedure.
FWIW, the No.4 is not a SMLE as the nomenclature was changed prior to its introduction.

 

[Greenjacket]

Same procedure.
FWIW, the No.4 is not a SMLE as the nomenclature was changed prior to its introduction.

Yes I understand. Just being informal. Although it is short, has a Lee action, an Enfield rifled barrel, and a magazine. No. 1 = previous SMLE, No. 2 = SMLE .22 trainer as opposed to No.7 #4 rifle trainer, No.3 = P14, No.5 = Jungle rifle, No. 6 = Lithgow No.1 Jungle Rifle, No. 7, 8, and 9 #4 .22 trainers.

 

[waw44]

Would a #4 SMLE be as difficult to fit an unmatched bolt ?

Same steps, but the action is stronger , so the safety margin is wider with no.4s. Why would you worry about it though? Plenty of decent matching rifles out there for sale .

 

[Greenjacket]

To elaborate: Lithgow 1924 Sht. L.E. III on butt socket, Lithgow proofs through out, D broad arrow D, magazine cutoff, although does have a #3 end cap due to MA/50 FTR.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Would a #4 SMLE be as difficult to fit an unmatched bolt ?

Identical procedure.

 

[DEMO]

What is the 1916 action you mentioned?

Also building a 1924 rifle using spare parts? Not sure what that means

 

[DisasterDog]

It makes me appreciate even more my accurate shooting SMLE with its 1916 receiver and 1924 bolt.

How can you tell it’s a 1916 receiver rather than the 1924 that it states?

 

[Greenjacket]

My copy of Australian S.M.L.E. Variations by Skennerton and Labudda contains a yearly production table for Lithgow Small Arms Factory that indicates that over 18,500 smles were manufactured by early 1915. Since my smle’s receiver s/n is 14xxx it was manufactured in 1914 or 1915. My smle’s bolt has a B prefix which was used from the early 1920’s to 1941. It also has a magazine cutoff which were installed again during the 1920’s. There was no demand for smles after WWI so Lithgow only produced about 20,000 during the 1920’s. They kept a core crew to make a few with materials on hand as well as newly manufactured parts so their skills wouldn’t be lost. I also have a Lithgow SMLE with a s/n of 44xxx which was made in 1916.

 

[DisasterDog]

Pics might be helpful.

 

[waw44]

Pics might be helpful.

Yea, read the thread again from the top and ....

 

[Bindi2]

Lithgow did not stop making the Mk111 until early WW2. They just stopped using the Lobing sight and the adjustable rear sight. They cut the slot but did not all ways drill and tap for the cutoff screw.
Greenjacket
The prefix letters are very important. As you say but not clearly the bolt has a prefix B is it the same serial #. If not you have a BUBBA setup.