unfired lithgow 1941

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
wsmrto	unfired lithgow 1941	Lead	[-]
Posts: 412 (11/14/08 10:02 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Great find in Tulsa! Absolutely the most beautiful military stock I have ever laid my eyes, or hands on. As the photos show this has never been fired!! It still has the original grease in the chamber and bore. Check out the pictures.
eb in oregon		#1	[-]
Posts: 310 (11/14/08 10:42 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	You lucky prig. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
Parashooter		#2	[-]
Posts: 1592 (11/14/08 11:40 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Might be replacement wood. Any import marks to indicate "J. Jovino" of New York had their hands on it? Have you removed the forestock and checked for the copper recoil plates that are sometimes missing on replacements?
wsmrto		#3	[-]
Posts: 414 (11/15/08 12:02 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There are no import marks at all, anywhere. Dennis Kroh assisted me examining the rifle to check for those exact indicators of a J.Jovino mixmaster before I got it. I haven't removed the forestock as the screws look like never been turned. The wood grain matches each piece even though the buttstock and forestock is SLAZ 42 and the receiver is marked 1941. Yes I was kind of skeptical of it when I first saw it but it even has the correct oiller in the butt. The photos can be blown to full screen and show most markings.
woftam aus		#4	[-]
Posts: 162 (11/15/08 05:03 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Two things strike me as curious for an original Lithgow straight from the factory. Firstly there are no markings on the butt - no M.A. LITHGOW S.M.L.E. III* HV 1941 (or 1942). Secondly the rear sight protector ears appear to be on backwards. Out of curiosity - is the forearm marked with the rifles serial number ? BTW, while I wouldn't offer up my firstborn for that wood I'd certainly consider it, by far the nicest stock I've seen in many a year.
brass rat		#5	[-]
Posts: 1936 (11/15/08 07:39 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Secondly the rear sight protector ears appear to be on backwards. Good catch What are the chances that it came off the line like that. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why not join us at Milsurp After Hours handloading forum
Ed Novak		#6	[-]
Posts: 1711 (11/15/08 08:22 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I've never seen even a JJCO "unissued" Lithgow without some transverse mill-marks on the wood - have owned one of those so I have some perspective. The wood looks too well-polished/smooth; sanded? Hate to make it seem that I am trying to rain on your parade but I just do not see that rifle as what it is purported to be. What inspection stamps? Nosecap stamping, if any? I see no stampings on the right side of the buttstock - accepted rifles were stamped, IIRC. Hope that the rifle is what you believe it to be and even if it isn't, it is still a gorgeous thing.
wsmrto		#7	[-]
Posts: 417 (11/16/08 01:43 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I can say that I took it down and the barrel shank has many insp and proof marks, and are clear and indicate Lithgow. The side rail under the wood has a line of insp stamps with 1 thru 10 under the crown. The nose cap has a BA stamped on the bottom. The buttstock wrist has Crown /5 S and SLAZ 42 the forestock has L 3 S SLAZ 42. Inside the UP handguard is a Crown and (very faint) S. Almost every piece of metal has a BA or MA on it to inc. the ft and rear sights, which the rear have the matching #'s stamped. The brass buttplate has OA stamped on the top heel. And like all the SMLE's I have gone through, the front sling band screw is soft steel and striped the threads going back in. There is NO import marks anywhere, not even under the woodline. The stock is gorgeous, but a close insp shows it is not polished and has sander swirl marks of about 200 grit overall. The 3 stock removal screws show signs of disassembling (previous owners) over the years. It is what it is and my next desion is to fire it or not. I have many enfields and all have been fired at least one range session, but this one bluntly has never been fired. Last Edited By: wsmrto 11/16/08 01:48 AM. Edited 1 times.
MasterChief		#8	[-]
Posts: 978 (11/16/08 02:28 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	One additional clue to the rifle being a Jovino bitser would be the absence of recoil plates inside a coachwood forend.
TikiRocker		#9	[-]
Posts: 281 (11/16/08 04:41 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I agree with Woftam, it is highly unlikely that rifle left Lithgow Small Arms like that and what with the anomalies observed such as a lack of inspection and date marking on the butt stock etc I think we can assume this isn't what it was stated to be. I have seen many Lithgow rifles and that furniture is not correct for what has passed out of Slazengers or L:ithgow at that time; the rifle has clearly been refinished - so with all that being said it's still a nice rifle but you buy the rifle not the story. Last Edited By: TikiRocker 11/16/08 04:44 PM. Edited 1 times.
wsmrto		#10	[-]
Posts: 418 (11/16/08 06:17 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	OK! I really don't know what to say. The rifle is my purchase. The entire metal surfaces are perfect with no signs of wear, not even on the edges. All the #'s match and the stock is beautiful, which is obvious. I can't find any marking to indicate it is anything but a 1941 lithgow with a 1942 beautiful stock. I have other Lithgows with the SN on the forestock and at the butt. This one doesn't have either, but has the SLAZ 42 markings in the correct location. If all the parts are matching and in new unfired condition why would anyone bother to put on such gorgeous, almost custom wood. Could this have been made for presentation, or other special function? I will continue to research and would appreciate any ideas, comment or criticism as that's what this forum is for. By the way the SN # is C 746x so maybe there is something to start with.
eb in oregon		#11	[-]
Posts: 317 (11/16/08 06:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The stock may be a replacement, or one that was kicked out at the end of the day and missed a stamp or two, or it may be a stock that was put on at a later date. It has however never been refinished, it is as it was the day it was made. A cursory inspection of the pictures demonstrates clean crisp edges where they should be, they also show that the wood under the finish is clean and clear with open pores. Almost impossible to do in my experience when re-finishing. And the metal? It is in new condition. Anyone familiar with metal, it's properties, and what occurs to sharp edges when buffing, bead-blasting, or anything else can see that the metal work is original. This rifle may be an anomaly, and if some sort of forgery, it is the strangest one I've ever seen or heard tell of. And it is very possible that this rifle was snatched off the production before completion for a "presentation" piece because the wood was rather nice. All the stamps mentioned are/were military acceptance stamps. If it didn't go to the military it didn't need the stamps. Easy to throw stones when you can't even see the house. Read post on "Experience," sort of qualifies for this thread. Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776 Last Edited By: eb in oregon 11/16/08 09:23 PM. Edited 2 times.
TikiRocker		#12	[-]
Posts: 284 (11/16/08 09:27 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Eric, No stones being thrown here ... we are all giving an appraisal of what we are seeing and what is being claimed. My assessment is that the furniture has indeed been re-finished ... it may well be a very nice job but there is no way that furniture left Slazengers or Lithgow factory like that. I shoot out of the Lithgow Small Arms Rifle Club and shoot WITH people who volunteer their time as guides/curators at the Lithgow Factory Museum ... there is no trace of any example of a Lithgow rifle that looks like that anywhere in the factory or in any of Ian Skennerton's literary pictorials - in my very humble opinion the rifle has been worked on, sure as sunshine. You would think that Ian Skennerton in his books or at the very least the Lithgow Factory Museum might have examples of such rare presentation pieces on display ... but they don't. It's easy to speculate about furniture being snatched off the line at Slazengers but for who and why? Without paper work to add provenance then this is all blue smoke going around in the air ... that is why I said you buy the rifle NOT the story. Once again and with all due respect the evidence suggests to me this is somebody else's work and not Lithgow. If you choose to disagree with that, no worries, but don't assume my difference of opinion is an attack ... it really isn't. Cheers. Last Edited By: TikiRocker 11/16/08 09:34 PM. Edited 1 times.
Old King Cole.weendotnetforum...		#13	[-]
Posts: 12 (11/16/08 09:30 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Dang that's purdy
eb in oregon		#14	[-]
Posts: 318 (11/16/08 09:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Nah, wasn't saying that. What you say may be true, that it isn't "an original" Lithgow, however that wood is, in my worthless opinion, still as new. Where it came from, I don't know. I do beg to differ friend, the metal is original, also in my worthless opinion. I'm only saying that because I've worked with metal for a long time and there is always an indication of re-work, if present. I just don't see it here in these pictures. You can't take a used piece, bead blast, and re-parkerize and have it look new. It just looks re-parkerized. Clean crisp edges, consistant radii, sharp edges on everything I can see. If someone re-worked this rifle from a used one he is something of a genius as well as one of the finest craftsman on the earth. There is the matter of the rear sight protector being backwards, but any bloke could have done that in the last 60 years or so. I'm not sure of it's history, who is. There are still some mystery's in life. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776 Last Edited By: eb in oregon 11/16/08 10:05 PM. Edited 1 times.
TikiRocker		#15	[-]
Posts: 285 (11/16/08 10:19 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I had no opinion of the metal mate ... it's condition is really not the big factor in determining the issue; the furniture is a far better indicator - we'll never know but I'm pretty confident of my own assessment based on everything I have seen elsewhere.
Ed Novak		#16	[-]
Posts: 1712 (11/16/08 10:20 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"Easy to throw stones when you can't even see the house." My old eyes and my inept computer skills for enhancing photos may be at fault here but there certainly are no acceptance marks on that butt. I think that the wood is too, too marvelously smooth to represent factory issue condition but were I to hold the rifle in my hands or have more than 40 years of experience with LEs, I might change that opinion. The issue of recoil blocks is interesting in that the JJCO "parts" Lithgow ("Genuine 1942 Lithgow SMLE, Mk.III*, Unissued") I held for more than two years had the blocks installed, had '43 SLAZ wood, correct sn's correctly placed and correct assembly stampings in all locations but was still a JJCO parts gun never accepted for Commonwealth service. That rifle, by the way, had an unblemished set of wood and not even a scuff on the metal. Now, if the gentleman who started this string has posted the photos for viewing and hence, comment. "Unfired" - are there proof stampings on the "unfired" rifle? Those of us who seem to doubt the heritage of this rifle are not jealous or naysayers for the sake of it but are critical of the provenance as presented: remember the saying "If it seems too good to be true ....."? And, the assurances given by a dealer, respected as he is, are his. I sold my JJCO "Lithgow" to a gentleman who had no deep-seated feelings about the legitimacy of the rifle and he was greatly pleased to have it. I replaced it with a '42 Lithgow with acceptance stampings, an unnumbered bolt (the dealer stated in his add that Lithgows were produced with unnumbered bolts and the number stamping was done in the field by the unit armorer - odd it was that this dealer had a batch of Lithgows, well-used, with scrubbed bolts) which had been an Australian Cadet rifle. Not as pretty, but with provenance. Sorry for this long posting - I am trusting that the original poster has exactly what he paid for and if he knows where more such SMLEs are for sale, I am certain that several of us will be interested in having one also.
eb in oregon		#17	[-]
Posts: 319 (11/16/08 10:36 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Last comment. "What you say may be true, that it isn't "an original" Lithgow, however that wood is, in my worthless opinion, still as new. Where it came from, I don't know." And, regarding "unfired." Most firearms folk know that ALL firearms are fired (or supposed to be, I had one once that wasn't) at the factory. Proof testing is a part of manufacture. However using the term "unfired" is common place when either buying, or selling , a firearm. It is generally understood that the firearm hasn't been fired since it left the factory, not that it has never been fired. I should have kept my nose out of this. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
wsmrto		#18	[-]
Posts: 419 (11/16/08 10:52 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	WOW! this is really getting interesting. I am learning so much about Enfield's, Lithgows in particular. The individual I got this from had a table full of like new, unissued beautiful rifles for sale. I didn't have the $$ to buy but this and the Ljungman that I have photos of on the Semi-Auto military forum. He had on the table a never used -still unfired withdocuments a 1903 1930 build rifle, a 1871 as new mauser from Amburg, I believe. The one I almost went into fits about was M91 REMINGTON unfired with the original tags, all the original accessories with the Remington "R" AND the release papers to the NRA still attached. I left with my purchases at about 1130 on Sunday and there were many others in the same condition. His comments were he bought them all between 25 and 30 years ago and needs to have the money for closing his construction co and have surgery on both knees an retire. I have his address and e-mail and phone #'s and am going to get in touch with him to possibly purchase some more. I will also ask some more ? as to the enfield I got from him.
Ed Novak		#19	[-]
Posts: 1713 (11/16/08 11:25 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	wsmrto: Congratulations on having that beautiful Lithgow. Trust that you are happy with it and trust that you take all of the "give and take" here as customary mental wrangling by those of us who serve as a peanut gallery of sorts. The "give and take" are mental exercises or a sort and usually are a means of exchanging information and "picking" other folks' brains. Again, congratulations. Eric: "I should have kept my nose out of this" - no sir, my friend, not at all. As above, folks who love any Milsurp brand have an interest in posting what they think they know that may be helpful and hope to learn something new in turn. I have been collecting and shooting LEs since 1960 and still have virtually no knowledge of them except for what I've weaned from information bandied about here, on other fora and from reading. The only claim I've ever known to invite the full fury of the Enfield fans is "expert". Your experience in wood repair stands you in good stead to support your opinion about this SMLEs appearance.
wsmrto		#20	[-]
Posts: 420 (11/17/08 12:57 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As I said, I am glad that I got it, and I honestly want to find out as much about this as possible. I know some of the stock markings (toe of butt stock and end of forestock) but all the rest is there and the barrel and receiver under the wood is perfect with all the proper stampings. I am trying to do a check on the SN to check if the build year matches.