Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/10/2011 2:35:39 PM EDT
Picked up a nice 1942 Lithgow No. 1 Mk III* at the gunshow this morning. All in all, I'm pretty happy with it... seems like a nice addition to the Enfield collection (which now numbers two  ).
|
|
Quoted:
those new build original parts JJovino rifles shoot great your a lucky guy 
This rifle doesn't fit with anything I know of the Jovino rifles. The bore isn't blued, the serial numbers are correct and matching, the recoil plates are where they belong, and nothing has been refinished. To the best of my knowledge, this is an original rifle. |
|
well thats a super sweet rifle then you have gotta love the look of Aus coach wood !
the JJ rifles we had arrive in the UK were realy good and the JJ mark was very light and not too obtrusive the only give away was the serial numbers were not in the correct range and the rifles were spanking new unfired. i personaly wouldn't avoid one if I came across one again. Ps. If you ever spot one of the Jovino .22's jump on it the one I had grouped just over 1/4" at 25 yds prone unsupported much better than the BSA original I have. |
|
Quoted:
well thats a super sweet rifle then you have gotta love the look of Aus coach wood ! the JJ rifles we had arrive in the UK were realy good and the JJ mark was very light and not too obtrusive the only give away was the serial numbers were not in the correct range and the rifles were spanking new unfired. i personaly wouldn't avoid one if I came across one again. Ps. If you ever spot one of the Jovino .22's jump on it the one I had grouped just over 1/4" at 25 yds prone unsupported much better than the BSA original I have. The serial number is a little strange –– it's a C95xxx. Some sources I've looked at say that the C-series numbers were limited to 1941 production, but I don't find it out of the realm of possibility for a late-90s s/n to have carried over into 1942. The assembly numbers match (which isn't consistent with the JJ put-togethers), and nothing else points to it being anything but a legitimate rifle. Good to know about the .22. I'd like to find a .22 SMLE of some flavor. |
|
Quoted:
The realy good news is all the JJ rifles I've seen are stamped as such right hand side rear of the receiver so if it ain't stamped it is probably ok, let's face it we take all all old guns on face value realy seeing there are so many crooks out there! Sounds like some have been stamped under the sight base or bottom of the barrel, also. Some interesting detective work
|
|
Looks like a nice rifle! What's the barrel date, and the acceptance date on the buttstock? That'll help in narrowing down the actual assembly date.
IIRC, Jovino used suffixes (like Ishapore) so a prefixed rifle should be okay; the presence of the recoil plates is also a good sign. |
|
Quoted:
Looks like a nice rifle! What's the barrel date, and the acceptance date on the buttstock? That'll help in narrowing down the actual assembly date. IIRC, Jovino used suffixes (like Ishapore) so a prefixed rifle should be okay; the presence of the recoil plates is also a good sign. The plot thickens
The barrel date is 11/42, with a matching serial number to the rest of the gun. The butt and forearm are both Slazenger 1944, while the upper handguard is a Slazenger 1943. Forearm has a crown over a 5 over an S, while the stock has a crown over a 4 and an S. There are no other markings on the wood. The furniture has sanding marks, but I believe them to be from the original finishing of the wood, as none of the metal is proud and, while the marks are consistent across all the wood, the stamps were obviously stamped after the sanding. I can find no indication of the acceptance marks on the side of the stock. Is the disassembly process different for the Lithgows in regards to removing the forearm? There is some wear on the corner of the stock where the charging bridge inlet is located, and I'm concerned about the integrity of the recoil plates and reinforcing rods. Despite having the fragility inherent to coachwood, the rods appear to be very close to the edges of the wood, and I'm concerned that the normal "pivot and pull" described in the disassembly process will result in cracking or breaking. |
|
Looking around I found this quote from a guy on the Lee Enfield forum
OK! This is it!! Last night I examined this Lithgow with a magnifying glass under a strong light. The results are conclusive, when the rear sight ladder is up the small D shaped section of barrel is visible. This is where the "HV" and "SC" are stamped. With a glass I made out very light and small over strikes of JJCO and under this NYC. It was hard to see without the glass and very faint with the glass. So It is a JJovino import. It is a very beautiful rifle and seems to have followed me home. What is the end of this? Is the rifle completly worthless. Do I disassemble it and part it ot as just new unused parts, do I keep it as a shooter, and try to maintain it in its very beautiful and pristine condition? What NOW??? Good luck Ps. JJ co did import complete rifles but they all appear used condition , they also imported Australia's stock of new unissued parts. The .22 trainers for instance are all matching no bears but have a T prefix that never existed I found this out after I got a JJCO after a guy swore blind it was legitimate 
PPS. Check the finish above the wear on the stock I think mine may have been import marked bellow the charger bridge |
|
Quoted:
Looking around I found this quote from a guy on the Lee Enfield forum OK! This is it!! Last night I examined this Lithgow with a magnifying glass under a strong light. The results are conclusive, when the rear sight ladder is up the small D shaped section of barrel is visible. This is where the "HV" and "SC" are stamped. With a glass I made out very light and small over strikes of JJCO and under this NYC. It was hard to see without the glass and very faint with the glass. So It is a JJovino import. It is a very beautiful rifle and seems to have followed me home. What is the end of this? Is the rifle completly worthless. Do I disassemble it and part it ot as just new unused parts, do I keep it as a shooter, and try to maintain it in its very beautiful and pristine condition? What NOW??? Good luck Ps. JJ co did import complete rifles but they all appear used condition , they also imported Australia's stock of new unissued parts. The .22 trainers for instance are all matching no bears but have a T prefix that never existed I found this out after I got a JJCO after a guy swore blind it was legitimate I believe that's the same thread I was looking at. Checked out the same spot, and I found no marks. I'm 95% certain that this is the real deal, with some very interesting idiosyncrasies. PPS. Check the finish above the wear on the stock I think mine may have been import marked bellow the charger bridge
This isn't consistent wear, it's only on the forward corner of that part of the stock. It looks to me as if it's from the metal pushing/rubbing against the wood when someone removed the forearm. |
|
The wood isn't original to your rifle; it was fitted later. Is the forearm numbered to the receiver (marking should be just rear of the nosecap). If not, I'd be willing to bet it was a NOS Lithgow stock put on by an Aussie civilian shooter, who likely fitted the recoil plates.
No worries on removing the forestock, just don't remove the buttstock unless the forestock has been removed. |
|
Quoted:
The wood isn't original to your rifle; it was fitted later. Is the forearm numbered to the receiver (marking should be just rear of the nosecap). If not, I'd be willing to bet it was a NOS Lithgow stock put on by an Aussie civilian shooter, who likely fitted the recoil plates. No worries on removing the forestock, just don't remove the buttstock unless the forestock has been removed. No serial number. I was leaning towards the stock being a replacement, given that the years were obviously marked. The plates being fitted by a shooter would make sense, as the screws seem to be a little questionable in terms of wood depth. I'm probably not going to be taking this apart much, as there really isn't a lot of wood between the edges of the inletting and the screws, and the screws and the reinforcing rods. I want to tear it down once more to get some pictures of the marks on the metal and whatnot, so I'm really hoping it doesn't crack or split anywhere. 
ETA: Any thoughts on the serial number/date discrepancy? |
|
Quoted:
While Skenno shows all the Cs as being '41, with some Ds as well, I wouldn't sweat it. There are any number of reasons why it might not have been finished in sequence. +1 I'm far from a NO1 expert but this same reasoning follows with the No4's. There are a number of reasons a rifle could be pulled from the line and later returned. |
Armory Sponsor