Reading a rifle: 1918 Lithgow MkIII*

[4thGordons]

I just acquired a new SMLE and it is a good demonstration of the service history of many of the surviving rifles, as I had a few minutes and was taking some record shots I thought I would set down some of my "readings" of the history of the rifle in case they are of interest.

So here it is:

A quick look at the markings on the wrist indicate it is a 1918 manufactured MkIII* made at the Lithgow plant in Australia. The receiver is slotted for a cut-off but one is not present and the * appears to be an overstamp so it was probably originally produced as a MkIII (no star)

Also stamped on the reciever is an importer's mark - indicating that it was imported into the USA after 1968 - and also that the importers apparently confused the country of origina as it is stamped AUSTRIA rather than AUSTRALIA!

First observation is that some of the rifles fittings are parkerized (greenish-grey finish) rather than blued. This is typical of WWII refinished rifles and indeed, examining the barrel under the upper handguard shows a 1944 dated barrel, so whatever its service between 1916-1944 it was probably refinished during WWII. This is supported by the FTR stamp on the receiver.

Further evidence of this is provided by the nosecap which has holes milled in the sight protector ears to allow more light to fall on the blade - this was a later WWII and after Australian innovation. The rifle also has a simplified flat spring on the safety as opposed to the orginal "hourglass" shaped one, again a WWII and on innovation.

It is not clear to me if the rifle was refinished once (@1944) and again in 1954 or just in 1954 but using a 1944 dated barrel. I suspect it probably went through two FTRs but I cannot be definitive about that. The date of the 1954 refinish (MA/54) is just visible under the safety on the right side of the rifle. The butt is also marked Slaz 52 indicating it was produced by Slazenger (the raquet company) in 1952.

So now we have covered almost a 40 year service life, but it does not stop there....

At some point this rifle was almost certainly sold to India. Indications of this are the nature of the finish on the wood and the painted barrel band (although this is Lithgow marked), and most obviously the transverse stiffening screw through the forestock. These are almost universal on Indian service rifles and almost unheard of on other rifles (hence their apellation - "Ishapore screw"). In addition, the magazine has an indian marked follower and is numbered (again almost universal in Indian service uncommon in other services) This number does not match the rifle (all other numbers including the forestock do) match.

Given that this rifle has the import stamp it must have been in service at least from 1916 until 1968 but chances are it remained in Indian service until much more recently. Most rifles from India have been imported into the US since the 1990s. The style of import marking suggests it is not one of the most recent imports (the stamping is much larger today) so I would suspect the service history of this rifle was at least 70 years -- possibly longer. The rifle still headspaces correctly and the bore - while showing signs of use is good shape and I will not hesitate to shoot it when the chance presents itself.

Chris

[17107BM]

Chris.

A very interesting thread as always from you. May i ask, have you ever considered starting a web on the subject of rifles. Or, if the forum allowed, going through your collection as a time line on the forum covering all the rifles of WWI and how they played there part in the conflict.

Would like to know how it shoots when you get the chance to, after all those years of service.

My guess is high and right

Thanks Chris

[Khaki]

interesting as always, great photo's, I would certainly second the idea of a time-line on the forum if allowed.

khaki

[Ogilwy]

If anyone knows where there is a good condition 'shooting' SMLE I'm looking for one at the moment?

[shippingsteel]

Interesting thread Chris - and it combines two of my favourite topics, (Lithgows and markings) so you're going to have to bear with me for a moment.!

Firstly the date stamp is most likely a 1918, (probably just a poorly hit 8 which looks like a 6) as the serial number does not correlate with a 1916 rifle.

Going by the serial number its more likely a later 1918 build, as Lithgow did not roll over into the A prefix numbers until well into the 1918 production.

That rifle has sure been 'around the block', and I am thinking through 2 major Lithgow refurbs in Australia, firstly in 1944 and then later again in 1954.

There does seem to be 3 'layers' of the different inspection markings, the early Lithgow marks from the original build and then the later refurb stamps.

Anyway its all interesting stuff and you have illustrated the story very nicely. Those later Korean refurbs are usually still good shooters - mine sure is.!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

S>S

You are quite correct.

I am not sure why I wrote 1916 in the title/story! It is not even poorly struck! it is clearly 1918, and just before posting I had entered it in my notes as '18...?.

I will correrect the title

Chris

(FWIW - I think I found the source of my error! I named the images as Lith16....and carried on from there - corrected now!)

[shippingsteel]

No worries Chris - like you said, the story is all there in the markings.! (And a good example of 'forced matching' with those serial numbers - note the different font)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I have never heard the term "forced matching" in the context of anything other than bolt renumbering (to match the action) and even there I think it is usually a misleading term.

I also think it is largely a "collector's term" that doesn't really have any meaning, even when applied to bolts. The implication usually is that "forced matched" is somehow less desirable than "matched" (that there is an implication that something "odd" or "unoriginal" is going on) I suppose if what is being distinguished is original and replacement components then there is some value to the term, but as far as I can see, if a rifle is rebarrelled as part of an official FTR (when it leaves the factory within original specifications) then there is nothing "forced" about the numbering. Here a replacement barrel has been numbered to the reciever.

Were the term applied to be applied to non-official renumbering (assuming that could be identified) then it may have some relevance but outside that I don't think it is a particularly useful (or accurate) term.

Chris

I just dug out another rifle with what might be an interesting comparative story - so I will see if I can photograph it today and post some pictures. I also have an oddity (bought sight-unseen [gulp!] - en route so that may appear too when it arrives - assuming it is what I think it is!)

[4thGordons]

OK - so here is a similar "reading" but with some interesting differences. Again the rifle is 1918 - but this time produced in the UK by BSA.Co (Birmingham Small Arms Co.)

As you can see from the pictures, it too is worn - but still perfectly serviceable and shoots well.

As can bee seen on the overall view or the right side [above] this rifle has a magazine cut-off. This is something of an anomoly as BSA switched to producing MkIII* rifles earlier than most of the other manufacturers (1915 dated MkIII* rifles produced by BSA are not uncommon - the simplification allowed by the * were not approved until early 1916)

A look at the wrist of the rifle (despite how worn the markings are on this example - probably actually partially scrubbed) indicates why this is.

You can see the * has been barred out with two parallel lines - indicating the rifle was refinished to MkIII status during a subsequent FTR. This is reasonably common on inter-war FTRs.

Examining the other side of the rifle reveals who did this.

This rifle too entered Indian service but in this case far earlier - It appears to have undergone 2 FTRs one in the 1920s and again in 1937 - these were conducted at Rifle Factory at Ishapore (RFI)

At one of these points the rifle was rebarreled and fully reproofed - the barrel currently on it is an Ishapore barrel (undated as is usual) and the receiver has Ishapore inspection marks stamped over the British ones. So having been produced in the UK it went to India during the interwar period.

You might notice there is quite a lot of Khaki paint on the barrel (and actually on much of the metalwork covered by the wood) - all sorts of imaginative tales are told about this paint (which varies considerably in colour and quality of application!) Sometimes it is claimed as jungle issue, sometimes dessert, sometimes SAS or other elite units are invoked. In fact the explanation is far more mundane -- during WWII instructions were issued that for the duration of the conflict instead of the annual disassembly and greasing of the rifles' metal parts below the wood for corrosion prevention, instead parts were to be painted (for the same purpose) - this was not restricted to tropical climates or special users but in all theatres by all. So presence of such paint probably indicates that the rifle was inservice in WWII.

Although this rifle has lots of Indian parts as a result of its FTRs it does not have many of the typical Indian tell tales (ie black painted components, "Ishapore screw", numbered magazine etc) not has it been fitted with the later style Indian forend (with a metal backstrap) which was introduced post WWII.

This suggests the rifle was not in India for all that long after WWII and a clue to this can be found on the other side of the barrel where British commercial proofs are visible. This usually means the rifle was surplussed out in the UK or passed through the UK gun trade at some point.

There is apparently no US import stamp on the rifle which would suggest it came into the US pre 1968 (unless it was missed in the stamping process or brought in in an unconventional manner)

So in this case the rifle was produced in Birmingham in 1918 as a MkIII*, was in India by the later 20s and refinished in India in 1937 (at one of these times being "returned" to MkIII format. Probably saw service in WWII and after that conflict probably ended up back in the UK fairly quickly, to be sold in the civilian gun trade in the UK before finally ending up in the USA (probably pre 1968)

Chris

[shippingsteel]

I have never heard the term "forced matching" in the context of anything other than bolt renumbering (to match the action) and even there I think it is usually a misleading term.

I also think it is largely a "collector's term" that doesn't really have any meaning, even when applied to bolts. The implication usually is that "forced matched" is somehow less desirable ...

Its a fairly widely used terminology, especially amongst milsurp shooters (due to the fact that many ex military rifles have been refurbed at one time or another over their long careers)

I don't have a view whether it is correct or misleading, or if it implies negative connotations. I just know what it means and why it is used. It's an easy way to denote what's not original.

Here is the simple definition - from a reliable source ...

Q: What is meant by "force matched".?

A: Force matched refers to parts that were numbered to match during a refurbishment and are not original to the rifle.

Cheers, S>S

[Gunner Bailey]

Very interesting Chris. I'd not seen the modified nosecap before.

John