First time Enfield purchase, did I get played?

[Mark1871]

Recently picked up a Lithgow 1919 marked Enfield. At first glance it’s mostly/all matching (or force matched?) serials, down to the rear sight. Only serial I can’t confirm is barrel because the upper handguard wood has already had some repair work and I don’t want to exacerbate it. 
 

Bore seems shiny and grooves look strong. Bolt head is maybe at like, the 11-11:30 position. Not quite 12 but well within my understanding of acceptable. 
 

Biggest concern is how bad is the wood damaging value and if it looks to be a shoot able rifle if I want to (doubt it beyond maybe a clip or 2 for function testing)
 
Just kinda curious what it’s worth and if I overpaid by much… 

 

Rest of photos in link since max 10MB files I guess

https://postimg.cc/gallery/CBpmmSF

Edited 28 March by Mark1871
added photos

[shippingsteel]

I had a quick look at a couple of the markings stamped on your rifle. You need to get your other photos posted up as well. Just add them a few at a time in a separate post in this thread. Multiple posts may be required to get them all added.

Some closeup shots of the markings will help others speak to the history and background of this particular rifle. The main marking I can see is stamped on the flat side of the charger bridge. The CAI ST ALB VT is unfortunately the Importer mark of Century Arms International, St.Albans, Vermont which does nothing but destroy "Collector value".

Apart from that it has a 3MD stamped over the receiver which indicates issue to the 3rd Military District in Australia, which is the State of Victoria. It looks like it's Inventory number may have been overstamped / obliterated as well, which is also not good.

Value is always hard to determine and often depends where you are located in the world. But a rifle without any substantial "Collector value" is just a rifle ... good for shooting or wall hanging, depending on the actual working condition of the weapon.

Cheers,  SS 

 

[Mark1871]

HighRes photos are in the link, but here's the lowerres versions...

[Mark1871]

3 minutes ago, shippingsteel said:

I had a quick look at a couple of the markings stamped on your rifle. You need to get your other photos posted up as well. Just add them a few at a time in a separate post in this thread. Multiple posts may be required to get them all added.

Some closeup shots of the markings will help others speak to the history and background of this particular rifle. The main marking I can see is stamped on the flat side of the charger bridge. The CAI ST ALB VT is unfortunately the Importer mark of Century Arms International, St.Albans, Vermont which does nothing but destroy "Collector value".

Apart from that it has a 3MD stamped over the receiver which indicates issue to the 3rd Military District in Australia, which is the State of Victoria. It looks like it's Inventory number may have been overstamped / obliterated as well, which is also not good.

Value is always hard to determine and often depends where you are located in the world. But a rifle without any substantial "Collector value" is just a rifle ... good for shooting or wall hanging, depending on the actual working condition of the weapon.

Cheers,  SS 

 

I definitely didn't buy expecting collector grade, more, wallhanger/historical piece with the possibility of firing. But idk what they should go for, I see numbers from sub 400 to 700+ for seemingly little difference in quality/year.

[Mark1871]

I guess my main concern is do you see anything that screams "that's a problem"? I know the wood wings for the sight are gone, looks to be an orig mod/fix so not too concerned there... I notice there's some black 'paint' near the front band?

[DisasterDog]

2 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

The CAI ST ALB VT is unfortunately the Importer mark of Century Arms International, St.Albans, Vermont which does nothing but destroy "Collector value".

I disagree, pretty much all of them will have import markings & it’s better than JJCo!  
 

Here’s another Century import 1919, also missing the handguard fingers:

 

https://www.gunboards.com/threads/1919-lithgow.1184992/#post-10649859

 

Any manufacturer markings on the magazine?  The cocking piece looks like the later Indian type, any markings on it?

[Mark1871]

[DisasterDog]

The inspection marks on the bolt handle & cocking piece are Indian, this probably explains the butt lacking its Australian markings, black paint & removed handguard fingers.  The CAI import mark is in the same exact location as on my ‘29 Ishapore.  We know India received some equipment from Australia after WW2, I think this just might be one of those examples.  

Edited 29 March by DisasterDog

[Mark1871]

hm interesting. i'm not exactly against this. so it was probably sent to India to be refurb'd and seemingly boxed away given the lack of wear in the barrel (i know i don't have a good inner barel photo, but looks just as clean/crisp as my modern rifles)

[4thGordons]

I agree with @DisasterDog any rifle imported into the US officially since 1968 will have an import stamp so it is unavoidable really -- the old style (like this one) are much less noticeable than the more recent "dot matrix" style which are also larger and difficult to avoid. I am not sure who the importer is really matters (although some imported some really rough weapons) So while I suppose it might undermine value for some I think most collectors in the US have learned to live with it and don't see it as a significant detraction.

I see nothing at all wrong with this example. Agree it is an Indian used rifle - I'd be interested to know if it is the original barrel - any clues under the upper handguard? The numbered magazine is also typically Indian - what is a bit surprising is the absence of a screw through the foreend (unless the tip is just not visible?)

I think it looks good.

My 1919 Lithgow also has trimmed fingers on the handguards although I am not sure if there are other Indian markings -- I will check. Mine is pretty battered.

File photos below with a 1919 Bayonet.

IIRC I have a couple of 3MD marked 1919 Bayonets - I'll check

Chris

[Mark1871]

13 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

I agree with @DisasterDog any rifle imported into the US officially since 1968 will have an import stamp so it is unavoidable really -- the old style (like this one) are much less noticeable than the more recent "dot matrix" style which are also larger and difficult to avoid. I am not sure who the importer is really matters (although some imported some really rough weapons) So while I suppose it might undermine value for some I think most collectors in the US have learned to live with it and don't see it as a significant detraction.

I see nothing at all wrong with this example. Agree it is an Indian used rifle - I'd be interested to know if it is the original barrel - any clues under the upper handguard? The numbered magazine is also typically Indian - what is a bit surprising is the absence of a screw through the foreend (unless the tip is just not visible?)

I think it looks good.

My 1919 Lithgow also has trimmed fingers on the handguards although I am not sure if there are other Indian markings -- I will check. Mine is pretty battered.

File photos below with a 1919 Bayonet.

IIRC I have a couple of 3MD marked 1919 Bayonets - I'll check

Chris

nice even yours' wood looks pretty similar

[Mattr82]

A nice Lithgow that definitely has a mixture of Indian parts thrown into it as well..

Quite typical of those sent to India post-WW2. Another give away is there's no longer any QLD Maple wood on it. It has a walnut butt and the fore wood is rosewood. I wonder if the fore end has a tie plate or not. Would like to eventually see a photo of the fore end off the rifle so I can have a squiz.

I'm not hugely up to speed on Indian use of SMLEs and subsequent refurbs etc but many thanks for sharing with us and allowing us to discuss this rifle.

I think CAI brought in a sh*tload of rifles from India in the early 2000s. 

Edited 29 March by Mattr82