unfired lithgow 1941

0 Kudos

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
wsmrto		#61	[-]
Posts: 433 (11/25/08 03:04 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ed and S&B: I too went through the 10 pages of google sorting out the JJCO stuff and I am getting very interested. I have several nice Enfields including a Irish Ccontract #4Mk2 that is very nice but in issued and been there ( where I don't know). Anyway back to the jjco Lithgow's, I can't put into words how beautiful this stock is, looks like whoever did put it together the same chunk of wood to put on my JJCO, as the grain in all 3 pieces match so nicely. Whoever did the assembly was a fantastic craftsman. I have Skinnerton's book on the#4's and 5s but not the for the NO1 Mk3*'s. I will have to get it. Is there much in any enfield books about these JJCO's and where can I find more references on number imported and the # produced as put-togethers.
Fogtripper		#62	[-]
Posts: 19 (11/27/08 10:44 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wsmrto wrote: If all the parts are matching and in new unfired condition why would anyone bother to put on such gorgeous, almost custom wood. Beyond grease in the chamber, what physical evidence leads you to believe it is unfired? There are some beautiful rebuilt rifles out there, dressed with new wood and freshly applied finish. I would love to think the story is true, but I honestly think you simply have a beautiful rifle.
wsmrto		#63	[-]
Posts: 434 (11/28/08 03:03 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fogtripper: I have examined, inspected and cleaned weapons since 1966 when I entered basic in the Army. I imagine in the 20 plus years I spent in the Army, retiring as a SFC, and the 20 years serving in the DA Civil Service should suffice. The thousands of bores I have looked through at all stages of serviceability, should give me some expertise in if a round has gone from the mag, up a feed ramp and into a chamber.
temperflash		#64	[-]
Posts: 352 (11/28/08 07:09 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wsmrto wrote: Ed and S&B: I too went through the 10 pages of google sorting out the JJCO stuff and I am getting very interested. I have several nice Enfields including a Irish Ccontract #4Mk2 that is very nice but in issued and been there ( where I don't know). Anyway back to the jjco Lithgow's, I can't put into words how beautiful this stock is, looks like whoever did put it together the same chunk of wood to put on my JJCO, as the grain in all 3 pieces match so nicely. Whoever did the assembly was a fantastic craftsman. I have Skinnerton's book on the#4's and 5s but not the for the NO1 Mk3*'s. I will have to get it. Is there much in any enfield books about these JJCO's and where can I find more references on number imported and the # produced as put-togethers. I've seen a few stock sets that looked to have been all pieces cut from the same block of wood. I've read that the Enfield stock sets were originally done just this way, pre WW1 when time was not an issue and high quality wood was much easier to get. Later on the armorers were instructed to try to match the grain and color as closely as possible time permitting, when assembling rifles. That indicates that the previous practice might not have been feasible when rifles had to be produced as quickly as possible. Could be that some post war stock manufacturers went back to the old methods, and had the machinery set up for the purpose. Old school drying and seasoning of wood is best done with larger blocks sealed at the ends to prevent cracking. Kiln dried stocks proved less stable.
A square 10		#65	[-]
Posts: 738 (12/02/08 10:26 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	you have a beautiful rifle , that said lets be realistic on what you are sugesting in the title ............... first , the japanese were overunning the islands in 41 , not likely there was a rifle to spare , as a matter of fact they were requistioning the sporters and target rifles of the ausies at that time - promising to return them of coarse , [kinda makes one wonder at disarming the public doesnt it ? ] second , the brits had once again contracted with the US to produce rifles as they were hard put to produce enough under constant bombing , and dunkirk left a lot of rifles on the wrong side of the channle in the wrong hands , third , what are the odds somebody didnt own this and had to shoot it ? not at all likely had i owned it , fourth , the importers mentioned were notorious for seling parts rifles as 'unfired'[techniacly true i guess] last but not least , if you look close the stampings[markings] are not crisp and indicate refinish , all that said , its a decent rifle and if you like it there is absolutely nothing to dislike , as a shooter its bound to be a good one , most enfeilds are , but as a collector it will fall short http://steyrmannlicher.yuku.com/directory "the original yesterdays weapons"
thingamabob12	Serial #	#66	[-]
Posts: 5 (12/03/08 11:01 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have a JJCO at home and if I remember correctly the serial#s for those started with an "A" I noticed yours doesn't. Maybe all the SMLE Gurus can help with the serial #s and dates corresponding together.
eb in oregon		#67	[-]
Posts: 406 (12/04/08 08:12 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A Square 10, Everything you said is true and probably correct, with one exception. I disagree with your assessment regarding the stampings indicating refinish. I've looked at the same pictures and only note stampings that appear that the dies were getting worn. Just the appearance of the stamped markings is not a good indicator of refinish. I've seen many rifles that had never been refinished and the stampings appeared smeared as they were not new and crisp that day of production. To assume that all stampings on a firearm are always going to appear "NEW and CRISP" is fraught with danger as this is not possible. Tooling wears, tooling is expensive, and tooling is used up until the final determination is made "this isn't going to work anymore." As for this rifles appearance. The stampings indicating Lithgow do appear to be made with worn dies. Why you say? Because if you look at the rest of the receiver it DOES NOT appear to have been refinished. If you observe the bolt raceways, they are still polished, and have not been sandblasted. Too expensive for a worker to carefully mask off these areas for sandblasting, they just shoot the whole thing. If you look at the corners and radius's of the receiver they appear to be crisp and unbroken. Sandblasting "rounds off" small edges. Not apparent here to me. I've spent too many years working with tooling and these refinishing tools to agree with you here. My opinion. Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
TikiRocker		#68	[-]
Posts: 298 (12/04/08 08:52 AM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You only have to observe BSA proofs and general markings to see perfectly legit factory rifles with very poorly struck cartouche - they are notorious for it.
Rustybore		#69	[-]
Posts: 795 (12/04/08 12:53 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Years ago, I too, bought a 1942 rifle, in the A series. It has all appearances of never being fired. I finally found the Jovino stamp on it, found a mention somewhere that the "A" series was a put together rifle by Jovino. Nonetheless, it is a beautiful, new rifle. I have been told to check for the brass plates before fireing it, as the stock is prone to splint without them. I have the rifle in storage presently, but one of these days I will either check for the plates before fireing it, or just keep it as a pristine example for my collection. Perhaps they will come into their own as a collectible. Kevin in Or.
5th Batt	Jovino Lithgows, collectable or not?	#70	[-]
Posts: 24 (12/04/08 01:34 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	1 There appears to be a few collectors (more than 2) who own Jovino parts rifles & know what they have & keep them for what they are. 2. there are some collectors who don't have one, but would like to get one, me included. IMO the criteria that determines a collectors piece has been met. If i was any less a man, i would find comments about them not being a collectors piece offensive
wsmrto		#71	[-]
Posts: 435 (12/04/08 02:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hey! Let me jump back in here. I think this is one of the best, most informative, friendly and downright interesting threads I have ever had the luck to read. Let alone have it about one of my collection. I enjoy every single bit of wisdom, feedback and both positive and negative criticism of this beautiful addition to my other Enfields and rest of my collection. Thanks. I still can't find any specific J Jovino info on their import and distribution of these, mainly where did they get the wood , was a few employees assigned just to assemble these and possibly make some for offering at premium prices. Did the certain rifles come assembled and in the wrap, just to sold as such, and // or were there barreled receivers being assembled from a parts bin. Anyone remember or have an old ad page or catalog page. This could be an interesting project and id some of the info is available those of us on this forum should have the resources to find out.
TikiRocker		#72	[-]
Posts: 299 (12/04/08 04:28 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	WS, From what I was told by sources on this side of the pond where these rifles came from .... all of the above happened. Jovino sold complete rifles in two grades that were marked in different locations ... he also sold made up parts rifles. The Australian Government sold vast stores of parts that ranged from receivers, barrels, barreled receivers, furniture stock sets and everything else that went with them ... Jovino then made post manufacture as new rifles from these parts. There isn't much more to it than that.
MasterChief		#73	[-]
Posts: 986 (12/04/08 08:34 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Agree with 5th Batt. The widely-acclaimed expert on all things Lithgow, to include the Jovino specimens, is the uncrowned king of Australia: Vulch of Gunboards fame. I suggest you post there if you haven't already done so, including those stunning images. Best wishes. Dave
Ed Novak		#74	[-]
Posts: 1744 (12/04/08 08:46 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	wsmrto wrote: Hey! Let me jump back in here. I think this is one of the best, most informative, friendly and downright interesting threads I have ever had the luck to read. Let alone have it about one of my collection. I enjoy every single bit of wisdom, feedback and both positive and negative criticism of this beautiful addition to my other Enfields and rest of my collection. Thanks. I still can't find any specific J Jovino info on their import and distribution of these, mainly where did they get the wood , was a few employees assigned just to assemble these and possibly make some for offering at premium prices. Did the certain rifles come assembled and in the wrap, just to sold as such, and // or were there barreled receivers being assembled from a parts bin. Anyone remember or have an old ad page or catalog page. This could be an interesting project and id some of the info is available those of us on this forum should have the resources to find out. If you have an interest in the purveyor of your rifle, use your search engine and enter "John Jovino Gun Shop" to find a number of web sites featuring general information about JJGS. When I purchased my EXXX... '42 Lithgow so many years ago ('99, IIRC), the rifle arrived well-bundled in a tan paper wrap - unsealed. I spent nearly a year asking questions, including emailing Skip Stratton with details about the rifle. I asked the same questions A square 10 has asked - if the rifle was produced in '42 (had '43 SLAZ Coachwood) and the South Pacific was in such dire straights, how did THIS rifle come to be unused, let alone receiving acceptance stampings? I was unable to find any information about the actual activities of JJGS regarding source of the rifles/parts. I DID receive numerous site responses from people who held "legitimate" Lithgows with acceptance stampings on the butts, etc. and clear evidence of "been there, done that" history. There were a lot of postings "back then" about this subject which I still find, as you do now also, wsmrto, very interesting. I suspect that the total number of rifles imported by JJGS must have been relatively large, given the number of people who responded in those days. Enjoy! Oh, and yes, the greatest number of negative responses I received to my postings concerned the "E" prefix for '42. LECS member #2.
A square 10		#75	[-]
Posts: 741 (12/04/08 09:12 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ive tracked this thread without putting my 2 bits in because its really full of great informatyion and analysis , i found it fascinateing to see so much good input and so much courtesy , that is indeed what these forums are for and this is one of the best ive followed/read in quite a while , what a great bunch of contributers , sorry to say you all put in most everything i could have contributed , except , perhaps , a bit of wisdom i was given early on in my exposure to the LEs - "never say always and never say never when it comes to enfeilds" those words from john sukey have stuck with me , they allow one to be open to all of the information and experiences of others that are so kind to contribute , im glad i revisited tonight http://steyrmannlicher.yuku.com/directory "the original yesterdays weapons"

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

C&R Dealer Links	General Related Links
The Member's Map	The Gun Control Forum

Yuku free message boards

The Lee-Enfield Forum

unfired lithgow 1941