Lithgow markings
- Thread starter endersgun
- Start date
"Then how do you explain the Lithgow markings on the rear of the body?"
Because Lithgow made it but that does not change the fact Lithgow never had Q as a prefix, they used 1 to 99999 then A1 to A99999 then B, C, D, E, & F finishing with F40580 in 1953.
There is the possibility the 1944 receiver is a replacement receiver that was allocated the serial number of the original rifle (which would've been a different manufacturer hence the non Lithgow prefix) but the Jovino stamp will cloud that assumption.
FWIW i have a 1918 BSA MkIII* that has a replacement receiver made by Lithgow that is marked LITHGOW 1939 MkIII* that has the BSAs I prefix serial number.
Because Lithgow made it but that does not change the fact Lithgow never had Q as a prefix, they used 1 to 99999 then A1 to A99999 then B, C, D, E, & F finishing with F40580 in 1953.
There is the possibility the 1944 receiver is a replacement receiver that was allocated the serial number of the original rifle (which would've been a different manufacturer hence the non Lithgow prefix) but the Jovino stamp will cloud that assumption.
FWIW i have a 1918 BSA MkIII* that has a replacement receiver made by Lithgow that is marked LITHGOW 1939 MkIII* that has the BSAs I prefix serial number.
Now i know you will be thinking its just a 1939 Lithgow receiver that has been taken from another rifle but (and its a big but) in 1939 Lithgow was only making MkIIIs with cutoffs, no MkIII*s were being made, which can only mean this is a purpose built replacement receiver, note in this pic there is no slot for the cutoff.
Ian Skennerton has personally viewed this rifle & has verified it & for those who have his book "The Lee-Enfield" you will find mention of this rifle on page 566 & for the sharp eyed lot, yes the serial number differs in the book being listed as I 184115 instead of I 84115.