Does anyone know what steels were used by Lithgow in the manufacture of their SMLE receivers?

Are you referring too the one without the magazine cut off plate ?.

I'm not sure of which one is which ?. One has Hard ass steel surface treatment

the other is no problem to drill and tap . I'm no authority on .303's but have drilled and

tapped a few , so that's why I know there is a Huge difference in the steel and or

hardening process . You need to speak with one of our military specialist GunSmith's .

You don't by chance have one of these floating around ??.


The Australian Army modified 1,612 Lithgow SMLE No1 Mk III* rifles by adding a heavy target barrel, cheek-piece, and a World War One era Pattern 1918 telescope, creating the SMLE No1 Mk III* (HT). (HT standing for "Heavy Barrel, Telescopic Sight), which saw service in WWII, Korea, and Malaya and was used for Sniper Training through to the late 1970s.

Yes I am. The one in the picture looks a little odd! It is an early model - I don't remember when the magazine cut-off was dropped. Let's see, the MkI was modified into the SMLE config, retaining the cut-off and that became the MkII. But I don't remember whether the MkII still retained the cut-off. The MkIII was built in the SMLE config without the cut-off. I'm not sure sure what they mean by "Action-mounted charger bridge, different from bolt-mounted charger guide on SMLE MKI series and MKII series". There never was a bolt mounted charger guide on any Lee Enfield! But anyway, the one in the picture is shortened to take some other cartridge. I do have one or two NoI MkI*'s with magazine cut-off's and dust covers on the bolt. The cut-off and dust cover is missing on one of them (that's my project gun).

I know that the MkI's were made from medium carbon steel which was then case hardened by carburizing. That's my MkI's. I know the No4 was made from 4140 - modern action and barrel steel. I have no idea what MkIII's were made from and particularly Lithgow MkIII's which were of WWII vintage. I do know that India made some MkIII's with 4140 and chambered them in 7.62 NATO. (The Isaporian SMLE). Many folks don't distinguish between the SMLE and the No4. The NoI MkI was the LMLE (Long Magazine Lee Enfield) or just MLE (Magazine Lee Enfield).

My brother owns a 1916 Lithgow #1 MK III* and it is set up for the cut off. It saw hard use some where and had been re-barreled in 1942.

BTW the photos i have seen of the Long Lee Enfield had a bolt mounted charger guide.


There is an entire series of photos of this rifle and it's bolt mounted charger guide.

quote:

BTW the photos i have seen of the Long Lee Enfield had a bolt mounted charger guide.

OK - time for me to re-check my facts! This is totally new to me.

quote:

... a 1916 Lithgow #1 MK III* and it is set up for the cut off.

There too, I thought the cut-off was a MkI and MkII thing! And that those SMLE's that had cut-off's were actually modified MkI's. Yup - time to re-check my facts!

Hey,,, I don't know whats happening - I tried to edit my earlier post. Among other things, I corrected myself - I am refering to the SMLE MkIII without the magazine cut-off. In fact, I did not realise that Lithgow made SMLE's as early as WWI. So, I am thinking of the later Lithgow SMLE's of WWII vintage.

I believe that Lithgow originally used steel that was brought in from England for their rifles. What ever the spec on it should be the same as the English made variety is my guess. Perhaps later in production years they produced their own steel, but I'm not sure on that.

Lithgow started making No1MkIII SMLE rifles in 1912.
They did not make the earlier MkI version with the sliding charger guide attached to the bolt head.
The original contract to set up the Lithgow Arms Factory was won by low bid from Pratt & Whitney of the USA. The mchinery was built and proved at Colt in Hartford, CT before being shipped to Australia. A very rifles and some bayonets were made on that machinery while being 'proved' in the US and those carry a special marking of a 'C' for Colt under the Broadarrow stamp all inside of an oval. Rare items for sure. The earliest Lithgows were the MkIII (with cut-off, windage adj rear site and volley sites), during WWW1 the cut-off was deleted (MkIII*),,then added once again in interwar years, deleted again in WW2.
The long range 'volley site' & windage adj rear site were gradully phased out during the WW1 period.
A No1MkIII* Lithgow (w/o cut-off) could be found in either a WW1 or a WW2 vintage rifle,,or even a few years dated post (either)war years.
Lithgow continued to mfg the No1MkIII rifle pattern even though the #4 rifle had become the issue rifle in the UK and most other Commonwealth countrys during WW2.
Ishapore Arsenal(India) also continued to mfg the No1 rifle.

303guy,
I have seen a number of the #1 MkIII*s in the US with the slot for the cut off but no cut off plates. Earlier versions of the LE are pretty rare in my area. In 35 years of trolling gun shows
I have never seen a Long Lee or anything with the bolt mounted safety.

Seems that I remember about 20 to 25 years ago some basically new Lithgows made in the 1950s made it to the US.

That is all very intersting information - thanks!

I suppose most LE's that made into the US would have been mil surp, brought in as such. That would mean MkIII's. And of course, the No4's were made in the US and Canada. I have a Long Branch No4 MkI. Mine has a UK made two-groove barrel. This barrel is a curiosity - it has a bore of nomal dimentions but the grooves are two narrow grooves cut into the bore, leaving the majority of the bore at 'bore size'. This swages the bullet from .312 to .304! Seems pretty accurate too.

Now about that bolt mounted clip charger .... ? That is interesting. Is it a rarity? I know that the original MkI's (some of them) were modified to 'MkIII' clip charger config as a retrofit and it showed. They were pinned and brazed on and they seemed to work just fine. The later MkIII's had integral clip charger bridges but the little piece that went accross the back of it was 'keyed' in (and brazed? - or was that the No4?)

The MkI SMLE was only mfg a few years (IIRC starting in the spring of 1903 till the MkIII was adopted in 1907). They are tough to find in original configuration w/sliding charger, cut-off, volley sites, windage rear site, etc) as most were converted to MkIII or MkIII*. Two very slightly different dimentioned bolt head sliding chargers too. Many MkI* rifles that are still round have some connection to Ireland so I'm told and have a renumbered receiver & barrel w/ a 2 letter prefix

The charger bridge on the MkIII is rivited on w/4 rivits. Hard to see them in most cases, but rivited is all they are. No silver solder on the original mfg.
I think the #4 rifle may have an integral charger bridge but I'm not that all familiar with the #4.

Many original MkIII rifles that were converted to MkIII* simply had the cut off plate removed. The stock is still the low cut wood on them necessary for use of the cut off and the slot of course is still in the receiver for it. When the conversion was done, a '*' was stamped next to the MkIII designation on the socket. Some were later ordered reconverted back to MkIII (many are Navy issue rifles) and the cut off was again added back to the rifle and the '*' was now simply 'barred out' by the armourer with a simple single horizontal punch mark in most cases. I guess gov't indecision is the same all over the world..

quote:

I think the #4 rifle may have an integral charger bridge

Yes it does. I have seen MkIII's with brazing between the bridge and the rivit as well between the bridge and the receiver. My 1943 Lithgow SMLE has no brazing.

Getting back to Doc224/375's picture of the clip charger bridged SMLE, what is different about that rifle? It looks odd. Is it the magazine floorplace that is different. Maybe it's just the cut-off that makes it look shorter because it is wider.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

Getting back to Doc224/375's picture of the clip charger bridged SMLE, what is different about that rifle? It looks odd. Is it the magazine floorplace that is different. Maybe it's just the cut-off that makes it look shorter because it is wider.

The bolt isn't pulled all the way to the rear.

Found this pic of the MkI on the net while trying to find more info on the bolt head mounted clip charger. (Nothing on the clip charger! When I mounted a scope on mine I made a bridge over the dust cover and soldered it on.

quote:

The bolt isn't pulled all the way to the rear.

Yes - that and the cut-off.

How do you like the safety?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

Yes - that and the cut-off.[/QUOTE]

There are different variations of the cut-off used because the magazine itself was changed. Going back to the MLM/MLE, then to the MkI and finally the MkIII. Even small changes within each series.

quote:

How do you like the safety?

Well, for starters, it looks better! I do like its operation. With mine I have to pull back a little to engage it - that's because the sear has been cleaned up and is now just a tad short. It is quiet, and under a scope, is not easily bumped off. It is also quiet to disengage. It does lock the bolt closed on an uncocked striker but like all other LE's I know of, the firing pin rests on the primer if a cartridge was chambered with striker down. But for use on an empty chamber it is great as it prevents the bolt from opening during 'safe' carry.

2152hq, are you able to scan or in any way post pics or sketches of the various Lee's? I am fascinated by all the stuff I did not know about them - they have quite an interesting history. (Which is one of the reasons I enjoy them as my sporting rifle actions - plus the fact that they are actually not bad as a sporter. Rather nice actually. Have you seen that I have a 303-25? I think it is a brilliant cartridge! I also think the NoI MkI is a classic - just look at it).

quote:

There are different variations of the cut-off ...

Yes of course! This one has a cut-off that makes it look different to mine. I don't where it is at the moment but I will look for it and see how it differs. Mine is the same as the MkI in the pic.

(I am so intrigued by that bolt head mounted clip charger! Of course I couldn't help noticing the sling swivel where the magazine chain loop should be!)

P.S. Notice the rear sight range elevator? That rear sight also flip up and the elevator become long range sights - which oviously is in itself range adjustable by sliding it up or down. That James Paris Lee fella actually did quite a good job in his design! I don't know whehter he was in volved with the volley sights?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

I think the #4 rifle may have an integral charger bridge

Yes it does. I have seen MkIII's with brazing between the bridge and the rivit as well between the bridge and the receiver. My 1943 Lithgow SMLE has no brazing.

Getting back to Doc224/375's picture of the clip charger bridged SMLE, what is different about that rifle? It looks odd. Is it the magazine floorplace that is different. Maybe it's just the cut-off that makes it look shorter because it is wider.

303guy, the rifle with the bolt mounted charger guide is known as a CCLE ( or was that CLLE )and predates the SMLE, the receiver is a different forging as you can see with the left hand half of the charger guide in the receiver wall and the other half on the bolt head, they are a transitional model and were only made for a few years, as such they are a bit scarce.

ps I remember reading somewhere the steel used was known as "best mild steel" whatever that was back in the last decades of the 19th century, at a guess I'd say it meant carbon steel just like everybody else used.

Thanks for that darwinmauser. It surprizes me that in all the books and articles on the Lee Enfield, especially when the Centenary came and went, I never heard mention of the 'CCLE'. Is that the MkII? I new the MkII was a short life transitionary rifle but know nothing about it. What was the modified MkI called? (Mine is a 1902 MkI* - I don't remember what the '*' meant but believe it was the last of the MkI models).

The rifle with the sliding charger guide on the bolt head is the SMLE. The original. The first,,the MkI.
Prior to the SMLE, none of the MLE/MLM rifle (Long Lees) were charger loading. Many of those still in service after the adoption of the SMLE were converted to charger loading capabilities and further altered to SMLE configuration in O/A length, sights, handguards, etc.

Some small changes in 1906 to the MkI produced the MkI* (original steel butt plate changed to brass, magazine box front contour changed and now stamped '2' on the back spine, keeper screw for striker on the back of the bolt cocking piece could now be turned w/coin, rear sling swivel changed from MLE/MLM type single screw fitting to 2-screw base and swivel, small parts edges contoured to avoid damage to equiptment, and others).
An original MkI rifle is very rare indeed. Most commonly seen are MkI* variations. Most MkI rifles were converted/upgraded to MkI*

MkI*** are MkI/MkI* rifles converted to MkIII.

Could the 'CCLE' you refer to may be the 'CLLE',,, Charger Loading Lee Enfield?
A conversion and then later some commercial BSA purpose built MLE (Magazine Lee Enfield) Long Lee rifles with an SMLE charger bridge (1907 and later) on top to facilitate charger loading.

BTW the cut-off plate in Doc's photo above on the MkI variation appears to be one approved in 1904 for Naval issue only. Naval issue rifle most often (but not always!) have a capital 'N' stamped on the left side of the socket.

2152hq you'd be right about the clle ( I'm getting old and forget full)
To anyone who's really interested in lee enfields I would recommend Skennertons (sp) book "the lee enfield story"which is the holy bible on lee enfields but if you on a tight budget Skip Stratton's book is good value.

http://www.amazon.com/British-...id=1234566738&sr=1-8

quote:

Some small changes in 1906 to the MkI produced the MkI*

Thanks for that, 2152hq. Are you sure about the year? Mine is definately a 1902 MkI* (The '*' could have added later). It's just that I had the impression that the change was made in 1903. When did the cocking piece safety appear? The Lee Medfords did not have it I believe, nor did the earlier MkI's?

quote:

book "the lee enfield story"

Maybe it's time I took a trip to the library! (I hope these books have lots of pictures as I don't really read much).

quote:

Originally posted by darwinmauser:

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

I think the #4 rifle may have an integral charger bridge

Yes it does. I have seen MkIII's with brazing between the bridge and the rivit as well between the bridge and the receiver. My 1943 Lithgow SMLE has no brazing.

Getting back to Doc224/375's picture of the clip charger bridged SMLE, what is different about that rifle? It looks odd. Is it the magazine floorplace that is different. Maybe it's just the cut-off that makes it look shorter because it is wider.

303guy, the rifle with the bolt mounted charger guide is known as a CCLE ( or was that CLLE )and predates the SMLE, the receiver is a different forging as you can see with the left hand half of the charger guide in the receiver wall and the other half on the bolt head, they are a transitional model and were only made for a few years, as such they are a bit scarce.

ps I remember reading somewhere the steel used was known as "best mild steel" whatever that was back in the last decades of the 19th century, at a guess I'd say it meant carbon steel just like everybody else used.

The rest of the rifle in that photo looks more like a SMLE than a Long Lee Enfield so I suspect it was an updated piece that had seen one or more retrofits.

If you're refering to Doc224/375's picture, there is no evidence of there ever having been a dust cover so I would think it was originally made that way. The bolt head clip charger picture is of a different forging so that too was made that way. Very interesting. I'm going to have more fun hunting and shooting with mine now I know more about their history! Mine could have been used in one of the South African wars! (That's where it came from).

SR4759, any chance of seeing the rest of the pics of that rifle?

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
If you're refering to Doc224/375's picture, there is no evidence of there ever having been a dust cover so I would think it was originally made that way. The bolt head clip charger picture is of a different forging so that too was made that way. Very interesting. I'm going to have more fun hunting and shooting with mine now I know more about their history! Mine could have been used in one of the South African wars! (That's where it came from).

SR4759, any chance of seeing the rest of the pics of that rifle?

Sorry if you look at the URL of the photo you can trace it back to this dealers site.

Lots to look at so don't get side tracked before you look at the

Lee Enfields

Collectible Firearms

I think Doc's rifle is there too.

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

Some small changes in 1906 to the MkI produced the MkI*

Thanks for that, 2152hq. Are you sure about the year? Mine is definately a 1902 MkI*
(The '*' could have added later). It's just that I had the impression that the change was made in 1903. When did the cocking piece safety appear? The Lee Medfords did not have it I believe, nor did the earlier MkI's?[/QUOTE]



With a bolt mounted thumb safety,,, It sounds like you have a MLE MKI*,,,not an SMLE MKI*. My error for the confusion.
Yes,,the '*' may have been added later as with any of the rifles that were upgraded along the line.

If yours is an MLE now of SMLE length w/charger bridge,,it could either be a military conversion and should be stamped 'COND II' on the socket along with the other markings.

Or..
It may also be what is known as a 'Club Rifle' or 'Range Rifle'. Once common in your part of the globe. They were Long Lee rifles cut down to SMLE length. Sometimes a charger bridge added,, sometimes not. Sights sometimes swapped out for SMLE style. Done by civilian gunsmiths and for civilian shooters who wanted a rifle that allowed them to compete in rifle matches that demanded an SMLE OAL spec rifle.

Long Lees were plentiful & cheap at one time there,,SMLEs were not.
Here's a pic of a Range rifle..MLE cut to SMLE length. Dust cover and MLE sights left in tact on this one. Done by civilian gunsmith,,NOT a military conversion.


A club rifle conversion would better account for any brazing used if a bridge attachment were done too. High heat brazing a touchy method back there as the receiver locking lug seats are quite near the charger bridge.
The bolt may show where the dust cover hooks were removed to allow a charger bridge attachment to fit over though some were more skillfully done than others.

MLE (Magazine Lee Enfield) aka Long Lee Enfield rifle would have the dust cover on the bolt,,NO charge bridge unless added later (that would require the dust cover removed and the bridge added--and that would make the rifle either a CLLE (Charger Loading Lee Enfield)....or if the rifle was shortened to SMLE length in the process,,a MLE MkI* COND II (Conversion MkII) Confused yet??!!)

The thumb safety mounted on the bolt is the standard Enfield safety for the Long Lee-Enfield.
The Long Lee-Metford originally had a side mounted safety (MkI) much like that which was used on the SMLE but was eliminated quickly as unnecessary.
The only safety on the Lee Metford was there after the half cock notch on the cocking piece (MkI*).
That's where the name 'Metford Cocking Piece' comes from on the Lee Sporters when there is no thumb piece safety on the bolt,,(though there may be a tang safety option on the sporter rifle.)


You should get yourself some reference material on the Enfield bolt rifles as they are a most confusing lot to sort out. The suggested 'Lee Enfield Story" by Skennerton is excellent and yes there are lots of pictures. He also sells some smaller pamphlet type books that are model specific. Here's his web site.
http://www.skennerton.com/

Thanks again, 2152hq.

I have just aquired a barreled action which from your description turns out to be a Range rifle..MLE. The front sight was soldered on and the barrel looked hand cut and crowned. My 1902 MkI* was still original (bar the woodwork) when I got it. I had a No4 barrel fitted which gave me nice tight chamber! (The chamber has to be set back about half a turn or so to align the extractor notch.)
I made a bridge scope mount to retain the dust cover.


The top rifle is my MkI*. The wooodwork is by me.
The second one is the Lithgow 303-25 1943.