Gunboards Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Unissued SMLE value

7K views 47 replies 18 participants last post by  Son 
#1 ·
Hello All,

I’m working a trade deal on this beautiful SMLE to go w my Irish Contract ‘54 I unfired Enfield as a “safe mate “ and aside from several of these Irish Contract ones , I have no experience in these but love this rifle ....

Can anyone shed any lite on what the collective group feels it is valued at ?

I realize that’s a very subjective topic and something is worth what someone’s willing to pay for it , got it, if it was a FAL or some other Mil Surp in my Wheelhouse / area Of knowledge id have a much better idea and possibly be the guy helping a newer FAL/ L1a1 prospective owner.

Any thoughts ?

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/875387865


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#2 ·
Not supposed to post links to live auctions.

The pictured rifle is a 1945 Lithgow, which was almost certainly a JJCo importer built rifle from NOS parts. Nice, but not an unissued rifle like the No4.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
 
#3 ·
A large number of Lithgow #1 Mk3 rifles were imported by John Jovino - some were actually unissued, but some were assembled by Jovino from NOS parts. The Jovino rifles are marked as such, usually on the receiver flat just ahead of the bolt handle: "J.J. CO." I had such a rifle, which did appear just as perfect as the specimen in the ad, and it was a nice rifle, BUT - while most of the parts were Australian, the barrel was an Ishapore (India), also in new condition. It was one of the Jovino-assembled rifles. I did not pay very much for the rifle, and it shot well, but I'd be VERY cautious about paying such a sum for what may be one like the one I had. A close-up photo of the area of the receiver should show the Jovino marks, if present. I'd at least ask whether the rifle is a Jovino import.

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
 
#6 ·
Well, JJCO import stamp ...that don't mean its a bitzer made up of parts but................BUT...does it have MA 53 ..or any year date under the safety lever on the left side wrist ? If not , and there is no FTR marks on receiver , then its most certainly a JJ Jovino made up rifle using new old stock parts. Not a repro, not a clone but a rifle of new parts that is not "original" for a 1945 Lithgow.

That the seller included a RFI bayonet along with it only adds suspicion on the legitimacy of the rifle .

Regardless of what it is...its not what the OP thinks it is, not worth much more than $500 but could sell to some novice for quite a bit more.

Over at CMP boards, a M1 Rifle made of original legitimate parts is "Correct". Well, I don't think this No.1 is "correct" but one might be ethically right in saying its "made of original parts" and is a reconstructed example.
 
#7 ·
Not an expert, but:

- Muffett's survey only has one other recorded "C-prefix" on a 1945.

- No buttstock markings.

- No photos of barrel information.... is it an FTR? Is it a JJCO build? Is it even an Aussie barrel?
(But here's 2! pictures of a buttplate LOL)

- "Matching" bayonet is Indian.

I can't say if it is legit or not, but it has a lot against it. And at a price that is double what I've seen 1945s go for.....

I will defer to the Oz Mob.
 
#10 ·
This one is Jovino assembled from new spare parts, not original. I was about when Jovino first brought in the Lithgows. Most of the "unissued" ones were built from parts. A small number were not. I got a 1943 that was original and all matching, unissued shape. I think the OP Gunbonker awkshun "1945 Lithgow" has been for sale for a long time. While the price is high, some say that one cannot pay too much, only buy too soon. Given a steady rate of inflation, say 3%, that rifle will be worth that in 2075.
 
#12 ·
Read & heed.
Check the serial number against date.
No. 1 Mk III* (Lithgow - "New")
Often advertised as “collector grade” or “mint - unfired” or “unissued” and selling for $200 and up.

Watch out for these! Quite a few “new Lithgow” rifles have been built just within the last few years from spare parts bought from the Australian government. The parts are new, and the rifles were never issued--but they aren’t Lithgow factory rifles by any stretch of the imagination! They’re recently-built parts guns.

It is possible (though not likely) that some Lithgow-manufactured rifles with late-1945 (or later) dates were kept in storage and subsequently surplussed out in unfired or unissued condition. Such rifles would have 5-digit serial numbers with either an “E” or an “F” serial number prefix, and the serial number would be stamped on the rear of the bolt handle and on the bottom of the fore-end, as well as on the receiver ring. Neither the nose cap nor the bottom of the backsight leaf will carry a different serial number on these rifles. Also, legitimate factory rifles will have 1/4-inch square brass or copper recoil plates installed on the fore-ends where the sear boss bears against the wood. These plates will be attached with small brass wood screws.

If you find a “new” Lithgow with a 1943 or 1944 date, be highly suspicious. This was the height of the war, and virtually all rifles manufactured were issued. If you find the receiver marked with a “JJ CO NY NY” import stamp, assume it’s a parts gun unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. (Many “new Lithgow” parts guns appear to have been assembled on receivers imported by John Jovino & Co.) If you find a 4-digit serial number with no prefix letter and an “A” suffix, this is clear evidence that it is not a Lithgow factory rifle. If you find different serial numbers on different parts, this is clear evidence that it is a parts gun. And if the recoil plates are missing, it is not only a parts gun--it could be dangerous to shoot. There’s a possibility that the fore-end will be damaged with as few as 20 or 30 round fired.
Where JJ Co used unissued receivers, they did not have serial numbers on them from Lithgow.
JJ Co numbered these receivers themselves, using a letter suffix (usually A) in the serial instead of a letter prefix as was customary markings for Lithgow.
If any doubt, a quick look at the serial number and date on the rifle will soon sort it.
For knowledgeable collectors of Lithgow Enfields, these assembled new rifles are pretty easy to spot by their light colored stocks and parkerized finish. Another dead give away for the assembled rifles is that they are not in the normal Lithgow serial number ranges. Most of the assembled rifles have serial numbers that either start with a "G" prefix or have a "A" suffix.
import marks on your Lithgow on the right hand side of receiver just above the woodline in front of the bolt handle? If so, I think it you look hard at your import marks, you will see that they are actually IA CO SAC CA but the first "I" looks like a "T" due to the mark being stamped at an angle. I have had a couple of the IA imported Lithgow rifles with the IA CO SAC CA import marks on the location I mentioned and others with the import marks on the bottom of the charger bridge on the right side. IA was the "Inter American" company and they imported a lot if military surplus arms as well as new AKs and Sks. If I remember right, they went out of business around 2005 or so. Anyhow, they had some pretty nice Lithgows as well as some not so nice like any importer. They did not assemble rifles from NOS parts either like Jovino did.
 
#13 · (Edited)
JJCO had some legit MA52 refurbished barreled actions upon which they stuffed new SLaz furniture and un numbered nose caps......the weapons appear brand new. The only thing JJCO did was put on parts to a FTR'd barreled receiver with matching bolt. Same thing Lithgow was going to do but did not get around to doing. Not a fantasy rifle , not "built" by JJCO and not a completed rifle by Lithgow.

What to call that: how about "Assembled NOS Parts" Lithgow. ?
 
#14 ·
$5K for that?



email the seller,

ask for pics of the barrel on each side under the rear handguard,
clear pic of the bottom or back of the rear sight,
better pic of the nose cap
number on the bolt handle,
left side of the socket,

then,,

offer $600



FWIW a Johnson Collector (1941 Johnsons) told me once he looked at a rifle on a table,
rifle seemed legit, usual marks and usual wear,

everything looked good, and the guy was proud of it price wise,
he said the thing that killed the deal for him was it came with a bayonet,, and it was a very obvious reproduction,


he figured, since the owner did not fess up to the repro bayonet, how much of the rifle had been altered, or played with,


he was telling me this when looking over one of the rifles I had on my tables, and he asked if i had a Bayonet,

at that time I had 2 rifles, and one repro bayonet, (I sell all bayonets seperate, usually on ebay)

his advise stuck with me, (and he as not talking about either of my rifles)
 
#17 ·
This is one of those rifles that doesn't quite conform to other JJCO builds in some ways, but it does in others. If it were a 52 rebuilt barreled action then how did the nosecap get the matching number?
C prefix is raising some eyebrows. Lack of other key markings overall raises them higher.
No pics beneath the rear handguard or under the rear sight leaf. Hmmmmm.... Asking $5K for that rifle there should be about 100 detailed photos available.

Making reference to other rifles such as PF or UF No4's in the description is meaningless aside from being a smoke screen. Calling a refurbed/refinished RFI bayonet 'matching' is another.
I wonder just who or where are his two experts that called it legit. Did they basically call it a rifle with real Lithgow parts????

The rifle is what it is. A nice looking shooter with a nostalgic look. Just like some offerings from Mitchell's Mausers or one of the Gibbs/Navy Arms fantasy carbines.
If someone does buy it for that "too soon" price, they had better go over it very well before firing. Especially the fitting up.
Did anyone notice the split in the fore end in the area of the cutoff screw boss?
 
#19 ·
JJCO marked Litgows bear close scrutiny. SOme are legit rifles, others are bitzers , some could be FTR and in new condition and some could be cobbled together with NOS parts. There are clues in deciphering what a JJCO truly is. For instance in this auction example, if the rifle does not have recoil blocks and is a 1945 Lithgow...looking brand new in every way, then I'd step back and consider the lack of recoil blocks which should be there if the rifle were assembled in 1945 or was a MA marked FTR'd rifle. Some other clues ..missing marks on butt stock .

JJCO...not all garbage, not all original, some original and some are mysteries that look new and can snooker an unsuspecting novice buyer.

Go slow with a JJCO rifle .

In 1990 Roses Dept. Store outside Fort Bragg (multiple locations) had a Sunday sale and advertised brand new Lithgow No.1 Mk III. I hit every store location as the sale price was $299. Every rifle at every store I pawed over and every one had a black park finish, X prefix serial number and wood was mint condition SLAZ. Not a one had a MA mark under safety nor a FTR marking. All were JJCO marked and all were fantasy rifles. Nose caps...all w/o serial number on them.
 
#21 ·
The trick is knowledge.
IF I repeat IF you know what to look for in a JJ&Co rifle you can snarf a bargain simply because so many are poor, but there ARE good ones out there.
It's knowing how to tell them apart.
I'l giveya tree fiddy.
 
#22 ·
But do you? Because the information you've posted above is quite misleading. You've posted it multiple times and haven't even quoted the source.

Plonker please take note, from your extract above;

"And if the recoil plates are missing, it is not only a parts gun--it could be dangerous to shoot."

Wrong. Lithgow stopped assembling rifles with recoil plates for a lengthy period during WW2. Ian Skennerton covers this in his publications, factory records stating a seven month interval of rifle manufacture without plates. However, more recent unofficial research, including my own would suggest the period could be much longer. Therefore, there could be roughly 100 000 or more legitimate rifles stocked in coachwood, without recoil plates.

Your post above would have the lessor informed believing these are all possible bitsers. There are other very questionable points in your post but this is most compelling.
 
#23 ·
There are lots of nuances and subtleties when picking a fake from the genuine article, like serial numbers , date stamps and appearance of woodwork, finish and condition of screws etc. You can spend hours going over a rifle to see it is legit. But one look at this one.........
 
#27 ·
would this rifle be considered a fake? or would it more likely be a case of the seller not having the knowledge to know what the rifle is? (and listing it incorrectly)

not being contrary here, and it just may be semantics, unless JJCO was selling them as 'NEW, UNISSUED' back then
 
#25 ·
There is a market for 'pretty' guns, but I think 5k is a bit much to expect from that group. Sometimes I think people put guns on auction sites so they can tell their wives they are trying to reduce their collection, then price them so they don't have to.
 
#28 ·
Lack of the recoil plates have shown up on late 41 and early 42 rifles, while earlier rifles have them installed.
Its a tough call to make.

Were the rifles skipped that early?
Did they receive replacement timber during the period of rushed production and repair work?
Did the early coachwood rifles have them installed when new?
Perhaps the earlier ones saw the retrofit while the others missed it?

Wartime trails are often hard to follow.
FWIW, none of the rifles I had (limited) experience with showing disparities were JJ imports. That much i remember. A couple were actually Century imports. No telling where they came from to the surplus market. At least not now.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Well, to add a small bit of clarity, I bought one of these rifles back in the early 90's. At that time, surplus LE's were going for around $99 to $125. I bought one of the mummy-wrapped No 4's for $159. These JJCO rifles came on the heels of the wrapped No 4's, and were advertised as "New Lithgow Mk IIIs." I bought one, for the price of $359. The alarm bells went off immediately. I did have the Skennerton book, and noted the serial number range was incorrect for the year (1945), no recoil plates, no butt markings (the usual MA/45, etc), wrong finish (black vs original Australian grey). Still feel like a dummy to this day. I had the book, read up on the characteristics, noted the discrepancies, and STILL bought one of these! I was a hard-headed young man back then. I wound up trading it in on an Remington 700 in late 1997. The dealer gave me $250 credit as a down payment on a new 700.

I do remember when I got the rifle, it came in a carboard box wrapped in shipping paper. There was a little advert inside with a brief history of the Mk III. It ended by stating these were "new" rifles. Nowhere was it stated it was "unissued." Creative marketing and wording.

On the flip slip side, I bought and still own three Mk III's that were imported by JJCO. Two Lithgows; a 1922 and a 1945 (both correct and with the usual dings and dents), and a Enfield Mk III that had an H barrell installed. That one was the real score. So Jovino did import legitimate MkIII's, and I see no real issue with rifles marked JJCO. But I do stay clear of the "New" MK III's pictured in the auction, whose descriptions have morphed from "new" to "unissued."

As far as value, reduce the asking price by factor of 10!
 
#34 ·
Hello All,

I’ve had computer / internet issues since posting this . I’m the OP...
I finally got on here w my cell. Dang ... ya ll are smart as h*ll....
Thank you for this wealth of knowledge.... to me - an uneducated guy that has had now 3 Irish Contract No 4 s - Gave one to my Dad for the best Christmas ever , kept the other two - ones been shot , one has not and wanted a SMLE Safe Mate for it in equally as nice condition I need to re read all this again...
Funny, the trade guy stopped reaching out a few days ago and I’m wondering if he’s a lurker here or at least on this post .
Thank you and I hope I can help everyone out here some day- my expertise is Metric FALS after 30 yr w them, and I’m pretty good now on L1A1 s after a pretty intense several year learning curve ...
Please reach out if I can help you on those as you have helped me here ...

Dang I’d love that SMLE but $5 k even w my limited knowledge felt way “off” and everyone confirmed my gut feel

Whew , re reading ! Thank you all again !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#40 ·
In reference to the picture DisasterDog posted of the stock near the breech (also referred to in post #17); That is not a split, it's the relief cut for the cut-off plate. Attached are two pics of my SMLE, cut-off engaged and dis-engaged.

Remember, some Australian Mk IIIs had varying years of cut off slots omitted and re-introduced. (from Skennerton, below).
1918-1922, no cut-off provision
1922-1923, cut off slot present
1924 to late 1941-cut off slot present
1941-1945, no cut off provision

My 1953 Lithgow has no cut-off slot, but has the low cut wood for a cut-off. A guess is that Lithgow produced replacement stocks cut low for the cut-off plate, in the likely possibly a rifle that needed stock a replacement might have a cut-slot or cut-off present. Cant post pics of it because it's in the very back of the gunsafe!
 

Attachments

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top