Wanted: No2 MkIV Lithgow .22

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by oldlithgow

Mine currently has no markings on the stock and is sitting in later era Coachwood.

It is hardly likely to be later wood. SMLE production finished in 1954, and the factory then concentrated on FTR repair work before retooling for the L1A1 SLR.

Unlike the .22 Hornet rifles of that period which were completely made from new components for commercial sale, virtually all of the woodwork (and the actions) for the No2 MkIV* .22 rifles were recycled from earlier built No1 MkIII (or MkIII*) rifles.

[Mike Cecil]

Have to agree with Tony on that one: Coachwood was the latter standard for SMLE stocks, but any rifle going though FTR conversion to .22 could well have been re-equipped with a new set, or partial set, of woodwork to replace any 'dinged' parts. I remember examining many rifles during the last sales of .303 SMLE rifles and noting the mixture of timber parts, especially on rifles that were marked FTR. Walnut, coachwood, or Queensland Maple - made no difference to the assembler who wasn't looking for pretty matched timber, just a complete and functional rifle. There were literally thousands of sets of spare coachwood timber held in Defence stores for years, so they were certainly available if required for the FTR rifles in the 1950s.

Fortunately I ended up with an early 1920s Lithgow .303 SMLE with matching numbers, woodwork AND a WW1 issue hessian rifle bag, still new in its paper wrapping, from the armoury at Bandiana. (in the days when the Federal Govt still sold off firearms to the public!)

Mike C

[charlie fitton]

Odd "Oldlithgow", I think I have one of these in the basement too. Looks like a no 1, but .22.

i know there's a No2 short .22. Ironicaly with the 2400 yard sights on the side.

Personally - I'm looking for c No7 bits. I have an unmarked bolt and receiver, and a barrel. Now to find some pretty wood.(That sounds so bad when said by a guy...) I mean FURNITURE... that sounds almost as bad...

f