LB barrel on a SMLE No.1 MKIII*

Canuck13

Canuck13

Member
Rating - 100%
34   0   0
Location
Long Branch, Ontario
I recently came across a 1918 Lee Enfield No.1 MkIII* Canadian marked, manufactured by Enfield with a 42 Long Branch barrel.

I have questions. Pardon my possible ignorance.

Were the No.4 barrels built by LB interchangeable with the original British No.1 SMLE barrels? Can you just take an No.4 LB barrel and install it in a British No.1 SMLE? Do they thread the same to the action body? Or would the barrel have had to be specifically manufactured to fit the No.1?

I don't doubt the fact that LB did refurbs on some No.1's (including replacing the barrels etc) but is it not possible that in this case the LB barrel could of just been added by anybody at any time through out the life of the rifle.

This rifle had a Lithgow marked nose cap and a Lithgow marked bolt that matched the Enfield receiver? Curiously the sight matched as well though the back sight assembly was BSA marked. Also the serial number on both the bolt and nose cap were prefixed by a "S" ( serial # S83**) matching the Enfield receiver. Is this not an Enfield prefix? According to the info available to me (Skennerton, Stratton) Lithgow didn't ever use a "S" prefix? Lots of other mixed parts. Whats going on with this one?


Thank you in advance for your time.
 
Last edited:
Canuck13 said:
This rifle had a Lithgow marked nose cap and a Lithgow marked bolt that matched the Enfield receiver? Curiously the sight matched as well though the back sight assembly was BSA marked. Also the serial number on both the bolt and nose cap were prefixed by a "S" ( serial # S83**) matching the Enfield receiver. Is this not an Enfield prefix? According to the info available to me (Skennerton, Stratton) Lithgow didn't ever use a "S" prefix? Lots of other mixed parts. Whats going on with this one?


Thank you in advance for your time.
Click to expand...

Any comments as to how this might of happen? Somebody stamping unmarked Australian stuff to match it up to the Canadian marked Enfield receiver? Am I right in believing that Lithgow never used the "S" prefix in their serial numbers?
 
Canada could have sold several No.1's to Australia during the war when No.4 production caught up. That could explain the Lithgow parts. I know Australia bought a lot of the British No.1's when No.4 production caught up.
 
Mixed up SMLE

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1 said:
Canada could have sold several No.1's to Australia during the war when No.4 production caught up. That could explain the Lithgow parts. I know Australia bought a lot of the British No.1's when No.4 production caught up.
Click to expand...

That might make some sense if it could be proven but the LB barrel? Maybe on it's return to Canada? Just a really strange combo. A well traveled rifle? Why replace the bolt and nose cap? The receiver was in great shape. I guess anything is possible?
 
Canuck13 said:
That might make some sense if it could be proven but the LB barrel? Maybe on it's return to Canada? Just a really strange combo. A well traveled rifle? Why replace the bolt and nose cap? The receiver was in great shape. I guess anything is possible?
Click to expand...

My guess is Canada refurbed it in '42, then sold it off later in the war when No.4 production sped up. Hard to tell unless you trace the serial number back, which would take a lot of resources. In 1942 No.4 production at long branch was only just picking up momentum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom