SMLE copper recoil plates

T

the11

Regular
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Location
Sherwood Park Alberta
the11 said:
I am not actually planning to put any recoil plates in my current (first) SMLE restoration project as the wood is all walnut, and as I understand it, I don't need to have them in. But I know that they can be hard to find. Yesterday I ran across these (follow link). Would they work?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOT-5-Copper-5-8-Square-Washers-8-Tattoo-Machine-Saddle-Spring-Deck-USA-MADE-/130949744366?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e7d3686ee
Click to expand...

What is a Recoil plate? I have never heard of this in reference to a Lee Enfield.
 
You would have to cut back the draws on your fore stock to allow the proper amount of clearance for your receiver.It is a very finicky process and if you are familiar with how this is done it is a great way to bed your action to make it as accurate as can be.If you botch the job by cutting one of the draws back to far it is money that is wasted.As it is your first SMLE restoration I would suggest smoking the receiver with lampblack and just fitting to the wood..That way if you cut too much off you can save your fore wood by adding the copper shims or use Acraglass to bed it.
 
All my early Lithgows have them, but I do have a walnut sporter forend without. Seems to be some other differences between them too. There's a good pictorial how to out there, might have been something by Laidler, of course I can't find it right now. Snoop around the Lee Enfield libraries, I'm sure it's tucked away in there someplace.
 
Laidler did a write up on replacing draws in your LE fore end. It is in the milsurps library. BigEdp51 has done some awesome write ups in here on bedding a Lee-Enfield and reading them will help you to understand the relationship between the different contact points between the metal and the wood in your fore end.

I've built the copper recoil plates out of copper pipe before. Simply smashed the pipe flat on my vise until I got the thickness right and cut the shape I needed out after.
 
Facing the draws on your fore stock entails a little bit more finesse than smashing some pipe until you get the thickness right. First you get the draws tight by carefully lamp blacking them. After that select a appropriate piece of copper sheet and carefully mark and inlet the draws to allow for the reinforce. It takes quite bit of practice to do both sides equally. Yes, I have buggered up a few fore ends trying to do this as I learned. It is not the end, Kiwi shoe polish on your receiver and some Acraglass on a clean stock(no oils on the wood) will save your stock for you. You will not have the copper reinforcement plates but it will be a solid action. As a side note a old friend of mine once told me that the copper plates was not for accuracy but to breath new life into a beat to crap rifle.
 
After a bit of reading, it seems the original recoil plates were a Lithgow thing due to the nature of the local wood. Not as durable as what the English were working with.
 
Don't trust the stuff you see on the evil anti-firearm ownership empire of E-Bay. Those are square washers made for who knows why and have nothing to do with firearms.
Never seen 'em in any Lee-Enfield either, but copper would make a lousy recoil anything. Soft stuff, so it is.
 
Like I said, I won't be putting them into my rifle unless a problem develops, which I don't expect. But I expect that the armourers ar Lithgow knew what they were doing. It is my understanding that they used copper precisely because it was soft. Brass was deemed too hard for the purpose. The recoil plates were used on Coachwood stocks because it was softer than the walnut (and later, beech) stocks used everywhere else.. The wood portion of the forestock that comes into contact with the receiver upon recoil tended to crush slightly with use. On the coachwood stocks this presented a problem. So the Aussies installed copper recoil plates to keep the receiver tight to the wood. Copper would be hard enough to not crush much, and soft enough so as to not damage the receiver. They are now apparently hard to find. But there is nothing high tech about them. They are just soft copper held on with brass screws. On this page, partway down, there is a build-along of a guy installing them.

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227189&page=4
 
sunray said:
Don't trust the stuff you see on the evil anti-firearm ownership empire of E-Bay. Those are square washers made for who knows why and have nothing to do with firearms.
Never seen 'em in any Lee-Enfield either, but copper would make a lousy recoil anything. Soft stuff, so it is.
Click to expand...

Old Lithgows are full of em, and they work quite well. I assure you they have everything to do with firearms, especially Lee Enfields. The SMLE in particular.
 
Definitely, and as I stated, they are not hard to make. I did that pair for an Aussie coachwood stocked SMLE I restored, ask Sledge how it shoots. These rifles aren't rocket science, making them work well just takes a bit of finesse and attention to detail. Personally, I would rather do a restoration how the Armorers did it, even of we have "better" glues and materials available now. If the draws are beat that badly, cut them out and replace them. Laidler's instructions for that repair are in the MKL as well.

If you do make the shims, start with a much larger chunk of copper and beat it down close for thickness, then carefully file or sand them the rest of the way measuring them often.
 
Early lithgows stocked in walnut and Queensland maple never had the plates installed but I suspect crushing of the draws where the plates would be installed would have been an ongoing problem. The wood compressing from recoil develops into a loose action to forend fit and the problem escalates in to far more serious problems. In the late 20's lithgow started fitting walnut inserts as pictured but this process only continued for a few years between 1926 and 1929. After the lull in production between 1930 and 1934, they introduced the steel pin method also pictured but this method was also short lived and presumed to have only been fit to rifles assembled in 1935/36, probably only a few thousand rifles maybe less. The copper plates were introduced some time after this but its not clear to me when exactly. Certainly by the time coachwood replaced maple in 1940, the plates were in full production, but the time lines of its introduction are often blurred because many much earlier dated rifles then had them installed later, including those stocked in walnut. About mid 1943 they were omitted from assembly to speed up production but were reintroduced once again 6 months or more later when it was realized they were an essential component for the rifles longevity and effective operation in the field. This little period of time equates to tens of thousands of rifles assembled without the plates and many of these are in circulation today.
I'm sure the time lines of all this would be evident in the LOC.
I think the plates were a good fix for an ongoing problem and obviously they thought they would be an improvement to walnut stocks also, which I tend to agree.

Damage to the draws can often be identified with an external examination of a rifle, by a crack along the underside of the forend, starting from the large trigger guard screw, but not always. If you see this crack, its almost certainly beyond traditional repair by a Commonwealth armorer.

Sorry I was unable to post images.
 
I have them on an original 1916 Lithgow, still with the volley sight and original butt. I was aware it was an Aussie problem, but I'm unsure when they started installing them, although I have heard mention of them skipping the installation during the dire parts of the war years. Of course my rifle could have aquired them in the early 20's when it picked up the HV and SC stamps for the changeover to the new ammunition.
 
kennymo said:
I have them on an original 1916 Lithgow, still with the volley sight and original butt. I was aware it was an Aussie problem, but I'm unsure when they started installing them, although I have heard mention of them skipping the installation during the dire parts of the war years. Of course my rifle could have aquired them in the early 20's when it picked up the HV and SC stamps for the changeover to the new ammunition.
Click to expand...

I think your rifle would have had them installed much later. Whats the barrel date?
 
I only have one SMLE with the plates- a '21 Lithgow that was refurbed during WW2- a great shooter. On a recent project after screwing up the draws I salvaged my patch with aluminum plates. Very easy to file down for tight fit and seems to have worked well so far. Used a strip of aluminum bought for a couple of bucks at CT. Contrary to what some suggest, I don't think the draws play any role in recoil unless the forend is not a proper snug fit against the butt socket, in which case the draws get hurt (you'll never see the frame lugs referred to as "recoil lugs" in original drawings- they're "sear lugs"). Another thing worth considering is putting an "Ishapore Screw" throught he forend to stabalize it if you see a longitudinal crack developing above the front triggerguard screw. I have several SMLE's that would have had trashed forends were it not for the screw.

milsurpo
 
milsurpo said:
I only have one SMLE with the plates- a '21 Lithgow that was refurbed during WW2- a great shooter. On a recent project after screwing up the draws I salvaged my patch with aluminum plates. Very easy to file down for tight fit and seems to have worked well so far. Used a strip of aluminum bought for a couple of bucks at CT. Contrary to what some suggest, I don't think the draws play any role in recoil unless the forend is not a proper snug fit against the butt socket, in which case the draws get hurt (you'll never see the frame lugs referred to as "recoil lugs" in original drawings- they're "sear lugs"). Another thing worth considering is putting an "Ishapore Screw" throught he forend to stabalize it if you see a longitudinal crack developing above the front triggerguard screw. I have several SMLE's that would have had trashed forends were it not for the screw.

milsurpo
Click to expand...

Agreed that the draws don't play any role against recoil but the plates are probably referred to as recoil plates because they are designed to counter bruising of the draws caused by recoil. All SMLE's would have snug fit of the action in the stock from new and this is achieved with the draws against the sear lugs, keeping the very rear of the forend firm against the inner face of the butt socket, but all stocks are subject to compression of the wood in the draw area from recoil. Add to this shrinkage from drying wood and an amount of play is created that will only increase with more use. Walnut stocks as has been mentioned already is less subject to bruising than coachwood and maple but the same type of damage can be encountered in walnut also. As play between action and stock increases, extra load is placed on the trigger guard collar and screw, causing a split to occur and the rear of the forend to spread. Usually by then, the draws in the stock are busted completely and the stock is destroyed. I'm not sure what happens first, the split or the draws busting out or whether it happens simultaneously, but it is disastrous when it occurs. I've seen it many times.
The plates simply protect the much softer wood from bruising and distributes the small area of contact over a much broader area. Its not a definitive fix but a massive improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom