Thread: Lithgow non recoil pad period
Retrieved: 06/19/2014

We all know that Lithgow had a small window in production where it ceased installing recoil pads in order to speed up production. This period according to Skennerton commenced in November 1942 and continued until June 1943 when the army requested they be reinstalled and Slazengers were advised this be done. However, this has always been a bit puzzling to me because I have examples of rifles that would contradict this. I believe this absence of plates occurred in actual assembly of rifles a bit later. Just looking at some rifle's today that are with plates and without plates, I would suggest the stoppage commenced on rifles assembled from October 1943. One explanation for this difference in time periods is because while slazengers were making forends without plates, rifles were still being assembled in the factory with plates. The forends that plates had been left out of did not come into production until october 1943 as suggested earlier. Now this explanation can only be valid if we can be certain that the recoil inserts were infact fitted to the forend by Slazengers and not at the factory during assembly.

I'm not certain about any of this and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just a theory. I'd love to here some feedback if anyone is interested.

Son
Apr 17, 2011

Everything you need to know can be found out by looking at an unissued foreend without the plates and an unissued foreend with the plates and then comparing with a few fitted foreends with plates, preferably in good cond.

shoggoth80
Apr 17, 2011

I thought the period started around '41? I do know there were 3 variations fitted at varying points in time, Copper, Walnut, and Aluminum.

I could swear I read somewhere that '41 was when they were omitted for the sake of expediency in getting rifles out. Could be wrong though. As far as how long they were issued without plates, I have no clue.

Demo
Apr 17, 2011

Walnut was used in the late 20's and is not commonly found. Aluminium I'm not sure about. I don't think Skennerton has mentioned it in his books and I've never seen reference to aluminium being used by the military. I always thought them a civilian or commercial mod. Love to be wrong about that because I've got some very nice rifles with aluminium pads.

I have read on this forum 41 was when they were ommitted but I believe that's totally incorrect. 'The Lee Enfield' has it on page 339 that the change took place in November 1942 and was reversed in June 1943. That period doesn't gel with my rifles either.

shoggoth80
Apr 18, 2011

Aluminum plates were what Stratton lists as 3rd variation, on page 87 of his book (British Enfield Rifles Vol.1 SMLE (No.1) Rifles Mk.I and Mk.III). He states that they are often found on fore-ends reconditioned during the WWII period.

Demo
Apr 18, 2011

Good to know. Thanks for the info. That makes me feel a lot better about some of my guns.

Edit, Does Stratton mention if this practice took place in Lithgow?

MVolkJ
Apr 18, 2011

For what it's worth, my Lithgow is a '42 date receiver with a '43 dated buttstock - which should make it late-42 to early-43 - and it has recoil plates. I cannot be sure they were not added later, however.

Demo
Apr 18, 2011

Thanks for the input Mark. Would you be kind enough to post the first two numbers of the serial number and the barrel date if it is original to the rifle.

shoggoth80
Apr 18, 2011

Demo, where the aluminum plates were put in is not mentioned. Merely the variation, the material, and that it was common to WWII reconditioning is mentioned.

Son
Apr 18, 2011

...in 1942 dated foreends perhaps?

MVolkJ
Apr 18, 2011

Serial is E3894. The barrel was the original but was destroyed due to neglect when I purchased it - I had it rebarreled. I do not remember the date on the barrel.

Son
Apr 19, 2011

Look at the difference between the way the machining is done no recoil lugs vs. recoil lugs (manufacturer fitted). (can only use unissued foreends of each type - anything else could have had anything done to it in the meantime)

Then check a few more out (fitted to rifles, preferably matching rifles in good nick) and you will tell if they were machined for recoil lugs when made, or let in by hand at the factory in foreends that were not originally machined.

pic 1. on left - unissued foreend that had spent some time on a rifle post service.

middle, unissued foreend not cut during manufacture for recoil pads. Note marks where it has been attempted to fit to rifle. It would need some careful hand fitting to go on.

right, unissued foreend with machining done and recoil pads fitted at manufacture. This would also require the pads removed and the wood adjusted, pads refitted by hand to fit to rifle.

pic 2. note the slight difference in shape particularly in the sides at the lugs...

Pics 3 & 4. Recoil plates removed, view from the top to show how neat the machining is towards the sides and the depth. Also another view of the slight differences in the two foreends. Hand fitted recoil plates (in foreends not machined for them) will not be this "tooled" in appearance.

Demo
Apr 23, 2011

Thanks for the contribution Son. The most telling fact for me is rifles that remain without recoil inserts and the examples I have were assembled much later than the period of time Ian Skennerton states in his books. I'd love more examples for comparison.

CHROMETANK
Apr 23, 2011

Hey Demo,I dont know if my 1942 falls into the range your researching but il give you the details anyway its a 1942 with a 43 butt, all matching, serial D1049X with the copper recoil pads fitted.

Demo
Apr 24, 2011

Chrometank thanks. I'll note it, only I would really need to know if they were installed from new or a later addition. I would bet they were installed from new anyway.