Milsurp After Hours

Just finished restoring a '42 Lithgow. I had picked up a stock/hardware set on spec. a while back. Nice wood, but it had been heavily varnished. Responded very well to chemical stripping, didn't have to do any sanding before rubbing down with BLO. Clear butt markings for 1942. Advertised, and found a sported '42 Lithgow! All matching barreled action in very nice condition, almost all original finish, and a very shootable bore. The rifle has a very presentable appearance. Its a bitser, of course, but still a very decent representative specimen, that should shoot very well. I have got to learn how to post photos.

<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p089.ezboard.com/bmilsurpafterho ... >dromia</A>  http://www.photobucket.com/albums/1003/ ... andCLR.gif[/pic] at: 6/2/05 6:33 am

</i>

Good on you RJPS,





I'm glad you didn't need to use sandpaper, very fine steel wool is the most abrasive thing I use on wood now. I'm too wary of removing some history and rounding of the edges, I know my heavy handed limitations. ;





What chemicals do you use? I'm a nitro morse fan myself but thinking of trying the old caustic soda on some old wood as an experiment.





I usually steam out the dints with an iron.





In fact now I'm restoring less and less on original rifles, its actually quiet a pleasanr dilemma deciding whether ir not to do any work on the wood.





Is the wood coachwood? if so make sure that the recoil blocks are in place before you shoot.





Lets us know how your Aussie performs when you get her to the range. ;

<p>http://www.photobucket.com/albums/1003/ ... _Badge.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END-->





Adam.





Why don't you visit .

The fit of the replacement forend is excellent. There shouldn't be any problem with stock damage because of setback. I did not want to harm the buttstock marks in the process of getting rid of the varnish, so was very gentle. I did use very fine steel wool with the BLO for the first application. Fortunately the stock was in nice shape before the varnish was applied. Apart from making the stock shiney, there was no reason to apply the varnish. The stripper I used is "Circa 1867". Doesn't seem to be as aggressive as Polystrippa. The forend serial was a bit light to start with; it has the same letter prefix as the body, so the m/m isn't too noticeable. The nosecap serial is the only obvious m/m. My eyes can't handle open sights well any longer. I have a spare PH5A that I can install for testing. If Sunday afternoon is nice I am going to try to get out; have a number of rifles to test.

<p>

I took my 1918 Lithgow apart yesterday to remove some of the cosmo. I was looking for a date to show that it had been given to India... as Flaith suggested. Found a lot of proof marks. On the visible ring and under the wood were a large collection of arrows and other marks. Anybody make anything of these marks?





The barrel has a 43 mark on it that suggests to me that it may have been rebarreled in 1943. But the 45 on the ring has me puzzled. However, the last two numbers of the serial are 45 also. It is not likely that the receiver is newer than the barrel... of course I have no actual idea what this may mean. Might not be a year mark at all. Can anybody tell me something about this?





I did note the recoil blocks, by the way, were in place and nearly hidden in cosmo.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/N ... p3/45a.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END-->





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/N ... CN0659.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END-->







<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p089.ezboard.com/bmilsurpafterho ... lpha>Niner Alpha</A>  http://x9eralpha.home.comcast.net/85.gif[/pic] at: 6/3/05 7:33 am

</i>