Recoil Lugs

[Conductor]

I just bought a BSA 1916 Number 1 Mark III*. It's a John Jovino rebuild, in beautiful shape, and a minty bore, but with Slazenby lumber on it (coach wood, I believe).
In taking it apart last night, I found that there are no recoil lugs in the forestock. The gun has been fired at least several times, as you can see where the receiver has made slight indentations in the wood where the recoil lugs should be.
What's the best course of action here? Is it possible to find some recoil lugs and properly install them, or should I put a new forestock on this beast? I'm reluctant to put on a new forestock unless there is no alternative, as the wood on this rifle is in excellent condition, and the grain and color (colour?) match beautifully.

[M1Garandy]

Peter Laidler has an article or two in here related to fitting forends that may help: http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=16948

[Conductor]

Thanks. I read Laidler's essay on fitting the forestock, but found no mention of the recoil lugs. I'll keep looking.

[JB White]

Curious...What makes you think it's a "Jovino rebuild"?

Reason for asking: I'm unaware of Jovino building any rifles aside from the Australian surplus parts rifles which are being sold as "new-unissued". Those were made up using SLAZ wood on surplus unnumbered Lithgow actions to which Jovino assigned their own serial number range once completed. Haven't run across any British-made rifles fitting that criteria as of yet.

That having been said, I can think of several criteria in which a BSA might have been restocked in coachwood. The most common are:
1. Restocked in Aussie service which would then have a tell-tale Aussie marking or two.
2. A kitchen table restock from a decade or so ago when NOS surplus coachwood was as available as Ishapore wood... for a short while.
3. Cadet drill purpose/training rebuild which again should have something to indicate it was done in the late 50's and early 60's.

FYI, a lack of recoil plates at the draws isn't an automatic indicator of a Jovino build as many rifles didn't receive them until after the coachwood forends were shown to fail while in service. Many earlier production rifles escaped the retrofit.

Back to topic, lacking them in a coachwood stock is only a problem if you intend to shoot it regularly. Then you'll need some one-on-one coaching to get them installed properly. Correct angle and equal bedding pressure side-to-side etc. If not, then all you might do is accelerate the cracking while your accuracy goes out the window. Be patient and get it right the first time. The info is out there but you'll have to look hard. Most of what you need is probably in the archives of the various LE boards as it isn't a topic that comes up much anymore.

[Conductor]

The remnant of Jovino's mark (all you can see is a "JO...J........" over "N.Y. N.Y.") is on the charger bridge bolster on the right side of the receiver. Also, there is a very small "J.J. Co." stamped on the Nock's form, about 3/4 inch forward of the receiver.

On the right side of the butt socket is marked: (crown) G.R. over B.S.A.Co. over 1916 over Sht.L.E. over III*. The original serial number on the rear of the bolt handle has been ground off, and a number that matches the receiver has been stamped in its place. There is no number on the bayonet lug.

As a result of all this, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that this rifle is a 1916 BSA, rebuilt by John Jovino. If I have overlooked something that might make my assumption incorrect, please let me know.

[Hal O'Peridol]

What markings are stamped on the buttstock, right side???

These will tell us a lot of info. I too have not heard of Jovino rebuilding any rifles, just the rifles made up of parts. The Aussies did rebuild many rifles in their inventory, and they did have many manufacturers other than Lithgow in Ausie service.

[MJ1]

Coach wood is kind of funny. My stock is so dry and while ity looks to be correctly fitted I have never shot it.

[Conductor]

Coach wood is kind of funny. My stock is so dry and while ity looks to be correctly fitted I have never shot it.

Your forestock in the picture looks EXACTLY like my forestock. You can even see what appears to be the impressions where the receiver has recoiled back into the wood.

[Conductor]

What markings are stamped on the buttstock, right side???

These will tell us a lot of info. I too have not heard of Jovino rebuilding any rifles, just the rifles made up of parts. The Aussies did rebuild many rifles in their inventory, and they did have many manufacturers other than Lithgow in Ausie service.

No markings at all on the right side of the buttstock. And the wood is virtually new and shows no sign of any marking having been removed.
The only marks I have been able to find on the wood are (1) SLAZ / 44 / (crown) / 4 / S on the bottom of the wrist, about 3/4 inch from the butt socket, and (2) SLAZ / 42 / (crown) / 5 / S on the bottom of the forestock about 2 inches from the rear of the nosecap.

[JB White]

What you have so far is a Jovino import, but no proof of a Jovino rebuild. John Jovino imported a LOT of legit rifles and there are plenty of his imports gracing a lot of collections still in correct condition. So, having a JJCO marking and NOS Slaz timber isn't any reason to jump to the conclusion they did it. They didn't have to, as surplus LE's were flying off the shelves at very low prices back then. It wasn't worth the time and effort as it wasn't profitable.
The Jovino builds (technically not rebuilds as they were never complete rifles to begin with) were worth it just to put the parts together and sell at a premium as a new shooter.

Very possible what you have is a kitchen table rebuild using new surplus coachwood which was available in abundance back in the 90's. Back then the boards were crammed with restock posts. It was also predicted then that this would come back to haunt collectors.

[Conductor]

What you have so far is a Jovino import, but no proof of a Jovino rebuild. John Jovino imported a LOT of legit rifles and there are plenty of his imports gracing a lot of collections still in correct condition. So, having a JJCO marking and NOS Slaz timber isn't any reason to jump to the conclusion they did it. They didn't have to, as surplus LE's were flying off the shelves at very low prices back then. It wasn't worth the time and effort as it wasn't profitable.
The Jovino builds (technically not rebuilds as they were never complete rifles to begin with) were worth it just to put the parts together and sell at a premium as a new shooter.

Very possible what you have is a kitchen table rebuild using new surplus coachwood which was available in abundance back in the 90's. Back then the boards were crammed with restock posts. It was also predicted then that this would come back to haunt collectors.

Okay. So I've got a "kitchen table rebuild". Considering that I bought the rifle for a shooter, I really don't care.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities in calling it a John Jovino rebuild. Heaven forbid that anyone should make such a grievous and unforgivable error.

[JB White]

Okay. So I've got a "kitchen table rebuild". Considering that I bought the rifle for a shooter, I really don't care.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities in calling it a John Jovino rebuild. Heaven forbid that anyone should make such a grievous and unforgivable error.

A: You're the one who came here calling it something it probably isn't. The term "Jovino Rebuild" is something people use to describe a different animal.
B: You're the one who sounds offended here.

Heaven forbid someone might help point you in a right direction. You've been on the Enfield boards about as long as some of us have. You shouldn't even need to have that distinction pointed out to you by now.