New Addition - Unissued Lanchester

[Rekraps]

Picked this up from Spiwak and finally took it home a few weeks ago. Beautiful C&R, no import marks of any kind. This unit was most likely stored on a HMS which was sold with the gun. No use whatsoever, appears to be in unissued condition.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Rekraps
Need space for other posts!

[StrangeRanger]

Beautiful! Nicest one I've seen.

Did you get the bayonet with it?

[Rekraps]

Thank you! I try to buy only really nice stuff... this was a lucky find. Yes, I have the bayonet also, and it has a cleaning kit in the buttstock.

 

I have a second Lanchester, a CATO receiver gun built on a MK4 kit. It's very nice also, almost perfect but not a C&R.

[BRMCII]

Some observations from looking at the Lanchester pics and in the interest of discovering it's provenance:
As a C+R example there would not be any import marks.

These guns were made specifically for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. The final finish was a "stove enamel" black paint, a common corrosion preventative applied to many items of Brit manufacture for use asea or near the sea and even in general use on the islands. One interesting use of it was on motorcycle engines pre and post-war.

STENs were also painted.

I share your appreciation of the condition of the gun, but a Lanchester with the original production finish would have the black painted finish or remnants of it evident. The paint, I believe, was a semi-gloss black and was a quite thin application covering all metal including the bronze magwell. From what I have seen there was no prior treatment of the metal with texturing or primer. It appears to me from the pics that the gun has had a recent phosphate parkerized refinish, not uncommon with many Lanchesters in the US over the years. In any case, an eighty year old service firearm would show it's age if the finish were original regardless of what it was. The extractor appears to be parked as well, which it would not be on a production gun, but the extractor isn't especially visible in the pic even with enlargement, so it might not be park. The bolt has significant wear at the front end indicating more than just slight or limited use.

I haven't seen any evidence that Lanchesters were Arsenal refurbished after the war. I have seen quite a few registered examples that were refinished by hot bluing and parkerizing.

I have had a number of Lanchesters and still have kits and parts that are painted. The use of paint on the parts is interesting since it is such a thin coat that it can look a lot like a chemical finish. However, lightly scraping the finish with a razor or similar tool raises tiny particles of paint.
I anticipate the above will be be met with some dismay and I apologize. The artifact tells the story along with historical records and hands on experience. My observations are only my opinion. FWIW

Edited June 15, 2022 by BRMCII

[colt21a]

I was ready to make comment the other guy said it all nice. but upgraded.i am sure price was right so a happy customer. shoot the heck out of it since ya can't hurt it.RON K.

[Rekraps]

Thank you for your comments. Based on my research and inspection of the gun (in person) I believe you are incorrect.

 

But that's why there is a forum, so everyone can voice their opinion.

[Rekraps]

One last comment and I'll leave it be. When I received the gun, it still had a generous amount of packing grease remaining in the trigger, bolt and end cap area which to me meant that this gun had been in storage. The rear bearing area of the bolt has no wear, while the front has very, very little, and the FP is as new. The bolt and FP both have a deep copper type tone, almost a cosmoline color. The pics do not do it justice. I do know that although the Royal Marines and Navy took possession of the production guns, many were manufactured before the RAF decided it did not want them, thus there is a high likelihood of variants of the type I possess.

 

Upon disassembly, the internals are as new, as is the rest of the gun which shows no indication at all of refurbishment.

 

As always, I appreciate everyone's comments.

[Rekraps]

Not to beat an already almost dead horse, however the gun is clearly marked MK1 no star, Northhampton production facility (Sterling Armaments). If you look closely at the rear flange of the mag well, you will see two crossed flags, directly to the right, just barely readable is "43" (year of production). There were a number of MK1's (select fire) that were converted to MK1* (auto only) designation and this appears to be one of those. This gun has the simplified sights consistent with conversions and is FA only.

 

Enjoy!

[Rekraps]

And by the way BRMCII, I am not offended in any way by your post. In fact I appreciate others info and take to heart what others have experienced.

 

You guys have always been kind, and I have posted in the Class 3 forum, M3, MP38/40, M14, Sterling, Russian SMG and more.

 

In my 35 + years in this hobby, nothing surprises me. What I know for sure with respect to WW2 guns and even AR's is that anything is possible!

 

Take care.

[BRMCII]

Well, since you posted the pic of the magwell and brought the gun back again, and since you have proclaimed me to be wrong in my assessment, I offer this for your consideration: the magwell has multiple scars on it, nicked edges, and other evidence of damage, etc so it cannot possibly be considered unissue or in ;factory new condition or lightly used. It has been clearly roughly handled in it's life and regardless of whether it is the original magwell to the gun, or a replacement it has obviously been used and altered.

Parkerizing on the receiver adjacent to the ends of the magwell housing, which are nicked and scarred, shows no evidence of scarring or any major surface disturbance at all despite being next to considerable scarring from handling and use. However, the surface shows evidence of bead blasted prior to parking, which is proper prep for parking. That is not speculation, but fact, and it clearly demonstrates that the parkerizing was not there when the magwell suffered it's damage. Also, it indicates that the gun has been restored using used parts. I can't comment on the internals since I can't see them but many a used restored MG has been outfitted with new internals. MG42s are a great example.

The serial number on the mag well was lightly printed by an electric pantograph rotary engraver and the number has been replaced/ modified by a stamped number as evidenced by the ground trough in the bronze underneath the stamped number. The original number would have been pantographed. MkI* magwells we're more deeply rotary engraved.

I have handled, owned, bought, sold, brokered, seen, reactivated, repaired, blued, parkerized, built many many hundreds of MGs since my first DEWAT in 1957, and first registered MG in 1970 and I can pretty well read what the condition of an MG tells me much like reading a book.

That gun has a lot more to tell, too.

One thing about pristine, factory original, unfired, new and perfect MGs is that the the single, loudest indicator of it's perfect condition are the one or two flaws.

Nothing personal. I am just pointing out what I see through the lense of my experience, and, as you understand, it is not personal. Each person can weigh what I say with what they see in your pics and make their own determination. My assessment is a good guide for buyer's who might be looking at a gun and are being told things by the seller that don't ring true and that need verification about it's condition. As you say, this is a forum for information. And, also, for sharing what we have learned from our years of experience to help in learning for all of us. FWIW

Edited June 16, 2022 by BRMCII

[johnsonlmg41]

Completely refinished. As Bob notes, looks like the serial number has been changed? The date on the magwell and all the other markings/stampings should be clear and crisp. The finish as Bob notes, should not be bead blasted and parked. There are also codes on the front sight and other parts, that were marked lightly, that are probably obscured at this point? There may have been some work done to the tube as well? Normally there is a clean line just behind the magazine well where there is a clean step that you can see in this pic.

Every Dewat was packed with grease, that's why some are in such great shape these days....thank god! In this picture you can see where the bronze is still as it came out of the mold and where it was machined.

Edited June 15, 2022 by johnsonlmg41

[johnsonlmg41]

Thinking further, it may not be a Lanchester at all? It may be a tube gun or a built from a C+R sten, but today dressed as a Lanchester.

[StrangeRanger]

All right, this has me interested. My Lanchester spent time in Egypt before coming to the US. There are no import marks that I can find and the Form 4 lists the manufacturer as "England."

 

It had some "interesting" mods done to it at some point in the past. The holes for the sear pin were bushed down to match an MP28 sear and pin and the 28 sear was modified to fit the Lanchester. The trigger bar was a Mk 1 version with the selector bits on the rear end welded up. However the trigger housing is a Mk 1*. Thanks to board members Babyface Nelson and Got Uzi the correct trigger bar and sear have been installed.

 

The metal is an obvious refinish done in a matte blue. The mag housing pictures have me wondering what is with mine. What do you make of this. The engraving is very lightly and the lines in the lettering are not particularly straight

Edited June 16, 2022 by StrangeRanger

[johnsonlmg41]

Yours looks to be a sterling MKI with the star added after conversion to FA only likely at the REME workshop Tel El Kabir Egypt (all out of the guns of Daggenham). If the tube was refinished, they were smart enough to cover or remove the magazine housing during the process? Later Boss guns, apparently they found a stamp to hasten and cheapen production since lanchesters cost way more than early estimates. Even with a pantograph it's still a time consuming operation to mark them? Maybe they cut the pantograph patterns with a torch? LOL

 

As to mods, well if you have a parts donor that's near identical, you make it work. If it worked I probably would have left it alone? The MP28 sear is likely far superior to the British metallurgy?

[StrangeRanger]

I still have the modified MP28 sear and at some point I will have the pivot hole opened up to 6mm to match the receiver. I also have the welded up Mk 1 trigger bar, I don't throw potential spare parts away.

 

I'm pretty sure they blued it with the mag housing in place although I have no idea what effect blueing salts have on bronze. When I got the gun there was evil-looking brownish crud oozing out of the housing/receiver joint and from under the muzzle band, rear sight and bayonet catch. The takedown latch was crudded almost solid with it. Mineral spirits and a toothbrush removed the visible crud and I soaked the housing/receiver joint in liquid penetrant.

 

 

 

[Rekraps]

Team, thanks to all for the comments and input. Regarding my gun in particular, it is clear that the weapon is parkerized/phosphated (nice job). As to when and where, that can not be determined. The receiver has no stamps or import marks at all, with the only indication of date of mfg / location of mfg/ and SN being the mag well indicators. By ATF definition, the gun is a C&R.

 

With that said, I of course will revise my topic heading to now read (I don't know how to do it for the Forum topic header),

 

New addition to my collection, Lanchester.

 

As always, thanks.

[Got Uzi]

What I suspect is some of these came into the states as DEWAT guns and were activated on Form 1s. That would explain no import markings and refinishing. A FOIA would clear that up, but they take time.

[BRMCII]

Just to clarify: MGs were not imported as DEWATs, but were imported live and under the DEWAT program were rendered inoperable by the importers/dealers/individual. DEWATs did not require registration, so when the Amnesty came along to register all MGs, many DEWATs did not get registered. Too bad. At least registered DEWATs have been eligible for reactivation. ATF considers a DEWAT to be a "live" MG anyway because it has a complete receiver.
Any MG imported and registered prior to the end of the GCA '68 Amnesty on 12/01/1968 has qualified as C+R since that cutoff date, with some exceptions.

If the Lanchester discussed here had import markings, it would be a dealer restricted pre-May sales sample. Import markings were not required before GCA68. FWIW

Edited June 17, 2022 by BRMCII

[Got Uzi]

Well I learned something new then. I always presumed they were welded up over seas and brought in "dewat'd"

[timkel]

Picked this up from Spiwak and finally took it home a few weeks ago. Beautiful C&R, no import marks of any kind. This unit was most likely stored on a HMS which was sold with the gun. No use whatsoever, appears to be in unissued condition.

How do you like those magazines? Are they easy to load and reliable?

[StrangeRanger]

Lanchester mags are just like a Sten mag only longer. They are a total PITA to load without a loading tool, easy enough to load with one. The Austen tool is much better than the British versions.

Mine seem to feed OK if the feed lips gauge in spec. Obviously YMMV

[1950Plymouth]

Thanks to the senior members for sharing their vast experience. I learned a lot reading this thread.

 

Dont feel too burned i think you still got a great looking gun there at a solid price. Sometimes sellers tell us stories. Sometimes they just dont know any better. Most times they ought to. Either way, the guns true history is usually much more interesting than brand new never fired. If that gun could talk!

 

Shoot it. Share it. Love it.

 

Greg

Edited June 22, 2022 by 1950Plymouth

[maxfaxdude]

Congrats Rekraps on the acquisition.

 

I've been looking for a C&R Lanchester for a while that is as genuine as possible. The info presented here is very helpful.

 

My thoughts on "unissued", "never fired", etc. European machineguns is that very, very few in the U.S. truly exist.

[Rekraps]

Great question. I use a loading tool which is especially important for the 50 rounders. No harder to load than the shorter STEN mags, but of course it takes longer and as noted, use a loading tool. I disassembled the three 50 rounders to inspect the springs, base plates and followers and all was / is in good order. Although I don't have a measuring/alignment tool, I also inspected the feed lips to see if visually they were not out of whack compared to functioning STEN mags and then test them to see if they seat well in the mag well. So far, so good. Have not shot them yet as I prefer the more easily managed STEN mags, but I will.

 

More to follow.

[StrangeRanger]

FWIW BRP has the magazine gauges in stock

https://www.brpguns.com/sten-magazine-gauge-very-good-condition/

Sten mags can look OK but be off by a mile on feed height/angle