Results comparing the two Lithgows

Target shooting and range information. Competitive shooting, ranges, competitions, clubs and events. Free shooting targets.

Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 08 Jan 2015, 9:24 am

Hi Guys,

The person I did the review for (Lithgow Crossover & Original Lithgow) sent me an email today with photo's of my targets.

I thought I'd post them up here.

I'm not sure what the digital device is that he has there, looks like a caliper of some description. Anyway, I'm guessing you lot will know what it is.

I'm very happy with the results.

Jenna

PS. The targets that have Crossover written on them are what I shot with the new Lithgow Crossover, the ones next to those were shot with the old Lithgow.
Lithgow 01.jpg
Lithgow 01.jpg (77.23 KiB) Viewed 8615 times

Lithgow 02.jpg
Lithgow 02.jpg (81.93 KiB) Viewed 8615 times
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by anthillinside » 08 Jan 2015, 8:27 pm

Thanks for the great post.
I've been playing with the idea of getting a Crossover, not because I need another .22 but just because it's Auzzie.
Your post shows two things
1. Lithgow have made a pretty good rifle. :clap:
2. Ammo does make a difference :D
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by brett1868 » 08 Jan 2015, 10:42 pm

How old and how much work had the "Old" Lithgow done? Unless both were brand new outta the box then it's not a fair comparison. Nice groups Jenna, you're certainly consistent. Tell the guy with the verniers that ne needs to push the "MM/In" button case I don't understand the mm thing when measuring groups. I'm old enough to know the imperial measurements yet young enough to have learnt the metric system in school but I like to measure groups in inches.
How's my posting?
Complaints, Concerns - 13 11 14
User avatar
brett1868
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3017
New South Wales

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by headwerkn » 09 Jan 2015, 8:40 am

I haven't yet shot the CrossOver with any of my Slazengers side by side, but I do know my Model 12 (prone off a bipod) requires careful manipulation to hold within an inch at 50m using Winchester subsonics or Lapua Centre X. The CrossOver does it without trying, pushing less than half-inch with Lapua, SK etc. off the bench.

Progress, it appears, has moved in the right direction, though obviously comparing a 3 month old rifle with 500 rounds through it, to one made in 1947 that's probably seen a few hundred thousand, is possibly a tad disingenuous.

lsaf-slazengers-lithgowarms.jpg
lsaf-slazengers-lithgowarms.jpg (301.84 KiB) Viewed 8514 times


If nothing else, at least the CrossOver appears worthy of the 'Lithgow' name. We mightn't be absolutely sure until they've had 50 years of shooting put through them, but they seem to be built to the same fine standards and in the same spirit as the old Slazengers. Would have been sacrilege if they weren't.

Cheers, Ben.
User avatar
headwerkn
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 39
Other

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by Warrigul » 09 Jan 2015, 8:56 am

headwerkn wrote: they seem to be built to the same fine standards and in the same spirit as the old Slazengers. Would have been sacrilege if they weren't.

Cheers, Ben.


It is all very well to get the rose coloured glasses on for a sentimental favourite but when it is all boiled down they were mass produced to a price and were of an acceptable accuracy/finsh standard at best(who could ever forget the spliced-to save costs- stocks?). Any Brno, remington, winchester etc of the same period was, usually, a far better rifle and has lasted just as well.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1103
-

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by AusC » 09 Jan 2015, 11:04 am

jennageit wrote:I'm not sure what the digital device is that he has there, looks like a caliper of some description. Anyway, I'm guessing you lot will know what it is.


That'd would be a set of Craftright digital calipers for measuring your groups. $25 at Bunnings FYI.
300 Win Mag Tikka T3 Lite.
4-12x42 Zeiss Terra.
User avatar
AusC
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 526
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by Chronos » 09 Jan 2015, 11:24 am

tell you what if i saw those targets and had to choose between a $150 50 year old lithgow and a $1000 new one i know which one i'd buy. seems over all the old girl shot two groups smaller than the best group from the new "tacticool" .22

Chronos
User avatar
Chronos
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2082
New South Wales

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 09 Jan 2015, 1:25 pm

Bear in mind this guys:

1. Neither rifle would lock into the benchrest properly, so I had to hold each rifle still whilst shooting, after lining it up every time.
2. I have no idea how many rounds the old rifle had had through it, could have been 100's of thousands for all I know.
3. I've never shot over 20m before, and it took a bit to get it sighted in. I know they fiddled with the scope (off a Hornet) for about an hour trying to get it right.
4. I still know very little about shooting, but I'm proud of my efforts.

Jenna
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by headwerkn » 09 Jan 2015, 8:52 pm

Warrigul wrote:It is all very well to get the rose coloured glasses on for a sentimental favourite but when it is all boiled down they were mass produced to a price and were of an acceptable accuracy/finsh standard at best(who could ever forget the spliced-to save costs- stocks?). Any Brno, remington, winchester etc of the same period was, usually, a far better rifle and has lasted just as well.


The post-WWII Slazengers weren't fancy, sure, but I'd debate the notion that the were cut-rate budget offerings.

Firstly, they weren't that cheap. Cheaper than almost-non-existent imports, yes, but still several weeks wages for the average blue collar worker. A .303 could be had for half the money, or less, of a Model 12 repeater.

Secondly, while the designs were unashamedly Winchester 67/69 ripoffs with the original 1930s adornments removed (even Winchester pared down the bling during and after the war), neither the materials used nor the machining/production processes were compromised. As most people know the barrelled actions were made from surplus .303 blanks.... 45t proved steel rated a mile beyond anything a 22LR could possibly generate.

Stock timber was, I'll admit, where aesthetics and fine craftsmanship were pushed aside for practicality.... basic timber and a functional varnished finish. Still, it was the same timber earmarked for No. 1 Mk III* production, so it wasn't crappy wood.

Compare a Slazenger Model 1B with a Sportco Model 40, which came about 10 years later, and you can soon tell that even though the Sportco is 'dressier' and prettier with nicer timber and nickel plating on the bolt, the Slazengers are better engineered.... the bolt feels much more precise and smooth, dual claw extractors versus the single on the Sportco, and the trigger is much better too. Still rather heavy, but less creepy and more precise than the toyish trigger on the Sportco.

Mind you, we are talking 50+ year old rifles, so your mileage may vary between particular examples. This is just what I've found from the ones I own myself.

I'll agree that the typical Brno Model 2 will outshoot the typical Slaz Model 12. You can get some tight groups out of the latter with a bit of work though.
User avatar
headwerkn
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 39
Other

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by Gregg » 12 Jan 2015, 1:32 pm

Chronos wrote:if i saw those targets and had to choose between a $150 50 year old lithgow and a $1000 new one i know which one i'd buy.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Howa 1500 .270 WInchester
Savage Model 10/110 Predator .204 Ruger
User avatar
Gregg
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 378
South Australia

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by Tiiger » 12 Jan 2015, 1:37 pm

jennageit wrote:1. Neither rifle would lock into the benchrest properly, so I had to hold each rifle still whilst shooting, after lining it up every time.


It's definitely a negative influence when you're constantly reseating the foreend on a rest which isn't a neat fit for it.

At longer distances definitely hurts your groups. Hard to say for 20m but you probably would have done a fraction better with a more consistent rest too.

Something for the next review maybe :)
User avatar
Tiiger
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 347
Queensland

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 12:47 pm

I got emailed a photo that I didn't realise had been taken.
It was a good day trying out the Lithgows, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to do it.

Thanks to the gentlemen that made it happen!
Lithgow Crossover.jpg
Lithgow Crossover.jpg (39.81 KiB) Viewed 8393 times


For those wondering, yes that is my left hand under my ear, holding the rifle in position, and yes, my wrist is bandaged (both of them actually) due to destroying the Ulna tendons from using crutches. Didn't stop me though, as you can see lol
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 1:03 pm

The two rifles side by side.
Lithgows new and old.JPG
Lithgows new and old.JPG (47.25 KiB) Viewed 8391 times
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by bigfellascott » 19 Jan 2015, 2:58 pm

What distance were you shooting those groups at?
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 3:29 pm

20 metres mate, on benchrest.
I had a go at 50m but didn't do so well because the scopes were set for 20. Although I didn't score well, I did hit every target!
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by bigfellascott » 19 Jan 2015, 3:32 pm

jennageit wrote:20 metres mate, on benchrest.
I had a go at 50m but didn't do so well because the scopes were set for 20. Although I didn't score well, I did hit every target!


Thankyou :thumbsup:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by North East » 19 Jan 2015, 3:46 pm

I admire your persistence Jenna. I don't own a rimfire but can see the attraction to that caliber. Ever thought of getting something bigger like a .204, .222 or .223 if foxes and dogs are on the agenda?

Keep your spirits up and keep up the good work. :thumbsup:
Browning BL-22 lever action...open sights
T3 Varmint .204 Ruger...Meopta Meostar 4-16X44
T3 Lite .30-06 Sprg...Aimpoint Hunter 1X red dot

....that will do me
North East
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 685
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 9:25 pm

Hi Northeast,

My hubby has been trying to talk me into a .222 or a .223 but I'm not sold on the idea yet.

Last night I was out the back of my house and watched a fox running across the property (neighbours). Even if I had a rifle, and permission to shoot across the boundary, I doubt I'd have been able to hit him. He would have been about 300 metres away and hubby reckons a good .223 would have made short work of it. I've never shot more than 50m.


Jenna
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by North East » 19 Jan 2015, 9:43 pm

jennageit wrote:Hi Northeast,

My hubby has been trying to talk me into a .222 or a .223 but I'm not sold on the idea yet.

Last night I was out the back of my house and watched a fox running across the property (neighbours). Even if I had a rifle, and permission to shoot across the boundary, I doubt I'd have been able to hit him. He would have been about 300 metres away and hubby reckons a good .223 would have made short work of it. I've never shot more than 50m.


Jenna


The .20 cals are very manageable recoil wise and are quite capable of taking something at 300 metres with a 1/2 decent rest. They are quite loud especially the .204 Ruger. A very flat trajectory so you would not have to muck around with the scope when sighted in. I prefer the speed queen...a .204 Ruger...and for the big beasts a .30-06 Springfield.

Just keep up with what you are doing Jenna...whatever you are comfortable with.
Browning BL-22 lever action...open sights
T3 Varmint .204 Ruger...Meopta Meostar 4-16X44
T3 Lite .30-06 Sprg...Aimpoint Hunter 1X red dot

....that will do me
North East
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 685
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 10:07 pm

My aim is to master the .22lr over 20 and 50 metres in all three positions. After that, I might look at something different.

Just before Christmas, I entered my very first target comp. 50m benchrest (postal comp). I've only shot one card so far 192/200 with another 2 to go, which I'm hoping to knock off on Wednesday night.

Obviously I'm only D-grade, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I put in a good showing, win/lose/draw. My first comp so I'm not expecting much.

The best thing about what I'm doing is: I LOVE IT. Can't get better than that, eh?
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by North East » 19 Jan 2015, 10:13 pm

"I LOVE IT. Can't get better than that, eh?"

That's all that matters.
Browning BL-22 lever action...open sights
T3 Varmint .204 Ruger...Meopta Meostar 4-16X44
T3 Lite .30-06 Sprg...Aimpoint Hunter 1X red dot

....that will do me
North East
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 685
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by rsj223 » 19 Jan 2015, 10:45 pm

jennageit wrote:My aim is to master the .22lr over 20 and 50 metres in all three positions. After that, I might look at something different.

Just before Christmas, I entered my very first target comp. 50m benchrest (postal comp). I've only shot one card so far 192/200 with another 2 to go, which I'm hoping to knock off on Wednesday night.

Obviously I'm only D-grade, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I put in a good showing, win/lose/draw. My first comp so I'm not expecting much.

The best thing about what I'm doing is: I LOVE IT. Can't get better than that, eh?

Is this with Target Rifle Victoria as I found them today, and is postal when you shoot at your range and send the results back? this looks very interesting.
User avatar
rsj223
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 652
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 19 Jan 2015, 10:48 pm

That's it mate. I joined TRV before I got my licence through. It cost me $250 for 12 months, and i buy ammo as I need it at the club.

I'll be entering postal comps only so that I can use the club Anschutz until I can afford my own rifle.

Jenna
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by rsj223 » 19 Jan 2015, 11:02 pm

I might have to have a talk with them as I think I got the paper bug
User avatar
rsj223
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 652
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by VICHunter » 20 Jan 2015, 10:35 am

jennageit wrote:Even if I had a rifle, and permission to shoot across the boundary, I doubt I'd have been able to hit him. He would have been about 300 metres away and hubby reckons a good .223 would have made short work of it. I've never shot more than 50m.


You might be surprised.

Freehand you'd likely miss, sure. By off the bipod it's not as hard as you might think. 300m is a cinch for a .223.

With a 1 MOA rifle (which is pretty standard these days) at 300m it's a 3" group making a fox a good size target.

He's not a 1cm bullseye don't forget ;) "Accuracy" in benchrest and hunting are 2 different things.
User avatar
VICHunter
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 623
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by jennageit » 20 Jan 2015, 11:13 am

I can't wait to get my back sorted out so that I can go hunting. A friend has offered to take me, but as the country where he shoots is rough, it's not possible for me to get out there yet.

I imagine that hunting would be worlds apart from benchrest. I'm yet to actually shoot whilst holding a rifle so I don't know how I'd go. It's hard enough to hold it still enough to take out the bullseye on paper! lol

I'll get there though.

Jenna
Back from a break, and ready to shoot again :)
User avatar
jennageit
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by Lyam » 21 Jan 2015, 8:33 am

jennageit wrote:I can't wait to get my back sorted out so that I can go hunting. A friend has offered to take me, but as the country where he shoots is rough, it's not possible for me to get out there yet.


Dunno what the property you have access too is like but there can be good hunting to be had just sitting over a busy rabbit warren. If you're not up to lots of walking around if he can take you somewhere overlooking one you could sit/lay and pick of half a dozen in an hour.

Would get you out there and put a few notches in your belt. Rabbits in the stew pot ;)
Ruger 77/22 + Bushnell Banner 3.5-10x36
Tikka T3 Forest 270 Win + Swarovski Z3 3-10x42
User avatar
Lyam
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 213
Victoria

Re: Results comparing the two Lithgows

Post by RDobber » 21 Jan 2015, 8:39 am

jennageit wrote:I imagine that hunting would be worlds apart from benchrest. I'm yet to actually shoot whilst holding a rifle so I don't know how I'd go. It's hard enough to hold it still enough to take out the bullseye on paper! lol


Well... Don't forget the "bullseye" hunting isn't a 1/2cm red dot like shooting your .22LR.

On a deer the bullseye is about an 8" "dot" :lol:
300 Win Mag Fanboy

Tikka, Tikka, Tikka, BOOM!
User avatar
RDobber
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 322
Tasmania


Back to top
 
Return to Target shooting - Competitive shooting - Shooting ranges