Lithgow to be or not to be..?

[safeshot]

Perhaps not the right place to ask this but it is to do with centre fires.
But, what is the story with Lithgow?
I am hoping the alleged shut down is only from a lot of stock on hand and nothing else.
Does anyone know the actual story. I would hate to see the maker of such great kit go the way of so many others.

thanks all and I hope that 2025 will be kind to us all.
cheers.
safeshot.

[bigrich]

what i've heard is lithgow paused production cause of excess stock , the distributor "spika" has claimed breach of contract by lithgow for stopping production , and has pulled out as lithgow's distributor . my local gun shop can not order new lithgow's cause there is no distributor ATM . this is what i've heard , take it with a grain of salt .

[safeshot]

many thanks.

[Die Judicii]

what i've heard is lithgow paused production cause of excess stock , the distributor "spika" has claimed breach of contract by lithgow for stopping production , and has pulled out as lithgow's distributor . my local gun shop can not order new lithgow's cause there is no distributor ATM . this is what i've heard , take it with a grain of salt .

Well, if that is the case,,,,,,,,,, you could place an awful lot of the blame squarely on the shoulders of the do gooders,, and political interference by way of restrictions and bans etc placed upon LAFO'S in general,,, Australia wide.
And,,, also world wide shortages of associated supplies and equipment.
Not to mention the ever increasing costs of initial purchases, which causes downward spirals of sales in many fields.

The combined effects that would cause a downturn in sales in general,,,,, and now we are facing the consequences.

[bigrich]

Have heard another distributor has picked up Lithgow. Will post when I know who.

[fnq22]

I wonder how much the cost of ammo and cost/availabilty of reloading components has on sales of centrefire guns...?..I would own more different calibre rifles if I could actually afford to shoot them..factory ammo for my .243 is about $3-4 a round in my local shops...

[Wyliecoyote]

I wonder how much the cost of ammo and cost/availabilty of reloading components has on sales of centrefire guns...?..I would own more different calibre rifles if I could actually afford to shoot them..factory ammo for my .243 is about $3-4 a round in my local shops...

I look at age groups. Under 30s generally use factory ammo. Over 50s generally reload and have done so since day one, have stockpiled components that were bought cheaply in bulk. The inbetweeners toss up to buy or reload.
It is hard to justify getting into reloading with equipment costs and component costs mounting up to thousands of dollars.
It is hard to justify buying factory ammo when i can reload for a tiny fraction of the cost of factory ammo.
It really comes down to timing. Much like the housing market.

[zbenga]

I wonder how much the cost of ammo and cost/availabilty of reloading components has on sales of centrefire guns...?..I would own more different calibre rifles if I could actually afford to shoot them..factory ammo for my .243 is about $3-4 a round in my local shops...

I shoot 45-70 and 6.5 CM

even reloading the 45-70 is say $2.50 shot not counting brass as straight wall brass last a long time, on the 6.5 CM it's around the same, when I looked at $90 per 20 rounds, thats $4.50, not quite half the price but yeah

only every purchased two boxes of ammo, reload always, it's cheaper, more accurate and good excuse to be by yourself

[bladeracer]

I wonder how much the cost of ammo and cost/availabilty of reloading components has on sales of centrefire guns...?..I would own more different calibre rifles if I could actually afford to shoot them..factory ammo for my .243 is about $3-4 a round in my local shops...

My mate strongly considers the ammo cost when looking at rifles and handguns. He doesn't reload so something like .45 Colt is a no-no for him. I load my own so ammo cost never gets a thought. I've been loading .38 and .357 ammo for him and the current costs are very steep. I have 42kg of bullets to collect from the post office this arvo though which will bring the cost down. 18 cents per bullet (including postage), primers I bought last week for 20 cents apiece, and Trailboss at over $400 for a 1.5kg bottle makes them 50c apiece without including brass losses. Factory ammo he's been using is 80c apiece so there is some saving, but I'm not charging him anything to do it since I'm making a lot more for myself at the same time. When I start casting my own bullets that will also be a significant saving. I used factory ammo yesterday for a Cowboy shoot which cost me $68.

[Wapiti]

I don't think ammo cost has a bearing on whether or not an individual buys another rifle.
Mates of mine buy rifles because they want them for the individual traits they offer, or just the pleasure of being able to choose.
Ammo cost is real, but in this case it's just a smokescreen someone thought up.

I can imagine that a paper shooter is going to be very aware of the cost of components, especially with club shoots requiring certain amounts of ammo per match.
That's just the price of the game. And the time taken to make all that ammo is a great way for the urban dweller to get away from the TV and into the shed, I guess.

But hunters who just crave being outdoors, walking about with a rifle, being where it's really at wouldn't care if the one shot they make that day costs $2, $5, more even.
The running cost of the vehicle, fuel, time and accessories pale that into insignificance, really.
And then there's people like us who, for us, the cost of burning ammo is thousands of $$$ more than not, in lost income let alone animal welfare.
And where both the cost of the firearms, ammo, as well as the loss of the stock is a 100% tax deduction.

I reckon it's more the deliberate system that forces shooters to justify each and every firearm purchase, and needing to get a permit, approvals whatever.

And then of course, people's personal perceptions of the brand of rifle this thread is really about. Personally, there isn't any feature of the Lithgow range of rifles that I actually want whatsoever. That's the real reasons they were sitting on the shelves whilst other brands were moving, irrespective of whether they are Aussie made or not. For a start, what is the benefit of a "crossover"?
You might dispute that, but what else is the reason?

[Oldbloke]

It's just a matter of:

Your disposable income.
Use, therefore number of rounds shot.e.g. hunting or target.
Perceived advantages, real or not of different cartridges.
Enthusiasm for the sport.

[bigrich]

I don't think ammo cost has a bearing on whether or not an individual buys another rifle.
Mates of mine buy rifles because they want them for the individual traits they offer, or just the pleasure of being able to choose.
Ammo cost is real, but in this case it's just a smokescreen someone thought up.

I can imagine that a paper shooter is going to be very aware of the cost of components, especially with club shoots requiring certain amounts of ammo per match.
That's just the price of the game. And the time taken to make all that ammo is a great way for the urban dweller to get away from the TV and into the shed, I guess.

But hunters who just crave being outdoors, walking about with a rifle, being where it's really at wouldn't care if the one shot they make that day costs $2, $5, more even.
The running cost of the vehicle, fuel, time and accessories pale that into insignificance, really.
And then there's people like us who, for us, the cost of burning ammo is thousands of $$$ more than not, in lost income let alone animal welfare.
And where both the cost of the firearms, ammo, as well as the loss of the stock is a 100% tax deduction.

I reckon it's more the deliberate system that forces shooters to justify each and every firearm purchase, and needing to get a permit, approvals whatever.

And then of course, people's personal perceptions of the brand of rifle this thread is really about. Personally, there isn't any feature of the Lithgow range of rifles that I actually want whatsoever. That's the real reasons they were sitting on the shelves whilst other brands were moving, irrespective of whether they are Aussie made or not. For a start, what is the benefit of a "crossover"?
You might dispute that, but what else is the reason?

Nice summary mate. You’re on the money with what does a Lithgow crossover offer over other rifles. They have some traits that suit some uses, but not others. They’re a heavy rifle weight wise, which some people aren’t keen on. After doing research, I decided a Lithgow 22lr would be good for my field rifle comp, so I did a like for like for one with my old krico. I had high expectations after talking to some who had the laminate version of this rifle and all the reviews and YouTube vids of how great they shoot. After 450 rounds and checking everything I was disappointed. My synthetic/titanium Lithgow shot like cr@p . I fixed the problem by trading for a CZ 452 American sporter. It shoots insanely well. Got back my old krico as well cause it outshot the Lithgow easily. So while I’m all for buying Aussie, I won’t be getting another Lithgow anytime soon. Maybe that’s why they’re sitting on shelves, poor QC.

[Wapiti]

I'm sorry that the Lithgow rimfire didn't work for you Bigrich. I was really excited when these rifles were initially released, but then disappointed immediately, for a few engineering design reasons.
Same goes for the centrefires, all compromise cheap designs rather than what could have been an incredible rifle, because it was designed here, and could've been from a clean sheet using all the best features used from the most successful manufacturers worldwide, but it doesn't. It tries to cut corners, to its detriment. It could've had these best features, for no more cost.
It's not like they aren't accurate rifles, so that's not it.

But who am I to comment, I haven't put my neck on the block and designed a firearm, so my thoughts don't have any weight.
But obviously, sales numbers tell the story in the end. Shame for Aussie manufacturing.

[bigrich]

I'm sorry that the Lithgow rimfire didn't work for you Bigrich. I was really excited when these rifles were initially released, but then disappointed immediately, for a few engineering design reasons.
Same goes for the centrefires, all compromise cheap designs rather than what could have been an incredible rifle, because it was designed here, and could've been from a clean sheet using all the best features used from the most successful manufacturers worldwide, but it doesn't. It tries to cut corners, to its detriment. It could've had these best features, for no more cost.
It's not like they aren't accurate rifles, so that's not it.

But who am I to comment, I haven't put my neck on the block and designed a firearm, so my thoughts don't have any weight.
But obviously, sales numbers tell the story in the end. Shame for Aussie manufacturing.

i've seen some lithgow rimfires shoot insanely small groups , unfortunately mine wasn't one of them .the balance and build quality was great , no complaints. the trigger broke at a consistent 2.1 lb with no creep . i believe bedding in the synthetic stock was a big part of the issue , but i'm not going to invest more money into a laminate stock and gear to "maybe" fix the issue . i didn't go down the rabbit hole of a warranty complaint , as this probably would've been a long drawn out process for possibly no result . i'm all for supporting aussie manufacturing, but the rifle i bought was sub standard accuracy wise . only brand i've bought new that has consistently been great is tikka . this has been my experience , i'm sure others have been more than satisfied with their lithgows . the centrefires are too heavy as a walk around rifle for me , which may or may not contribute to why lithgow sales haven't been that good of late . lithgow are up and running again , i believe TSA is their distributor now . cheers

[Jorlcrin]

I don't think ammo cost has a bearing on whether or not an individual buys another rifle.
Mates of mine buy rifles because they want them for the individual traits they offer, or just the pleasure of being able to choose.
Ammo cost is real, but in this case it's just a smokescreen someone thought up.

I can imagine that a paper shooter is going to be very aware of the cost of components, especially with club shoots requiring certain amounts of ammo per match.
That's just the price of the game. And the time taken to make all that ammo is a great way for the urban dweller to get away from the TV and into the shed, I guess.

But hunters who just crave being outdoors, walking about with a rifle, being where it's really at wouldn't care if the one shot they make that day costs $2, $5, more even.
The running cost of the vehicle, fuel, time and accessories pale that into insignificance, really.
And then there's people like us who, for us, the cost of burning ammo is thousands of $$$ more than not, in lost income let alone animal welfare.
And where both the cost of the firearms, ammo, as well as the loss of the stock is a 100% tax deduction.

I reckon it's more the deliberate system that forces shooters to justify each and every firearm purchase, and needing to get a permit, approvals whatever.

And then of course, people's personal perceptions of the brand of rifle this thread is really about. Personally, there isn't any feature of the Lithgow range of rifles that I actually want whatsoever. That's the real reasons they were sitting on the shelves whilst other brands were moving, irrespective of whether they are Aussie made or not. For a start, what is the benefit of a "crossover"?
You might dispute that, but what else is the reason?

I have a number of issues that put me off buying any of the modern crop of Lithgow rifles, but the fact that they designate many of them as 'Crossover's, isnt one of them.
I was looking for a short-barrelled Bolt-Action stainless/Synthetic .223 rifle with a 1:8 twist or better for a day-to-day shooter, and I didnt find any of the Lithgow models offered that, whereas a few of the other brands did.
This is my preference for a daily shooter; many people will be looking for something different, and the Lithgow might tick enough boxes for their needs/wants.
Not had the chance to handle/shoot a Lithgow other than a few minutes in the gun shop, so my experience with them is limited.
I had to go search the net to find out what a 'Crossover' rifle actually was, and it turns out I own one!
[Tikka CTR .223]
And I LOVE it!

Each to their own; I'd be happy to Buy Australian, if they were making something that appealed to me.

[on_one_wheel]

I'm sorry that the Lithgow rimfire didn't work for you Bigrich. I was really excited when these rifles were initially released, but then disappointed immediately, for a few engineering design reasons.
Same goes for the centrefires, all compromise cheap designs rather than what could have been an incredible rifle, because it was designed here, and could've been from a clean sheet using all the best features used from the most successful manufacturers worldwide, but it doesn't. It tries to cut corners, to its detriment. It could've had these best features, for no more cost.
It's not like they aren't accurate rifles, so that's not it.

But who am I to comment, I haven't put my neck on the block and designed a firearm, so my thoughts don't have any weight.
But obviously, sales numbers tell the story in the end. Shame for Aussie manufacturing.

II would be very interesting to see what someone could come up with using the best features of everything available.
That would probably make for a good thread in the forum.

[Wyliecoyote]

It wouldn't matter if someone sat down and took what they thought was the best features and put them into production. Someone would want it lighter heavier shorter longer internal mag external mag sythetic laminated walnut 7 twist 14 twist blued stainless cerakoted hydrodipped. There is no such thing as the best, we just make do with what is offered. And what Lithgow offers is butt ugly has an unnecessarily over engineered trigger, no stainless offering and a stock that looks like the offcut from a Kookaburra cricket bat.