Remington P14

[rmcc]

What is a good source of info on P14's? I recently picked up a 1917 made Enfield built by Remington at the Eddystone plant. The only markings are R/E on the receiver bridge and 303 cal. and Rem's letter code.

Thanks,
rmcc

[Der Gebirgsjager]

You can read up on P-14s and 1917s in any of a number of books that deal with comprehensive histories of military rifles, such as W.H.B. Smith's "Small Arms Of The World". Although a P-14 looks a great deal like a Model of 1917, they are not quite the same rifle. The P-14 was originally an English design designated to replace the Lee Enfield rifle. When the U.S. entered WW I they redesigned the rifle slightly and took over production. I own three P-14s, two manufactured by Eddystone and one by Winchester. On mine the serial numbers are preceded by a letter, such as E123456 and W123456. It is my understanding that those actually made in the Remington plant have no letter in front of the number. I have never seen one marked "R/E" but everything is possible. If your rifle is marked .303 Cal. that indicates that it was imported by a surplus arms dealer, and if you examine the rifle closely you may well find who the dealer was. Look for tiny letters like: CAI St. Alb. Vt., perhaps on the side or beneath the barrel near the muzzle. You've lost me on the "Rem's letter code." I know that Remington uses a letter code to indicate year of manufacture on modern sporting arms, but am unaware of their use in the WW I time period. If you can post some photos of your rifle, including the markings, perhaps someone can tell you more.

[Hardcast416taylor]

If it has a caliber stamp on it then it is an import. The `17 and the P-14 look identical, but that is all as their cals. are different. I believe that R/E is short for Remington Eddystone.Robert

[KenT7021]

RE on a P-14 is Remington;ERA is Eddystone;W in front of serial number is Winchester.M1917's have the manufacturers name spelled out the receiver ring.

[dromia]

The P 14 was originally a British design not English.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Either a Winchester or Remington gives you a better chance of getting a good example than an Eddystone (which is indeed marked ERA) does. There are two quite distinct defects in the metal. Some are glassy hard, difficult to drill, and prone to cracks in the receiver ring. Others have burned steel, which is coarse-grained and soft. But both of these are yes-or-no things, which affect a small minority of rifles. If an Eddystone receiver doesn't show gasoline weeping from cracks after it is dried off (a test best applied after removal of the military barrel if you intend doing so), and if it drills for scope mounts with a wiry chip, it should be about as good metallurgically as any rifle of its time.

All Eddystones and only some of the others have a large hole under the rear sight leaf, too deep to fill w ith weld without dimpling into the bolt way. This only matters if you are sporterizing the rifle and need something you can screw a scope base to. When I did it I shaped a piece of 1/8in. steel to fit the hole, and welded on top of that.

I don't know how easy it is to make the larger bolt face of the P14 work with cartridges in the .30-06 family, but it is a good fit for the ordinary magnum case. Many of these will require remodeling or replacement of the magazine box, but this is a simple sheet metal one, separate from the bottom metal. Various after-market triggers and speedlock kits are available, but the safety shouldn't be replaced, as it is one of the best on any firearm.

There is a very good book, of the 1960s but still available through www.bookfinder.com , "Introduction to Modern Gunsmithing", in which Harold E. McFarlane uses the M1917 Enfield as a detailed case study in rifle sporterizing.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

The P 14 was originally a British design not English.

This is likely going to prove to be a discussion both interesting and educational, but one I'll probably regret getting into.
Exhibit No. 1: Note that at the bottom of the cover it says, "An Encyclopedia Britannica Company".

Attachment 173340

Exhibit No. 2: Page 414 of above book: En-glish .....adj ... of, relating to, or characteristic of England, the English people, or the English language---
English n 1 a: the language of the people of England and the U.S. and many areas now or formerly under British control b: a particular variety of English distinguished by peculiarities (as of pronunciation) c: English language literature, or composition when a subject of study 2 pl in constr : the people of England ......... (the remainder totally inapplicable)

Exhibit No. 3: Page 156 of above book: Brit-ish n ..... 1 a: the Celtic language of the ancient Britons b : British English 2 pl in constr :
the people of Great Britain or the Commonwealth of nations ...........

******************************

So you see, to us over here in the Colonies, it would seem that British and English are one and the same. I am receptive to continuing education, so from your viewpoint (at the source) what is the difference? Are Britain and England different? Are the British and the English different? Who lives in Great Britain? Who lives in England?

[Dutchman]

I have never seen one marked "R/E"

This Remington was very early production. FTR in 1962 according to the stock stamp.

[dromia]

Britain is made up of the the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and the English so in national terms we are all British. In fact when the Union of the Crown happened in 1603 James the sixth of Scotland became James the first of Scotland, Ireland and England so technically Ireland and England were subsumed under the Scottish crown.

The P 14 was designed at a British arsenal which happened to be located in England. To call British people English in national terms is like calling all Americans Texans rather than Americans.

The English are a part of Britain just as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are no more no less.

The common language of Britain is English but that no more makes all the people of Britain English than it makes all the people of America English because they speak English also.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I knew I'd be sorry. My head hurts.

[Scharfschuetze]

The common language of Britain is English but that no more makes all the people of Britain English than it makes all the people of America English because they speak English also.

I was just in Scotland a month or so ago, and I hardly understood a thing. Supposedly they were speaking English, but I could only understand it after several drams of Scotch.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

That was a rewarding approach, Sharfschutz. I had a couple of glasses of Burgundy, and now I am beginning to comprehend.

It would seem that everyone in the U.K. is British, but not all are English.

The rifle was designed at a British arsenal located in England, but is not of English design, although the English are British.

I'm not clear (yet--but perhaps with another libation!) as to why, since everyone including the English came in under the Scottish Crown, everyone
in the U.K. isn't Scottish. Maybe everyone "over there" is actually Scottish, but there are Scots who are English. I think the headache is coming back.

Texas is a really bad example to try to draw a parallel with, because most Texans believe that they are in fact a separate country. They have a saying which I've run across numerous times, "If you ain't from Texas you ain't s--t." And, they actually believe it.

So, let's take an example from the more homogenous part of the U.S.A.---Massachusetts, where-in used to be located Springfield Armory. In the American-English it would not be incorrect to state either that the M1903 Springfield Rifle was designed and produced at an American Armory or at a Massachusetts Armory, or by Americans or by People from Massachusetts. I'm tip toeing around Massachusettsians, because I don't know what they call themselves. I guess we approach this description of "where and what" somewhat differently, and I believe that since our nations diverged some 240 years ago differences in how we express ourselves and describe things have changed at least somewhat. But you know, sometimes things require a blanket description. I think saying that the P-14 was an English design is good enough for usage here. If one desires to say that it was a British design produced in an English arsenal, then perhaps one needs to describe what the ethnicity of the British designers was. But over here, since we're all Americans (except Texans) saying the M1903 was an American design produced in an American arsenal would work, because we're all Americans (yeah--Texans also). Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding and error from the British/English viewpoint.

Moving on, Thank You, Dutchman, for the photo of the ERA P-14. As stated in my original post, mine have the letters E and W preceding the serial number. Since they were produced for the British about a century ago and subsequently shipped off to far flung posts of the Empire they have doubtless been refinished. Perhaps those that I've seen that had a serial no. only had the ERA buffed off or ground off as it is well above the serial no. on your example. As mine are presently in storage I'm not going to dig them out for a photo, but clearly remember the location of the letters, and being located right in front of the number the letters would be much more difficult to remove. I suppose somewhere there is a really comprehensive book on the P-14, but I've never encountered one and have less interest in it than some other rifles for which I've spent significant dollars for books.

The P-14 question seems to come up about every 3 months or so, and I think I've answered it for the last time. You more knowledgeable fellows need to jump in and help these guys.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It is all very simple, and of an importance people often exaggerate. A person born in Scotland is both Scottish and British, and generally feels the opposite of whatever anyone tells him to feel. I don't know the reactions of the Englisnman similarly instructed, except that he would very reasonably consider it his own business. Almost nobody in the UK or Ireland is of pure Celtic, Anglo-Saxon or Norman blood. A few Scots are still pure Pakistani, but we are working on that.

About all I know about the individuals who designed the P14 Enfield was that from the greatest contributor, Paul Mauser, onwards, they weren't me. I have worked on them a bit, though.

Attachment 173397


I always ask in any assemblage of P14 enthusiasts or near-enthusiasts if anyone has seen an inspector's stamp with JR or some part of JCWR. Difficulties in meeting specification in the American factories were ironed out by John Reith, later the Lord Reith who invented the BBC, who got the job by being shot in the head and shoulder by a German sniper on the Brickstacks at Cuinchy, writing a note to tell his family he was perfectly all right, walking to the dressing station with alarmed stretcher-bearers following behind, and leaving hospital to see "The Birth of a Nation" three weeks later.

He was a regular speaker at meetings aimed at persuading America that getting into the war was a good thing, and as a Presbyterian fundamentalist six and a half feet tall with a horrifying scar, made quite an impression. I know he had a personal stamp, because he used it to mark cartridges which he gave to impressionable young American ladies. They may have been less impressed than he thought, as one of his strengths was obliviousness on principle to what people thought of him. I remember him on TV in the 1950s, saying that television was the most socially destructive force we knew.

It is only fair to mention that he was Scottish.

[LAGS]

Funny you had mentioned Pakistani.
Back in the '80s Col. Jawad Umar of the Pakistani army used the P-14 action to create what they call a Dangar Rifle, which means Animistic in Urdu.
It is a very accurate long range rifle that is used today.
I intend to build one someday, and use it in 1000 yard competition.
The rifles action is perfect for the 7.62 x 54 rimmed cartridge, and they used surplus Russian 7.62x 54 Chrome Lined machine gun barrels turned down to a Bull Barrel configuration for the accuracy.
I havent spoken to Col. Umar in like 5 years, but I intend to try out his design someday, when I can find a good P-14 action that is not a collectors piece, and not some Hack Job reserected from a welded together Drill Rifle that someone salvaged.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Well, P-14s are very fine rifles indeed. However, I can understand why the British decided to stay with the Lee Enfield, if for no other reason than magazine capacity and speed of operating the action. But they (the P-14s) are very rugged and bear all the positive attributes of the Mauser '98 plus the fact that the rear sight was a definite improvement, a situation later remedied with the No.4 rifle. Given that so many were produced one would expect to encounter them more often, but I suspect that to this day there are many gathering dust in the backwater arsenals and warehouses of the world. I suspect that the days of the surplus bolt action rifle are rapidly closing, what with the current anti-gun sentiments that seem to be growing. An awful lot of bolt actions were imported in the '50s-'90s, but not so many since, and I'm sure they're not going to allow the importation of semi-autos. The powers that be won't even allow our M1 Garands and Carbines to come home from S. Korea. On the plus side, the ones that are here and remain in as-issued condition can only increase in value. If offered another nice condition P-14 I certainly wouldn't pass it up!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A rifle stamped DP for drill purpose can mean about anything, from one destructively deactivated to one in perfectly functional condition. Rifles relegated to that status while they could have been useful military hardware were mostly pretty badly dilapidated. But one rifle I much regret letting get past me was a DP Long Lee-Enfield which I now realize would almost certainly have shot rather well. In my youth I overestimated the effect of visible but not great throat erosion.

The P14 contract was slow to come on stream, and by that time not only had the Lee-Enfield factories managed to cope with demand, but conditions in France and Belgium demanded an unjammable rifle more than a highly accurate one. A few P14s came to France as sniper rifles, although the scopes and mounts used make authentification of a an issue sniper rifle even more difficult than with the much-faked Second World War No4T. Most went to various parts of the Empire, and while Indian troops performed well on the Western Front, the combination of cold and humidity caused most of them to be removed to warmer climes. I don't think many P14s came back to Europe that way. Then in the 1920s rifles outnumbered regulars, and everybody knew nobody would be stupid enough to start another major war.

So there is a good chance that many perfectly good P14s were designated DP.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Well, P-14s are very fine rifles indeed. However, I can understand why the British decided to stay with the Lee Enfield, if for no other reason than magazine capacity and speed of operating the action. But they (the P-14s) are very rugged and bear all the positive attributes of the Mauser '98 plus the fact that the rear sight was a definite improvement, a situation later remedied with the No.4 rifle.

Well, not quite all. Like the Springfield it has all the positive attributes of the Mauser 93, but lacks the internal stop-ring of the 98, which strengthens the receiver. Both of them depend on better metallurgy than the Mauser 98, which has a very good record despite commonly being made of case-hardened mild steel. But this doesn't reflect on the properly made Enfields and Springfields, which constituted the great majority, and a greater majority of those which have survived.

General Hatcher considered the P14 design the best rifle of World War 1, and pays tribute to the well-protected rear aperture sight, without which American military rifles might be sighted like the Kalashnikovs in the present day. I know that sight would greatly improve my shooting, but then my eyes weren't of military standard fifty years ago, and haven't got any better. The focusing ability of a twenty-year-old infantryman makes open sights a lot more effective.

The original P13 design, for a .276 cartridge it wouldn't have taken much development work to make every bit as good as the 7mm. Remington Magnum, would have been a superb design for a war like the Boer War of 1899. As it happens, when some idiot started two more which involved mud, deserts, jungles and the use of short-term soldiers with an increasing burden of things besides musketry to learn.

In a way it was a bit like the redesign of the Martini for a .402 cartridge and segmental rifling, which really would have been as good as black powder cartridges for a lot of long-range rapid fire can be. But a little procrastination saved Britain from a mass issue of the last single-shot military rifle in the world. It compares with Austria-Hungary and Switzerland, which produced masterpieces they almost immediately had to replace, or France with a tube-magazine they should probably have replaced sooner. Being moated with water can buy you time for what Churchill called a masterly policy of inactivity.

[725]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the masterful rendition of banter they way it should be!! It was a joy to read the English vs British sparing couched in observable respect and humor. Refreshing after the deafening start of our political season.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Interesting observations, yours. I have little more to contribute, except to say that your earlier reference to glassy hard metal in Eddystones is apparently true, but like the low number Springfields that blow up, the problem is so uncommon that I've never encountered it. They seem to be very serviceable as long as they're left alone and not drilled and tapped or re-barreled. Nevertheless, I've done both to several and never caused or encountered cracks. But I've heard and read about it enough to believe it. As for the strength of the Mausers, it is derived from the sandwich of softer steel inside a hard outer layer, which gives both strength and flexibility. A carbide drill bit is a great asset when drilling and tapping any of these rifles to break through that hard surface.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The number is so small and accounts are anecdotal and often at second hand, but I have the impression that those cracks most often occurred when the original barrel was unscrewed. They are usually done up very tight, but unlike a really tight Mauser 98 that tightness is barrel shoulder on the front of the action, and can be relieved by making a shallow cut all around, as close to the receiver as you can get.

Mild steel doesn't burn as easily as high carbon ones, but the user 98 simply has more of it, due to the large outer diameter of the receiver ring. I think they needed that to get away so well with such simple metallurgy.