P-14 .303 British sporter

[blixen]

I've come across a P-14 "Enfield" in .303 that's been reasonably well sporterized. I've read that the letter at the beginning of the serial no. indicates if it was made at the Winchester, Rem. or Eddystone factories. This one is engraved on the breech ring with an oval and R E inside. Any help appreciated.

Also, I have a No.1 and No.4 Enfield and I wonder if the P-14 had closer tolerances in the chamber because it was U.S. made?

[lefty o]

thats a remington made rifle. you dont have to worry about excess headspace like you do with a lee enfield. the P14/1917's are very strong actions.

[bruce drake]

I own a Winchester-made P14 and its chamber is noticeably smaller than my two No4s when you compare fired cases from each rifle.

What would have been a liability in the muddy trenches of WWI is an asset to the shooter of today as the P14s don't stretch the brass near as much as the loser chambers of the Mil-Spec 303Brit rifles. Those rifles were often built with looser tolerances to allow a faster production rate to outfit their military.

Bruce

[John Allen]

The P14's are great actions.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I've got several in my collection, but none are marked like yours. A W123456 would be Winchester, R123456 would be Remington, and E123456 would be Eddystone, a government built factory leased by Remington. Yours looks like it might be a fairly low number and perhaps the markings were changed in production, but I would speculate that yours was made by Eddystone (Remington Eddystone). Is there a letter in front of the numbers? In any event, a good rifle and a good find.

[blixen]

Is there a letter in front of the numbers? I haven't got a close look at it yet. The serial no. is five digits, 12345, with no letter. I hope to handle it this weekend, if it isn't sold. It would be another addition to my motley collection of military sporters. My Enfields shoot jacketed very well, but give me a lot of frustration with cast. I've always been curious how well a .303 with a tight chamber would do.

[enfield]

tolerances don't get much closer that a Lee Enfield chamber ( HA HA )

[lefty o]

again, no speculation, its a remington!

[gew98]

I love Patt'14's !. The winchesters had the most problems with fit and interchangeability... yet the brits kept them on hand due to brand name . Skennerton's book on the developement and manufacture of the Patt14 is written in an overload of information boring sort... but hardly a detail omitted. Anyhow I have never met a Model 1917 that could best a Patt'14 in accuracy. I've seen and owned a couple Mod 17's with green tinge to their stocks that had issues of warping that really farked up accuracy .

[Shooter6br]

Mine was sporterized. 5 groove barrel. 30-06 .310.5 to .311 due to the rifling I use a 314299 clone mold (Accurate molds ) with cast108936

[Bad Ass Wallace]

I have a Remington P14 in 303 Epps Improved, a fine hunting rifle!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/Picture-4.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/Picture-4.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/P14Sporter_C.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/P14Sporter_C.jpg.html)

[bruce drake]

BAW,

Is that a picture of the shells in the process of fireforming? That middle one looks a little FUGLY.

Bruce

[swheeler]

The middle version looks like he created a false shoulder, annealed and ready to fireform, that way he headspaces off the shoulder.

[bruce drake]

I do the same with my dedicated #4 Mk1 brass by using a 8mm Mauser sizing die to bump the neck up and then I neck size the brass for specifically for each #4. They are just a little more uniform with the die ;)

[JeffinNZ]

Generous tolerances Bruce. Generous. Loose is such an ugly word.....

[gew98]

Generous tolerances Bruce. Generous. Loose is such an ugly word.....
And a generous amount of beer went through my 'loose' nose with your comment. Love ya man.

[bruce drake]

"loose" is only bad when someone is talking about your sister or your mother...because she might then be considered too "generous"
;)

[303Guy]

:mrgreen: I haven't laughed for nearly six months! Good one.

[blixen]

Just got done trying to load up some .303's for my generous No.4 sporter. Lee 185gr. as-cast at .316" boolits. SR4759. When i have time to mess with this old Sante Fe sporter--I'm trying for 2 moa accuracy on a consistent basis and getting closer.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

The middle version looks like he created a false shoulder, annealed and ready to fireform, that way he headspaces off the shoulder.
Give that man first prize! Necked up to 8mm then form the new shoulder gave me the best results when fire forming

[303Guy]

A 303 Epps Improved in a P14 would just about equal a 30-06 would it not? Has anyone rechambered a P14 to 7.62x54R?

[bruce drake]

You mean 7.62x54R? Might have some feeding issues with the thicker cartridge in the Enfield magazine. In a P-14, I'd be okay with converting if I needed to put a fresh barrel on it but Criterion is getting ready to release new production barrels for the P14 very soon.

[robertbank]

I have to get my hands on a P 14. I love my Longbranch but the P 14 might be a project worth pursuing.

Take Care

Bob

[303Guy]

You mean 7.62x54R? Might have some feeding issues with the thicker cartridge in the Enfield magazine.Yes, I meant 7.62x54R. It's that bigger case head that I was wondering about.

[Multigunner]

The P-14 also had problems with poorly seasoned wood, resulting in large numbers of P-14 rifles developing deep rust under the wood and those rifles being sold off. The tern used was "brought to produce".There were not enough trained personel left after the Spanish Flu and massive demobilization to properly clean up and pack away rifles for long term storage. Rifles with bad stocks but little or no rust were restocked using a stock very similar to the M1917 stock but with different finger grooves.M1917 Rifles that were never issued during WW1 were packed away and suffered little degradation, other M1917 rifles required some refurbishment and those sent to Britian and Canada were described as "as new".The British had quite a problem with poorly seasoned wood when manufacturing the No.4 rifles. Rifles sighted in at the factory could lose their zero within a month at the front. They finally chose to leave a .01 airgap at the butt socket since no contact was better than uneven contact.They later experimented with a laminated stock like those the Germans had developed due to shortage of seasoned wood.There was even an engineered wood No.4 stock made of blocks of wood glued together under pressure. Those are rare and strange looking.Over all the M1917 is a fine rifle and suffered no worse from poor quality wood than any other wartime manufactured bolt action rifles.The major reason for the "generous" chamber of Lee Enfield rifles was not battlefield dirt, it was the abomnible quality of much of the wartime manufactured .303 ammo.Case dimensions, especially rim thicknesses were all over the map.The RFC/RAF contracted for their ammunition from manufacturers with a proven track record for staying within specifications.The P-14 and other rifles based in large part on the 1893 Mauser bolt had terrific camming action that had no problem with forcing a dirty round home in the chamber. All including the Lee Enfields can have a problem with extracting a dirty case once its been fired.With a P-14, Mauser or Springfield the camming action was strong enough to rip through the rim of a solidly stuck case, making it necessary to poke the case out with a cleaning rod. The Lee Enfield extractor was more likely to pull over the rim, if it did you had plenty of clearance to pry the case out with a pocket knife or bayonet point under the rim. The lower chamber pressure of the .303 cartridge compared to the .30-06 or 7.92 contributed to ease of operation.

[blixen]

Fascinating, Multigunner. Where'd you get that info?

[skeettx]

My P14 is now in 45-70 and a cast bullet try-out platform !

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/MVC-003S24.JPG

Sweet!!

[Multigunner]

All that information is available if you look for it. The problem with No.4 stock sets was written of by EGB Reynolds.Many P-14 rifles that had issues were sold off to gunmakers in Belgium and other European sources and some were rebarreled or rebored to 7.92X57.The P-14 was far more accurate than the SMLE or the No.4 and was the main sniper rifle of the British early in WW2.A proper scope mount was not available till late in WW1 so few if any scoped P-14's were used in that war, but Winchester made p-14 rifles fitted with a fine elevation adjustment rear sight may have been used by sharpshooters.The British found the Winchester to be the more accurate of these rifles.

[robertbank]

Fascinating, Multigunner. Where'd you get that info?

From wikepedia of course.

My regular issue 1950 #4 Longbranch with a scope on it puts 5 of my cast rds in an inch at 100 yards with a 4x Bushnell on it. The Brits may have used the P 14 as a sniper rifle but the Canadians used their Longbranch #4s. The Brits used their own #4's. I thought the P 14's were mostly issued to the Home Guard during WW11 but who is to say.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

From wikepedia of course. Post a link to any wikipedia page that has the information on the problems with poorly seasoned wood for the No.4 and P-14 rifles.The Canadians did not have many if any P-14 rifles to convert as sniper rifles. Canada had prefered the Ross as a sniper rifle despite its reliability issues. By WW2 Ross rifles were obsolete though they saw some use aboard ships.Australia used a few Sniper versions of the P-14 as well as their heavy barrel scoped Lithgow rifles.The P-14 was used to some extent by the British early on, mainly due to the terrific losses in rifles and other weaponry at Dunkirk. These old WW1 rifles did the job nicely.Between wars the P-14 was also the subject of experiments in building a lightweight short rifle. Design work on the Barrel contour of the No.4 rifle utilised P-14 actions as a test bed.The P-14 also made a name for itself as a long range match rifle.Some work was done on developing a Sniper rifle based on the M1917, but the USMC Springfield 1903A1 with Unertal scope was still the best Sniper Rifle of WW2.PSJust exactly when were the No.4(T) rifles first issued. Seems to me several years of warfare had passed before the first No.4 (T) rifles were ever fielded.

[robertbank]

Multi the #4 was used by Canadian troops in WW11 and selected Longbranch produced rifles were used as sniper rifles. No Ross rifles were used by Canadian troops in battle in WW11 and the Ross gave way to the LE Mke 3 in WW1. The #4 (T) Longbranch were in service during Normandy and on to Germany. Not certain if they saw service in North Africa, but were in Sicily and Italy before the Normandy landings. Assuming we had snipers attached to our infantry units in Sicily and Italy it would have been the rifle used. The 1st Cdn Division in England in 1940 had Longbranch rifles so I would assume any snipers would have had them there then. My wife has a picture of her Dad on the coast with a LE #4. He had 20 rds on him at then time with orders to stand fast. He often laughed at the suggestion when the topic came up at home. The picture is of a Canadian sniper taken I believe in Ortona, Italy. Uncle lost an eye there - served with Loyal Edmonton Regiment.

Canadian troops in Hong Kong were armed with #4's when it fell in Dec. 1941. The war started in Sept 1939.


Take Care

Bob

[PAT303]

From wikepedia of course.

My regular issue 1950 #4 Longbranch with a scope on it puts 5 of my cast rds in an inch at 100 yards with a 4x Bushnell on it. The Brits may have used the P 14 as a sniper rifle but the Canadians used their Longbranch #4s. The Brits used their own #4's. I thought the P 14's were mostly issued to the Home Guard during WW11 but who is to say.

Take Care

Bob
The British didn't use them but the Australians did,we made our own mounts and scope and they were very good rifles,trouble with them was they spent their time in the tropics that all but ruined them,we also made our own Mk111 snipers. Pat

[Multigunner]

No Ross rifles were used by Canadian troops in battle in WW11Which is why I said they "had prefered" meaning the Ross was prefered for sniping earlier on. The ross saw limited use as a training rifle and with the Home Guard during WW2. Theres never been any doubt of the Ross being far more accurate than the SMLE in standard or scoped versions.No.4 infantry rifles had been in production since the 30's, what I asked was when was the No.4 (T) first issued?There were P-14/No.3 rifles with scopes available long before the No.4 (T) rifle was available.No amount of praise of the No.4 can alter the fact that the P-14 was the most accurate rifle the British ever used as a Sniper rifle, sharpshooter rifle and as a target rifle. The one piece stock when properly seasoned was also less likely to cause loss of zero under tropical conditions.The abominable quality of most WW1 .303 ammunition is also a matter of record. Only the .303 ammunition manufactured in Canada retained any reputation for consistency in dimensions. Only the Ross and Lithgow SMLE rifles made before 1916 had any record of jamming in combat conditions. The Lightgow rifles made before 1916 had been made with bolts at maximum tolerance and receiver at minimum tolerance. This left too little space between the bolt body and boltway in the rear walls to allow for sand in the Dardenelles campaign. Those rifles were altered in the field and the factory made adjustments on any rifles not yet in service.None of the Mauser bolt actions or their clones ever had a reputation for jamming in combat. The leverages and mechanical advantages were all on the side of the forward locking actions.Also while the rimmed cartridge has some advantages, the rim can be a source of jams if debris gets between rim and breech face. With rimless cartridges any reasonable sized grit on the cartridge case body or shoulder won't prevent the action from being closed, because the camming action on locking is strong enough to indent the drawn case wall or shoulder, not so easy when its a thick solid rim.Rimmed cartridges require more clearance for reliability under combat conditions.Near as I can tell the standard chamber tolerances were the same for the P-14 as for the SMLE, the P-14 chamber was more likely to be on the low end of the tolerances and the bolt and receiver are less prone to wear of locking surfaces.After WW1 it took 15 years for the NRA UK to get permission to include the P-14 in service rifle matches, they tried so hard because the P-14 had proven it was the most accurate of any British service rifle and the SMLE while accurate if properly bedded was more likely to suffered sudden loss of zero or groupings due to bedding shifts. Thats also a matter of record.The No.4 (T) rifles also suffered from sudden loss of accuracy due to the bedding shifting under tropical conditions. This is why theres so many alternative bedding procedures for the No.4 (T).I don't think theres any reputable gunsmith, stock maker or gunmaker then or now who doesn't recognise that a one piece stock is less likely to have disasterous shifts in bedding than a two piece stock.The one piece stock is also far easier to bed properly.Since maintaining accuracy is the issue read it and weep https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.icfra.co.uk/USERIMAGES/Palma_Match_Summary_Records.pdf&sa=U&ei=wAG0U7v3D9GlqAaJ4oHIDw&ved=0CA8QFjAJOBQ&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFQfX-Qz50xz2es2OMJqQIp8dFxdAAlsoWhich rifle is this Canadian Sniper using at the Battle of Ortuna in 1943 http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111130032438/world-war-2/images/0/0a/Battle_of_Ortona_2.jpg

[gew98]

Patt'14 sure beats any springyfield with uber delicate sights and known cheap manufacture. Man I love armchair wikipediasts !.
I can pull out my flat mint 1942 Remington springy wallhanger and with tailored loads can not touch either my gorgeous ERA patt'14 or my near museum quality 1911 SMLE in accuracy.
As many Patt'14
s as I have handled and shot... I NEVER ran across one with unseasoned wood like I have on more than a handfull of occassions with the Model 1917's. Anyhow you can't stop the haters from hating.

[skeettx]

Yeah, but how do you REALLY feel about this ??
:)

[Multigunner]

As many Patt'14 s as I have handled and shot... I NEVER ran across one with unseasoned wood The British did a good job of weeding out the bad stocks during the post WW1 rebuilding program at Weedon.After nearly a century any original M1917 stock would have seasoned in place. If anything was going to warp due to seasoning it would have done so 75+years ago.
Anyhow you can't stop the haters from hating. Thats certainly true in your case.If you did not depise American firearms so much you might be able to get the same high level of performance from them that everyone else does.Try choosing your rifles with a better eye. It sounds like you have had a bunch of lemons palmed off on you. Use good quality ammo rather than 70 year old MG range pickups and stuff stored in a chicken coop since the bay of pigs.I'm still waiting for you to post evidence to back up your claim that the STEN Gun "walks away with all the prizes" at SMG competitions.I like the SMLE despite its sensitivity to bedding , and since I'm not crawling through a cane brake on a daily basis I won't be getting it soaked.History has proven that the 1903, the P-14and the M1917 are more accurate than the SMLE or the No.4 if properly bedded and fed decent ammunition. And its a proven fact that the bedding of a one piece stock remains more stable under field conditions than any two piece stock yet devised.Ever wonder why the Canadian "lightened No.4" had a one piece stock?

[PAT303]

Actually saying that the P14 or any other rifle was more accurate is a bit black and white,snipers shoot in the field not on rifle ranges,the No.4 always came last in accuracy compared to all the others but in the field it came first because after being dropped out of a plane,dragged across a field,knocked against everything and almost blown up they still shot straight,the springfields had wondering zero's and the Unertal scopes were target scopes that were damaged very easy in combat,thats straight from the men who carried them into battle.The various model '98 were excellent rifles,the ross with prismatic scopes were ordinary at best,the Mosin Nagants were as good as the No.4T's but didn't have enough scope power,the Arisaka's were the same,good rifles but fitted with underpowered scopes,this is all taken from men who used them,not wiki. Pat

[robertbank]

Actually saying that the P14 or any other rifle was more accurate is a bit black and white,snipers shoot in the field not on rifle ranges,the No.4 always came last in accuracy compared to all the others but in the field it came first because after being dropped out of a plane,dragged across a field,knocked against everything and almost blown up they still shot straight,the springfields had wondering zero's and the Unertal scopes were target scopes that were damaged very easy in combat,thats straight from the men who carried them into battle.The various model '98 were excellent rifles,the ross with prismatic scopes were ordinary at best,the Mosin Nagants were as good as the No.4T's but didn't have enough scope power,the Arisaka's were the same,good rifles but fitted with underpowered scopes,this is all taken from men who used them,not wiki. Pat

Pat you make good points. Father in Law had one attached to his Artillery Unit through North Africa, Sicily, Italy and NW Europe. The guy was from Saskatchewan. Spent the better part of five years figuring out how to better kill Germans and Italians, why the latter were in the fight. Father In Law worried about him once the war was over. The guy returned to his farm, went back to pig farming, and never picked up a rifle again. He didn't write any books either.

He carried a #4 T Longbranch

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

this is all taken from men who used them,not wiki. Pat I've run across a lot of memoirs of snipers in the past and a relative by marriage killed 16 Japanese riflemen in a single night, changing position swiftly at each shot and marking where return fire came from. He was the only survivor of his patrol.He didn't write any books either. When his mind went he lived with my aunt and uncle. His brother gave him a Springfield 1903 and each night they could hear him dry firing exactly 16 times after which he slept like a baby.The Unertal scope was used by the USMC Snipers, the USMC was not known for falling out of airplanes.While the No.4 is a good solid rifle I've replaced quite a few split and warped fore ends over the years.
after being dropped out of a plane,dragged across a field,knocked against everything and almost blown up they still shot straight,I would have to put that down to gross exageration.The No.4 was little if any more sturdy than the SMLE and according to Hesketh Pritchard few SMLE rifles retained any high degree of accuracy after a few months in the trenches.A friend has a battle damaged No.32 scope he was given many years ago. The scope is still usuable though the horizon wire broke free at one end. The mount is not usuable, whatever hit it ripped it free from the pads and bent the heck out of it. I suspect an aircrash or vehicle wreck.Martin pegler interviewed a British Sniper about his experiances during the Falkland campaign. His L42 rifle ( a No.4 (T) action converted to 7.62 NATO) lost its zero and became so difficult to cycle that he discarded it and instead used a captured ArgentineFAL for the rest of the battle. Since the fight took place in a cold drizzle I suspect wet ammo caused excessive back thrust on the bolt, and probably warped the bolt body.What makes a sniper rifle is the ability to engage targets sucessfully far beyond the range of the standard infantry rifle.There are recorded one shot kills with the Unertal equiped 1903A1 at 1200 yards during WW2 and at least one WW1 USMC sniper dropped six German gunners one after the other at 1400 yards using a Scoped 1903. Thats on record, he received the Silver Star for that action.Whats not on record is the type of scope he used. Several scopes were available from 5X-8X. The Germans prefered 6X and up, and used a number of different models of scopes.

[robertbank]

Good thing the #4's were never in the Trenches then isn't it.

Aside from the fact the Argentinians has select fire FAL's while the Brits had Semi Auto only what would be the attraction of an Argentinian FAL over the Brits version for sniper purposes?

For killing the enemy at 200 yards or less (Urban Environment) I doubt there is a nickel difference in practical value among any of the rifles Pat listed. Aside from waisted spit why the debate rages on is beyond me. For absolute fire power from a bolt action rifle the Mke 111 or #4 rifle reigned supreme. There is no argument there Multi. Have enough of them you win with any rifle. On pure kills alone the Russian snipers accounted for more Germans than anyone else but then they had a head start. It probably would not do well at Camp Perry but the Germans were not at Camp Perry they were in Russia in 1941.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Aside from the fact the Argentinians has select fire FAL's Perhaps because the Argies scoped the FAL for use as sniper rifles. The book excerpt did not make it plain whether the captured FAL was scoped or not.Also its very likely that the other British troops had their hands full and weren't in a position to give up their own rifle. This was during a very hard fought engagement. You can look up the book and read it for yourself. If I remember the title I'll post it and if the excerpt is still on the net I'll post a link.When No.4 (T) rifles were rebarreled to 7.62 some failed reproof at the higher pressures. These failures would usually involve the bolt warping and binding in the boltway. They did not attempt to repair these and try again with a new bolt they simply discarded them.The NRA UK has mandated that No.4 rifles converted to 7.62 be reproofed to meet CIP standards for the .308 cartridge. The modern standards are set higher than the 20 Long ton standard in effect when the L42 rifles were in use.The M80 Ball and the equivalent 144 gr Radway green cartridge generate a working pressure of 48,000 CUP same as the Mk8Z cartridge. British snipers prefered to use the Mk8z cartridge for long range use when they could get it, but they could not always get it.As few as 200 rounds of the standard MkVII ammo could erode the throat of a No.4 to the point that the rifle could no longer handle Mk8z ammunition with any degree of accuracy.And the Russians lost 20,000,000 in that war. The Eastern front was the most target rich environment of WW2. The USMC was fighting the Japanese , who were far better at concealment that the average German or Russian. Most fighting in the Pacific took place in dense jungle but also in mountains blasted barren by naval gunfire and airstrikes. Even a two story building would have been a remarkable find, much less a modern city.Also the exceptionally high level of combat marksmanship of the rank and file Marines meant far fewer of the enemy were left for the snipers to deal with.At 200 yards a scope would be unecessary, in fact it would just get in the way. In WW1 USMC riflemen were dropping Germans at 600-700 yards without the use of scopes.Rate of fire can be an advantage , which is why every nation that could afford to had developed autoloading infantry rifles by the late thirties.The Japanese even tried to copy the Garand rifle.The bolt action rifle was on its way out. Its only saving graces were that most bolt action rifles were a bit more accurate than comparable autoloaders and in extreme cold a bolt action can be operated without lubricants that could gum up in sub zero weather.The Canadian ranger use the No.4 while the Danish arctic patrols continued to use the M1917 rifle until they replaced it with a clone of the Winchester Model 70. Those bolt action rifles that could maintain a very high level of accuracy under severe conditions soldiered on for several more wars and modern bolt action sniper rifles continue to carry the torch. The only complaint Carlos Hathcock had about his Springfield was that after decades of hard use the bore was finely pitted its full length reducing its accuracy to 2 MOA. The No.4 (T) was not a 2 MOA rifle when fresh from Holland and Holland.PSBritian entered WW2 on september 3rd 1939. The first No.4 (T) rifles made from the early trials rifles were built in Febuary of 1942. thats a couple of years right there with many months before enough No.4 (T) rifles were turned out for these to be issued in any numbers. So the Scoped P-14 served as the only serviceable sniper rifle available in any large numbers for around three years of the most desperate days of WW2.Had the standard P-14 not been declared obsolete , though still listed in small arms manuals as the No.3 rifle, and sufficient spare parts had been available , they might well have never bothered developing the No.4 (T).They lucked out with the No.32 scope which had originally been intended for use on the BREN Gun, which is why its as sturdy as it is.The British were stymied in attempts to develop a autoloading infantry rifle by the rimmed .303 cartridge and rapid bore erosion of cordite when used in rapid fire.Of all the cartridges the Browning Automatic rifle was adapted to only the .303 test example suffered excessive bore erosion, burning out the barrel within 1,000 rnds. The British bought up a few BAR in .30-06 mainly for the Homeguard though some may have been used by Commandos since a large number of BREN Guns had been lost at Dunkirk and early production models of the BREN had proven to be vulnerable to sand till they loosened the tolerances at the factory and modifed existing BREN Guns.

[PAT303]

I've run across a lot of memoirs of snipers in the past and a relative by marriage killed 16 Japanese riflemen in a single night, changing position swiftly at each shot and marking where return fire came from. He was the only survivor of his patrol.He didn't write any books either. When his mind went he lived with my aunt and uncle. His brother gave him a Springfield 1903 and each night they could hear him dry firing exactly 16 times after which he slept like a baby.The Unertal scope was used by the USMC Snipers, the USMC was not known for falling out of airplanes.While the No.4 is a good solid rifle I've replaced quite a few split and warped fore ends over the years.I would have to put that down to gross exageration.The No.4 was little if any more sturdy than the SMLE and according to Hesketh Pritchard few SMLE rifles retained any high degree of accuracy after a few months in the trenches.A friend has a battle damaged No.32 scope he was given many years ago. The scope is still usuable though the horizon wire broke free at one end. The mount is not usuable, whatever hit it ripped it free from the pads and bent the heck out of it. I suspect an aircrash or vehicle wreck.Martin pegler interviewed a British Sniper about his experiances during the Falkland campaign. His L42 rifle ( a No.4 (T) action converted to 7.62 NATO) lost its zero and became so difficult to cycle that he discarded it and instead used a captured ArgentineFAL for the rest of the battle. Since the fight took place in a cold drizzle I suspect wet ammo caused excessive back thrust on the bolt, and probably warped the bolt body.What makes a sniper rifle is the ability to engage targets sucessfully far beyond the range of the standard infantry rifle.There are recorded one shot kills with the Unertal equiped 1903A1 at 1200 yards during WW2 and at least one WW1 USMC sniper dropped six German gunners one after the other at 1400 yards using a Scoped 1903. Thats on record, he received the Silver Star for that action.Whats not on record is the type of scope he used. Several scopes were available from 5X-8X. The Germans prefered 6X and up, and used a number of different models of scopes.
Posting up about a couple of broken No.4's to prove they are not robust doesn't proove anything,the mounts are stronger than any other rifle and the scope was designed to be fitted on the Bren gun,not a target rifle.An Australian sniper shot over 30 communist soldiers from 1300m across a valley in Korea with a AO scoped SMLE rifle,thats been verified also,there's a reason why the LE and the PU scoped MN rifles lasted so long in service,because they are battle proven,the Unertal/03 got shown the door pretty quickly,as did the prismatic scoped Ross. Pat

[PAT303]

Shooting out the throat of a No.4 in 200 rounds????.The L42 was the only rifle to pass the field test in the Britiah trials in '84,as one of the testers put it ''It shot the rest into a cocked hat'',need I say more. Pat

[Multigunner]

Ever wonder why so many Enfields can't handle boat tail bullets.EGB Reynolds ran the tests himself.In large part due to the wide variations in bore sizes and the fact that boat tail bullets don't bump up very well if at all, any significant erosion to the throat allows excessive blowby that over heats the jacket and erodes the base of the Bullet.In one test firing an otherwise very accurate No.4 keyholed every single shot of Mk8z at 200 yards.The Vickers barrels bore markings to prevent use of MkVIIZ and Mk8Z ammuntion in a barrel that had previously been used with MkVII ammunition. Even the oil hardened bores of the Vickers barrels were eroded by cordite.Even during WW1 Snipers prefered to use MkVIIZ exclusively if they could get it, which was very seldom since it had been intended for use in Vickers guns to improve bore life. The best MkVIIz ammo was made in Canada using US manufacture IMR powders. Unfortunately Canada could not produce enough of it.The more rapid the firing the fewer the number of rounds it takes to burn out the throat. In cases of very rapid fire such as extended mad minutes a SMLE throat could be eroded badly enough within 500 rounds that the rifle would no longer be capable of any degree of long range accuracy even with standard MkVII ammo, and extremely inaccurate with MkVIIz.You could still get "minute of man" accuracy at close to medium range but Hesketh Prichard recommended that snipers not attempt head shots at ranges greater than 400 yards since every shot wasted was one less shot they could count on. The bore life of the SMLE (T) when using MkVII ammunition was stated to be 1500 rounds , after that the rifles could not group well enough to keep its rounds within a nine inch circle at any respectable ranges. Some SMLE (T) rifles lost long range accuracy within 600 rounds.The SMLE (T) and the No.4 (T) could maintain a reasonable degree of accuracy for many thousands of rounds if only MkVIIz and MK8z ammunition were used exclusively.The information on the bore life of the SMLE (T) came from "Sniping in France" written by Hesketh Prichard who was the major authority on sniping during WW2 and along with Lord Cottesloe developed the sniper schools that turned out so many great snipers. Even US Snipers went through their training programs.As for the L42, so long as the 144 gr Radway Green cartridge was used the rifle could be expected to last quite awhile in service. The cooler burning powders and tightly toleranced Hammer Forged heavy barrel were great improvements.Still when the Metropolitan Police leased L42 rifles from the MOD the rifles they received did not pass any rigorous examinaion by police armorers, with one third being declared degraded and unsafe to fire. This resulted in the development of the Enfield Enforcer line of rifles built from the ground up as .308 rifles and proofed to a much higher standard. Over half of the components sorted through for these rifles were discarded as substandard, only the very best parts were used for the Police rifles, which is why they are exempt from the NRA UK reproofing requirements so long as they are in unaltered condition.The Mounting of the No.32 scope is very rugged but it is not invulnerable to abuse. To assume that it is would have lead to unexpected difficulties when a rifle was subjected to battle damage.These rifles were issued with a sturdy transport chest with steel storage box for the scopes for very good reasons. They knew that no optically sighted weapon was immune to abuse and unlike iron sighted weapons damage to the scope sight or mount would not be easily discerned by visual inspection. Only testfiring could reveal damage to the optical sights.

[Multigunner]

An Australian sniper shot over 30 communist soldiers from 1300m across a valley in Korea with a AO scoped SMLE rifle,thats been verified alsoAccording to the sniper himself the range was "about 1000 meters" 1000 meters is 1093 yards.Miscalculation or the story growing in the telling?
It was late winter, early 1951. He followed the same routine he had dozens of times. At dawn he crawled into the open, forward and to one side of the Australian line. He found a depression away from any landmark or reference point - "never get behind a tree or a big rock" - and fired an incendiary round across the valley so he could adjust his rifle sights to the distance, about 1000 metres. Since he chose not to take position near any landmark confirming the range after the fact would not be possible.Also the sniper says due to recoil he lost sight of his targets and never saw any of them fall . Only way to be certain his shots did the deed was to autopsy the dead men and do a forensic examination of the bulletshttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/1082831474340.html In any case the accuracy of a well tuned custom heavy barrel Lithgow does not improve the accuracy record of the standard barrel SMLE (T) or the No.4 (T) or testify to the suitability of the No.32 3.5X scope for long range sniping.The USMC sniper killing off Japanese gun crews at 1200 yards was witnessed and range confirmed by an artillery range finder. The Marines used the range finders because they prefered to know exactly how much to hold over.Many snipers have made kills that could not be positively confirmed. Carlos Hathcock's score might well be three times that of the number of confirmed kills.PsThe difference between the claimed 1300 meters and the 1000 meters the sniper himself estimated the range to be reminds me of the claimed 1100 meter killing of a Russian general by German sniper Mätthaus Hertzenauer. When asked Hertzenauer stated that the longest shot he ever tried was at a standing soldier at a range of 1000 meters and that he was unsure whether or not he hit his man.Sometimes propaganda plays a part in this sort of claim, and some claims are offered up without attribution and grow in the telling. The Sniper himself is the best judge of the range of any shot. If the australian sniper set his sights at 1000 meters then at that range an extra 300 meters of bullet drop would have resulted in a clean miss. Not to mention transonic buffeting of the .303 bullet as it lost velocity at that range.Thats why Marine Snipers prefered to establish the range before shooting not afterwards. Fewer wasted shots that way.Earlier on they used a hand held "Range Card" or "Range Rule" (if I remember the terminology correctly), during WW2 optical artillery range finders were available. During the island campaigns aerial recon had allowed the drawing of very detailed maps of all the significant landmarks with carefully measured ranges. The Sniper could tell about how far he was from most targets by knowing his map co-ordinates and then use the range finder to get an exact reading.BTW The 8X Unertal scope remained in use through the Vietnam war. When the 1903A1 rifles began to wear out after three wars the Unertal scopes were remounted on the new Winchester and Remington sniper rifles that replaced them.

[muskeg13]

Here's mine. Sorry about the picture quality. Eddystone action, Winchester barrel w/mirror bore. Made to resemble a Remington Model 30.

109668

109669

109667

[Multigunner]

Looks good.Who did the work?IIRC BSA converted some P-14 and M1917 rifles to sporter configuration.

[muskeg13]

Who did the work?

Multiple contributors. When I bought the barreled action, it was minus the sights, with the rear ears already removed. I got the stock off ebay, shaped the schnabel, cleaned the checkering and replaced the deteriorated recoil pad. The stock is actually 2 piece, made from a military forward portion with a replacement buttstock. The joint is somewhat blended by the wrist checkering. The forend checkering is 2 panels inletted where the original finger grooves were. I installed a reshaped military front sight with the ears removed and a Redfield Model 70 receiver sight (thus the stock inletting). The current rear sight, marked "Christy," attaches to the bolt stop/ejector assembly. I was unimpressed with the initial accuracy and trigger, so I also did glass bedding and installed a Dayton-Traister trigger. I haven't shot it since the upgrades, but by moving the rear peep 2.5" closer to my eye, I can sight it now without glasses.

[Multigunner]

The stock is actually 2 piece, made from a military forward portion with a replacement buttstockThats a method commonly used by the Finns when sporterizing the Mosin nagant.

[gew98]

Shooting out the throat of a No.4 in 200 rounds????.The L42 was the only rifle to pass the field test in the Britiah trials in '84,as one of the testers put it ''It shot the rest into a cocked hat'',need I say more. Pat
Pat I feel for you...it's a waste of time and bandwith dealing with this wikipedia troll. It's no small wonder why most of the military collector oriented forums on the net banned this fella.Like I said haters gonna hate.

[Multigunner]

Gew 98 you are way off base.The facts were recorded by those who knew far more about the subject than you will ever know.It does not require a great deal of erosion to destroy long range accuracy. Not too many years ago a number of magnum caliber modern sniper rifles were trashed when someone (probably much like yourself) misunderstood the manual that said optimum accuracy required a sixty round break in period. He then took the rifles out and fired sixty rounds through each as fast as he could cycle the action. The result was the group sizes increased to the point that the rifles had to be sent back to be rebarreled.Rapid fire such as the Mad Minute is very hard on bores. The British determined that firing more than 25 shots per minute would greatly accelerate throat erosion. Luckily despite the occasional record performance the average rate of fire during the mad minute was 15 rounds per minute.Extended fire fights where hundreds of rounds might be fired in a few hours also took its toll on rifle bores.The Mk8z bullet has a step before the rear taper begins. This was intended to improve sealing and reduce blow by in oversized bores with worn throats. This worked after a fashion, some modern boatail bullets can be found with this sort of step, but when cordite ate up the throat the boat tail bullet could not bump up to provide a proper seal. Trying to explain to you the effects of excessive blowby would be fruitless, you don't have even a basic understanding of internal balistics.Anything I state here is for the use of those who can actually understand it.So long as only flat based bullets with lead exposed at the base were used coupled with the over the charge card wadding then accuracy was not too bad, though they recognized that grouping any better than four MOA was unlikely, thats according to the British Small Arms Training manuals of the WW2 period. When Reynolds ran his tests after many complaints of poor accuracy when Mk8Z ammunition was substituted for MkVII due to logistic problems he found that a No.4 that had proven exceptionally accurate with MkVII ammo, producing groups of two MOA, would keyhole at every shot when MK8z was used. His estimate was that it took as little as 200 rounds of MkVII to erode the throat to the point that precision accuracy with boat tail bullets was not possible.Use of boat tail bullets with cordite had never been sucessful. The base taper precluding use of the over the charge card. the step or flange could not completely seal the bullet to the bore.They had determined that during testing in the early thirties before the Mk8Z was standardized.If you ever bothered to read the questions posed by those seeking information on the use of boat tail bullets in .303 handloads you'd discover that a great many Enfields that handle flat based bullets well will exhibit extremely poor accuracy when boat tail bullets are used.Being limited to use of flat based bullets means that when used for extreme range shooting transonic buffeting will seriously effect accuracy and terminal performance. If this were not a proven fact they would never have developed the Mk8 bullet. The Mk8 extended the effective range of the Vickers gun by around one thousand yards.If one has a Enfield with mimimum spec bore and no noticable erosion boat tail bullets can be used, greatly improving long range accuracy.Those snipers who wished to use the Mk8Z ammunition for best long range accuracy had to be careful to avoid premature throat erosion when using the MkVII ammunition.The average sniping engagement required fewer rounds be fired for the same results, that was the whole point. A regular infantryman might fire more rounds in a single battle than a Sniper might expend in a year of fighting.The average number of rounds expended per kill by USMC Snipers was 1.3.Do the math. If a British Sniper turned in equal performance then he would fire no more than 130 rounds for every 100 enemy killed. Many sniper rifles served out the last years of the war having fired less than two hundred rounds in combat conditions.At the WW1 British sniper schools snipers in training were allowed to use only iron sighted service rifles. Scoped rifles were only to be used in combat, the limited accuracy life of the SMLE (T) meant no shots were to be wasted in training.Between wars when high quality replacement barrels were plentiful there was greater opportunity for extensive training with the scoped rifles. The No.4 (T) was born in the middle of an all out war. These rifles were too difficult to service in the field much less to replace major components to allow for any abuse.

[PAT303]

I'm with you,I like the bit about not shooting boat tail bullets because of throat erosion,I shot service rifle for years and no one shot BT bullets,neither of my rifles including my brand new H barrel Mk111 shoots BT's with accuracy,one funny thing is many LE's shoot 30/30 bullets well,I think it's because they are soft jacketed for the lower pressure of that round and the higher 303 slug's them up,the bullets have poor BC but up to 300m they shoot very well.Anyway I'll leave it. Pat

[Multigunner]

one funny thing is many LE's shoot 30/30 bullets well,I found that out as well. A friend found most of a box of .30-30 ammo that had lain out in the rain for months. I pulled the bullets and worked up some .303 loads and found them to be very accurate.My two groove Savage handles the flat based hornady bullet with great results but will keyhole every shot when regular lead core boat tails are used but on the other hand (or is it third hand) handles the Soviet 147 grain steel core boat tail with excellent accuracy.I suspect the lead sheathed steel core acts as a mandrel keeping the core centered in the bore while the lead sheath forces the jacket deeply into the grooves. For whatever reason that bullet works great in a wide variety of 7.62 and 7.7 bores.

[gew98]

I've shot gobs of various 30 cal bullets in 303 , 7,65 mauser and 7,7 jap with very good to surprising accuracy with almost all of them. I had a gorgeous 1944 Longbranch that was FTR'd and came to the US via the grenada thing by a buddy. It absolutely loved 185 grain boat tailed surplus 7,65 argie bullets pushed by accurate 2230. I did some 300 yard shooting with that combo and could put 10 rounds in a coffee can consistently ..... did better than any springyfield I ever had or handled , and what killer and durable sights !. Now my patt'14....topped that all day long as long as I did my part.

[robertbank]

gew98 check your PM's

Bob

[Multigunner]

Noted UK marksman welcomed to the United States.A real 4th of July welcome.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vscLrMD_qY

[303Guy]

I've mentioned numerous times that my Longbranch No4 two groove with 'rust texturing' in the bore shoot PRVI 180gr boat tails real well.

[Multigunner]

I've mentioned numerous times that my Longbranch No4 two groove with 'rust texturing' in the bore shoot PRVI 180gr boat tails real well. Funny thing about "textured bores", some custom barrel makers have begun texturing the bottoms of the grooves to reduce friction but blowby doesn't seem to be a problem with those barrels.The hammer forged barrels are textured throughout on a micro level, the bore having a dusty appearance when clean.The cylinder walls of internal combustion engines are texured by means of cross hatch honing. this allows oil to cling to the walls so the piston ring never makes metal to metal contact. When the texturing wears away gas blows by the rings no matter how tight they seem to fit. Gas under high pressure reacts like a fluid. Could be that turbulence due to gas striking the textured surface forms a cushion of high pressure gas between bullet and bore surface for at least part of bullet travel.Tests run in the 1840's and again in the early 1900's have shown that when a bore gets a fine patina of rust and microscopic pitting bore friction decreased and velocities increased as microscopic globules of oil or bullet lube trapped in the tiny pits act like tiny incompressible bearings preventing the surface of the bullet from contacting the bore.The effect depends on just howsmall and evenly spaced the pits are. The slightest bit larger and the pits can't hold the oils then the pits act like graters greatly increasing friction.As for the effect of thermal erosion on bullets, the composition and thickness of the bullet jacket is very important. Some bullets will be damaged by less blowby than others. Bullet diameter compared to bore diameter is another factor. Mk8z bullets like pretty much every other milspec .303 bullets, varied in diameter as much as the major of Enfield bores vary in diameter.Vertical compensation was also found to be inconsistent from one No.4 barrel to another. With compensation kicking in at different ranges. The compensation factor of the lighter SMLE barrel was more consistent.All bolt action rifle barrels exhibit compensation to some degree. Its most associated with the SMLE barrels because thats when the phenomena was first widely recognized and became the subject of intense study. Accurate measurements of shot to shot deviations allowed ballisticians to figure out just what was going on.Action body flex was reduced but remained a factor, with front sight bases off set to compensate for throw, AKA Balistic jump.Ballistic jump of the Springfield was a very small fraction of that of the Enfield and spin drift from the Springfields right hand twist completely canceled out bullet jump at a range of just under 600 yards. No drift compensation was needed till beyond the 600 yard mark.The Springfield was much easier to bore sight, and the effect of spin drift was also easier to calculate at extreme range.The higher velocity of the .30-06 also meant that when boat tail bullets of the same weight were used , the Mk8z for the .303 and the M2 Ball and National match type bullets for the .30, the retained velocity at extreme range was also greater.The difference in velocities at closer ranges made little difference but at long range it makes quite a difference, especially to the point at which transonic buffering become an issue.The main reason the NRA UK insisted on the re-proofing of No.4 rifles that were converted to .308 was that some shooters wanted to use a much higher pressure matchgrade cartridge that remained at or near supersonic speeds out to 1200 yards.

[Brithunter]

Comparing a rifle made in WW1 to those made during WW2 is not a good idea. During WW1 Britian was not bombed heavily unlike durign WW2. America where the P-14's were made was not bombed at all. It's a pity that Enfield did not ship across Inspectors with the machinery in WW1 as then perhaps the parts of the P-14's would be interchangeable.

During WW2 the tolerances for the bores of the 303 rifle was increased due to the problems with unskilled workers in the factories. The bores of rifles made in WW1 were tighter. During one night BSA lost 5 acres of factory including the barrel mill in one bombing raid..

Boat tailed bullets in .303 were used to machine gun use for longer range and not generally used in the rifle. The Mk8Z also used nitrocellulose and not cordite that is what the "Z" is for. The Mk8Z was for use mainly in aircraft surely?

The reason that 7.62X51 No4 conversion are being re-proofed to pressures above that of the 270 Winchester and 300 Win mag is that target shooters are idiots and cannot be trusted. They over load the cartridge and it's not just the No 4 conversions that have issues. However they have jumped upon the No 4 conversion with it's use being banned in some countries I understand.

Myself I refused to have my rifle re-proofed and told the NRA to get stuffed. They wanted it proofed to 20 Tons........................ the proof on the 270 Win is 19 Tons same as the .300 Win mag. What they should do is weed out and ban the morons who are over loading the cartridges as they are a danger to them selves and everyone else.

[Multigunner]

Brit Hunter wrote
Comparing a rifle made in WW1 to those made during WW2 is not a good idea. During WW1 Britian was not bombed heavily unlike durign WW2. America where the P-14's were made was not bombed at all. It's a pity that Enfield did not ship across Inspectors with the machinery in WW1 as then perhaps the parts of the P-14's would be interchangeable. During WW2 the tolerances for the bores of the 303 rifle was increased due to the problems with unskilled workers in the factories. The bores of rifles made in WW1 were tighter. During one night BSA lost 5 acres of factory including the barrel mill in one bombing raid.. Boat tailed bullets in .303 were used to machine gun use for longer range and not generally used in the rifle. The Mk8Z also used nitrocellulose and not cordite that is what the "Z" is for. The Mk8Z was for use mainly in aircraft surely? The reason that 7.62X51 No4 conversion are being re-proofed to pressures above that of the 270 Winchester and 300 Win mag is that target shooters are idiots and cannot be trusted. They over load the cartridge and it's not just the No 4 conversions that have issues. However they have jumped upon the No 4 conversion with it's use being banned in some countries I understand. Myself I refused to have my rifle re-proofed and told the NRA to get stuffed. They wanted it proofed to 20 Tons........................ the proof on the 270 Win is 19 Tons same as the .300 Win mag. What they should do is weed out and ban the morons who are over loading the cartridges as they are a danger to them selves and everyone else. You seem to have been relying on comments made by others than actually reading the NRA safety warnings themselves.Handloads were not allowed in the competitions that this requirement refered to. Instead the NRA provided the ammunition for those competitions to keep the playing field level.In Police matches there was a big stink when one team was found to be using handloads in their Enforcers, but thats an entirely different issue.The Radway Green and other quality 7.62 matchgrade ammunition that the NRA had previously provided was no longer available in quantity so the NRA contracted for a more modern and powerful matchgrade 7.62 ammo from the continent.The chamber pressure of the new ammo is higher than that of the Radway Green ammunition previously used. Its not a handload its simply loaded to the upper end of CIP pressure standards yet well within the safety limits of stronger modern actions.Why should the owners of more modern rifles used in these competitions limit themselves to the lower chamber pressure standards just to accomodate the owners of converted No.4 rifles?So long as you don't enter the matches where that higher pressure ammunition is the standard they could care less whether you reproof your rifle.
It's a pity that Enfield did not ship across Inspectors with the machinery in WW1 as then perhaps the parts of the P-14's would be interchangeable. During WW2 the tolerances for the bores of the 303 rifle was increased due to the problems with unskilled workers in the factories. The bores of rifles made in WW1 were tighter. Enfield never mass produced the P-14, Gunmakers in the U S used American Prat & Whitney machinery and gauges, not anything built in England.Vickers had contracted to produce the P-14 but that deal fell through.The only P-14 rifles with interchangeability issues were the early Winchesters which is why Winchester lost the contract and very few Winchester P-14's were built. The British inspectors made that decision.The British sent inspection teams whenever they had any weapon or machinery built by contract in the USA just as the Russians and everyone else did.Variations in Enfield bore size were just as great if not greater during and before WW1 as they were in WW2. Variations in diameter of milspec .303 bullets were also a continuing issue.

[Brithunter]

Brit Hunter wroteYou seem to have been relying on comments made by others than actually reading the NRA safety warnings themselves.Handloads were not allowed in the competitions that this requirement refered to. Instead the NRA provided the ammunition for those competitions to keep the playing field level.In Police matches there was a big stink when one team was found to be using handloads in their Enforcers, but thats an entirely different issue.The Radway Green and other quality 7.62 matchgrade ammunition that the NRA had previously provided was no longer available in quantity so the NRA contracted for a more modern and powerful matchgrade 7.62 ammo from the continent.The chamber pressure of the new ammo is higher than that of the Radway Green ammunition previously used. Its not a handload its simply loaded to the upper end of CIP pressure standards yet well within the safety limits of stronger modern actions.Why should the owners of more modern rifles used in these competitions limit themselves to the lower chamber pressure standards just to accomodate the owners of converted No.4 rifles?So long as you don't enter the matches where that higher pressure ammunition is the standard they could care less whether you reproof your rifle.Enfield never mass produced the P-14, Gunmakers in the U S used American Prat & Whitney machinery and gauges, not anything built in England.Vickers had contracted to produce the P-14 but that deal fell through.The only P-14 rifles with interchangeability issues were the early Winchesters which is why Winchester lost the contract and very few Winchester P-14's were built. The British inspectors made that decision.The British sent inspection teams whenever they had any weapon or machinery built by contract in the USA just as the Russians and everyone else did.Variations in Enfield bore size were just as great if not greater during and before WW1 as they were in WW2. Variations in diameter of milspec .303 bullets were also a continuing issue.

Actually issued ammunition was only used in certain competitions. Others used hand loads. It was in New Zealand that several converted No 4's failed I believe which led to an out right ban on their use in the competitions. The NRA at Bilsey just followed like sheep as per normal after all they would never stand up for the British shooters.

Also the first P-14's were built at Enfield Lock on the machinery used to make the Patter 13 rifles on which the pattern 14 is based. It was this line which was taken down and shipped to the US. Empire manufactured 303 ammunition was not an issue however American 303 was often of such poor quality it was only used in machine guns where accuracy was not an issue as such. I had a collection of WW2 303 cartridges and the worst was Winchester. I also had some French 303 from WW1 to 1930. They changed the bullet design and weight slightly three times in that period and also the primer size and type.

The specifications and acceptance procedures were laid down and are still available and the bores dimension tolerances were loosed in WW2. This did not happen in WW1. Also the short service life in the trenches during WW1 was due to the amount of ammunition expended. One officer got a medal for running along the rampart with an oil can dropping oil onto the bolts of the riflemen as he passed to stop them seizing due tot eh heat caused by the rapid fire they were putting down. Barrels had a short life in such circumstances. In fact the Germans thought they were facing a company of Machine guns not riflemen.

The NRA dictat was posted around the camp and in the NRA offices. I have not stepped foot onto Bisley camp in over a decade now and dropped my membership before that even. if they cannot support the shooters then why should we support them?

7.62x51 is supposed to be manufactured to a certain CIP mean maximum chamber pressure. The L39 and L42 and the Envoy and Enforcer were and are well capable of handling ammunition made to the normal 7.62x51 service pressure. Ammunition of higher pressure is not to NATO specs and should not be used ....................... simple.

If they want more pressure and velocity there are other cartridges than can be used. It's stupid practices such as over loading that causes problems and after all the 7.62x51 Nato is not exactly a low pressure cartridge. No matter how you twist it that is the problem irresponsible target shooters.

[gew98]

Actually issued ammunition was only used in certain competitions. Others used hand loads. It was in New Zealand that several converted No 4's failed I believe which led to an out right ban on their use in the competitions. The NRA at Bilsey just followed like sheep as per normal after all they would never stand up for the British shooters.

Also the first P-14's were built at Enfield Lock on the machinery used to make the Patter 13 rifles on which the pattern 14 is based. It was this line which was taken down and shipped to the US. Empire manufactured 303 ammunition was not an issue however American 303 was often of such poor quality it was only used in machine guns where accuracy was not an issue as such. I had a collection of WW2 303 cartridges and the worst was Winchester. I also had some French 303 from WW1 to 1930. They changed the bullet design and weight slightly three times in that period and also the primer size and type.

The specifications and acceptance procedures were laid down and are still available and the bores dimension tolerances were loosed in WW2. This did not happen in WW1. Also the short service life in the trenches during WW1 was due to the amount of ammunition expended. One officer got a medal for running along the rampart with an oil can dropping oil onto the bolts of the riflemen as he passed to stop them seizing due tot eh heat caused by the rapid fire they were putting down. Barrels had a short life in such circumstances. In fact the Germans thought they were facing a company of Machine guns not riflemen.

The NRA dictat was posted around the camp and in the NRA offices. I have not stepped foot onto Bisley camp in over a decade now and dropped my membership before that even. if they cannot support the shooters then why should we support them?

7.62x51 is supposed to be manufactured to a certain CIP mean maximum chamber pressure. The L39 and L42 and the Envoy and Enforcer were and are well capable of handling ammunition made to the normal 7.62x51 service pressure. Ammunition of higher pressure is not to NATO specs and should not be used ....................... simple.

If they want more pressure and velocity there are other cartridges than can be used. It's stupid practices such as over loading that causes problems and after all the 7.62x51 Nato is not exactly a low pressure cartridge. No matter how you twist it that is the problem irresponsible target shooters.

According to Skennerton on pg 58 of his book "The US Enfield" to quote " Much of the tooling for the rifles was sent from Vickers to America , along with "manufacturer's patterns " of the pattern 1914 Enfield rifle. "

Pg 61 " difficulties were encountered with the walnut stocks , many of which were rejected by the inspectorate.Seasoned timber was not available , so Kiln drying was employed. And it was found that the wood became brittle and splintered quite easily during machining. At enfield this had been overcome by by allowing the wood to season in about 6 months after cutting up the "flitch". Most of the reject P'14 stocks were sent to India and utilized for making SMLE furniture at Ishapore. "
I dare say that the brits were quite on top of NOT allowing unseasoned wood on their Patt'14's a big contrast to the US model 1917's !. As noted in this book Winchester again had a severe quality control issue and overall poor quality barrel steel and poor quality timber issues plagued all the Model 1917 rifles.
I also concur that target shooters can be a plague on common sense often. I have seen guys 'soft load ' their rounds into the rifling which causes a good pressure bump. As well as those that simply must in their minds push the velocities to the limits.

[Multigunner]

The specifications and acceptance procedures were laid down and are still available and the bores dimension tolerances were loosed in WW2. The original Enfield pattern .303 bore drawings are reproduced in the Lee Enfield book by EGB Reynolds. The groove depth was always variable with the major diameter even larger than that of the minimum dia of the WW2 SAID Drawing specifications. Minimum groove depth of the SAID Drawings for the SMLE / No.1 MkIII was .005 with a maximum of .008 the depth given in the original drawings is .065.Parker Hale service section catalog gives more information on the minor bore size itself, bores up to .305 were not uncommon and even .307 were found to shoot with reasonable accuracy. Official government specs were .303 minimum with .305 maximum. That doesn't even touch on the very wide variation in muzzle diameters of the reverse taper lapped SMLE MkI bores. Muzzles of these rifles were often over .321 major diameter.A lot of owners of those rifles never knew that because a replacement unlapped barrel was authorized in 1917. Many do still have the reverse lapped barrels.Accuracy tests recounted by Reynolds show that best accuracy was achieved if the bore met the minimum major diameter and the bullet was at the upper end of tolerance at .312.I've slugged a few SMLE bores and the only one I've found that was less than .314 is the undersized (according to quoted acceptance specs) .311 bore of my 1915 Enfield. That barrel BTW is exceptionally accurate with a wide range of bullets. The Metford bores were tighter than the Enfield bores.There are plenty of cast boolit shooters who slug their own rifles bores and bores of other rifles, you won't find many who have found bores of WW1 or WW2 manufacture that don't vary quite a bit.The best thing about WW1 bores (at least the early ones) is that they still straightened the barrel by hand and eye. In WW2 they just gauged the last six inches for straightness.The first No.4 (T) rifles were built from the trials rifles and surviving examples show excellent fit and finish. I don't doubt the bores of trials rifles were among the best.Which reminds me. Long ago I posted of seeing a No.4 (T) with cut off plate. I was basically called a liar and that no No.4 (T) ever had the cut off plate, and IAN Skennerton had written that the plate had been removed from all trials rifles converted to No.4 (T). Well now Skennerton has retracted his claim and there are known surviving documented examples with the original plate still mounted in collections, and photographic evidence from the period as well.A former visitor here claimed all Enfield bolt heads over clocked by between 10-20 degrees from the factory, and claimed to own many un issued rifles. He finally admitted he was wrong and in fact had never even examined his rifles bolt heads for overturn.With those sorts of incidents so common on Enfield forums is it any wonder I distrust any claims that don't match either the official records or my own experiances. There are too many surviving WW1 rifles for any claim that the barrels were held to a high tolerance to be believeable.There may be fewer surviving No.4 rifles that slug anywhere near the minimum tolerances, that I can believe.Also I'd nearly forgotten that WW2 Dispersal rifles assembled from WW1 era parts held in strategic stores have been found with NOS barrels with bores as large as .321 end to end, even though bearing the HV and SC markings. Barrels that far out of specs were probably set aside for use only if no other barrels were available.

[Multigunner]

Also the first P-14's were built at Enfield Lock on the machinery used to make the Patter 13 rifles on which the pattern 14 is based. It was this line which was taken down and shipped to the US. Empire manufactured 303 ammunition was not an issue however American 303 was often of such poor quality it was only used in machine guns where accuracy was not an issue as such. So are you telling me that Enfield shipped enough machinery to the U S to equip three complete factories? Not likely is it, especially since before deciding on U S manufacture the Vickers company had tried to subcontract the job to an affiliate in Yugoslavia where they had machinists more familar with mauser styled bolt actions.Enfield mainly use Robbins and Lawrence and Colt machinery (which had been designed by Pratt and whitney before they left Colt to form their own company.Lithgow built their rifles on vastly improved Pratt & Whitney machinery using Pratt & Whitney's improved and more accurate gauges.For a US Factory to use machinery from Enfield Enfield would have had to have bought that machinery from Pratt & Whitney earlier on.Heck even Mauser used P&W machinery and gauges. P&W gauges were the world standard while Enfield was still using the odd sized "Enfield Inch" that no one else used.As for the ammo you have serveral things wrong there. Winchester and Remington ammo were not considered suited to Machinegun use, except maybe in practice. There were specific official orders for British machinegunners to not use it.Full auto belt fed guns were still a new thing in the U S and the necessity for heavily crimping the primers of cartridges used in automatic weapons was not yet widely accepted by manufacturers.The French used Remington .303 ammo in the guns they got from the British by putting a heavy stake crimp around the primer.They also pulled down British .303 ammo and sent the cordite back to the British and replaced the charge with poudre B propellant ans sometimes replaced the bullets for better accuracy and penetration.I can find a list of known poor quality control British manufacturers of WW1 .303 ammo. And by 1918 the RAF had contacted seperately for MG ammo (marked with a red label) from manufacturers of known high quality ammunition and continued to do so since run of the mill British .303 ammo was not reliable enough for aerial combat.Ground gunners also found that rim thicknesses and case dimensions of .303 ammo from most manufacturers could not be counted on and began gauging ammo for irregularities before belting it. Ammo that passed gauging had a green cross or green spot placed on the boxes.Remington ammo is often cited as bad because of split case necks because the necks were not annealed but in fact that was a common problem with British ammo in use in the tropics. Stress Crack Corrosion was identified in 1925 long after the war when the ammonia fumes from Indian rice patties accelerated the formation of micro fractures. The problem was not one that had any effect on ammo quickly used up in the field, it took a few years for SCC to take hold on a cartridge case.The US Army had similar problems with British manufacture .30-40 Krag ammunition bought for the Philipines campaign. That ammo was so inaccurate and ignition so unreliable in the tropics that it was all condemned. Only Canadian .303 had a consistently good reputation for dimensional consistecy.Ely which is one of the most respected manufacturers of that period had before WW1 been twice removed from the list of approved manufacturers of .303 ammunition by the War office because of defective ball ammunition with millions of rounds returned.By WW1 they had gotten their act down pat and produced good ammunition.For some reason my enter key is not working and I can use only the quick reply, so my posts are not that easy to read. I'll try to find out the cause. I don't have this problem on any other forums.

[Multigunner]

Also the short service life in the trenches during WW1 was due to the amount of ammunition expended. One officer got a medal for running along the rampart with an oil can dropping oil onto the bolts of the riflemen as he passed to stop them seizing due tot eh heat caused by the rapid fire they were putting down. Barrels had a short life in such circumstances. In fact the Germans thought they were facing a company of Machine guns not riflemen.That bit about the enemy thinking they were under fire by machine guns was actually first said by a Spanish officer about the U S Marines armed with the Lee Straightpull rifle. Not that the same thing was not also said about the Enfield in WW2.Every gun gets hot during rapid fire.Thermal erosion is greatly increased by rapid fire but even slow deliberate fire using cordite will burn out the throat of a .303.Hesketh Pritchard was precise in stating the causes of loss of accuracy of the SMLE rifles. The sniper rifle lost longe range grouping ability within 1500 rounds, sniping being deliberate fire seldom more than one shot before changing position. The bore life of the infantry rifle with string firing either fast or slow was as little as 500 rounds. Regardless of number of rounds fired the effect of damp weather on the SMLE stock would greatly degrade accuracy in a few months.The book "Sniping in France" is available as a free download, anyone can read Pritchards words.Theres not a single respected authority on the Enfield rifle who doesn't recognize the effects of cordite erosion on gun barrels.Theres not a single respected stock maker who would not agree that persistent damp will shift the bedding of the two piece Enfield stocks.The information on experiments in correcting the bedding of the No.4 (T) is available if you want to see it. You can find scans of Reynolds 1963 article with illustrations here, third post down http://www.yesterdaysweapons.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=870

[Multigunner]

Much of the tooling for the rifles was sent from Vickers to America , along with "manufacturer's patterns " of the pattern 1914 Enfield rifle. " The terms "tooling" and "Machinery" are not interchangeable, also as it says the "tooling" came from Vickers not from Enfield.The definition of "tooling"
Working or manufacturing aids such as cutting tools, dies, fixtures, gauges, jigs, molds, and patterns of a specialized nature which (unless substantially altered or modified) are limited in use to a specific production line or the performance of a specific contract or job. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tooling.html#ixzz36idEXKPtAll that would fit in a few crates.Machinery is Lathes, presses, drop forges etc. Stuff that weighs many hundreds of tons, and filled a locomotive factory.
And it was found that the wood became brittle and splintered quite easily during machining. At enfield this had been overcome by by allowing the wood to season in about 6 months after cutting up the "flitch". So you either believe no Enfield fore end ever split or that any damage to an Enfield fore end (and I've had to repair or replace split, warped, and wallowed out Enfield fore ends on many occasions,)must be entirely the fault of the design rather than the fault of kiln dried wood supposedly seasoned in only six months. It takes years to season walnut properly not months, and kiln drying of any sort is the least desireable method.
As noted in this book Winchester again had a severe quality control issue and overall poor quality barrel steel and poor quality timber issues plagued all the Model 1917 rifles.Yet Winchester P-14 rifles somehow managed to be the most accurate and recognized by British snipers as being far superior to the Lee Enfields.The high quality of the Winchester P-14 and M1917 is obvious and easily verified by examining existing examples. The parts interchangeabilty tests revealed only that parts made by Remington and Eddystone interchaged easily, the Winchester parts fitted the Winchester rifles easily. It was not worth winchesters time and resources to alter there tolerances to attain interchangeabilty with the other manufacturers since they had committed to building a rifle for Russia, the Russian rifle contract fell through so Winchester supplied Russia with 1895 Leveractions in 7.62X54r instead.The only metalurgy problems of the M1917 have been when a very few Eddystone receivers have cracked during barrel removal if the wrong tools are used.Its not recommended to rechamber a M1917 barrel but they are sturdy enough for the .30-06 cartridgeI think I'll file all this P-14/M1917 bashing in the round file at the end of the desk along with your claim that the rear sights of the 03A3 can just fall off, or that the STEN walks away with all the prizes.

[robertbank]

That bit about the enemy thinking they were under fire by machine guns was actually first said by a Spanish officer about the U S Marines armed with the Lee Straightpull rifle.

More likely it was a quote written by a newspaper man far from the front and used to encourage the home front in the US. We have already discussed the the term "Black Devils" and how it was in newspapers months before the action the term it is attributable took place. Hell I am reasonably sure you can find books indicating the US won the war of 1812, carefully ignoring the fact the war was started by the US on the hopes of seizing most of British North America....and failed.

Nothing in this thread is going to take away from the fact the SMLE was the best rifle in use in WW1 for the type of warfare encountered. Multi you have no idea what conditions were like over there at the time and how insignificant the results were by snipers when taken in context of the entire war. The P 17 was issued to more of your troops then the vaunted Springfield which was nothing more than a Mauser copy.

The #4 Rifle relies on a free floating barrel and served well in WW11. Hitting man sized targets out to 200 yards or so in urban environments seemed to be its forte and managed quite well as did other rifles of the period. Somehow the armies managed to kill each other off with or without opinions expressed here over 100 years after the event and I rather think those men lying in France and Belgium on both sides little cared which rifle, when armoured over was the most accurate in Camp Perry or Bisley.

With respect I doubt any of the snipers you often quote cared which rifle they were using as they would have had little to no choice in the matter. Please re=read my first paragraph. Your sources are impeccable and all 2nd hand or opinions albeit written within a time period by authors who may or may not have had a personal agenda. For example when you quote a passage that reads "British sniper said". Who said they said and who were they or is it just another 2nd hand quote from a 2nd hand source who may or may not have had a reason for writing his article in the first place.

Do you realize what life was like in the trenches of WW1 or ever talked those who were there? Saying a LE rifle was worn out or its accuracy degraded after so many rounds so such an academic piece of nonsense when related to the events that took place. 800 men of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment died in under 20 minutes at the 1st Battle of the Somme AFTER the British Generals had called a halt to the carnage. How important do you think it was to know cordite powder burned out the throat of the LE rifles. It is almost insulting to read such nonsense.

One of your Generals wanted a bath on Nov 10/18 and the US casualty rate increased because of it. Do you think it matters if 40% of the dead carried Springfield's or that the P 17's they carried had wood that was inferior. Somehow it really doesn't matter. Find a decent example of a rifle from that period today and enjoy it. What any example does today or did 50 years ago at Camp Perry means absolutely nothing in the context of how they performed in theater by the men who carried them into battle.

Take Care

Bob

[Multigunner]

More likely it was a quote written by a newspaper man far from the front and used to encourage the home front in the US.Nope it was from a letter written by a Spanish officer explaining why he had called for a retreat when facing a much smaller force of U S Marines.The letter was written many years before WW1. There were German military observers in Cuba so the word may have gotten around.From an article published in 1898, 16 years before the same things were said about the Lee Enfield.
Nothing could be more eloquent in testimony to the success of the arm as a rapid-fire gun than the letter written to Gen. Pareja's Adjutant by Leiut. Francisco Baptiste, who was captured by the marines at the battle of Cuzco. Baptiste wrote a letter to Pareja asking that his family be cared for. In answering him Pareja refused to care for his family and accused him of cowardice. Baptiste replied that he was not a coward and explained his capture. He said that he was cut off with two men and hid in the bushes, where he was found. He continued in his letter that in addition to the infantry the Americans had a large number of machine guns on their line. He judged this from the rapidity of the fire. The fact was that there were no machine guns of any kind on the American line, the entire fire being from the rifles in the hands of the marines. http://www.spanamwar.com/leearticle.htm
We have already discussed the the term "Black Devils" and how it was in newspapers months before the action the term it is attributable took place. And you still fail to grasp that the name being used earlier did not prevent its being used at a later date by other Germans.Articles on this also fail to recognize that the low German words could be used seperately rather than as a common phase or that the same terms in High German "Sotten Hunt" (Satan's Hound) could be translated as devil dog but mistaken to be the English words for drunken hound or drunken animals which is what one witness at Belleau Wood thought a German officer cried out before being shot. The Marine got a daily beer ration, much like the Royal navy rum ration, which the Germans thought meant they were encouraged to get drunk before battle.
Do you realize what life was like in the trenches of WW1 or ever talked those who were there? You were not there either, Hesketh Pritchard was there and as the man who is responsible for training all those British snipers his experiances trump your fantasies.I'm old enough that relatives who were there were still living when I was much younger, and the father of a family friend served through WW1 and lived until the late 1990's. So yeah I've spoken to a few WW1 veterans and you aren't a WW1 veteran so again you can't tell me of your experiances in the trenches during WW1.
The #4 Rifle relies on a free floating barrel Not originally. Loss of zero due to poorly seasoned wood resulted in altering the bedding. The original bedding called for pressure just behind the front sight. That was intended to reduce latteral shifts in point of impact between firing with or without the Bayonet fixed.
Hitting man sized targets out to 200 yards or so in urban environments seemed to be its forte and managed quite well as did other rifles of the period. Agreed but we weren't discussing 200 yard minute of man accuracy we were discussing extreme range sniping and the necessity for pin point accuracy, reliability under extreme weather conditions, and a scope powerful enough for the purpose.The P-14 and M1917 rifles have proven themselves to be far more accurate and more reliably accurate than the No.4 so the scoped P-14 was in my opinion a better sniper rifle than the No.4 (T) and theres never been any doubt that it was a better sniper rifle than the SMLE (T) rifles.I also don't doubt that the Lithgow No.1 HT rifle was also a better sniper rifle than the No.4 (T), but like the L42 it is a good deal different than the service rifle it sprang from and both carry semi custom barrels far heavier than the original service rifle barrel and of much higher quality manufacture.
Find a decent example of a rifle from that period today and enjoy it. Got a couple of racks full and I do enjoy shooting when I get the opportunity.What gets me is all this load about the British being all gushy over the Winchester brand name rather than choosing the Winchester for sniping because it was the most accurate. Winchester had been building smokeless powder rifles from Nickel Steel since 1895, they had the metalurgy down pat.The Winchester manufacture scoped P-14 was a excellent sniper rifle, otherwise the British and Austrailians wouldn't have continued to use it for so long after it was no longer being manufactured.
One of your Generals wanted a bath on Nov 10/18 If you are ragging on Pershing again, he was ordered by the Supreme Allied Commander to press the attack.No doubt you'd defy orders from a superior officer at the drop of a hat. Which of course would have ended up with your being shot and hung on a meat hook as an example as one British general liked to do on a regular basis.

[Brithunter]

I can see what others are saying. You read what you want to and not what is actually written. So it is in fact pointless to reply properly. Instead I shall go to bed.

[gew98]

I can see what others are saying. You read what you want to and not what is actually written. So it is in fact pointless to reply properly. Instead I shall go to bed.

I second that notion. Waste of time with wikipediast armchairs..... you know the type that can shoot a sub minute of angle group with a springyfield having bayonet attached and all while under a good old fashioned stonking !

[Multigunner]

Quite a bit of what you've posted about the 03A4 seemed fishy to me so I ran a search and low and behold it could be found word for word on wikipedia.Sub MOA groups don't impress me as much as you might think, I've printed my share and didn't have to resort to a .30 pencil to do so. I expect that quite a few members here can do as well or better. Thats the main point of handloading after all. Much better that making a lot of noise and wearing out good barrels with 60 year old POF. When something sounds unbelieveable I often find that it is bull pookey, like your claims about the STEN Gun. If people just acceptted anything you post to be fact they'd end up with a mountain of misinformation.Why don't you boys look up a few definitions some time, you can start with the term "Historiography".I first caught on to what that term really means when reading Gibbon's "the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" then reading Gibbon's biography.The next term you can look up is "Revisionist".Once you understand terms like that its easier to see where people like yourselves are coming from.

[gew98]

Quite a bit of what you've posted about the 03A4 seemed fishy to me so I ran a search and low and behold it could be found word for word on wikipedia.Sub MOA groups don't impress me as much as you might think, I've printed my share and didn't have to resort to a .30 pencil to do so. I expect that quite a few members here can do as well or better. Thats the main point of handloading after all. Much better that making a lot of noise and wearing out good barrels with 60 year old POF. When something sounds unbelieveable I often find that it is bull pookey, like your claims about the STEN Gun. If people just acceptted anything you post to be fact they'd end up with a mountain of misinformation.Why don't you boys look up a few definitions some time, you can start with the term "Historiography".I first caught on to what that term really means when reading Gibbon's "the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" then reading Gibbon's biography.The next term you can look up is "Revisionist".Once you understand terms like that its easier to see where people like yourselves are coming from.


There you go with wiki again and again... I actually have a library with BOOKS. Sit in your comfy chair and relax with your adult beverage and amaze us with your er... lack of life experiance.

[robertbank]

Amen it it time to do what others have done.

Take Care

Bob

[PAT303]

Amen it it time to do what others have done.

Take Care

Bob
Yep. Pat

[Multigunner]

I actually have a library with BOOKS. Another book worm I see.Whats the difference between reading a mass audience coffee table book with compiled selected excerpts from much older books in your easy chair and reading an original text with nothing taken out of context in downloadable PDF form? Your coffee table tomes are written to please the reader and reinforce sterotypes, the original texts provide eye witness accounts and extensive back ground information that won't be found in mass market books published soley for profit.Your reading a coffee table book won't give you any useful information on the qualities of seasoned wood, but years of working in furniture factories, restoring antique furniture , and restoring gunstocks has given me an appreciation of properly seasoned wood vs kiln dried garbage.Take your previous quote as an example
And it was found that the wood became brittle and splintered quite easily during machiningThat relates only to the machining of the inletting. The supposed fix of the six months of extra seasoning may have made inletting a bit easier but if so you certainly can't see it in the inletting of wartime British made SMLE or No.4 fore ends. Inletting on almost all those fore ends is rough as a cobb compared to that of every other rifle I've worked on with the exception of last ditch Arisakas. Splintered draws and internal check fractures are commonplace when it comes to SMLE fore ends. I've even found check fractures along one side of the magazine well drawn back far enough that the magazine was visible through the gap. It had happened in service because they had made one of those half hearted arsenal repairs but the crack continued to open as the poorly seasoned wood continued to shrink. Why do you think the Australians developed copper plate inserts and others metal reinforcements that bolt on with screws run through from the rear.As for warpage I've run across British fore ends that take a nose dive ahead of the lower band and nose caps canted with the entire fore end in a visible twist. Also a few with wood un accountably flexible as if it was a bundle of cane rather than solid wood.So go back to your coffee table books and falling asleep in front of the TV while watching Glory Brigade.BTWHow do you explain the claim of P-14 stocks being sent to India to make SMLE buttstocks?http://www.gunsinternational.com/popup.cfm?id=100433367&num=9&pic=100318568-9-L.jpgThe butt plates are entirely different, you can't alter a P-14 butt to fit an SMLE unless you reshape an unfinished stock rather than a stock that had already been finished and delivered.Perhaps your truncated quote says something you don't realize that it says.

[gew98]

The wiki master engineer of limited practical experiance ...yawn.

[Multigunner]

The wiki master engineer of limited practical experiance ...yawn. If not for your pretense to unlimited experiance on all subjects you might have retained some shred of credibility.Ian Skennerton has put an enormous amount of time and hard work into compiling his books on the Enfields, but he has on occasion found that he was wrong on some things, and has the grace to have admitted it and retracted or rectified those errors. Some of what he has put in print is vague and allows misunderstanding of the meaning.Hard facts remain. It takes from 7-8 years of seasoning of an air dried blank to produce a truly stable rifle stock. Kiln drying, and the disasterous salt drying fiasco that ruined so many Browning firearms are not fool proof substitutes.No bolt action rifle design of that era or modern times has eliminated the need for stable wood other than to dispense with wood altogether. Even a free floating barrel won't remain free floating if the fore end warps badly enough.Awhile back I ran on a SMLE fore end with a bulge in the magazine well that had indented the side of the magazine. Once the magazine finally came out it could not be reinserted.The bulge had to be chiseled away and filed flush to make the fore end useable.Breakages behind the cut out for the charger bridge are also very common, usually found with arsenal repairs using brass rods. Everyone who has ever bedded a Lee Enfield type fore end knows that unequal contact at the butt socket will adversely effect accuracy.

[pietro]

I've come across a P-14 "Enfield" in .303.

Also, I have a No.1 and No.4 Enfield and I wonder if the P-14 had closer tolerances in the chamber because it was U.S. made ?




Although chambered for the same .303 cartridge as the No.1 & No.4 Enfield's, the P-14 Enfield is a totally different action, with front bolt locking lugs ILO the rear locking lugs on the No.1 & No.4 SMLE's (Short Magazine Lee Enfield).

The P-14 was the same rifle that Winchester, Remington & Eddystone made as the US Enfield M-1917 in .30-06 - but modified for the rimmed .303 British cartridge when GB needed more rifles wartime.
It was easier to rework the M-1917 into the P-14, than to re-tool their factories to make the SMLE.

Chamber tolerances, beside others, could be a sometime thing when rifle's were made rapidly, under the duress of wartime production - so no general statement should be made about production tolerances.

The differences between the two actions has more to do with how much they stretch (temporarily) when fired - which can make reloading different for each.

ALSO, the SMLE's had different replacement boltface's to adjust for excessive headspace when it developed after battle usage; the P-14 & M-1917 did not (need one) - which should tell anyone, loud/clear, about the expectations of the designers of each action's performance .



.

[robertbank]

As luck would have it there are two P14's for sale up here on gunnutz. The guy wants $400 for each. Bores are said to be good. The wood is ok. Thinking.....

Bob

[Multigunner]

Although chambered for the same .303 cartridge as the No.1 & No.4 Enfield's, the P-14 Enfield is a totally different action, with front bolt locking lugs ILO the rear locking lugs on the No.1 & No.4 SMLE's (Short Magazine Lee Enfield). The P-14 was the same rifle that Winchester, Remington & Eddystone made as the US Enfield M-1917 in .30-06 - but modified for the rimmed .303 British cartridge when GB needed more rifles wartime. It was easier to rework the M-1917 into the P-14, than to re-tool their factories to make the SMLE. About 180 degrees off , it was the P-14 that came before the M1917, but the P-13 on which both were based was chambered for a rimless 7mm/cartridge not far from the dimensions of the .30-06, this made it fairly easy to convert the design to .30-06.Had the P-13-P-14 action been designed for the .303 from the ground up the magazine well and bolt throw would have been too short for the longer .30-06 cartridge. Difference in case length is 7mm about .280".The British had contracted Hopkins & Allen in the U S to produce the SMLE but the contract was cancelled befor any rifles were produced.Since Pratt & Whitney had earlier manufactured the machinery used at Lithgow it would not have been that hard to duplicate that machinery for a U S manufacturer.They could have produced rifles fairly quickly as well. The Pratt & Whitney machinery reduced man hours per rifle quite a bit.
Chamber tolerances, beside others, could be a sometime thing when rifle's were made rapidly, under the duress of wartime production - so no general statement should be made about production tolerances.True and the British methods of cleaning using annealed iron wire mesh on a pull through could cause excessive wear on already generous chambers.
The differences between the two actions has more to do with how much they stretch (temporarily) when fired - which can make reloading different for each. ALSO, the SMLE's had different replacement boltface's to adjust for excessive headspace when it developed after battle usage; the P-14 & M-1917 did not (need one) - which should tell anyone, loud/clear, about the expectations of the designers of each action's performance . I've heard of the temporary stretch being a factor, and no doubt it is , but I use each once fired case as a snapper cap to reduce resistence to chambering of neck sized cases.When Canada first received shipments of the M1917 these arrived without the matching bolts in place, the bolts were packed seperately. Canadian armorers went to some effort to fit and headspace each bolt to a rifle and number them.One of that batch will probably have a better fitted bolt that the run of the mill.Besides Bolt Heads bolt bodies were sometimes replaced as well.Only way you'll know if a SMLE has its original bolt body is if the "proofed action assembly" numbers are intact, stamped at the factory on the underside of the bolt handle root and the butt socket. The numbers are tiny and shallow so these are often missing or illegible.

[robertbank]

.When Canada first received shipments of the M1917 these arrived without the matching bolts in place, the bolts were packed seperately. Canadian armorers went to some effort to fit and headspace each bolt to a rifle and number them.One of that batch will probably have a better fitted bolt that the run of the mill.Besides Bolt Heads bolt bodies were sometimes replaced as well.Only way you'll know if a SMLE has its original bolt body is if the "proofed action assembly" numbers are intact, stamped at the factory on the underside of the bolt handle root and the butt socket. The numbers are tiny and shallow so these are often missing or illegible.

You start referencing M1917s then talk about SMLE. So did Canadian armorers stamp numbers on M1917 or SMLE or neither? WW! we used the SMLE and of course the #4 in WW11.

Take care

Bob

[Multigunner]

Canada bought at least 80,000 M1917 rifles early in WW2.I would have thought you'd have known that.Its believed that Canada later donated many of these to Denmark post war, or gave them to the British who sent them on to Denmark. The Danes used these for decades, and it was the rifle carried by their Sirius Arctic patrols. They used the M1917 for so long that they began to call any .30-06 rifle an M17.They replaced the M1917 with a commercial version of the Model 70 Winchester.
You can find M1917 rifles with Canada's Arrow in C markings. Some then remarked with Danish markings.
Canadian troops serving with the U S Army in the Aleutians also used American rifles, but I'm not sure which rifles they used there.

I've mentioned earlier that the enter key hasn't been working when I typed these recent posts. The sentences run together.

PS
I just altered my settings to "Basic Editor" and the enter function now works.
The CP says the enhanced editor doesn't work with some browsers.

[gew98]

[QUOTE=Multigunner;2849302]. The sentences run together.

Like most of your wiki by product...you did'nt know that ?.

[gew98]

As luck would have it there are two P14's for sale up here on gunnutz. The guy wants $400 for each. Bores are said to be good. The wood is ok. Thinking.....

Bob Haggle for the better of the two !!!. You won't be let down !.

[PAT303]

This is no different to any AKM v's AR thread,the mall ninja's all go the AR,to support their arguements they post up pictures of minute of angle groups shot on rifle ranges at known distances with handloaded ammunition through accurized rifles with high power scopes,what rifle do you see in action on TV,the AKM.The SMLE and AKM are both the best rifles of their time,both are know for thier lack of accuracy but thats more than made up for in reliability and comparing war built rifles from WW2 is silly,in war production is king so taking about unseasoned stocks and oversized chambers is pointless,soldiers needed rifles plain and simple.In war a rifle that shoots is best,like I posted earlier,wars are fought on the battlefield,not on a rifle range.Anyway I've had enough of this Ford v GM fight. Pat

[Multigunner]

in war production is king so taking about unseasoned stocks and oversized chambers is pointless,soldiers needed rifles plain and simple.
Thats actually the point I was making. The P-14 and SMLE suffered from poorly seasoned wood just as much as the M1917.
The problems with kiln dried wood never went away entirely no matter how many supposed fixes were tried.

Not every rifle suffered since the straighter the grain and the less moisture the stock was exposed to the less the likely hood of warping and splitting.
Many rifles never made it to the war zone and ended up in storage for decades. For some this allowed the wood to season in place before exposure to the elements, and there were no longer internal areas of higher moisture than the rest of the wood.