Pattern '14

[TonyE]

As far as I can tell, the woodwork has a very light coat of varnish, possibly done when Fultons did their regulating and turned it into a target rifle. By whoever and whenever it was done, the stock was not sanded as the markings are still quite crisp and the metal to wood fit is very good - just look at the forward volley sight in my pictures. I will investigate further in due course but I will probably leave it as is rather than risk spoiling the markings.

Gew98 is quite right, it is a very nice rifle and I am extremely pleased with it, but it is no more than that and it will certainly be shot - often.

The bolt in prergrinvs's rifle has been re-numbered in typical army fashion to match the rifle. It is not a Winchester bolt as these were numbered on the top surface where the current number is now, so I suspect if he checks the underside of the bolt handle the original bolt number will be there but struck out and there will be an "E" or "R" indicating Remington manufacture.

S>S - I hear what you say, and certainly there were finished and unfinished parts transferred to US ownership, but the rifle in question is a .303 inch P.14 and these would not have been assembled after the sale to the US in July. Also the US rifles were serial numbered in their own series. Skennerton shows pictures of both the Winchester and Eddystone M.17 No.1 in his "U.S. Enfield" book.

Pro tem it will remain a mystery, but I am on the case!

Regards

TonyE

[peregrinvs]

The bolt in prergrinvs's rifle has been re-numbered in typical army fashion to match the rifle. It is not a Winchester bolt as these were numbered on the top surface where the current number is now, so I suspect if he checks the underside of the bolt handle the original bolt number will be there but struck out and there will be an "E" or "R" indicating Remington manufacture.

You are correct: it is marked 'R' for Remington.

I treated it to a repro Pattern 1914 sling yesterday as 'Khaki Devil' were selling repro P1914 leather equipment from their stall at the Festival of History at Kelmarsh. I shall probably finish it off at some point with a repro dial sight pointer as the mounting point hasn't been ground off and the rear aperture sight is still intact.

Mark

[4thGordons]

Just thinking out loud.

Were any other batches of rifles supplied to the Dominions / Colonies (perhaps direct from one manufacturer like Winchester) and perhaps not included in the the numbers reported for British sales.

We have already mentioned the supply or rifles directly to India (although from Remington and accounted for)

I have seen P14s with (apparently) Canadian markings, and have heard of some in Australia (although this might be an interwar shipment from the UK) - is it possible that a batch went from Winchester to these places (or NZ, S.Africa or somewhere else). Obviously it would have to be a large batch to account for the numbers but it seems like a possibility (however slim)

Chris

[TonyE]

None of those as far as I know Chris, but at this stage we cannot discount anything. I shall keeo digging.

Peregrinvs - I am glad I was on the right track re; your bolt. If yo want a repro dial sight, try EFD here;

http://www.efdrifles.com/

Talk to Jim or Geoffery, I am sure they will help.

Rehards

TonyE

[peregrinvs]

Peregrinvs - I am glad I was on the right track re; your bolt. If yo want a repro dial sight, try EFD here;

http://www.efdrifles.com/

Yes, they were who I had in mind. I shall see how flush I'm feeling after the usual spending spree at Beltring and Detling this year.

Although if anyone has one for sale, please get in touch. I'm also after an MkIII SMLE long range rear aperture sight.

Cheers,

Mark

[TonyE]

When will you be at Beltring? I won't be there until Friday.

Regards

TonyE

[peregrinvs]

When will you be at Beltring? I won't be there until Friday.

Unfortunate timing. I will only be there on Wednesday and Thursday.

Cheers,

Mark

[shippingsteel]

I hear what you say, and certainly there were finished and unfinished parts transferred to US ownership, but the rifle in question is a .303 inch P.14 and these would not have been assembled after the sale to the US in July. Also the US rifles were serial numbered in their own series. Skennerton shows pictures of both the Winchester and Eddystone M.17 No.1 in his "U.S. Enfield" book.

Pro tem it will remain a mystery, but I am on the case!

Regards

TonyE

TonyE, I have been giving some more thought to this case of the "missing numbers" and I believe there could be another possibility which you may not have yet considered.

Apart from the chance of a shipment of completed rifles going to some alternative destination (ie. not recorded as accepted by the British), we should also consider numbers which were "used up" but that didn't make it through as a completed rifle. The important point here is exactly when in the production process was the serial number applied to the receiver.? If done while still in the component form, some numbers would have been lost through rejection at the point of inspection, and it would not be unheard of for whole batches to be rejected if some problem was found. (I believe Winchester may have had some issues along the way, something to do with compatibility of parts, I'm not sure but could be worth some investigation.?)

My other theory (which I alluded to before regarding stocks of parts that were leftover at the end of the contract) swings on an understanding of the manufacturing process at the time. I have come across this before in relation to serial numbers on bayonets from Springfield Armory.(see attached LINK) You could probably describe the concept as being "first in, last out" with this idea relating to batches of unassembled components. As a simplified example, as each "batch" of a certain component is completed they would go into a store "bin" - first one made ends up at the bottom, last one made ends up on the top. When it comes to the final assembly process the components are "picked" from the store "bin" as required. This means that the last serial number component doesn't end up getting assembled into the last rifle produced.

In this case, where the production was terminated mid-contract there could have been many thousands of parts already in stores which never made it into the completed rifles. As I mentioned before these numbered receivers could then have been transferred over into US ownership, and (after machining / conversion / refinishing / renumbering.?) been assembled into the M1917 rifles. Just a thought (hope it helps).!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

... we should also consider numbers which were "used up" but that didn't make it through as a completed rifle. The important point here is exactly when in the production process was the serial number applied to the receiver.? If done while still in the component form, some numbers would have been lost through rejection at the point of inspection, and it would not be unheard of for whole batches to be rejected if some problem was found. (I believe Winchester may have had some issues along the way, something to do with compatibility of parts, I'm not sure but could be worth some investigation.?)

But the trouble with this is that the missing serial numbers are all ABOVE those accepted rather than being dispersed throughout the sequence [or constituted by a block of numbers within the sequence where there was a "problem"]... so for this idea to work, either the whole rejected batch would have had to come at the end of the production run or all the rejected parts would have had to be put together at the end and renumbered with higher numbers...

There was an issue with compatibility/interchangeablity of Winchester parts with those from other manufacturers but I am not sure it helps us in this respect.

I am afraid I don't understand your second reasoning (although I do understand the principle of first in last out) because we are talking about known examples of Winchester Pattern 14 rifles in .303" numbered with serial numbers running higher than the expected range, given the numbers accepted under the British contracts... No relevance to M1917 production, which may indeed have used parts originally intended for P14 production... but it wouldn't solve the problem here.

Chris (Ps Thanks for the link in the other thread)

[shippingsteel]

But the trouble with this is that the missing serial numbers are all ABOVE those accepted rather than being dispersed throughout the sequence

Chris

I know it does get very confusing, but we cannot assume the numbers "missing" are just those above the approx 235k rifles listed as being accepted by the British.

From what I gather, the ~235k totals have been compiled by the respective researchers from figures listed on monthly acceptance documents (I'm not sure of the details).

These documents would have only been concerned with numbers of rifles accepted. I very much doubt if any notice was taken of which serial numbers were stamped on the rifles.

This being so, the last rifles accepted on the British contract could very well have been stamped with serial numbers ranging up into the 245k region, though no-one can be certain.

For that to be the case, some serial numbers along the way would have had to have been "used up" without completing a rifle, or alternatively some of the completed rifles have remained unaccounted for.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

I suppose one possible explanation is that there were 235,500 rifles accepted at Winchester, but that does not take account of those rejected by the inspectors along the way.

However, for the serial numbers to get to around 250,000 as the evidence suggests it would mean there were at least 15,000 rejections. That suggests a rejection rate of about 6% which seems much too high. Bear in mind also that these would have had to be receiver rejections, as any other faults, bad barrels, stocks etc, could have been remedied and the receiver (and hence serial number) accepted.

I think I will post a request for high serial numbers on one if the US forums to see what comes out of the woodwork.

Regards

TonyE

I know it does get very confusing, but we cannot assume the numbers "missing" are just those above the approx 235k rifles listed as being accepted by the British.

From what I gather, the ~235k totals have been compiled by the respective researchers from figures listed on monthly acceptance documents (I'm not sure of the details).

These documents would have only been concerned with numbers of rifles accepted. I very much doubt if any notice was taken of which serial numbers were stamped on the rifles.

This being so, the last rifles accepted on the British contract could very well have been stamped with serial numbers ranging up into the 245k region, though no-one can be certain.

For that to be the case, some serial numbers along the way would have had to have been "used up" without completing a rifle, or alternatively some of the completed rifles have remained unaccounted for.

Cheers, S>S

That is the very point. The serial numbers above 235,000 do exist so are not missing. Either Winchester made around 15,000 rifles more than the records show or there are missing serials below 235,000.

I hear what you say about rejections (see my previous post) and I agree that it is possible that a whole batch of receivers were rejected because of a steel fault. I am going to contact the Winchester historian to see if they have any information.

With regard to the total number accepted, I think we can eliminate any idea that there were 15,000 more than the records show, partly because there are several disparate source documents in the archives, from contract details, telegrams from the War office and weekly statistics, that agree on the 235k number, but also the overall P.'14 numbers add up. I know 15,000 in 1.2 million is only just over 1%, but again all the records agree (within a few hundred)on the totals accepted and received.

It has been suggested that perhaps Winchester were asked to over run the contract to make up for rifles lost at sea to U-boats, but again, if that was the case there would not be a discrepancy of about 25,000 between accepted in the US and received in the UK.

I suspect the most likely answer is going to be human error. Somehow the records got confused and they "jumped" 20,000 or whatever. It is not unheard of for the opposite to happen and serials be duplicated.

We may never find out, but I will see if I can get anything out of Winchester and I will trawl through the archives again to see if I have missed anything.

Regards

Tony

[4thGordons]

I know it does get very confusing, but we cannot assume the numbers "missing" are just those above the approx 235k rifles listed as being accepted by the British.

From what I gather, the ~235k totals have been compiled by the respective researchers from figures listed on monthly acceptance documents (I'm not sure of the details).

These documents would have only been concerned with numbers of rifles accepted. I very much doubt if any notice was taken of which serial numbers were stamped on the rifles.

This being so, the last rifles accepted on the British contract could very well have been stamped with serial numbers ranging up into the 245k region, though no-one can be certain.

For that to be the case, some serial numbers along the way would have had to have been "used up" without completing a rifle, or alternatively some of the completed rifles have remained unaccounted for.

Cheers, S>S

OK Gotcha, fair point.

Chris

[coppertales]

Great thread here. To add a bit to the India rifles, I have a Remington and an Eddystone that were brought back from India last year. They were in poor shape, missing parts and broken stocks. However, the metal was in very nice blued condition, and the receiver/bolt numbers matched along with a few other parts. Bores were bright and shiney. The Eddystone bore looks to be unfired. However, the Remington is a better shooter. It took me about 2 months to restore the rifles. They turned out pretty nice. The computer I had the photos on crashed big time. I will take some more photos and try to post them here.....chris3

[shippingsteel]

My other theory (which I alluded to before regarding stocks of parts that were leftover at the end of the contract) swings on an understanding of the manufacturing process at the time. I have come across this before in relation to serial numbers on bayonets from Springfield Armory. You could probably describe the concept as being "first in, last out" with this idea relating to batches of unassembled components. As a simplified example, as each "batch" of a certain component is completed they would go into a store "bin" - first one made ends up at the bottom, last one made ends up on the top. When it comes to the final assembly process the components are "picked" from the store "bin" as required. This means that the last serial number component doesn't end up getting assembled into the last rifle produced. In this case, where the production was terminated mid-contract there could have been many thousands of parts already in stores which never made it into the completed rifles.

I will have another go at explaining what I think may have happened with the serial numbers. Just from numbers that have been reported on this thread we have evidence that serials in the range 235xxx, 238xxx, 240xxx, 241xxx do exist. But that doesn't mean that ALL the numbers below that have been used in completed rifles. Many of those lower numbers could have remained in stocks of unassembled receivers at the end of the contract. Consider the illustration below which is a simplification of parts stacked in a warehouse. As they are made the first numbered parts go to the bottom of the stack. When they are picked for final assembly the later numbered parts are taken off the top of the stack. In the drawing the shaded boxes are the parts that have been taken off the top of the stack and assembled into completed rifles. These numbers correlate with examples that have been reported above. The white boxes are the parts still in the warehouse at the end of the assembly run.

If we assume that rifles numbered in the 241xxx region were the last produced, than the maths says 241k less 235k rifles accepted equals roughly 6k of serial numbers that are "missing". After allowing for some rejections during production, I believe that the majority of these missing serial numbers could easily have remained in stocks leftover at the end of the contract (and possibly were converted into the M1917 rifles). And I hope the drawing below can illustrate exactly how that can happen. (This is my theory anyway - and I'm stickin' to it.!!)

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

A nice theory, but I do not think it holds together. I already have evidence of Winchester rifles numbered as high as 253xxx, so now we are talking about a gap of perhaps 20,000 numbers. Also, since the Model 1917 rifles had their own discrete serial numbers starting at 1, I have never heard anything about renumbered P.14 receivers being used.

Returning to the original subject of this post, my "new" P.14, I took it to the range yesterday for the first time. The first shot at 100 yards on a Figure 12 (?) head and shoulders target hit right on the nose - literally. It then proceeded to group in less that three inches with fifty year old Mark VII ammo, so you can imagine how pleased I was.

My pleasure was only surpassed by being given this bayonet by a very kind pal. It is a Remington, although on closer examination at home is in a Winchester scabbard. It is even the right year for the rifle.

It has been lightly varnished at some stage, and until I start on the cleaning, I am not sure whether the pommel and chape have been polished or silvered in some way. The two tones on the pommel could be discolouration of polished metal where the varnish has worn off. As you can see, even better, it is marked to 4th Batt. North Staffs, which of course was a Territorial battalion.

I am sure that you will have lots of comments S>S!

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

I took it to the range yesterday for the first time. The first shot at 100 yards on a Figure 12 (?) head and shoulders target hit right on the nose - literally. It then proceeded to group in less that three inches with fifty year old Mark VII ammo, so you can imagine how pleased I was. My pleasure was only surpassed by being given this bayonet by a very kind pal. It is a Remington, although on closer examination at home is in a Winchester scabbard. It is even the right year for the rifle.

As you can see, even better, it is marked to 4th Batt. North Staffs, which of course was a Territorial battalion.

I am sure that you will have lots of comments S>S!

Regards

TonyE

Thats great news about the rifles accuracy - seems it hasn't lost any of the tricks learnt in its past life as a target shooter.!

As for the bayonet, well theres good news and bad news, and for a moment I thought there might have been some very bad news, but now appears it might be OK.

You see your bayonet shows tell-tale signs in the configuration of the pommel taper which would normally for a Remington P1913, immediately set the alarm bells ringing. Well it did for me anyway.

This bayonet is made slightly different to the bulk of the P1913s that you would commonly encounter today. But then again it is also a quite early production date for a Remington P1913. I have never seen an example made like that myself, however my trusty 'go to' reference says that they are known to exist in the early production, so you might be right. Could you post some photos of the ricasso showing more of the fuller groove - I'd like to see how they look as well.

The good news is that the regimental mark does check out for WW1. Seems the 4th Battalion of the North Staffs was a Special Reserve unit that only existed during the GW period, so thats very good. As you know you seldom find WW1 unit marks on these P1913 bayonets. I also see some traces of green paint so chances are it went around again in WW2, presumably with the Home Guard.

The bad news is the scabbard is NOT a Winchester and probably not even WW1. Looks to be a post-war P1907 going on the W stamp, which stands for waxed treatment of the leather. (This is found under LOC 26030 dated 1923 covering the new treatment of leather scabbards. Also appears in B&CB p.202) Might want to check the locket and chape for any manufacturers stamps which would identify where it came from.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Interestingly I have a May 1916 Remington P13 too.

For comparison:

Although struck with varying degrees of clarity the marks would seem to be identical

Mine (it is actually one of the first bayonets I bought in the early 1980s) came with a nice brown scabbard also dated 1916 and produced by (I think by Jewell)

S>S I am interested in what you see in the construction of Tony's bayonet, looks normal to me.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Interestingly I have a May 1916 Remington P13 too.

S>S I am interested in what you see in the construction of Tony's bayonet, looks normal to me.

Chris

Hi Chris, could you post a shot of your bayonets pommel when you get a chance please, similar to Tony's third photo. I'd like to check they are both the same there as well.

Have a look at yours where the top of pommel meets the wood of the grip and then compare with another Remington made later in 1917 (or even a Rem M1917 bayo same thing)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

As requested:

The original bayonet (5 '16)

A Remington P13 dated (5 '17)

A Remington P13 dated (1 '17)

A Remington M1917

Chris

[4thGordons]

And in the same order giving the rear view of the pommel

Chris

[TonyE]

.....You see your bayonet shows tell-tale signs in the configuration of the pommel taper which would normally for a Remington P1913, immediately set the alarm bells ringing. Well it did for me anyway.

This bayonet is made slightly different to the bulk of the P1913s that you would commonly encounter today. But then again it is also a quite early production date for a Remington P1913. I have never seen an example made like that myself, however my trusty 'go to' reference says that they are known to exist in the early production, so you might be right. Could you post some photos of the ricasso showing more of the fuller groove - I'd like to see how they look as well.

The good news is that the regimental mark does check out for WW1. Seems the 4th Battalion of the North Staffs was a Special Reserve unit that only existed during the GW period, so thats very good. As you know you seldom find WW1 unit marks on these P1913 bayonets. I also see some traces of green paint so chances are it went around again in WW2, presumably with the Home Guard.

The bad news is the scabbard is NOT a Winchester and probably not even WW1. Looks to be a post-war P1907 going on the W stamp, which stands for waxed treatment of the leather. (This is found under LOC 26030 dated 1923 covering the new treatment of leather scabbards. Also appears in B&CB p.202) Might want to check the locket and chape for any manufacturers stamps which would identify where it came from.

Cheers, S>S

Thanks for your detailed post, but can you elaborate on what these "tell-tale" signs are that had you so worried please.

If the scabbard is a post war P.'07 as you think, I may well be able to swap it for a correct one. Even if I cannot swap, apparently the '07 scabbard is listed as interchangeable for the P.'13 bayonet.

May I ask why you think the 4th N.Staffs was a Special Reserve battalion? In a normal county regiment of that period, folowing the Haldane reforms,the 1st and 2nd Battalions were regular army, one serving at home and one overseas and the 3rd battalion was the Special Reserve. This was a skeleton unit based on the regimental depot and in war would be filled by the Special Reservists who had done their six months training and existed to provide reinforcement drafts to the two regular battalions. The 4th and 5th Battalions were the Territorial Force units normally based in two of the larger towns in the county. They were quite seperate from the Special Reserve.

As requested, a further quick scan showing the fuller on my bayonet.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

Thanks for your detailed post, but can you elaborate on what these "tell-tale" signs are that had you so worried please.

May I ask why you think the 4th N.Staffs was a Special Reserve battalion?

Regards

TonyE

Thanks for the extra photo TonyE, that blade looks to be in excellent condition. You can relax now, I think you've got on to a very nice one there. Hmmm, very nice indeed....!!

Whenever I'm looking at photos of bayonets, my "default setting" if you like, is everythings suspect until proven otherwise. And then I go thru the process of ticking off boxes, 'til she's right.

The thing that threw me with yours is that it is quite early production for a P1913, and that they made slight changes between then and the later production bayonets found in 1917.

To explain, if you look at the diagram below, the Black arrow indicates the area of interest, which I call the pommel "taper". Now these things vary in "look" between makers and models.

On the later Remingtons, the taper appears hollow with a definite sharp angular point, shown by the Red arrow. If you look at yours in the third photo, the taper is smoothly cut like a triangle.

Chris's example appears likewise. The photos Chris posted have this area mostly in shadow, but the group shot does give a reasonable comparison. Like everything, it can be difficult to pickup until you know what your looking for.!

In regard to the unit marking, you probably know more than me on the subject, but you can read all about it HERE for yourself. Just let me know later on if its all correct.!

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

TonyE, re the 4th N.STF. The following from the LLT website.

4th (Extra Reserve) Battalion

August 1914 : in Lichfield. Moved on mobilisation to Guernsey, on to Markse in October 1916 abd by March 1917 was at Saltburn.

June 1917 : moved to Westbere and attached to 200th Brigade, 67th Division.

7 October 1917 : left the Division and moved to France, landing at Le Havre. Placed under command of 167th Brigade in 56th (London) Division.

15 November 1917 : transferred to 106th Brigade in 35th Division.

3 February 1918 : transferred to 105th Brigade in same Division.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

S>S

I wondered if that is what you were talking about.

I have to say that with the bayonets in hand - although no two are identical there is far more similarity in shape between the P13s than between the P13s and the M1917. They are all Remingtons but there appears to be a clear difference betwen the mid 1917 produced P'13 shape and the just slightly later M1917.

Interesting observation though -- I will keep it in mind as I look at others.

Regarding the status of the 4th N.Staffs I think there may be a difference between "Extra Reserve" Battalion and "Special Reserve" Battalion (I am sure there is a N. Staffs expert somewhere on the forum) Clearly - as they deployed to France in Oct of 1917 they were not just a reserve or home Battalion.

This does beg an interesting question though - given they were apparently armed with P14s did these go to France with them or did they exchange them for SMLEs?

Chris

[Tinhat47]

Possibly slightly off-topic, but how late was the military use of the P14?

I have a photo of my wife's great-grandfather and his buddies during basic training for the U.S. Army in 1943, and they all are holding M1 Garands except one man is very noticeably carrying a P14.