"May the better rifle win"

[Khaki]

The No1 Mk3* or the P14, which was the superior battle rifle?, I tend to think that the No1 Mk3 was, based on weight, balance and ease of handling, after all the smle 'soldiered on' into other conflicts and the P14 faded away into storage or Home Guard use. I still however prefer the P14 to the later No.4 however that has no relevance here.

What's your opinion.

khaki

[Terrylee]

I agree with you entirely! At certain ranges the P.14 was the better target rifle and fitted with a telescopic sight it was superior as a sniper rifle, but as a weapon to arm the common soldier the SMLE had the advantage.

[MikB]

There's only ever one answer to this, and it's the SMLE. There's no bolt action rifle that can come near its speed of reload - the bolt stroke feels much more like two movements than four, and you can be back in the aim whilst the rifle's still coming down out of recoil. The P14's a specialist rifle.

Somebody once said that in WW1 the Germans carried a hunting rifle, the Americans a target rifle, but the British - they had a fighting rifle....

There's a lot in that, and no more needs saying IMHO.

Regards,

MikB

[Michael Johnson]

There is an argument to be made that had the Canadians stuck to the Ross Mk. II, perhaps in a lighter version, they might not have switched to the SMLE. The solid lugged II would not have been prone to the jamming of the Mk. III. But I agree that both were too long and too heavy.

[TonyE]

In the conditions of the Western Front the SMLE was undoubtably the better battle rifle, although the Pattern '14 did not in fairness ever get a chance to prove itself.

You say the P.'14 faded away, but that is not strictly true. In the late 1930s when the Ordnance Board once more turned their attention to the matter of a new infantry rifle, it was the P.'14 that they based their deliberations on. There were still some 650,000 in store and considerable effort was put into finding a new cartridge and a new infantry rifle based on the P.'14. Calibres of .256, .276, .303 and 7.9mm were all considered, based on a new case with the maximum diameter that the P.'14 magazine could handle. The primary consideration was the armour piercing ability of the new round, since in the mid 1930s armoured vehicles were still thin enough armoured for small arms to penetrate.

Two pictures are attached of experimental rifles based on the P.'14 from this time.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

It should also be recalled that the Pattern 1914 design (albeit in the guise of the .30 M1917) did see considerable combat use.

[Khaki]

It should also be recalled that the Pattern 1914 design (albeit in the guise of the .30 M1917) did see considerable combat use.

That is very true, but the 03 Springfield was probably the more desirable weapon and remains so amongst collectors even though the M17 was produced in huge numbers and armed more US infantrymen than the former. Any original 03 that turns up at a gun store, be it Springfield or Rock Island manufacture disappears very quickly. The M17 is not far behind in quick sales. Again by 1941 the poor old M17 became substitute standard and was often delivered to allies such as Filipino, Chinese and Home Guard units.

khaki

[4thGordons]

That is very true, but the 03 Springfield was probably the more desirable weapon and remains so amongst collectors even though the M17 was produced in huge numbers and armed more US infantrymen than the former. Any original 03 that turns up at a gun store, be it Springfield or Rock Island manufacture disappears very quickly. The M17 is not far behind in quick sales. Again by 1941 the poor old M17 became substitute standard and was often delivered to allies such as Filipino, Chinese and Home Guard units.

khaki

Yes , but I apparently didn't make my point clearly enough, which was not regarding the relative merits of the design but that it might be premature to describe the Pattern '14 design as "never ever get a chance to prove itself"(Tony) and "fading away" (Khaki) when essentially the same design did see considerable combat in the last six months of the war. "Collectability" or price commanded in a gun shop has only a passing relationship to the combat qualities of the rifle which I thought was the subject under discussion.

Chris

[smleenfield]

The No1 Mk3* or the P14, which was the superior battle rifle?, I tend to think that the No1 Mk3 was, based on weight, balance and ease of handling, after all the smle 'soldiered on' into other conflicts and the P14 faded away into storage or Home Guard use. I still however prefer the P14 to the later No.4 however that has no relevance here.

What's your opinion.

khaki

I would chose the #1 MkIII due to the higher magazine capacity, smoother action and the ability to come back on target much for rapidly.

In the conditions of the Western Front the SMLE was undoubtably the better battle rifle, although the Pattern '14 did not in fairness ever get a chance to prove itself.

You say the P.'14 faded away, but that is not strictly true. In the late 1930s when the Ordnance Board once more turned their attention to the matter of a new infantry rifle, it was the P.'14 that they based their deliberations on. There were still some 650,000 in store and considerable effort was put into finding a new cartridge and a new infantry rifle based on the P.'14. Calibres of .256, .276, .303 and 7.9mm were all considered, based on a new case with the maximum diameter that the P.'14 magazine could handle. The primary consideration was the armour piercing ability of the new round, since in the mid 1930s armoured vehicles were still thin enough armoured for small arms to penetrate.

Two pictures are attached of experimental rifles based on the P.'14 from this time.

Regards

TonyE

Those are very ugly little pups in my opinion.

[David B]

I have often wondered whether the SMLE was a bit of an overkill in the fact that it is/was a very powerful rifle. Now, in trench warfare who really needed such a weapon that was lethal at

up to 2000 yards plus - gee you can't even see the target at that range. So, a rifle that was lighter with a lethal range of say 500 yards would certainly be powerful enough would it not ?

In our range shooting we had to shoot with a bayonet attached, which for me, completely ruined any accuracy that I may have had because the bl**dy rifle was waving around like a

conductors wand. Finally marching with the beast attached to the shoulder became rather tiring, once again because of the weight.

[MikB]

I have often wondered whether the SMLE was a bit of an overkill in the fact that it is/was a very powerful rifle. Now, in trench warfare who really needed such a weapon that was lethal at

up to 2000 yards plus - gee you can't even see the target at that range. So, a rifle that was lighter with a lethal range of say 500 yards would certainly be powerful enough would it not ?

Nobody (or at least not many people with influence) expected WW1 to bog down into trench warfare - it was supposed to be a war of movement, over by Christmas. This was not the first or only war where that had happened, and it follows that no weapon designed before a war is likely to fight the war for which it's designed. Therefore weapons should be capable of adopting as wide a range of roles as possible. The SMLE was able to do this successfully.

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

Chris - that is fair comment about the combat use of the M1917, but the last six months of the war, particularly the last 100 days, were not typical of conditions pertaining for much of the war on the Western Front. The SMLE proved itself more than capable of standing up to the trench conditions of mud and water that affected the battlefield for many months of the year, and it was this I was referring to with respect to the Pattern '14.

rgartillery - You have just elaborated the argument in favour of assault rifles! However, when the SMLE was introduced the most recent combat had been in South Africa where ranges were much longer. Although the Russo-Japanese war had been a harbinger of the trench warfare that was to rapidly occur on the Western Front the belief in the army was still set in the long range volleys that were typically fired in colonial warfare.

Things go full circle however, and now there is a rapid re-introduction of longer range weapons as the "500 yard" 5.56mm assault rifles have been found wanting in Afghanistan.

Remember the old adage - generals always re-fight the last war!

Regards

TonyE

[David B]

Sounds fair enough to me, thanks for the comments chaps.

[Khaki]

. "Collectability" or price commanded in a gun shop has only a passing relationship to the combat qualities of the rifle which I thought was the subject under discussion.

Chris

Sorry, I did get away from the point a bit, I never heard any veteran (British) say "I wish we had been issued the P14, it was a better rifle" In fact when I think about it I never heard the smle criticised for any reason, it was rugged, as accurate as needed, short enough to be good in the trenches 10 round mag and capable of a fast rate of fire. One thing that almost never gets mentioned is that the butt stock came in sizes to suit the shooter. Without a doubt the smle was the superior rifle.

khaki