Winchester Pattern 1914 Enfield

[Sargent Silky Draws]

Hello,

 

I'm looking for some help in filling the back story of this spiffy P14/No3 Mrk 2 that I just found in a upper New York gun store. Judging from is low serial number, I'm guessing its of early product. Can anyone help me identify month/year of its production?

I haven't been able to find a list of Winchester P14 production dates online yet.  The only stamp "other then SN" on the receiver is the crown/GR/cross lance/P stamp, was this one of the early P14 rejected by the Brits? But it had to be accepted at some point, because it was 1 of the only 11,000 P14s restocked, when P14s were being converted to Rifle No3 Mark 2. Which being the case, any stamping on the stock is not relevant to the great war, but I included images of them, in case someone happens to know what they mean. Any feed back about the rifle would be greatly appreciated.

 

Cheers!

Edited 16 March , 2020 by Sargent Silky Draws
I suck at typing

[4thGordons]

I believe 1306 was accepted by British Inspectors during the week ending 6th of May 1916 (MUN/5/189/1400/21) so yes it is an early rifle.

 

As you indicate the MkII refers to the stock fitted to the rifle which is a WWII vintage replacement (made by H Morris and Co in Glasgow) - you will note it is without the volley sight and butt marking disk. Rifles fitted with these stocks were called the No3 MkII (after the terminology change in the late 20s) but this was applied to rifles in British service so as you say it was accepted. A lot of the original stamping on P14s was (a bit unusually for British rifles) on the stock so that is lost when it is replaced. All the marks I see look fairly standard apart from the 3s down the buttstock and the 4 circles on the underside - I have not seen those previously

 

Winchester rifles were held in higher regard by the British than other manufacturers and I don't see anything that makes me think it was rejected (although again these markings were on the stock - EY or a Maltese Cross.

 

Question does it still have the MkI bolt? or has it been modified to MkI* (with larger lugs)?

 

It looks to me as though the front handguard is from a Springfield M1903 rather than a P14 (the metal semi-circles showing) I have seen this before on restocked rifles.

 

Hope this helps

Chris

 

[Sargent Silky Draws]

Hi Chris

 

Thank you for the info on dating the rifle and your knowledge of the stock manufacturer. The reason I suspected the rifle was rejected, is because the receiver is not stamped with a broad head arrow. On other P14s, I've seen images of online, they all have a broadhead stamped next to the crown/GR/cross lance/P stamp; and I thought the broad head was the acceptance into service mark. 
Good eye on noting the 03 handguard style. I laid out an 03 next to the No3 MkII to compare the guards, and they do seem to be of the same design, but the guard on the No3 MkII is longer. I wonder if they were special order for the No3 MkII conversions. 
About those 3s stamped down the top of the stock and the circles. Those are the marks that keep me starring at the ceiling at night, wondering what the heck do they mean! And the more I study the 3s, some of them start looking like 5s! 
I've also attached images of the bolt head; I think it has the MK1* lugs. Do they look as such to you? 

 

Thank You for the help!
David

[4thGordons]

Hmmm difficult to tell in isolation:

For comparison:

 

I have never seen any official mention of an alternate type of handguard in any of the standard works. But I have seen several examples like this. It looks to me as though your rifle has been refinished at some point so I wonder if the handguard might have been added then (for a while M1903 parts were much easier to get in the US than P14/M1917) it would be interesting to see if anyone can dig up a reference to an alternate type. Are there any markings on it? in WWII contract listing SAF Enfield is listed as a manufacturer of front handguards but I have no details on these if they differed in any way.

Chris

Edited 17 March , 2020 by 4thGordons

[Sargent Silky Draws]

Old Mil Serv rifles are like wifes, they'll never expose all the secrets of their past and you just have to love her as she is.  

 

I spent sometime searching for images of P14s and No3's to check out their guards and your right. Its a complete mixed bag of original and replacement stocks and both types of guards.

I'd think, the steal spring clamp hand guards had to be made for the the P14, because they are longer then the front hand guards of a '03.

 

and the lug is MK1*

 

again Thank You for the your knowledge!

David 

[jabbott376]

Hi gents

 

I'm currently piecing together information on a P14 i just bought (separate thread here) and i noticed the picture denoting the difference between Mk1 and Mk1* bolts.

 

In Skennerton's book on the P14, he says that Mk1 bolt locking lugs are shorter (0.625") and that Mk1* were longer (by 0.10") and that Mk1* barrels had longer locking recesses. He doesn't give any indication regarding width. 

 

In @4thGordons picture, it looks as though the longer lug is labelled Mk1 (though it is noticeably thinner than the other example). I'm wondering if there's any other resources i can explore to find out more on this?

 

Apologies for merely adding more variables!

 

James

 

[4thGordons]

The late Skip Stratton has an easily accessible volume on the P14/M1917 with most of the details you are asking about in (in the North Cape "For Collectors Only" series Vol 4)

 

on p 58/59 Skip provided line drawings illustrating the differences (and also the differences with the M1917 bolt)

 

I took a few more snaps to try and illustrate this for you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

 

 

[jabbott376]

@4thGordons sorry, it was Stratton's book that i was referring to with the measurements. Getting my Enfield authors muddled! Unfortunately i can't find most of my answers in there (unless i'm not looking hard enough). I have the kindle version so maybe it's missing something.

 

Thank you for taking the time to get the additional photos :).

 

James

[Sargent Silky Draws]

So what advantage was gain or issue solved with the redesign/install of the lugs?

 

 

Cheers~

[4thGordons]

1 hour ago, Sargent Silky Draws said:

So what advantage was gain or issue solved with the redesign/install of the lugs?

 

 

Cheers~

 

I believe it was to strengthen the locking of the action. I have never seen any reports of the action failing (in fact it recognized as a very strong action). It may be to do with the fact that the design (p13) was originally for a new rimless, .276 cartridge and perhaps the original lugs were the same dimensions so it was thought that they needed beefing up?

 

There were actually about 20 modification made during initial production (but they did not apply to all manufacturers) prior to the official addition of the * to the Mark I.

 

The British inspectors considered that the production differences between the three manufacturers (Eddystone, Remington and Winchester) were so significant that  the rifles were not standardised and parts were not interchangeable.  This led to the odd situation where the rifle actually had 3 official designations Pattern 1914 MkI(E), Pattern 1914 MkI(R) and Pattern 1914 MkI(W). The inspectors considered the Winchester rifles to be superior and these were the only ones used for Marksman (F) and Telescoped (T) sniper versions.

Chris