My Enfield P14, made by Winchester is an awesome rifle. It cycles smoothly, has decent accuracy for a 100 year old military rifle and isn't finicky when it comes to brand or type of ammo. Being a Canuck, my choice of bullets for hand loading is the Campro .303 (.311) 180gr round nose soft point. No moose has ever questioned my judgement.
I have a P14 by Eddystone Remington. I only buy milsurp ammo and at 50m to 100m it shoots spot on. I can cover 5 holes on the target with the palm of my hand. It does have a new Musgrave barrel, I must add
The reason the earliest Winchesters weren't interchangeable; they knew that M1017 production was coming up, and tooled up and began production so quickly that they had started before the interchangeability initiative/technical data package had been created and dispersed. The other two factories received it and began, but they decided not to make Winchester immediately retool (or those rifles were made prior to it, can't recall). So it was because Winchester was too good at it. :)
Very nice rifles. The m17 doesn’t get the love it deserves here in the states. The 1903 often supersedes it. Also the 1903 was ( erroneously) depicted in the movie sgt york as the one he used during the action which resulted in him being awarded the Medal of Honor. In actuality Alvin York used a M17.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I saw one of Rob Ski's videos with the SKS and I counted 11 rounds, and thought "what the hell?", And then I saw him partially reload the rifle by turning it upside down and opening the bottom of the magazine.
I think that is because it was an adaptation of the P14 which was intended to take the rimmed .303. The 30.06 was (and still is) rimless and thus thinner at the base.
I never even knew about the M1917 until a friend got an Eddystone that was apparently a lend-lease gun. It had a band of red paint around the handguard denoting a "non-standard" caliber. Very nice gun. I am quite jealous of it.
I've seen a lot of videos about the P14 and M1917 (my favorite bolt rifle), and this is the first video I've seen showing the differences between the two. I knew about the stock, caliber, 5 vs 6 rounds, but not about the magazine well. I learned something new today. Thanks!
I just picked up an early Winchester 1917 with the serial 1736 for only $200 CAD and I’ve just begun restoring it, I’m currently looking for a stock but I’m very excited by this rifle
Good points. It was 40+ years ago when I realized the internal parts of a P14 were not that interchangeable with those of the US M1017. Yours is the first video I have seen discussing that in any detail.
Im getting a sporterized m1917. Luckily for me a lot of replacement stock parts are still for sale on numrich but its gonna be a bit of a restoration job.
I have a very well sporterized P14. It's not a Bubba gun by any means and seems to have been professionally done with new sporter style stock. Sight ears have been milled off etc. Scope only gun. It is Winchester manufacture and on my best day the bullet holes were touching each other at 100 yards. This happened at initial sight in with 5 guys watching me. They became extremely quiet when I brought the target back. True story. Ammo was Winchester Power Point.
Yeah firearms are a great introduction to engineering because they're simple systems that are unforgiving if you don't follow the principles of good design
I found a Winchester Model 1917 in a Pawn shop last week. Needless to say I put it on layaway. Initial look over, it was refurbished, the barrel is stamped JA with Flaming cannon ball ( Johnson Automatics, they rebarreled M1917s during refurbishment) the stock is Stamped with a W, no Sling swivel or butt sling swivel( have those on order). Other than that gun is pretty mint.
I really like your videos , I have a few of the rifles that you have shown and talked about . I enjoy shooting all of them . Well except the 1940’s made Chinese Mausers I just acquired . On has a shot out barrel , but both need the chamber cleaned very well , I can almost chamber a round , just need the last little down turn of the bolt , just anther project to work on
So I have a question regarding the non interchangeability of the P14's - were they refurbished at the production plants in the US, or were they kept in Great Britain and FTR'ed there, all by hand fitting? The later M1917's were arsenal refurbed and as such often are found containing parts from any of the 3 makers, were P14's done the same?
Refurbished at Weedon in the UK. If a new bolt was required, it's just a question of "try a lot of them, and if none work, hand-fit" (which is actually how it was done with the US ones too, but you've got a better chance of finding the right one quicker with the much better degree of interchangeability). But you also have to bear in mind that even with the M17's we're not talking modern degrees of interchangeability.
My grandad used the P14 in WW2 early on in the war an loved it, said it was the best rifle he ever used. Being a Commando, intially theyd be given the older stuff and the new stuff would be sent to the Regular Army. Was pissed when they later took it off him and gave him a No4. The British logistics apparently never issued the right bayonets with the P14, so when they had to do a charge once, the Enfield bayonet he had obviously didn't fit his P14... They charged anyway. Sounds like it was a great rifle, shame it was never given the service it deserved by the UK. Sounds like the US troops in WW1 loved it too.
It's really "The British Mauser". Sgt Alvin York used the 1917 Enfield during his Service; not the 1903 Springfield. York called it "The British Rifle", but in many British Soldiers called/nick-named the P14 and 1917 Rifles as "Royal Mausers".
Wish I had gotten an M1917 back in the 1990's when I had the chance too. You can assemble an AR-15 however you do need to have the correct tools and some basic mechanical knowledge is recommended. When I did my two AR's I went with complete upper and lower from PSA. I got the BCG, carry handle and bolt charger from other sources.
I have a P14 and a M17 and one thing I noticed was that the charger grooves for the M17 are angled forwards. I assume that this is to ensure that the longer 30-06 cartridge clears the mouth of the receiver as the cartridges would tend to move to the rear of the magazine when pushed down. The receiver was designed for the 7x60mm cartridge and the 30-06 cartridge is 63mm long. The grooves on my P14 are vertical as is my 1903 Springfield. Has anyone else noticed this difference, I have found no references to it anywhere.
In the course of taking care of a little hideaway in Alabama, I drive from Georgia in the States right past the Civilian Marksmanship Program facilities and I've bought 3 rifles from them. In looking for a M1917 lately, they all are marked "DARK BORE" on the toe-tag along with the chamber and muzzle specs. In your expert opinion, what exactly causes that, what does it mean and would it detract from the function as a shooter? Appearance doesn't bother me much, but I'd love a 1917 and that's a psychological snag. Also, lately at the Talledega store, all they have are EDDYSTONE rifles. Should I avoid an Eddystone for any reason? I'm sadly ignorant, but I love taking the old guns to Alabama to my backyard range and value your insight. THANKS and CHEERS!
Fascinating. I know of a Home Guard company in Suffolk that was issued with a mixture of p.14, p.17 and SMLE. I can image it could have been potentially dodgy having both kinds of ammo in circulation at the same time.
I guess it would have been manageable, with the red paint band to ID the M17's. Probably not so different to having 9mm or 45 for an SMG plus 303 for the rifles.
@@BlokeontheRange that is true. They also had BAR so they may have split the different types between the 8 platoons to avoid issues.... Thanks for your video. I really knew nothing about these rifles until I started reading about them yesterday.
Not pointless at all. As dual American/Canadian I encounter both P14 & M17. Haven’t acquired either yet but I have an M1 Garand and a Lee Enfield No. 4 mark 1* so have .303 and .30’06 on hand. Looking forward to getting one or the other or both.
@@dave_h_8742 If you poke around, there is an audiobook version read by the author. It is amazing. Much artillery related goonery. Spike Milligna, the world's greatest typing error.
Saw a show that took place in Africa I believe. Everyone carried adjustable wrenches because no 2 bolts heads were quite the same size. Showed them making bolts with tap and die sets. Must have forged the wrench flats.
To the Winchester note, I've seen it stated both ways that a circle star stamp indicates the rifle is either an early non interchangeable rifle or, alternatively, suitable for interchangeability. Does anyone know which way it is? I totally did not take the feed lips into account when I was tracking down a knackered receiver for a sporter project. I initially wanted a P14 receiver since the markings are so sparse and usually you've got tap holes through the lettering on M17s, but then I realized I'd made a misstep when I got under the hood (it also was bodged up already from being converted to .300 Win Mag, but even if it hadn't I'd still have been hosed). Luckily I found an M17 barreled action that had been tapped over the chamber (?!) rather than on the front ring of the receiver, so it won't look too dodgy when I put it together with irons and a 308 barrel.
Just found a nice example of a p14 in 303 for 395.00 us. Looks like that is a good price. Bore looks nice. Exterior metal work nice also. Bet it will be an accurate shooter.
Regarding assembling ARs stateside. Basically no one who builds one checks the headspace. If the barrel extension and BCG are manufactured in spec its supposed to be automatically properly headspaced* * of course one would never recommend this practice. But such is the “LEGOfication” of the AR platform.
It's interesting to know which way US engineering is going, and has done. When Kennedy said "a man on the moon and back" there was a BBC programme explaining how the tolerances had to be so much closer. Computer controlled machinery allegedly became more common because of that.
About 35 years ago My Brother bought a P-14 . 303 from Big 5 Sporting goods. Back then the chain sold some decent military surplus Arms and carried black powder revolver kits. My Brother tried sporterizing it and botched it. I wish He left it original. I do not understand why people chop nice old military rifles when they can find really nice Sporting rifles ready to go. I like the old model 70 and the 54 that preceded it. There are a lot of good Remington 721’s Savage 99’s etc. I picked up a Turkish 88 commission rifle for $35.00 none of them had matching numbers and after ten rounds the bolt became hard to cycle. The French Mas 36 in both original caliber and NATO are like new never issued. My Stepson inherited a P-17 30-06 Eddystone from His Father. I had heard or read somewhere about 35 years ago that some Eddystone’s were not properly heat treated and had problems due to excessive pressure causing receiver failure.
I have a custom-rifle .303 in immaculate condition, barrel looks new, inside and out M7900 ser. no., BSA logo on the rear-bridge, with Made in England 'Stamp', weird-stepped magazine-box showing no use (P14) It has a 'Jeweled-Bolt' and bolt-release , all P14-looking. Stock looks like a 'Rigby-Copy' , in walnut , with Rigby-Style cheek-piece and exquisite Schnabel fore-end, high-quality hand-checkering, thumb-hole or normal-hold. No fore-sight, but full-length barrel, and the rear-sight dove-tail has been professionally blanked, but in the exact place as BSA A-D Sporting-Rifles sold between 1949-53. Deceased-Estate and no history known. More accurate than any .303 I've fired before, even better than my custom .270 . Dave Aotearoa nz
When did the P14 get the finger grooves? I'd always thought those were replacement M1917 stocks, but I've seen some that were outfitted with volley sights (such as yours), so they can't be M1917 stocks, right?
I may have missed it, but the americans had a strong fascination with a cone breech shape on the barrel. I believe that breech face of the 303 barrel of the 1914 was flat and not cone shaped. I have never seen it discussed relative to the why of it for the americans going for the cone breech face.
When I served my time (in a toolroom) I was taught gauging and interchangeability was due to Joseph Whitworth. He had, after all, defined the Whitworth thread form in 1841 and BSW threads have been interchangeable since. He also looked like a Baboon. Tolerancing and standard fits where in widespread use by 1900, along with gauging and extensive precision metrology capabilities.
This is true but the real precision and standardization of measurement is due to Carl Edvard Johansson of Sweden who patented his guage blocks in 1896.
Funnily enough, you don't actually come across any "interchangeability" issues when building or repairing P14s. Most P14s today contain a mix of parts from the three factories, and plenty even have M1917 parts in them (M1917 stocks were apparently an official British approved replacement). One wonders whether Weedon went through 1.2m rifles and remanufactured the offending parts, or if the "interchangeability" issues were in fact down to extremely small dimensional variations in gauging - i.e. variations big enough to be picked up by an inspector's gauge, but small enough to make no discernable difference when parts were being gorilla'd in by an armourer or civilian owner?
Yeah horrific. I remember hearing a similar sound in a previous video, I think it was one of the Q and As. That was Even in a different location, that mic might be particularly sensitive to interference or something maybe?
Than the SMLE? In terms of the amount of skill required, it's easier (although on a WW2 RAF price list, SMLE's were listed as slightly cheaper). There's a lot more machining on the receiver than with a 1903 so probably not better than those.
Would love a video on the differences between the Mauser action and the Lee Enfield action. Pros and cons of both, and maybe compared to a modern bolt action to see the lineage.
The Enfield action was/is rear locking bolt.The P14 a modified Mauser was/is a forward locking bolt. Rear locking bolt is believed to compress/distort during firing, and affecting accuracy beyond 6oo yds. the Mauser forward locking bolt does not compress/ distort during discharge and is favored more accurate beyond 600yds. This was the believe of many long range target shooters and it seemed to be backed up by their preference of forward locking bolts beyond 600yds.
Its the reason I gave up on Lee Enfields, case life with top handloads sucks because of the bolt compression and action stretch. I have a very nice sporter P14 in 303 and it shoots 1 inch groups at 100 yards with my top handloads. There is no problem with case life and zero head separations but I do resize cases for a slight crush fit in all my bolt action rifles. However this is of no consequence in a battle rifle, soldiers do not fire reloads.@@willielongbotham7156
Congratulations, you've officially forced me to find a Lee-action rifle for my collection! *Applause* Beyond Sterling & Ishapore's conversions of Lee rifles to .308, were there any other firms that converted Lees to American cartridges? PS: I think you've also changed my perspective on the P14 vs N.04 Mk.1 & M1917 vs M1903 after chewing on what you've said on the prior matter.
Enfield, for one, converted No.4 Mk.1(T)'s to L42A1's, scratch-built L39A1's, Envoys, Enforcers and No.4 Conv's from unused actions, and loads of random gunsmiths converted various No.4's to 7.62x51 target rifles using Enfield and other barrels.
You’d think Enfield would’ve designed the P14 to simply take the Lee Mag from the SMLE, Once they decide to go with .303. One wonder’s why they didn’t.
Probably far simpler to modify the existing mag from .276 to .303 than to get a completely different mag to work with it and in consequence redesign all the other components around it to get it to work. Would require significant rework.
Well, actually, there were the Pattern 1914 Mk1W, the Pattern 1914 Mk1E, and the Pattern 1914 Mk1R. These were joined by the Pattern 1914 Mk1W (F) and the Pattern 1914 Mk1*W(F), and then later by the Pattern 1914 Mk1*(T). Post war, these were mostly refurbished at Weedon and became Pattern 1914 Mk2. In 1926 they all then became Rifle No3Mk1, except for the sniper variants which became Rifle No3 Mk1(T). Did you take notes?!
A number of M1917s were shipped to Britain during the dark days of early WWII. So similar are the rifles to the P14 that the American guns had red bands painted on the forends to tell the rifles apart.
You are very wrong the P 14 was designed from the start as a .303 cal. rifle . M1917 was produced for the US military because Springfield Armory was having problem with the production of the M1903 Springfield. And could not supply the need of the USA for World War One. The P14 was is production, it was relatively easy to change it over .30 cal. Most of the US troops that fought in WW1 used the M1917.
Sorry but you're totally wrong. The P14 was a .303 adaptation of the .276 P13 (aka "new magazine rifle" in the Small Arms Committee minutes). I have no idea where you get the idea that the P14 was designed from the start as a .303 rifle since it's simply not true.
I have a number of firearms history books, some by the late Ian V. Hogg, but it's interesting how a few of them brand the P14/M1917 a _bad_ rifle. The word "disastrous" is actually used in some of these books. And when you read their criticisms -- especially about the rifle being prone to heating up very badly, badly fouled bores, and a few other issues -- it's clear that those criticisms might be somewhat true of the Pattern _13_ rifle from which the P14/M1917 were developed, and even then, mainly were a result not of the rifle, but of the .276 cartridge, whose design goals might have been a little too ambitious for the era in which it was developed; they were trying for velocities in excess of what the propellant technology and perhaps also the metallurgy of the era could manage. The P14 may have had interchangeability issues due to the haste with which it was developed, but was otherwise a perfectly good weapon. And as noted here, those issues were worked out for the M1917, and it's honestly a damn good rifle, and a strong contender for the title of best service rifle of the First World War. I'd take it over any other rifle of the war, except the SMLE.
@@BlokeontheRange Yes, as my knowledge has increased over the years, I have learned to take much of what he wrote with several large grains of salt -- he is, if not the origin of, at least one of the perpetuators of the myth of the deadliness of the Garand's ping, for example.
@@BlokeontheRange He's also on record asserting that the Luger is "...not among the most reliable of weapons... the multiplicity of exposed parts are prone to suffer from mud and sand." Yet the Germans used the Luger throughout the First World War -- a conflict famous above all for the mud of the trenches -- and I am aware of no particular reports of the German's dissatisfaction with the pistol. When they replaced it in the 1930s it wasn't because they were unhappy with the P08's performance, just the high cost of manufacturing it. And amusingly, in Ian and Karl's mud tests, the Luger performed best out of all the pistols they tested, IIRC. It seems to mark a tendency on Hogg's part to uncritically accept, and then repeat things he's heard that _sound_ plausible, without actually doing any careful research to see if he can confirm such things. And one kind of sloppiness on the part of a writer/researcher is apt not to be the only kind.
@@BlokeontheRangeIan Hogg was an artilleryman, and that was his area of expertise. But the market interest is mainly in small arms, so he wrote on them also.
It’s really too bad that the P13 .276 was never developed as planned. The British could have had a nice new reliable and powerful rifle cartridge and rifle. But it all worked out. I’d love to get a M1917. The .30-06 is my favorite rifle cartridge
Nah, it's way too overpowered for an infantry rifle cartridge. Good that it didn't go further, the Brits would have had a much heavier, half-capacity, clunkier service rifle that's harder to clean, where the only practical improvement on it was better sights. The overwhelming majority of soldiers can't shoot well enough to use the increased long-range performance. The US is now making exactly the same error with .277 Fury
@@BlokeontheRange Have you had the opportunity to fire the experimental. .276 Enfield in the M1913? I know they don’t make ammo for it but maybe some wildcat company that makes unique ammo or an experienced handloader with a company that makes obsolete brass cases. On paper, the .276 Enfield looks comparable to the .30-06 Springfield. A 165 gr bullet going at around 2750 fps. That’s comparable to a .30-06 165 gr that gives you 2800 fps. A rimless cartridge that the M1913/14/17 design was intended to shoot. Our Doughboys didn’t mind it (unless they were comparing to the lighter and cock on open 1903 Springfield) and the majority used it to great effect in World War 1. Said army did eventually go to the M1 Garand and later M14 which are comparable in bulk and weight to the 1917 rifle. C&R arsenal channel has a great at-length discussion on both the M1914 and 1917 on their channel. Here is a summary minute. If this little girl can appreciate it, I’d imagine an average man could get to appreciate it. th-cam.com/video/QnWC4BBjFhI/w-d-xo.html I have carried my father’s M14 (M1A) with a full magazine which is comparable in size and weight with the 1917 all day in the woods in the hot summer hiking and while it was heavier than say my M1 Carbine or AR15, I didn’t find it cumbersome. My father certainly appreciated it in 1964 in the US marines. A little weight is appreciated when shooting a high powered rifle. I do agree the US gov’t is making a mistake with the .277 Fury. The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO can more than do the job that’s required. The US gov’t excels at unnecessary spending wasting money these days.
.30-06 original loading was 150 grain doing about that velocity: .276 enfield is a good whack hotter, 15gn more bullet weight with a much higher ballistic coefficient. I've seen a P13 fired, but I've never fired one myself. It's indeed quite noisy though, even with modern powders!
You must define a “Botched or Botch job” differently than most! The M1917 modified an already established design to use a different caliber in an EXTRAORDINARILY FAST time, in the middle of a war! What more could you ask for?
I didn't say the M1917 was a bodged job. I said that the P14 magazine was a bodged job. It's a cludge from the P13 magazine, and the P13 wasn't an "established design", there's only been a short production run for trials.
I acquired last Christmas , for myself , a Winchester Model 1917, dated 8-17 . I found a site the shows & lists where all the parts are Arsenal stamped , I just haven’t disassembled it yet to go through it . It shots great , even made a video of it
Thank you for this. I hope you are not living in Devon Cornwall today. If you are a firearms enthusiast you may not even speak an unkind word with a threat to your hobby.
But yeah, not as smooth an action, with 90° vs 60° rotation and a much, much longer bolt throw. IIRC we're talking 1.75 vs 1.5 second splits or something like that.
Would love a video on the differences between the Mauser action and the Lee Enfield action. Pros and cons of both, and maybe compared to a modern bolt action to see the lineage.
![U.S. Rifle M1917 [Sgt. York's WW1 Medal of Honor Story ] to 500yds: Practical Accuracy](/img/n.gif)
My Enfield P14, made by Winchester is an awesome rifle. It cycles smoothly, has decent accuracy for a 100 year old military rifle and isn't finicky when it comes to brand or type of ammo. Being a Canuck, my choice of bullets for hand loading is the Campro .303 (.311) 180gr round nose soft point. No moose has ever questioned my judgement.
I have a P14 by Eddystone Remington. I only buy milsurp ammo and at 50m to 100m it shoots spot on. I can cover 5 holes on the target with the palm of my hand. It does have a new Musgrave barrel, I must add
My grandfather (who migrated to Minnesota from Manitoba as a kid) called Canadians "snowbacks".
The reason the earliest Winchesters weren't interchangeable; they knew that M1017 production was coming up, and tooled up and began production so quickly that they had started before the interchangeability initiative/technical data package had been created and dispersed. The other two factories received it and began, but they decided not to make Winchester immediately retool (or those rifles were made prior to it, can't recall).
So it was because Winchester was too good at it. :)
The first batch of P14's delivered by Winchester were rejected by Britain, for various reasons and were stamped DP for use as Drill and Parade only.
Very nice rifles. The m17 doesn’t get the love it deserves here in the states. The 1903 often supersedes it. Also the 1903 was ( erroneously) depicted in the movie sgt york as the one he used during the action which resulted in him being awarded the Medal of Honor. In actuality Alvin York used a M17.
Watching it now!
Pointless additional factoid (that I'm sure Mike and pretty much any American is well aware of) - the M1917 will fit a bonus round in the mag.
It will hold 6 rounds, but the stripper clips US soldiers were issued only held 5 rounds.
@@JS-ob4oh Of course. Same goes for the SKS with its 11 round mag.
@@JonathanFergusonRoyalArmouries I saw one of Rob Ski's videos with the SKS and I counted 11 rounds, and thought "what the hell?", And then I saw him partially reload the rifle by turning it upside down and opening the bottom of the magazine.
I think that is because it was an adaptation of the P14 which was intended to take the rimmed .303. The 30.06 was (and still is) rimless and thus thinner at the base.
@@JS-ob4oh So they loaded a stripper clip + 1.
I never even knew about the M1917 until a friend got an Eddystone that was apparently a lend-lease gun. It had a band of red paint around the handguard denoting a "non-standard" caliber. Very nice gun. I am quite jealous of it.
I remember seeing a deactivated M1917 online listed as "Springfield P17 Edistone Mauser Enfield U.S."
There's a German captured weapons info sheet where the P14 is referred to as "Ross-Enfield" :D
@@BlokeontheRange So it will or will not blow up in your face? Shrödinger's rifle. 😀
They added a bunch of keywords in hopes of the most amount of browsers having their listing pop up.
@@BlokeontheRange from what I’m recalling the Chinese forces that got the p14 and p17 enfield
Made a 7.92 conversion for their rifles
I've seen a lot of videos about the P14 and M1917 (my favorite bolt rifle), and this is the first video I've seen showing the differences between the two. I knew about the stock, caliber, 5 vs 6 rounds, but not about the magazine well.
I learned something new today. Thanks!
I just picked up an early Winchester 1917 with the serial 1736 for only $200 CAD and I’ve just begun restoring it, I’m currently looking for a stock but I’m very excited by this rifle
So jelly!
Ah, the deep nerdy stuff we love.
The bolt interchangeability along with the different extractor was very interesting, as well as a good look at the main differences, Well done again
Good points. It was 40+ years ago when I realized the internal parts of a P14 were not that interchangeable with those of the US M1017. Yours is the first video I have seen discussing that in any detail.
Mother of god, he is bloking this range so hard.
Excellent informative video now got more information thanks keep up the excellent content .
All the best from Scotland
Im getting a sporterized m1917. Luckily for me a lot of replacement stock parts are still for sale on numrich but its gonna be a bit of a restoration job.
Found a nice 30/40 Krag Jorgensen that Bubba did a number on sadly. I might pick it up and try and bring it back to its original furniture.
Very interesting, indeed. Enjoyed learning about the history of the interchangeability of the rifle parts.
I was at a rifle match 30 years ago and someone had a US 1917. He said that the vintage gun shot as well as any target rifle.
Great video, thanks for sharing. My most favourite rifle
Nice video, thanks for explaining the differences.
Fascinating! Thanks for this...
Well done sir! Enjoyed the manufacturing context as well. Aloha
I have a very well sporterized P14. It's not a Bubba gun by any means and seems to have been professionally done with new sporter style stock. Sight ears have been milled off etc. Scope only gun. It is Winchester manufacture and on my best day the bullet holes were touching each other at 100 yards. This happened at initial sight in with 5 guys watching me. They became extremely quiet when I brought the target back. True story. Ammo was Winchester Power Point.
As a non engineer I've learned more about the subject on this channel than in the rest of my life.
Yeah firearms are a great introduction to engineering because they're simple systems that are unforgiving if you don't follow the principles of good design
I found a Winchester Model 1917 in a Pawn shop last week. Needless to say I put it on layaway. Initial look over, it was refurbished, the barrel is stamped JA with Flaming cannon ball ( Johnson Automatics, they rebarreled M1917s during refurbishment) the stock is Stamped with a W, no Sling swivel or butt sling swivel( have those on order). Other than that gun is pretty mint.
I really like your videos , I have a few of the rifles that you have shown and talked about . I enjoy shooting all of them . Well except the 1940’s made Chinese Mausers I just acquired . On has a shot out barrel , but both need the chamber cleaned very well , I can almost chamber a round , just need the last little down turn of the bolt , just anther project to work on
So I have a question regarding the non interchangeability of the P14's - were they refurbished at the production plants in the US, or were they kept in Great Britain and FTR'ed there, all by hand fitting? The later M1917's were arsenal refurbed and as such often are found containing parts from any of the 3 makers, were P14's done the same?
Refurbished at Weedon in the UK. If a new bolt was required, it's just a question of "try a lot of them, and if none work, hand-fit" (which is actually how it was done with the US ones too, but you've got a better chance of finding the right one quicker with the much better degree of interchangeability). But you also have to bear in mind that even with the M17's we're not talking modern degrees of interchangeability.
My grandad used the P14 in WW2 early on in the war an loved it, said it was the best rifle he ever used. Being a Commando, intially theyd be given the older stuff and the new stuff would be sent to the Regular Army. Was pissed when they later took it off him and gave him a No4. The British logistics apparently never issued the right bayonets with the P14, so when they had to do a charge once, the Enfield bayonet he had obviously didn't fit his P14... They charged anyway. Sounds like it was a great rifle, shame it was never given the service it deserved by the UK. Sounds like the US troops in WW1 loved it too.
It's really "The British Mauser". Sgt Alvin York used the 1917 Enfield during his Service; not the 1903 Springfield. York called it "The British Rifle", but in many British Soldiers called/nick-named the P14 and 1917 Rifles as "Royal Mausers".
Worth checking where a lot of P14's saw service after the war, they saw action in Korea and a lot more
Wish I had gotten an M1917 back in the 1990's when I had the chance too. You can assemble an AR-15 however you do need to have the correct tools and some basic mechanical knowledge is recommended. When I did my two AR's I went with complete upper and lower from PSA. I got the BCG, carry handle and bolt charger from other sources.
Very interesting, Thanks !
I have a P14 and a M17 and one thing I noticed was that the charger grooves for the M17 are angled forwards. I assume that this is to ensure that the longer 30-06 cartridge clears the mouth of the receiver as the cartridges would tend to move to the rear of the magazine when pushed down. The receiver was designed for the 7x60mm cartridge and the 30-06 cartridge is 63mm long. The grooves on my P14 are vertical as is my 1903 Springfield. Has anyone else noticed this difference, I have found no references to it anywhere.
Differences under the bonnet... 😊
The barrel profile is a bit heavier on the US model.
In the course of taking care of a little hideaway in Alabama, I drive from Georgia in the States right past the Civilian Marksmanship Program facilities and I've bought 3 rifles from them. In looking for a M1917 lately, they all are marked "DARK BORE" on the toe-tag along with the chamber and muzzle specs. In your expert opinion, what exactly causes that, what does it mean and would it detract from the function as a shooter? Appearance doesn't bother me much, but I'd love a 1917 and that's a psychological snag. Also, lately at the Talledega store, all they have are EDDYSTONE rifles. Should I avoid an Eddystone for any reason? I'm sadly ignorant, but I love taking the old guns to Alabama to my backyard range and value your insight. THANKS and CHEERS!
Dark bore normally means it's been subject to a bit of rust. Might shoot well, might not. No reason to avoid Eddystone.
Fascinating. I know of a Home Guard company in Suffolk that was issued with a mixture of p.14, p.17 and SMLE.
I can image it could have been potentially dodgy having both kinds of ammo in circulation at the same time.
I guess it would have been manageable, with the red paint band to ID the M17's. Probably not so different to having 9mm or 45 for an SMG plus 303 for the rifles.
@@BlokeontheRange that is true.
They also had BAR so they may have split the different types between the 8 platoons to avoid issues....
Thanks for your video. I really knew nothing about these rifles until I started reading about them yesterday.
My boat has been floated.
Not pointless at all. As dual American/Canadian I encounter both P14 & M17. Haven’t acquired either yet but I have an M1 Garand and a Lee Enfield No. 4 mark 1* so have .303 and .30’06 on hand. Looking forward to getting one or the other or both.
The fact that you haven’t acquired a P14 yet is criminal…
"Swonnicles revolving"
Aha! A Milligan fan!
I caught that one too !
Read the war memoir ones avidly
@@dave_h_8742 If you poke around, there is an audiobook version read by the author. It is amazing. Much artillery related goonery. Spike Milligna, the world's greatest typing error.
For those who want more informations, I recommend the excellent book by Charles R.Stratton entitled "Pattern 1914 and US Model of 1917 Rifle".
Saw a show that took place in Africa I believe. Everyone carried adjustable wrenches because no 2 bolts heads were quite the same size. Showed them making bolts with tap and die sets. Must have forged the wrench flats.
To the Winchester note, I've seen it stated both ways that a circle star stamp indicates the rifle is either an early non interchangeable rifle or, alternatively, suitable for interchangeability. Does anyone know which way it is?
I totally did not take the feed lips into account when I was tracking down a knackered receiver for a sporter project. I initially wanted a P14 receiver since the markings are so sparse and usually you've got tap holes through the lettering on M17s, but then I realized I'd made a misstep when I got under the hood (it also was bodged up already from being converted to .300 Win Mag, but even if it hadn't I'd still have been hosed). Luckily I found an M17 barreled action that had been tapped over the chamber (?!) rather than on the front ring of the receiver, so it won't look too dodgy when I put it together with irons and a 308 barrel.
Just found a nice example of a p14 in 303 for 395.00 us. Looks like that is a good price. Bore looks nice. Exterior metal work nice also. Bet it will be an accurate shooter.
Regarding assembling ARs stateside. Basically no one who builds one checks the headspace. If the barrel extension and BCG are manufactured in spec its supposed to be automatically properly headspaced*
* of course one would never recommend this practice. But such is the “LEGOfication” of the AR platform.
#BuiltNotBought lol
It's interesting to know which way US engineering is going, and has done.
When Kennedy said "a man on the moon and back" there was a BBC programme explaining how the tolerances had to be so much closer. Computer controlled machinery allegedly became more common because of that.
Home builders also don't install barrel extensions.
Faxon will match a bolt and barrel for you, headspace it, and laser engrave the bbl serial # on the bolt.
About 35 years ago My Brother bought a P-14 . 303 from Big 5 Sporting goods. Back then the chain sold some decent military surplus Arms and carried black powder revolver kits. My Brother tried sporterizing it and botched it. I wish He left it original. I do not understand why people chop nice old military rifles when they can find really nice Sporting rifles ready to go. I like the old model 70 and the 54 that preceded it. There are a lot of good Remington 721’s Savage 99’s etc. I picked up a Turkish 88 commission rifle for $35.00 none of them had matching numbers and after ten rounds the bolt became hard to cycle. The French Mas 36 in both original caliber and NATO are like new never issued. My Stepson inherited a P-17 30-06 Eddystone from His Father. I had heard or read somewhere about 35 years ago that some Eddystone’s were not properly heat treated and had problems due to excessive pressure causing receiver failure.
Very good video and interesting. Can I ask please. Are the Bayonets interchangeable between the two of them please.
Yes they are.
@@turbogerbil2935 thank you ive found P14 and be nice to get the bayonet too
I have a custom-rifle .303 in immaculate condition, barrel looks new, inside and out M7900 ser. no., BSA logo on the rear-bridge, with Made in England 'Stamp', weird-stepped magazine-box showing no use (P14) It has a 'Jeweled-Bolt' and bolt-release , all P14-looking. Stock looks like a 'Rigby-Copy' , in walnut , with Rigby-Style cheek-piece and exquisite Schnabel fore-end, high-quality hand-checkering, thumb-hole or normal-hold. No fore-sight, but full-length barrel, and the rear-sight dove-tail has been professionally blanked, but in the exact place as BSA A-D Sporting-Rifles sold between 1949-53. Deceased-Estate and no history known. More accurate than any .303 I've fired before, even better than my custom .270 . Dave Aotearoa nz
After WW2 the P14 was a desirable rifle for long range target shooters who would do many alterations/modifications to enhance performance..
When did the P14 get the finger grooves? I'd always thought those were replacement M1917 stocks, but I've seen some that were outfitted with volley sights (such as yours), so they can't be M1917 stocks, right?
I may have missed it, but the americans had a strong fascination with a cone breech shape on the barrel. I believe that breech face of the 303 barrel of the 1914 was flat and not cone shaped. I have never seen it discussed relative to the why of it for the americans going for the cone breech face.
Cone breech face provides more clearance for an extractor with a rimless cartridge and is easily machined on the lathe. It's probably that.
I look at a Enfield action in a different light because of you lol
Great video 👍
When I served my time (in a toolroom) I was taught gauging and interchangeability was due to Joseph Whitworth. He had, after all, defined the Whitworth thread form in 1841 and BSW threads have been interchangeable since. He also looked like a Baboon. Tolerancing and standard fits where in widespread use by 1900, along with gauging and extensive precision metrology capabilities.
The Hall Rifle had interchangeable parts in 1819.
This is true but the real precision and standardization of measurement is due to Carl Edvard Johansson of Sweden who patented his guage blocks in 1896.
wish you had discussed the different cartridge lengths and magazine box lengths.
Funnily enough, you don't actually come across any "interchangeability" issues when building or repairing P14s. Most P14s today contain a mix of parts from the three factories, and plenty even have M1917 parts in them (M1917 stocks were apparently an official British approved replacement). One wonders whether Weedon went through 1.2m rifles and remanufactured the offending parts, or if the "interchangeability" issues were in fact down to extremely small dimensional variations in gauging - i.e. variations big enough to be picked up by an inspector's gauge, but small enough to make no discernable difference when parts were being gorilla'd in by an armourer or civilian owner?
lots of harmonic distortion please change that ligjt bulb
Yeah horrific. I remember hearing a similar sound in a previous video, I think it was one of the Q and As. That was Even in a different location, that mic might be particularly sensitive to interference or something maybe?
From a production standpoint, would you say the P14/1917 is any more suited to mass manufacture than the SMLE/1903?
Than the SMLE? In terms of the amount of skill required, it's easier (although on a WW2 RAF price list, SMLE's were listed as slightly cheaper). There's a lot more machining on the receiver than with a 1903 so probably not better than those.
@@BlokeontheRange thank you!
Is it just me, or does that p14 mag groovery look a lot like the lee enfield mag?
It's a similar principle to guide the follower the way it needs to go, indeed :)
Form follows function after all
have you come across either of these rifles chambered in 7.92 mauser?
Nope. Not to say nobody's ever done it as a conversion, but I haven't come across one.
Would love a video on the differences between the Mauser action and the Lee Enfield action. Pros and cons of both, and maybe compared to a modern bolt action to see the lineage.
The Enfield action was/is rear locking bolt.The P14 a modified Mauser was/is a forward locking bolt.
Rear locking bolt is believed to compress/distort during firing, and affecting accuracy beyond
6oo yds. the Mauser forward locking bolt does not compress/ distort during discharge and is favored more accurate beyond 600yds.
This was the believe of many long range target shooters and it seemed to be backed up by their preference of forward locking bolts beyond 600yds.
Its the reason I gave up on Lee Enfields, case life with top handloads sucks because of the bolt compression and action stretch. I have a very nice sporter P14 in 303 and it shoots 1 inch groups at 100 yards with my top handloads. There is no problem with case life and zero head separations but I do resize cases for a slight crush fit in all my bolt action rifles. However this is of no consequence in a battle rifle, soldiers do not fire reloads.@@willielongbotham7156
Where can I get the strips to load the bullets? I picked up a 1917 but haven’t shot it yet.
ebay. Swedish Mauser ones will work and are better than the Springfield ones.
Can I enter change follower springs in a p14 with other manufacturer p14s?
I'd imagine so, that's not a tolerance-critical part.
Are there any differences in recoil between P14 and M17?
After 2 years, finally I get my answer
I like this stuff
It would have been nice if you would have told us if the twist had been changed from left to right for the m1917
Why would it have been nice if I'd told you something that wasn't true?
Congratulations, you've officially forced me to find a Lee-action rifle for my collection! *Applause*
Beyond Sterling & Ishapore's conversions of Lee rifles to .308, were there any other firms that converted Lees to American cartridges?
PS: I think you've also changed my perspective on the P14 vs N.04 Mk.1 & M1917 vs M1903 after chewing on what you've said on the prior matter.
Enfield, for one, converted No.4 Mk.1(T)'s to L42A1's, scratch-built L39A1's, Envoys, Enforcers and No.4 Conv's from unused actions, and loads of random gunsmiths converted various No.4's to 7.62x51 target rifles using Enfield and other barrels.
‘Under the bonnet’ if you lease Mr Bloke.
You’d think Enfield would’ve designed the P14 to simply take the Lee Mag from the SMLE, Once they decide to go with .303. One wonder’s why they didn’t.
Probably far simpler to modify the existing mag from .276 to .303 than to get a completely different mag to work with it and in consequence redesign all the other components around it to get it to work. Would require significant rework.
The P14 needs some Mk. 1 No. IV type nomenclature to muddy the waters, ala the Lee Infields.
Well, actually, there were the Pattern 1914 Mk1W, the Pattern 1914 Mk1E, and the Pattern 1914 Mk1R. These were joined by the Pattern 1914 Mk1W (F) and the Pattern 1914 Mk1*W(F), and then later by the Pattern 1914 Mk1*(T). Post war, these were mostly refurbished at Weedon and became Pattern 1914 Mk2. In 1926 they all then became Rifle No3Mk1, except for the sniper variants which became Rifle No3 Mk1(T).
Did you take notes?!
@@turbogerbil2935 I should've known...
A number of M1917s were shipped to Britain during the dark days of early WWII. So similar are the rifles to the P14 that the American guns had red bands painted on the forends to tell the rifles apart.
That band was used to identify any rifle in .30-06 rather than .303 :)
@@BlokeontheRange Ah. Thanks for clarifying. 🙂
@@BlokeontheRangeM1915 Vickers Guns had a red ring around their water jackets. And 30-06 Lewis Guns were marked on the barrel and on each magagazine.
Liverpool or London?
The sound on this video is Mr Ploppy
Consider my boat afloat.
You are very wrong the P 14 was designed from the start as a .303 cal. rifle . M1917 was produced for the US military because Springfield Armory was having problem with the production of the M1903 Springfield. And could not supply the need of the USA for World War One. The P14 was is production, it was relatively easy to change it over .30 cal. Most of the US troops that fought in WW1 used the M1917.
Sorry but you're totally wrong. The P14 was a .303 adaptation of the .276 P13 (aka "new magazine rifle" in the Small Arms Committee minutes). I have no idea where you get the idea that the P14 was designed from the start as a .303 rifle since it's simply not true.
I have a number of firearms history books, some by the late Ian V. Hogg, but it's interesting how a few of them brand the P14/M1917 a _bad_ rifle. The word "disastrous" is actually used in some of these books. And when you read their criticisms -- especially about the rifle being prone to heating up very badly, badly fouled bores, and a few other issues -- it's clear that those criticisms might be somewhat true of the Pattern _13_ rifle from which the P14/M1917 were developed, and even then, mainly were a result not of the rifle, but of the .276 cartridge, whose design goals might have been a little too ambitious for the era in which it was developed; they were trying for velocities in excess of what the propellant technology and perhaps also the metallurgy of the era could manage.
The P14 may have had interchangeability issues due to the haste with which it was developed, but was otherwise a perfectly good weapon. And as noted here, those issues were worked out for the M1917, and it's honestly a damn good rifle, and a strong contender for the title of best service rifle of the First World War. I'd take it over any other rifle of the war, except the SMLE.
Oh, Hogg's books are generally *bad* books, lol...
@@BlokeontheRange Yes, as my knowledge has increased over the years, I have learned to take much of what he wrote with several large grains of salt -- he is, if not the origin of, at least one of the perpetuators of the myth of the deadliness of the Garand's ping, for example.
He's guilty of several versions of the "Mad Minute" myth....
@@BlokeontheRange He's also on record asserting that the Luger is "...not among the most reliable of weapons... the multiplicity of exposed parts are prone to suffer from mud and sand." Yet the Germans used the Luger throughout the First World War -- a conflict famous above all for the mud of the trenches -- and I am aware of no particular reports of the German's dissatisfaction with the pistol. When they replaced it in the 1930s it wasn't because they were unhappy with the P08's performance, just the high cost of manufacturing it. And amusingly, in Ian and Karl's mud tests, the Luger performed best out of all the pistols they tested, IIRC.
It seems to mark a tendency on Hogg's part to uncritically accept, and then repeat things he's heard that _sound_ plausible, without actually doing any careful research to see if he can confirm such things. And one kind of sloppiness on the part of a writer/researcher is apt not to be the only kind.
@@BlokeontheRangeIan Hogg was an artilleryman, and that was his area of expertise.
But the market interest is mainly in small arms, so he wrote on them also.
Oh awesome. Cheers
It’s really too bad that the P13 .276 was never developed as planned. The British could have had a nice new reliable and powerful rifle cartridge and rifle.
But it all worked out.
I’d love to get a M1917. The .30-06 is my favorite rifle cartridge
Nah, it's way too overpowered for an infantry rifle cartridge. Good that it didn't go further, the Brits would have had a much heavier, half-capacity, clunkier service rifle that's harder to clean, where the only practical improvement on it was better sights. The overwhelming majority of soldiers can't shoot well enough to use the increased long-range performance.
The US is now making exactly the same error with .277 Fury
@@BlokeontheRange Have you had the opportunity to fire the experimental. .276 Enfield in the M1913? I know they don’t make ammo for it but maybe some wildcat company that makes unique ammo or an experienced handloader with a company that makes obsolete brass cases.
On paper, the .276 Enfield looks comparable to the .30-06 Springfield. A 165 gr bullet going at around 2750 fps. That’s comparable to a .30-06 165 gr that gives you 2800 fps. A rimless cartridge that the M1913/14/17 design was intended to shoot. Our Doughboys didn’t mind it (unless they were comparing to the lighter and cock on open 1903 Springfield) and the majority used it to great effect in World War 1. Said army did eventually go to the M1 Garand and later M14 which are comparable in bulk and weight to the 1917 rifle.
C&R arsenal channel has a great at-length discussion on both the M1914 and 1917 on their channel. Here is a summary minute.
If this little girl can appreciate it, I’d imagine an average man could get to appreciate it.
th-cam.com/video/QnWC4BBjFhI/w-d-xo.html
I have carried my father’s M14 (M1A) with a full magazine which is comparable in size and weight with the 1917 all day in the woods in the hot summer hiking and while it was heavier than say my M1 Carbine or AR15, I didn’t find it cumbersome. My father certainly appreciated it in 1964 in the US marines.
A little weight is appreciated when shooting a high powered rifle.
I do agree the US gov’t is making a mistake with the .277 Fury. The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO can more than do the job that’s required. The US gov’t excels at unnecessary spending wasting money these days.
.30-06 original loading was 150 grain doing about that velocity: .276 enfield is a good whack hotter, 15gn more bullet weight with a much higher ballistic coefficient. I've seen a P13 fired, but I've never fired one myself. It's indeed quite noisy though, even with modern powders!
You must define a “Botched or Botch job” differently than most! The M1917 modified an already established design to use a different caliber in an EXTRAORDINARILY FAST time, in the middle of a war! What more could you ask for?
I didn't say the M1917 was a bodged job. I said that the P14 magazine was a bodged job. It's a cludge from the P13 magazine, and the P13 wasn't an "established design", there's only been a short production run for trials.
Owner of an eddystone 1917 in its original ww1 blue. Barrel bears a 9/17 date code. Just wish it was in better shape.
I acquired last Christmas , for myself , a Winchester Model 1917, dated 8-17 . I found a site the shows & lists where all the parts are Arsenal stamped , I just haven’t disassembled it yet to go through it . It shots great , even made a video of it
Thank you for this.
I hope you are not living in Devon Cornwall today. If you are a firearms enthusiast you may not even speak an unkind word with a threat to your hobby.
Guess They didn’t call it the American System for nothing!
That’s a vintage video 🤣
Cool
I once shot a dingo with a M1917.
M17 has a coned breech
No American will ever take anyone serious that says 30 oh 6 /s
No Brit will take anyone seriously who says "ought" to indicate a zero ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@BlokeontheRange touché sir, touché
@@BlokeontheRange When Americans say "Ought" for zero I think they mean "Aught". This word can mean zero, they just spell it incorrectly.
Only in American English. It's not a thing in British English at all.
@@dp-sr1fd if a person was born in 1906, do they say they were born in nineteen aught six or nineteen oh six?
How rounds in a mad minute? Not as smooth an action as SMLE.
Try the search function :)
But yeah, not as smooth an action, with 90° vs 60° rotation and a much, much longer bolt throw. IIRC we're talking 1.75 vs 1.5 second splits or something like that.
More accurate than an SMLE though?
@@h2489-m2l the predominance of SMLEs and No 4s in competitive shooting post WW2 would seem to indicate not.
@@chemistrykrang8065 longer, heavier barrel and a longer sight radius sure are in the P14‘s favor. Modified target rifles are a different matter.
30-06
The P-14 gave up its Rib in order for the M-1917 to be brought forth by GOD in HIS Caliber of 30-06!!!
Pointless topic?..... you Sir should retire to the Library where the Revolver is kept in the unlocked writing desk.
You give us the truth.
Surely the pearl handled revolver from the safe? 🤣
No, Service .455..
Comment
The .303 is not a p14 it's a p13. The 1917 is a p14
Errrrrrrr, you wut? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
P13: .276
P14: .303
M1917: .30-06
Correct..
Would love a video on the differences between the Mauser action and the Lee Enfield action. Pros and cons of both, and maybe compared to a modern bolt action to see the lineage.