Enfield P-14

I'm willing to bet that the Eddystone "Myth" (and that is what it will be until real proof is offered) has its roots in Ackley's test of two (yes that's 2) Eddystones years ago.

Mix up a bit of low S/N Springfield heat treating, a bunch of stories from friends of former roommates of someone who was there, and add creative writing that fills in the blanks and you have a milsurp myth.
 
In Hatcher's Notes,there is nothing on M1917 problems.Whereas he lists all the miltary Springfield blowup and plus their heat treatment problems.The steel used on the P-14/M'17 is the nickel-steel,the same stuff as the pre-war M-70s.Barrel steel is just ordinary Ordanence(sp) Steel,and not really up to the hot burning magnums,so a 300Wea. is going to chew on it.The biggest problem with the P-14/M'17 is gas handling,you really don't want a case to let go.

My Eddystone ,built September 1918, sporter P-17 308Norma is soft.It had a C-broad arrow, so it's a P-17 and not a M1917.It and my Winchester P-14 are both accurate rifles.

That's a two stage trigger,and the second stage ain't bad.In fact the sporter had a screw so it only used the second.

After the war,it was suggested that the M'17 be the main battle rifle instead of the M'03,it's a better battle rifle, but it was English designed and contactor built.
 
downwindtracker2 said:
My Eddystone ,built September 1918, sporter P-17 308Norma is soft.It had a C-broad arrow, so it's a P-17 and not a M1917.It and my Winchester P-14 are both accurate rifles.



After the war,it was suggested that the M'17 be the main battle rifle instead of the M'03,it's a better battle rifle, but it was English designed and contactor built.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I buy that P-17 bit......it was made in the US, designated "US rifle, model of 1917", used in WWI by the US, refurbed, given to us in WWII.....then it became a P-17?
There is no such animal as a P-17......
 
downwindtracker2 said:
We paid for it,it wasn't a Lend-Lease as were the British ones.I bet OUR miltary called it a P-17.
Click to expand...

Find me a training manual that calls it a P17 and I'll beleive it then.....
I think our boys were smart enough to call it by the proper name, the name it would have been called for 20 years before they got hold of them.
 
I'm willing to overlook pictures of pretty girls with their finger on the trigger, ammo shipped in magazines by Canada Post, and the use of "P17" - but just this once! :rolleyes:

This seems to be one of those situations where there is a "proper" official name, possibly another name used affectionatly by the troops, and yet another by collectors. US Model of 1917, P17, Brown Bess, Swedish M96/38 to name a few. If it is clear what gun we are talking about it floats my boat.
 
It might just be that the forge operators were paid piece-work, and the story sounds quite plausible - who'd put in that funny "I worked with a guy...." bit if they were making it up? The assemblers however, were obviously not paid piece work rates as they managed to assemble about 50 rifles per day when building P14s, but magically speeded up to about 250 rifles a day (per man) when assembling M17s after the US entered WWI! So why would the forge men be paid piece work and the assemblers not?

The dirty tricks played at Winchester and other plants in over-charging the British and billing for unrelated work etc. is detailed in Skennerton's "The U.S. Enfield". The British Inspectorate did a good job catching most of this. I doubt they rejected rifles for "minor blemishes" or other "non-functional issues", unless they were pissed off over the crooked games and decided to pay back the US contractors, but I doubt that too. By 1916 they were well aware there was a war on, and a good many of the Inspectorate members had served in France IIRC.

Food for thought though...and maybe a hardness test.
 
Last edited:
I got a really nice one recently. Volley sights, and perfect, although re-finished wood. The finish is the nicest work I have seen on about any kind of wood anywhere!
The Metal is in excellent shape. 99% bluing, but the barrel is quite pitted. I think it also has an * somewhere, denoting the pitted barrel.

Is there anything I can do about this pitting? How about that ceramic coating process?
I suppose I could try to find another barrel, but I like it original. Crowning, and, sleeving would take away from it's value I would think.
It's just something nice to hold onto, maby not shoot it so much, although it will fire.

dscn1198hb0.jpg

dscn1192zb3.jpg

dscn1184me2.jpg

possiblecgnpics006nh8.jpg


It is a 168### serial ERA Eddystone.
 
Last edited:
I've restored some P14 sporters to full military. It's a bit tricky because the front sight base has to be removed, but it's still possible and economical to do it. You can get a good sporter for $100-150.
 
Talk about resurrecting a post from the dead... wow. I have since bought 3 P-14's, one of each manufacturer.

As for the pitting in said barrel, I don't think there is much you can do about it, short of trying to find a replacement (good luck) and fitting it. I wouldn't worry about collector value on a rifle with refinished wood.
 
Apparently, finding pristine-barreled P-14 is a tough one. Not sure why, or even if that's true. I know the sporter I have right now (winter project) has a frosted barrel, but still nice rifling.

Lou
 
louthepou said:
Apparently, finding pristine-barreled P-14 is a tough one. Not sure why, or even if that's true. I know the sporter I have right now (winter project) has a frosted barrel, but still nice rifling.

Lou
Click to expand...

I have an ERA in the 5000 s/n range with a cherry bore.....:)
 
One thing I will say about mine; it is a very high quality manufactured rifle. Every thing is finished impeccably, and the tolerances are close.
It just closes solid. Everything moves without wiggling.
Can't say that about some Enfields.
 
DOOK said:
One thing I will say about mine; it is a very high quality manufactured rifle. Every thing is finished impeccably, and the tolerances are close.
It just closes solid. Everything moves without wiggling.
Can't say that about some Enfields.
Click to expand...

The only thing "enfield" about it is the rifling. Everything else is mauser.....:)
M1917 is my favorite milsurp.....prefer them over everything else. Black walnut stocks, great fit and finish, good sights, good triggers, shooting a great cartridge. P14 is nice as well, but I'm not a big .303 fan.....
 
Actually, the U.S. had to pay royalties to mauser prior to WW1 for the springfield rifle, not the p-14, or the U.S. M1917 "enfield". The german argument was that it was too close a copy of the mauser rifles and the stripper clip loading system apparently was copyrighted at that time.
 
Calum said:
I remember reading something about the USA was forced by the courts to pay royalties to Mauser during WW1 for this rifle. :D
Click to expand...

I don't know of any international "the courts" that would have the jurisdiction to force the US to give money to a military contractor in a hostile enemy country during a time of war. The idea that moneys would have been paid to Mauser during the war is simply preposterous.

The US did buy lisence to copy the Mauser action BEFORE the First World War (when everyone loved Germany so much except the British) and used the lisence for the M1903 Springfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom