I have a PH custom no1, they used a new PH stock on the rifle, a new lee enfield barrel that cleaned up and put their name on, a really nice PH lether sling and PH sling mounts, drilled and tapped it for a PH scope mount and has PH rings. And a 5 round mag made by PH in japan. Also uses PH sites in the barrel for iron sites. It weighs 7.5 pounds scoped. A very nice rifle, the wrist band was scrubed all but the year. The receiver and barrel were blued by PH as well. And charge bridge was removed abd polished up where it was.
P14 303 vs Lee Enfield 303
- Thread starter ratherbefishin
- Start date
I have a PH custom no1, they used a new PH stock on the rifle, a new lee enfield barrel that cleaned up and put their name on, a really nice PH lether sling and PH sling mounts, drilled and tapped it for a PH scope mount and has PH rings. And a 5 round mag made by PH in japan. Also uses PH sites in the barrel for iron sites. It weighs 7.5 pounds scoped. A very nice rifle, the wrist band was scrubed all but the year. The receiver and barrel were blued by PH as well. And charge bridge was removed abd polished up where it was.
You did state that the No1 and No4 were the "most robust" as per your quote below.
Blastattack
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Winnipeg MB
I would very much like to see that.
I too would like to see that.
Does it look like this more or less?
Hasn't been D&T for a scope... shoots well even with the brutal trigger lol.
Enfield 5 groove rifling is probably the best part of any of these designs. If you look at all the new 5R rifling today, it's not much different.
Does it look like this more or less?
Hasn't been D&T for a scope... shoots well even with the brutal trigger lol.
Enfield 5 groove rifling is probably the best part of any of these designs. If you look at all the new 5R rifling today, it's not much different.
The stock looks the same. Most everything else does too but the mag in mine is a factory 5 round mag. The sling is 2" wide leather and says "Parker hale 303" and it has a recoil pad installed
Last edited:
p.Rundle
CGN frequent flyer
okay, you contradicted yourself. Also, I know the official name isn't P17, and I specifically called it the M1917, I also mentioned that many refer to it as the P17. Also, I've done my research and I own a P14 and am probably going to buy a M1917, which I've shot extensively.
Man I wish people would read before allowing their ego to speak
I've had I'll all three (or 4)
The p14's are more accurate and stronger by far, decent rifle shoot tighter groups then a lee for sure same with a Ross, the sights on number ones aren't as good as the p14 but the sights on the number 4 are pretty much the same. The Ross depending on which you're running mk2/mk3 have decent sights, hunting wise they will all do the same job if you do yours.
The p14/m1917 action is tough been chambered in all sorts of heavy hitting calibers that the lee wouldn't be able to handle, I remember some time ago on this site seeing a Ross that was chambered in a decent round that was way beefier the 303 but can't remember off hand in what forum.
When I go hunting I still take my lee as do a few others I know. All in all they are all decent rifles, some shoot better then others if you have a lee enfield that shots 5" groups you're doing good smaller for a p14/Ross but if you put it where it's supposed to be it's the same round and will produce the same results, also except for my milsurps my sporters are scoped so that helps and rules out irons....
Ultimately the choice comes down to personal preference I like the lee enfield more, it was my first 30cal rifle and I'm comfortable with it and can have optics readily mounted (as with the p14) I would like to set up a Ross with a scope to see how it would do but I don't think I could get holes drilled in one, I'd sort of feel bad lol
The p14's are more accurate and stronger by far, decent rifle shoot tighter groups then a lee for sure same with a Ross, the sights on number ones aren't as good as the p14 but the sights on the number 4 are pretty much the same. The Ross depending on which you're running mk2/mk3 have decent sights, hunting wise they will all do the same job if you do yours.
The p14/m1917 action is tough been chambered in all sorts of heavy hitting calibers that the lee wouldn't be able to handle, I remember some time ago on this site seeing a Ross that was chambered in a decent round that was way beefier the 303 but can't remember off hand in what forum.
When I go hunting I still take my lee as do a few others I know. All in all they are all decent rifles, some shoot better then others if you have a lee enfield that shots 5" groups you're doing good smaller for a p14/Ross but if you put it where it's supposed to be it's the same round and will produce the same results, also except for my milsurps my sporters are scoped so that helps and rules out irons....
Ultimately the choice comes down to personal preference I like the lee enfield more, it was my first 30cal rifle and I'm comfortable with it and can have optics readily mounted (as with the p14) I would like to set up a Ross with a scope to see how it would do but I don't think I could get holes drilled in one, I'd sort of feel bad lol
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
The Mauser action is the king of bolts IMHO. The P14 is very under rated due to its limited and short production history. I find it superior to the Enfield by action design personally.
I have owned many a Mauser and currently own a No5 Mk1 and I do appreciate the Enfield.
But my IDF Nazi Mauser in 7.62 NATO gets much more range time.
There is just something so simple, robust and solid about the Mauser action. It's so god damned smooth too.
I'll give the nod even over the mauser to the P14 due to the nice uber long sight radius though. If the Mauser could have increased the sight radius to place a rear peep on the back of the receiver instead of mid length like the enfield it would be incredible.
Even with the mid length notch and post sights on Mausers my IDF rifle is scary accurate even with cheap ammo and outshoots my Jungle carbine easily.
p.Rundle
CGN frequent flyer
The Mauser action is without a doubt the best bolt action system ever devised for military use. There are others, like K31's, that deserve a nod, but really, for raw durability and strength, the Mauser is the only way to go.
Last edited:
Your neighbour was right about the Ross being a good shooter. It won Bisley and I dont know if a Lee Enfield or a P14 ever managed that. Ross rifles were also used as sniper rifles in WWI and were preferred by many snipers for that purpose. As far as action strength of the Ross goes, the M10 action was used for the 280 Ross which was pretty darn close to the current 7mm Remington. There was a Ross M10 re barrelled to 300 Win mag that showed up on gunnutz a while back. Somebody found it in a storage locker.
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...day-UPDATE-post-60?highlight=Ross+300+win+mag
I dont know who said this or if it is true but I read somewhere, probably on the internet so it must be true,
That the Germans had the best hunting rifle of WWI, the Mauser 98
The Canadians had the best target rifle of WWI, the Ross
And the Brits had the best battle rifle, the Lee Enfield
Last edited:
The Lee Enfield No.4 was the best general issue infantry rifle. The superior accuracy of the Ross and the P14 made them better sniper rifles but the larger magazine capacity of the No.4 and the No.1 was a bigger advantage for the ordinary rifleman.
p.Rundle
CGN frequent flyer
The Germans did a study in the interwar period and found that magazine size makes almost no difference, because a larger magazine that isn't designed to be detachable just makes it so you have a longer reloading time. I personally find that to be a little weird, because if you have a 10 rounder you can always just choose to load it to 5 mid battle, but hey, who am I to criticize? I do think the 10 round mag capacity, while cool, was probably not quite as important as people here on CGN tend to argue.
Plus if you have a M1917 you can do 6+1! Given that there's less (IE zero) likely to be an issue with rimlock with .30-06, I bet you can load that sucker faster than any .303. Although chargers do change the game...
How did they ever win the war without 30 rd banana magazines?
But back to companies 'sporterizing' milsurps,who did the best job-Parker Hale, Churchill or BSA?( funny, speaking of the 'need' for magazine capacity, the 10 round one was CUT to 5 rounds...)
But back to companies 'sporterizing' milsurps,who did the best job-Parker Hale, Churchill or BSA?( funny, speaking of the 'need' for magazine capacity, the 10 round one was CUT to 5 rounds...)
Last edited:
Parker Hale's meal ticket was pretty much military "sporters" and target rifles for decades pre and post war. They made some of the best target sights of that period for all the milsurps. Post war they used mostly military '98 receivers and when that supply ran out, started using commercial receivers from different sources (Spain, Yugo, FN).
BSA goes back to 1861, they made everything under the sun...military and commercial guns, motorcycles, cars (Daimler was one), buses, steel, tools, etc.
Post war BSA started to design their own rifles and they are quite nice, you can still find them in very good condition. Then Lady Docker partied the company into bankruptcy...true story.
They are all good at making sporters, and I think they all produced different grades as well (basic to deluxe styles), so not really a lot of difference since the starting rifle was a milsurp.
Husqvarna probably did the best commercial post war '98, and that evolved into the 1600 series...but that is another day.
BSA goes back to 1861, they made everything under the sun...military and commercial guns, motorcycles, cars (Daimler was one), buses, steel, tools, etc.
Post war BSA started to design their own rifles and they are quite nice, you can still find them in very good condition. Then Lady Docker partied the company into bankruptcy...true story.
They are all good at making sporters, and I think they all produced different grades as well (basic to deluxe styles), so not really a lot of difference since the starting rifle was a milsurp.
Husqvarna probably did the best commercial post war '98, and that evolved into the 1600 series...but that is another day.
A P14 bedding question
.... A bit off the track so to speak, but are there any "tricks" beyond the basic action bedding, specific to the P14 when it comes to bedding them for accuracy? Mine is a P14 ERA, with a P17 stock, so no volley sights, but there is a gap around the rear of the tang, notwithstanding, otherwise, it seems pretty tight. Upwards pressure at the barrels midpoint, and perhaps loose at the forend/ muzzle? Flat washers beneath the action screws/bolts ?......
....... David K
.... A bit off the track so to speak, but are there any "tricks" beyond the basic action bedding, specific to the P14 when it comes to bedding them for accuracy? Mine is a P14 ERA, with a P17 stock, so no volley sights, but there is a gap around the rear of the tang, notwithstanding, otherwise, it seems pretty tight. Upwards pressure at the barrels midpoint, and perhaps loose at the forend/ muzzle? Flat washers beneath the action screws/bolts ?......
....... David KDK - The P-14's I have experimented with, all shot best with a free floating barrel. I bedded in front and behind the recoil lug only. I was careful to avoid bedding the barrel taper in front of the recoil lug, as doing so will cause shots to walk. Years ago, Ganderite published a great article on bedding the P-14, perhaps he could resurrect it.
