P14 & M1917 Comparison

Dakk

Dakk

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island, BC
So the P14 (.303) was built for the British in the US, by Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester. Later on, the same three factories built the M1917 for use by American troops. As I understand it, the two rifles were closely related as the the M1917 was essentially a P14 that had been converted to .30-06.

What other differences were there? Just from looking at them, I've noticed that the M1917 seems to have finger grooves in the side of the stock, and the P14 does not. The P14 also seems to have some sort of additional small plugs & covers in the stock... not sure what those are.

Anything else?

P14 Picture

M1917 Picture
 
.
The P 14 and the M-1917 use a different type of breeching system, bolt and extractor, a lengthened magazine, a different ejector, and other smaller differences. Different calibration marks on the rear sight.

The "plugs" on the P-14 left side forestock are for Volley Sights, for long range shooting. These were found almost useless in Trench Warfare, and were taken off and not really used.
.
 
A serious P14/M1917 wanker needs a copy of the book; "Pattern 1914 and U.S. Model of 1917" by Charles R. Stratton, published by North Cape Publications Inc. It provides a detailed description of every part and indicates the differences between the two rifles.
 
The rifles are quite close enough that some guys building actions up into sporters will use a P-17 action and barrel, chamber it out to .308 Norma or .300 WM or .300 Weatherby..... and then pop in a P-14 bolt because it has the wider boltface and extractor: perfect for the big belted casings.

Then they wonder WTF happened when they find tiny, thin firing-pin impressions on the primers. P-14 had a finer tip on the firing-pin, believed at that time to be a safety precaution. The Americans did away with this and used a wider tip (needing a wider hole in the bolt-face) when they redesigned this obviously-inferior British rifle to handle high-powered American ammunition (which was close to the .276 performance around which the P-13 was actually built).

So BE ADVISED that a LOT of parts interchange freely between the P-14 and the P-17, but NOT FIRING PINS. Firing pins are BOLT SPECIFIC. A P-17 firing-pin will not work in a P-14..... and a P-14 firing-pin in a P-17 bolt will leave an unacceptably-large open area around the pin tip..... into which primer material WILL flow if your pressures are getting high. BE SAFE and use the right firing-pin in the right rifle-bolt.

P-13, P-14 and P-17 are like peas in a pod..... but peas in a pod are not IDENTICAL, just very close.

Hope this helps.
.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys!

A friend is getting a P14 from his dad, and we'll be working out a deal. Unfortunately its sporterized. But on the plus side, its in pretty decent condition, and seems to be an older sporterization job done by one of the British shops post WWII. Now, my plans were basically to have this for my hunting rifle. But someone suggested I might consider trying to restore it back to former glory as well. If its do-able, I may just consider doing that. But original stocks seem pretty scarce.

Also, question about the stock... when they sporterized these, did they just cut down the original stock, or were stocks especially milled for the sporterization jobs? Looking at this one, I'd say it was a standard stock that had been altered.

Though I would prefer to make it original, I actually like this particular sporterization job on the stock, and it has its own history at this point.

rifle5-1.jpg
 
smellie said:
P-13, P-14 and P-17 are like peas in a pod..... but peas in a pod are not IDENTICAL, just very close.

Hope this helps.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks smellie. And if someone were thinking of making their sporterized P14 back original, it probably wouldn't make sense to try to use an M1917 stock, would it? The differences are minor, but it just seems that if I'm going to do this, I should do it right and wait to find an original P14 stock.
 
@Dakk:

The rifle you show is a minimal sporterisation, done in England from shortly post-War Two up until the 1960s. They ranged from minimal jobs (such as yours) all the way to rather lovely semi-custom-grade rifles with new sporting woodwork, altered swept bolt-handles, white-line spacers, pistol-grip stocks with grip caps, and fully altered with recontoured receivers for use with a telescope sight or with a receiver sight.

If you are a bit of a MILSURP nut, the minimal sporterisation is the BEST OF THE LOT because EVERYTHING IS STILL THERE. The barrel has not been shortened! The receiver has not had the "ears" ground off!! You still have the proper REAR SIGHT!!!

To go back to "issue" condition, all this rifle needs is a proper set of P-14 woodwork and a set of Volley Sights. But the Volley Sights were removed on so many prior to War Two. And Canada DID have some of these rifles AND a whole bunch of American P-17s as well.... AND PARTS.

Frankly, I would be shocked if some Armourer did not repair a P-14 by using P-17 woodwork. The job itself is dead easy.

BTW, if you want a SCOPE on this rifle for hunting, get yourself an S&K Insta-Mount for a P-14/M1917 Enfield rifle. It bolts right on, replaces your back sight (which you then put away very carefully) and it is ROCK SOLID. The price is a bit on the stiff side (about $120 in Canada) but it bolts right up: NO NEED to grind off the "ears" and then D&T the receiver (cost together about $200). You just bolt on the S&K mount, and bolt on your scope with ordinary Weaver rings (about $25). So you're money ahead AND you have saved this valuable Hunting Rifle so that you can RESTORE it when you feel the urge (and can get the parts together).

Take care, have fun!

That's what it's all about!

Hope this helps.
.
 
Dakk said:
What other differences were there? Just from looking at them, I've noticed that the M1917 seems to have finger grooves in the side of the stock, and the P14 does not. The P14 also seems to have some sort of additional small plugs & covers in the stock... not sure what those are.

Anything else?

P14 Picture

M1917 Picture
Click to expand...

The P14 in your link is stocked in the Eddystone "fatso/fatboy" stock, most P14s have finger grooves
Here is my Remington P14
newp14.jpg

newp14lhs.jpg
 
smellie said:
Frankly, I would be shocked if some Armourer did not repair a P-14 by using P-17 woodwork. The job itself is dead easy.

.
Click to expand...

Close, but look over the pond. The Brits created the P14MkII by installing uk-made european walnut stocks that are copies of the M1917 stock as part of weedon repairs to rifles needing new wood ;)
 
Saw one in the Pattern Room in 7.92x57, Belgian proofs, made between the Wars.

And there were the Costa Rica 1934 rifles, too, but they were ground much like a Remington Model 30. Pretty distinctive.
.
 
purple said:
A serious P14/M1917 wanker needs a copy of the book; "Pattern 1914 and U.S. Model of 1917" by Charles R. Stratton, published by North Cape Publications Inc. It provides a detailed description of every part and indicates the differences between the two rifles.
Click to expand...

I would suggest Skennerton's "The US Enfield". Most of the US-published books on Enfields of any stripe are basically plagiarized from earlier publications.

Dakk & 5thBatt: nice rifles, especially a non-WRS* Remington! I have one just like that sporter and they point and grip so beautifully. Smellie has already told you all the best stuff as usual!;)

*Weedon Repair Standard: where they took off the volley sights and butt marking discs in 1940/41.
 
Last edited:
purple said:
A serious P14/M1917 wanker needs a copy of the book; "Pattern 1914 and U.S. Model of 1917" by Charles R. Stratton, published by North Cape Publications Inc. It provides a detailed description of every part and indicates the differences between the two rifles.
Click to expand...

Everthing that you need to know is in there!
 
5THBATT said:
The P14 in your link is stocked in the Eddystone "fatso/fatboy" stock, most P14s have finger grooves
Here is my Remington P14
newp14.jpg

newp14lhs.jpg
Click to expand...

Hey thanks for that. Very nice rifle, and great info. I'm still waiting to see my P14 in person, but I've been told its a Winchester built. Do you happen to know whether theorginal P14 Winchester stocks had the finger grooves at all?
 
smellie said:
@Dakk:

The rifle you show is a minimal sporterisation, done in England from shortly post-War Two up until the 1960s. They ranged from minimal jobs (such as yours)...
...If you are a bit of a MILSURP nut, the minimal sporterisation is the BEST OF THE LOT because EVERYTHING IS STILL THERE. The barrel has not been shortened! The receiver has not had the "ears" ground off!! You still have the proper REAR SIGHT!!!
Click to expand...

Thanks smellie. Its good to know that its only a minimal sporterization.

My friend traded a Mosin Nagant for the P14, and I'll be taking possession of it soon I hope. I can't wait to get it out to the range. We're already looking for some .303 reloading equipment.

Ultimately I chose the P14 over the Mosin because from what I've heard, it'll be better suited for hunting. Especially bigger game like Moose or Elk. Way easier to get .303 Brit ammo here as well.
 
Interesting video although he avoids mentioning that the P14 and M17 were a British design made under a British contract, and that the M17 was then made using the tooling, many of the gauges and left over parts from the P14.

I guess adopting a British rifle is too much to admit, even now.
 
Last edited:
... The stocks seem to interchange, HOWEVER, the Receiver tang on the P14 seems a little short in a P17 Stock. And of course, the Volley sights, and provision for them is absent with the P17 stock. ( Disregarding stock material ) ..... This is based soley on the one P14 I've got, and it's in a P17 Stock. ...... David K
 
I can't add too much here (the experts have all already spoken !...:cool:..) , but it's always struck me how much more "heft" the 1917 seems to have over (the SMLE and) the 1903.....:yingyang:....and having handled/shot both full-length and sported versions of the various models :) , I personally like that (perceived) extra weight of the 1917 !...:redface:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom