P14? P17?

[lpstealth]

First I want to apologize for my ignorance, I'm sure my answers are out there but I just don't know where/how to look them up. I'm not even sure what I have. I call it my lee Enfield type thingy. so I'm hoping someone who knows more than I do stumbles across this thread.

What exactly do I have, do the markings tell anything specific? And what would a fair value be for it be?

 

[cosmic]

Its a sporterized Pattern of 1914 Enfield rifle (not a Lee Enfield). Caliber is 303 British, made at the Eddystone Remington Arms factory in the USA in 1917. If the bore is decent, and many aren't, its worth 250$.

 

[Potashminer]

Your second picture is showing the British Broad Arrow on the left hand side of the wall of the receiver, and the last picture is showing "ERA" on the top of the front receiver ring. So, I would presume that metal started out as a P14 made by Eddystone - not by Winchester or Remington who also made them at the same time. It would have originally been chambered in .303 British cartridge, but could be re-chambered to many cartridges now. It originally would have had a nearly full length main stock, a two piece hand guard over the barrel and "wings" on each side of the front sight. As shown, that stock has been severely "sporterized" - probably a really decent deer or moose gun as is.

 

[LawrenceN]

The British used the prefix "P" for "pattern" when referring to these rifles. The Americans used the prefix "M" for "model" . So an English one in .303 is a P-14 and the .30-06 American one is an M-17. It is also important that the bolt and action have matching serial numbers. As was mentioned by Cosmic, if it has a decent bore you have a very nice rifle. The action was renown for it's robust and reliable construction.

 

[downwindtracker2]

The model of 1917 were standerized, bolt number don't really matter !

 

[RRCo.]

Eddystone was the least desirable of the three makers. If the barrel is excellent then someone might want to restore it to military specs. Otherwise as mentioned it's a good, strong, reliable, and usually very accurate truck gun.

 

[Claven2]

Eddystone was the least desirable of the three makers. If the barrel is excellent then someone might want to restore it to military specs. Otherwise as mentioned it's a good, strong, reliable, and usually very accurate truck gun.

I think eddystone gets a bad rap today, largely because of the less attractive fat boy stocks, and receiver cracking issues on ww2 m1917 rebuilds with over-torqued replacement barrels.

In ww1, winchesters were considered superior, supposedly over better shooting barrels (marginally) when they were new.

Remington and eddystone were treated about equally. None of them were considered sub standard in any way.

Also, Winchester’s were the odd man out for interchangeability of parts in early rifles. By the * versions they were essentially all interchangeable. Remington and eddystone were both made by Remington, just in different factories.

 

[LawrenceN]

The model of 1917 were standerized, bolt number don't really matter !

Au contraire. One day at the range a fella had a very nice P-14 but it wasn't shooting well. Sometimes the ammo went off, sometimes it didn't. We checked and the bolt didn't match the body. He took it to a gunsmith who managed to fix it, though I don't know how. Either he got a longer firing pin or built up the one in the bolt. Bolts are serial numbered to the body for a reason.

 

[milsurpo]

Bolts are serial numbered to the body for a reason.

And the factories eliminated that reason when they started manufacturing the Model of 1917, chambered for a much more powerful round, but with un-numbered bolts? I suspect the British merely carried on the tradition of bolt numbering started with the Lee Enfield (or Snider/ Martini to be honest).

milsurpo

 

[LawrenceN]

And the factories eliminated that reason when they started manufacturing the Model of 1917, chambered for a much more powerful round, but with un-numbered bolts? I suspect the British merely carried on the tradition of bolt numbering started with the Lee Enfield (or Snider/ Martini to be honest).

milsurpo

The final stage of proofing before test firing was the firing of an over proof round which would (as the book states) " force the parts into battery". In other words, with the No.4 Lee Enfields, the parts achieved final mating with that overproof round. On the No.3's each bolt was fitted to that rifle to ensure head spacing. If a new bolt was needed it had to go to an armourer to be fitted. On the No.4's head spacing was made easier by the option of using a longer bolt head. As I said, bolts were numbered to the rifle for a reason.

 

[tiriaq]

The final stage of proofing before test firing was the firing of an over proof round which would (as the book states) " force the parts into battery". In other words, with the No.4 Lee Enfields, the parts achieved final mating with that overproof round. On the No.3's each bolt was fitted to that rifle to ensure head spacing. If a new bolt was needed it had to go to an armourer to be fitted. On the No.4's head spacing was made easier by the option of using a longer bolt head. As I said, bolts were numbered to the rifle for a reason.

Is that relevant to the US Model of 1917?

 

[LawrenceN]

If it wasn't, why would they bother doing it?

 

[downwindtracker2]

The P-14 weren't as standerized as the later P-17. The use of P-17 is correct Canadian. We bought a 100,000 of the States for use in Canada during the War. The great C.D. Howe used the term so it is absolutely correct. If you're a Yank ,it is not. Most P-17s were redone between the wars and they mixed the parts up merrily. These were very modern rifles with standerized interchangeable parts and they used a steel alloy, nickle steel, the same as pre-war Winchester M-70s. I have three P-17s all sporterized. One a Canadian purchase and the other two from British Lend-Lease stocks. I also have a late contract Winchester P-14. The P-14s were used at Biseley Empire competitions.

 

[Kevin32]

Great action. I use one in 300 win mag for hunting.

 

[Claven2]

To be clear, m1917 bolts were not numbered in us service because if the bolt did not gauge, it was scrapped. All m1917 bolts were interchangeable.

In Canadian service armorers numbered some p17 bolts, presumably because it was standard practise at the time to assign a bolt to each rifle. I have never seen an m1917 bolt not pass field gauge in a serviceable m1917 receiver. Serialized bolt or not.

The p14 is another matter. Bolts were fitted and complete parts interchangeability was never achieved, though they got close in later production. Mostly it was bolts and wood that sometimes would not interchange, and some variants of eddystone magazine boxes were also an issue.

Also worth noting, a no.3mk1 bolt will fit a no.3mk1* rifle and work just fine if it passes headspace. This happened often during rebuilds between the wars. The reverse is not true. A * bolt will not fit an early non* receiver, as the bolt lug recess in the receiver is not long enough.

 

[Hitzy]

Eddystone was the least desirable of the three makers. If the barrel is excellent then someone might want to restore it to military specs. Otherwise as mentioned it's a good, strong, reliable, and usually very accurate truck gun.

I picked up a pretty nice ERA P14 way back in magazine ad days, no pics, limited description, had to deal by phone, guy barely knew what he was describing, lowish 4 digit S/N, made in first month or 2 of production.
Shows up, all matching (barrel/bolt/receiver anyway), but someone turned it into a target rig, PH5B or whatever rear sight, front was milled down to a dovetail for a clamp on PH front globe. It was fully glass bedded in a near new looking M1917 stock, all the steel was still fully blued in great shape, bore clean and sharp but seen low speed lead loads that took a while to scrub out.
Would have been a safe queen if it was all original, condition was amazing.
But it wasn't, I did get an original ERA rear and front sight eventually, rear sights are S/N so it will never match, 1917 bedded stock still on it, it shoots like a house on fire and was under $200, and I got a PH5B that i can throw around on my other P14/M1917's for fun.
Another neat coincidence is the clamp on K31 front globes fit these barrels perfect. Just slide out the front post so it's not in the way, no other mods required for full target sights front and back.

 

[downwindtracker2]

Never say never. My 308Norma P-17 has the Canadian Army cartouche . By the serial # and daily production numbers at Eddystone, it was made in the second or third week of September 1918 . A gunshow pick up. It had headspace issues. I tried another bolt with the same result. I sent it off to Bill and had it rechambered and the ears trimmed off. He commented how pristine the barrel was.

 

[lpstealth]

Thanks for all the knowledge everyone. I appreciate it. I got it in a package deal with some rifles I did want. I'll probably throw it up for sale and see how it goes.

Thanks again.

 

[dan belisle]

Your second picture is showing the British Broad Arrow on the left hand side of the wall of the receiver, and the last picture is showing "ERA" on the top of the front receiver ring. So, I would presume that metal started out as a P14 made by Eddystone - not by Winchester or Remington who also made them at the same time. It would have originally been chambered in .303 British cartridge, but could be re-chambered to many cartridges now. It originally would have had a nearly full length main stock, a two piece hand guard over the barrel and "wings" on each side of the front sight. As shown, that stock has been severely "sporterized" - probably a really decent deer or moose gun as is.

Eddystone was a division of Remington. But other wise yes. Some variation in factory procedures. - dan

 

[fat tony]

Is it just due to the camera or is the front sight out of index?