What's the dif between a P14 or P17
- Thread starter Slooshark1
- Start date
Either one that is already bubbad would be suitable. P14 is in .303 brit so the bolt face is the right size for your standard belted magnums.
M1917 is in 30'06 so the bolt face is already the right size for anything based on this.
M1917 is in 30'06 so the bolt face is already the right size for anything based on this.
According to Frank de Haas in his Book Bolt action Rifles:
ISBN# 0-695-80220-8
Also there is a picture in the book with a side view of the action, and the box magazine that pretty much says that the P14 also has two groves on the side of the box magazine which produce ridges inside that help to help guide the rimmed .303 cartridges.
As well as a picture of the bolt head showing differences in the extractor hook, and locking lug.
It goes into quit abit of detail on both as well, but I recommend trying to find a copy of this book yourself for any projects you might get yourself into.
the more info you can get the better.
I hope this helps some what.
ISBN# 0-695-80220-8
Also there is a picture in the book with a side view of the action, and the box magazine that pretty much says that the P14 also has two groves on the side of the box magazine which produce ridges inside that help to help guide the rimmed .303 cartridges.
As well as a picture of the bolt head showing differences in the extractor hook, and locking lug.
It goes into quit abit of detail on both as well, but I recommend trying to find a copy of this book yourself for any projects you might get yourself into.
the more info you can get the better.
I hope this helps some what.
I'ver read that when the Americans took over production and re-engineered for 30-06 they made two key changes in addition to the necessary dimensional changes. The first is that they wern't confident in the consistency of the heat treating of the P-14 action so they added case hardening of the receivers after the heat treating. The second change is that many parts of the P-14 were hand fitted and therefore not interchangable between rifles. The American Army insisted on full interchangability of parts on the P-17.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Guys, it may be the P14 BUT its the Model 1917. We didn't use the word "pattern."
Hi there I was wondering if it's possibe to get original wood for the Model P17? I just picked up a Rem/Eddystone that has been sporterized and would like to make it look new again. Haven't shot it (still at previous owners) but it feels good! Trigger is nice and action is smooth
Sorry but many of the parts of the Patt' 1914 are interchangeable with thw M1917. Not all but many.762shooter said:
They inculde the Bolt stop screw, all of the saftey assembly with the exception of the first and third P14 Winchester varients. The sear and trigger assemblies are interchangable. I could go on, but the point is that you have to check each rifle out.
Some Winchester, remmington and eddystone parts are not interchangeable with each other and with each mark either. For example, winchester magazine case's will not fit on remmington and eddystone bodies but the remmington and eddystone magazine case's will fit on winchester rifles. Nothing is simple.
- Location
- Atascadero, California USA
Also Americans did not take over production of the P14/M17 rifles, they originally contracted to make the P14s after the P13 was set aside due to ammunition development issues. I think the P13 was chambered for a .276 cartridge that was about as hot as the .280 Ross but the then powerful cartridge had some teething problems. Also as mentioned some parts are not interchangable despite what the US Army may have wanted. The 1917 Enfield was a " substitute standard " rifle that actually was issued in greater numbvers during WW1 than the vaunted 1903 Springfield. Better informed collectors will correct me I am sure but I think I have the general facts straight. Joe
Mostly correct. The americian contracts for the P14 were let after the orifional development idea of the 276 Enfield was shelved due to WW1 and Vickers failed to live up to a contract for 100,000 rifles in 1915. Wartime shortages of the SMLE being of grave concern at the time.
By 1917 it was clear that the production of the SMLE was sufficent for all foreseable occurances and the americian contracts were conculded. That left Remington and Winchester free to approach the US Gvt and point out that it would be easy to convert the P14 to chamber the 30.06 cartridge. As the americian needs for a longarm were acute, due to springfield being unable to signifently increase production, the M1917 was approved.
By 1917 it was clear that the production of the SMLE was sufficent for all foreseable occurances and the americian contracts were conculded. That left Remington and Winchester free to approach the US Gvt and point out that it would be easy to convert the P14 to chamber the 30.06 cartridge. As the americian needs for a longarm were acute, due to springfield being unable to signifently increase production, the M1917 was approved.
Ellwood Epps used to run a .308 Norma Mag reamer through P-'14s and shoot 'em like that. Result was called a .303 Epps Magnum. Cheapest magnum rifle ever made, and worked good for cleaning up leades that were just a bit on the worn side.
Two-thirds of US troops in France during the Great War for Civilisation used the M.1917 rifle, likely the best rifle of the war, yet it is STILL dissed by many US writers in favour of the 1903 Springfield....... of which a million had to be scrapped for sloppy metallurgy.
Hmmmmmm.............
Hmmmmmm.............
smellie said:
Actually the Model 1917 rifle is a much better rifle for combat than the Springfield...the sights on the M1917 are superior to the Sprindfield fragile rear and front sights..both which can be damaged very easily...compare the Model 1917 sights..very well protected.
The Springfield was a very good target rifle.....made by skilled craftsmen
