Why didn't the P14 replace the Lee-Enfield?

[steelgray]

Work on the Pattern 1913 Enfield experimental rifle was intended to lead to a new gun that was intended to replace the Lee Enfield. Instead, war were declared and the P14 was produced in 303 British.

On paper, the P14 seemed like a better gun than the L-E. It had front locking lugs, much better sights, etc.

Further, people report that actual guns produced were/ are less fussy than L-Es. The chambers and bore diameters of production guns seem to feature much less variation than what one sees with Lee-Enfields. Head separation problems seem less prevalent.

So why was it phased out while the L-E soldiered on for many decades?

 

[cosmic]

The P-13/14 was Britains reaction to running into the 7 mm mausers during the Boer war. They decided to develop their own mauser style rifle based upon a new rimless cartridge. At the same time, the Lee was evolved substantially - shortened, charger loading, mag cutoff eliminated, and the 303 ballistics were improved with a lighter aerodynamic pill and new fangled cordite.
The P-13 had issues with the new round (cant recall what), so as a war expedient, the design was modified to accept the rimmed 303 cartridge. This was not entirely successful, as the controlled round feed mechanism doesnt adapt well to rims. The * mod was an attempt to remedy this. In the end, the P-14 doesnt compare well to the Lee-Enfield No1 MkIII as a battle rifle.
- LE is a faster, smoother cycling action. (very noticeable)
- 10 round detachable mag vs 5 round fixed.
- LE is lighter
-LE feeds more reliably
-LE probably easier to repair and scavenge parts (eg 2 piece stock, replaceable bolt heads)
-LE need not be fed from the magazine.
-LE could be taken to half #### (safe) or full #### via the cocking piece (very convenient under certain circumstances)

Dont get me wrong, I really like P-14's for what they are. A strong and rigid action, made to demanding military specifications in a country that wasnt being ravaged by war. Great for wringing the most accuracy potential from the venerable 303 round.

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

....

Instead, war were declared and the P14 was produced in 303 British.

...

The Germans had spies who told them the P'13 was better than the M98 , and they ordered the war timetable advanced a few years.

Yes the P'14 and M17 were significantly better made than the No.1. The main reason was the plants were in USA and not getting bombed or effected by wartime austerity measures. The story of the Eddystone (?) plant is a testament to American industrialism and workforce mobilization. Like Willow Run aircraft plant in WW2, when the executives' orders were succinct and the resources unlimited, they did miracles.

 

[Potashminer]

From several reference books here, and some "reading between the lines" - all the tooling and machinery to make the P13 / P14 had been moved to USA from British armoury at Enfield Locks - if any P14 were actually made in Britain, was less than a couple hundred. Yet was literal train loads of 303 British ammo - likely substandard, but "good enough", and several British gun makers and Royal Armouries still had the tooling to make the Lee Enfield.

I have come to suspect that fighting wars in those days was at least as much about economics and political decisions as it was about spilling blood and guts - was no particular desire, that I found, among the money people nor the politicians to make the "best" product - was about making something "good enough" that the taxpayer or loans could pay for - and plenty of "profit" for some that were not fighters. But maybe I am a bit cynical in that view.

 

[hogie]

WW1 broke out. British had the Lee and the manufacturing for it. Hard to swap over when you already everything set up. All the P14 were made in America.

The Lee Enfield was hard to replace, proved itself in WW1.

War time production with oversize chambers worked in British favor. Ross suffered from tight tolerance and bad ammo, Lee just worked.

P14 is a good rifle, much better sights than mklll. That was taken care of with no4.

 

[RRCo.]

The P13/14 grew out of the 2nd Boer War and the 7mm Mauser experience the British had there. Sir Charles Ross also got some ideas while he was out there for that war, and his .280 round was the result of that. It made its debut as a sporter, but Sir Charles' true and declared ambition was to have what we know as the Ross Mk.III as the new "Empire Standard" service rifle in .280. There were probably less than fifty made and today they're referred to as the ".280 Military Match" rifles.

.280 Ross was a very big deal in its time, and Ross made a big impression by sweeping the boards at Bisley in both .303 and .280. The Lee Enfield seemed to be on the ropes and on the way out. They came out with clip loading for the Lee Enfield and that helped, but after the Boer experience everyone was mad about marksmanship, especially at long ranges and the S.M.L.E was seen as neither fish nor foul with a trajectory like a bell curve.

Ross was after a "point blank" aim out 5-600 yards and he claimed to have it in the .280: a 5" drop over 500 yards. The goal was minimal fiddling around trying to establish the range and then adjusting sights: just aim and fire.

The proper authorities did not appreciate Sir Charles' attempts to instruct them in small arms, nor his embarrassing their rifle at Bisley. So not to be outdone the Royal Small Arms Factory came out with a .276" round pretty much patterned after .280 Ross, and a new Mauser rifle to go with it, the Pattern '13. Problem was the round was too ambitious, probably in an attempt to exceed the performance of .280 Ross, and it was a flop: gas erosion, short barrel life and other problems.

Along comes the war in 1914 and two projects go on the shelf: .280 Ross as a military round and .276 Enfield. The Ross built to take the .280 round is made in .303 instead and becomes the "Mk.III". The Patt.13 comes off the shelf in 1916 as a rifle that can be mass produced with a minimum of hand-fitting, unlike the SMLE, in US factories with semi-skilled labour, and it has to be in .303 for obvious reasons.

Long after Sir Charles took his remaining cash and retired to Florida, Enfield Lock still hadn't given up on their high velocity round project, only now they call it the Ainley Rifle and pretend it's for sniping etc. Along comes WWII and that project goes back on the shelf and stays there.

As for why the P14 didn't replace the SMLE after WWI, there were millions of SMLEs in storage and the gains from the P14 weren't enough to justify the cost. There were still plans to replace .303 with another round at some point and a conversion program wouldn't be cost-effective, nor was it politically acceptable to have the service rifle of the British Empire made in the U.S.A.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The answer is logistics. They had millions of Lee Enfields by the end of WWI and they had just proven quite effective on top of the fact they had the factories set up to produce them. The P14 even though a quite nice rifle just wasn't that much better (or if it was even better, comparatively I would say they are about even, both have strengths and weaknesses) for something that they don't have huge quantities of and no factories in their countries (Britain, India and Australia could make Lee Enfields by this point).

Unlike the M1917 which the US should have adopted having been 2/3 of their rifle inventory by the end of the war and I would say a better rifle than the M1903. They kept the M1903 though due to both pride in their 'American' (German copy) design and the fact only their national arsenal could make M1903s, vs the M1917 being made by private facilities.

 

[woodchopper]

Not much to add, the 280 Ross and 276 Enfield were an answer to the 7mm Mauser and fighting a different sort of war. When WW1 started it was a 'come with what you got' as all wars are and 'good enough' is the standard. The lessons of WW1 shelved any plans to further develop a new rifle round and WW2 was just a continuation but more machineguns, tanks, and aircraft.

and Lessons learned from WW2 were what drove the changes to ammo, and a push to semiautos.

 

[Claven2]

I would suggest that smle is lighter, shorter, and more reliable in the mud than the p14. It also held twice the rounds.

Keeping it was the right call.

If the p14 had been refined to a lighter, shorter rifle, it might well have fared better in it's fate. I suspect if it was kept, the Brits would eventually have adapted a box magazine to it.

 

[Potashminer]

The "box" or "detachable" magazine may be a modern misdirection - at that time, was not many years since military British rifle had magazine cut-offs - was not as if riflemen on the line could be trusted to conserve ammo - so was normally fired single shot, unless specifically ordered to open up that cut-off. I think even WWII British, Australian and Canadian doctrine had soldiers using stripper clips to reload their Lee Enfield rifles - so far as I know, replenishment ammo showed up at the front lines in stripper clips (chargers) that fit and worked in both No. 1 and No. 4 Lee Enfield and the P14 (No. 3) - except, as noted above, the Lee Enfields held twice the number of rounds compared to P14. I do not think that the magazine was to be removed from the rifle, except for cleaning - as if the "detachable" part was not how we have come to think it can be used.

I do recall growing up with various Lee Enfield No. 4 sporters in the 1960's - most magazines had significantly mangled feed and guide lips from trying to use them as a "clip" - leads me to put some credence to the thought that the Lee Enfield magazines were designed to be used as "fixed magazines" - of course with the advent of scope sights, that entire "charger top loading" thing seemed to go away - so many people are left with the idea that their Lee Enfield "detachable magazine" works OK with a scoped Lee Enfield rifle - my Dad certainly thought so.

Some years ago, an acquaintance brought over an iron sighted SMLE (No. 1 Lee Enfield) to get "fixed up" - I completely dismantled it and found nothing broken, to "fix" - simply what might have been 100 years of grunge and crap in there, and some minor "tweaking" to the magazine guide lips. When cleaned and lubed, I re-assembled it - first time with some dummy rounds, I remember opening the bolt to see if one had actually been chambered - it was, by far, the slickest operating bolt action rifle that I had ever used - noticeably better than the Mausers and commercial rifles that I had before or since. And there is at least a dozen P14 and M1917 sporter rifles here to compare with. I have read that various "Krag" rifles - made in Norway or in USA - might be similarly "slick" to operate, but I have never handled a Krag to know that.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The "box" or "detachable" magazine may be a modern misdirection - at that time, was not many years since military British rifle had magazine cut-offs - was not as if riflemen on the line could be trusted to conserve ammo - so was normally fired single shot, unless specifically ordered to open up that cut-off. I think even WWII British, Australian and Canadian doctrine had soldiers using stripper clips to reload their Lee Enfield rifles - so far as I know, replenishment ammo showed up at the front lines in stripper clips (chargers) that fit and worked in both No. 1 and No. 4 Lee Enfield and the P14 (No. 3) - except, as noted above, the Lee Enfields held twice the number of rounds compared to P14. I do not think that the magazine was to be removed from the rifle, except for cleaning - as if the "detachable" part was not how we have come to think it can be used.

I do recall growing up with various Lee Enfield No. 4 sporters in the 1960's - most magazines had significantly mangled feed and guide lips from trying to use them as a "clip" - leads me to put some credence to the thought that the Lee Enfield magazines were designed to be used as "fixed magazines" - of course with the advent of scope sights, that entire "charger top loading" thing seemed to go away - so many people are left with the idea that their Lee Enfield "detachable magazine" works OK with a scoped Lee Enfield rifle - my Dad certainly thought so.

Some years ago, an acquaintance brought over an iron sighted SMLE (No. 1 Lee Enfield) to get "fixed up" - I completely dismantled it and found nothing broken, to "fix" - simply what might have been 100 years of grunge and crap in there, and some minor "tweaking" to the magazine guide lips. When cleaned and lubed, I re-assembled it - first time with some dummy rounds, I remember opening the bolt to see if one had actually been chambered - it was, by far, the slickest operating bolt action rifle that I had ever used - noticeably better than the Mausers and commercial rifles that I had before or since. And there is at least a dozen P14 and M1917 sporter rifles here to compare with. I have read that various "Krag" rifles - made in Norway or in USA - might be similarly "slick" to operate, but I have never handled a Krag to know that.

Exactly, the 10rd detachable magazine for all intents and purposes was used as a 10rd fixed magazine. It also isn’t much of a advantage, if anything a disadvantage as it is more prone to damage than say a Mauser. At the end of the day they would use 5rd chargers. Whether or not two or one was being stuck in makes no difference. Even the mad minute was practiced with 5rds to start and topping up as you went.

 

[Rwilco]

The Lee Enfield No.1 outclassed the Mauser variants including the M1903, P14, M1917, etc. in WWI.

The Lee Enfield is ridiculously British with its construction and set up. But it was a slightly better battle rifle.

The Mausers all remain amazing hunting rifles but controlled round feed just wasn't as important as rate of fire on the battlefield.

This entertaining video with Lee Ermey pretty much demonstrates it.

 

[Claven2]

I didn't mean that the p14 would get a magazine designed to be changed in battle, I meant they would have adapted a box magazine to fit the bottom metal to give an extra 5 rounds, but that's only speculation. In the end, it made sense to keep the smle.

 

[Potashminer]

The Lee Enfield No.1 outclassed the Mauser variants including the M1903, P14, M1917, etc. in WWI.

The Lee Enfield is ridiculously British with its construction and set up. But it was a slightly better battle rifle.

The Mausers all remain amazing hunting rifles but controlled round feed just wasn't as important as rate of fire on the battlefield.

This entertaining video with Lee Ermey pretty much demonstrates it.

A No. 4 Lee Enfield is most definitely a "controlled round feed" - pick up a cartridge from the magazine with the bolt - slam that bolt partially forward - far enough that the cartridge pops out of the magazine - the bolt's extractor will be holding it, then pull the bolt back without chambering that round - it pulls out that loaded round, ejects it, and picks up another one - basically that is what "controlled round feeding" means - won't let you try to shove two loaded rounds into the chamber by "short stroking", like will happen with a purely "push feed" Model 70 or most Remington 700 - unless you "single feed" and defeat the "controlled round" design.

 

[Rwilco]

A No. 4 Lee Enfield is most definitely a "controlled round feed" - pick up a cartridge from the magazine with the bolt - slam that bolt partially forward - far enough that the cartridge pops out of the magazine - the bolt's extractor will be holding it, then pull the bolt back without chambering that round - it pulls out that loaded round, ejects it, and picks up another one - basically that is what "controlled round feeding" means - won't let you try to shove two loaded rounds into the chamber by "short stroking", like will happen with a purely "push feed" Model 70 or most Remington 700 - unless you "single feed" and defeat the "controlled round" design.

You are correct of course.

 

[jtaylor]

Hi steel. The 10 rd SMLE rifle is the supreme weapon period for both cavalry and infantry on the battlefield. John

 

[MiG25]

The P14 was an example of fighting the last war.

 

[RRCo.]

Not much to add, the 280 Ross and 276 Enfield were an answer to the 7mm Mauser and fighting a different sort of war. When WW1 started it was a 'come with what you got' as all wars are and 'good enough' is the standard. The lessons of WW1 shelved any plans to further develop a new rifle round and WW2 was just a continuation but more machineguns, tanks, and aircraft.

and Lessons learned from WW2 were what drove the changes to ammo, and a push to semiautos.

I would say developments continued between the wars. Remember that the M1 Garand was designed for a .276" round as well which was nixed for the same supply reasons that kept the British with .303.

 

[mbogo3]

The arrogance of the American is not endearing.

 

[Mk VII]

There was very little money for defence after 1918, and most of what there was went to the Air Force and the Navy.
All the tooling for the '14 had been sold to Uncle Sugar for 5 cents on the dollar, so thye would have to start again. Also the British were satisfied with the L-E's performance in the mud of the trenches, which only a robust mechanism would survive. Such development work as they did in the '20s went on a product-improved L-E.