Lee Enfield vs P14

[cprher]

Someone on this forum must have the definitive answer to this question:

What was the specific reason(s) for the British Government not transitioning from the Lee Enfield to the P14? There are all sorts of assumptions I can make to justify staying with the Lee Enfield, but I'd rather know the real, unadulterated reason for that decision.

Keith

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[harry mac]

Probably because the Lee had just seen us through a world war and we had millions of them on hand, plus all the associated spares and training pamphlets etc.
It wasn't just about the British army at that time. What about the Indians, the Australians and the Canadians?
WE WERE SKINT!!!

[Mk VII]

Does the OP mean before, or after the war?

[limpetmine]

The P-13 in .27 cal or there abouts was the next one up, in 1913. But the world war in 1914 came on, and you fight the war with the rifle you have, not the rifle on the drawing board. There was neither the time nor money to change all the production and rifles.

The P-14 was built in the states and was an adjunct to the rifle supplies on hand.

[Seaspriter]

I have a P-14, No.1 MkIII, and No.4 MkI displayed in my office in a 3-stack. Comparing the three, and remembering a little of the history:

The P-13 in .27 cal or there abouts was the next one up, in 1913

The Brits didn't want to change ammo so the P-14 was adopted to use .303
The Brits didn't want to change production lines in the middle of the war, so the SMLE was produced in Britain, but the P-14, which needed complete new machinery and equipment to manufacture, could be set up in the U.S. (What most of us don't realize, as well, the Germans were doing aerial bombing of London in WWI, along with war-time shortages, thus having alternative sources of supply outside the UK made sense.)

If we take the set-up of the Savage Plant in Chicopee, Massachusetts in WWII as an example of using an existing plant with a trained work force to produce a new rifle, it still took nearly a year before all the systems (machinery, equipment, supply chain, trained staff, quality control, etc) could produce at full capacity (and the Savage ramp-up started several months before the supply shortages began in December, 1941.)

When the US entered the war in 1917, the U.S. just didn't have enough rifle manufacturing capacity either, so it shifted the existing P-14 plants in the U.S. to make the Model 1917, chambered in .30-06. By that time, the 1 Winchester plant and the 2 Remington plants producing P-14s had augmented the supply of munitions sufficiently to keep Commonwealth forces fully supplied with existing UK production.

The battle field experience our Doughboys had with the Model 1917 was that it was: 1) accurate, 2) too heavy @ 10 1/2 pounds, and 3) too long (especially when equipped with a sword-like bayonet). These are some of the key reasons why the M-1 Garand was developed before WWII. When the US entered WWII, we didn't have enough M-1 Garands, so the GIs were issued what was available from WWI stores: Springfields and M-1917 until production could be ramped up on the Garands.

After WWI, it took the UK until 1939 to approve the No.4 MkI, which, when you look carefully, takes a lot of its queues from the P-14, just smaller at 9 1/4 pounds, shorter by couple of inches, using a lighter version of the P-14 receiver with a mounted rear sight, using a shortened version of the P-14 muzzle configuration (no SMLE bulldog nose, but lightening the P-14 cast nose cap with a stamped version), adapting the P-14 hand-guard configuration, but keeping the SMLE 10 round mag, firing pin/striker, and bolt-on butt into a receiver ring/socket. That's why there are so few parts of a SMLE that can be used in a No.4.

Hope this helps. I'm sure others have other points to add.

[Promo]

AFAIK the UK wanted the US to produce the SMLE, which they declined. And since they were looking for a rifle in .303 caliber, the P.13 was adopted to this caliber.

There is still so much unknown on the history and development of the P.13/P.14/M1917, one of the best rifle designs in WWI and also highly precise. Especially in the UK many trials rifles were done, like with folding bayonet, SMLE nose cap, SMLE style bolt, semi automatic conversions, bullpup conversions, etc.

[Roger Payne]

The Mauser design was essentially copied to produce the P'13 in .276 rimless high velocity calibre. The idea was that it would replace the SMLE but AFAICR there were a lot of problems with bore fouling & erosion with the high velocity ammo. These problems hadn't been solved by the time war broke out. With the consequent huge rise in the demand for the current (SMLE) service rifle, as well as all the other impedimenta required to fight a world war, there simply was not enough factory capacity in the UK to produce the P'14 (now in .303" the same as the SMLE). I believe this is why the at the time still neutral US was approached to manufacture the new rifle. As is often the case, by the time P'14s started to arrive in the UK in quantity the worst of the supply problems had been solved, & there were at least enough SMLE's to keep the front line troops equipped.

[ssj]

From what I have seen written the P14 timing was un-lucky as WW1 broke out before it had really been accepted and issued. There also seems to have been considerable politics going on where some didnt like the rimless ammo etc etc Plus the SMLE is a great short range battle rifle and the P14 not so much so more of a long range gun.

What "confuses" far more me is after WW1 and all the dis-advantages of the SMLE were well known is why we ended up with a no4 of the same design heritage and problems and not a "Pattern 1920". or even why when the 6.5mm or 7mm in rimless were shown to be better rounds we stuck with the 303 rimmed.

[Seaspriter]

What "confuses" far more me is after WW1 and all the dis-advantages of the SMLE were well known is why we ended up with a no4 of the same design heritage and problems

SSJ, this is a highly relevant and insightful question, and it seems so vexing from the perspective of the 21st century. But the prevailing view in the 1920s & '30s was quite different. Given the horrible carnage on the battlefields, everyone at that time referred to the "Great War" as the "war to end all wars." (No one called it WWI then.) Disarmament was the prevailing belief of the time.

Thus, anyone who proposed an escalation of armaments would be severely disdained. Senior military leaders, sitting atop their rarified hierarchy, tend to have a know it all attitude, and regard those of lower rank with a jaundiced view. Any innovator in the middle ranks of command had better have a powerful "godfather" to protect his views and stripes from "attack by friendly fire." Just look at the Court Martial of Billy Mitchell in 1925 as an example.

By 1930, the Great Depression consumed the energies of every world leader except Adolf and ToJo, then Benito who took a far more aggressive stands. But as late as 1938, world leaders still believed there would never be another war. Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Accords in late 1938 believing Hitler's annexation of portions of Czechoslovakia would be the end of aggression.

The entire Munich debacle was debunked by Winston Churchill, whose opinion held minority status at the time. His response was prophetic: "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war." A year later Hitler stormed into Poland, then struck France, followed by the Battle of Britain. The illusion (delusion) of the "War to End All Wars" was shattered.

Only then, once the crisis had struck, were questions of advanced armaments considered in earnest. That's when technological advancement shifted into high gear. That's why the No.4 Mk1 is approved in 1939 -- there was no more time left for endless testing, debate, and bureaucratic dallying.

In the end, WWII is the only war in history where the principal weaponry that won the war did not exist before the war: Radar, Computers, Proximity Fuses, Atomic Bomb, etc. It's hard to understand in hindsight, but easy understand at the time, when military leaders, seasoned on the field of battle in the last war, and second-guessing their own strategies and tactics, as well as those of their opponents, are readying to refight the last war, not the future war. Likely the victor will think "bigger and more of the same," while the vanquished "changes the rules of the game."

Even with the pressure of war, strange decisions were made. For example, Frank Whittle invented the jet engine in Britain in the mid-1930s. The Germans had their first prototype jets flying in 1939. Britain's first jet prototypes were flying in 1941. But why were Allied jets not a factor in the war?

Thus your question is still highly relevant -- and still vexing to answer.

[Eaglelord17]

My theories on why it wasn't adapted are pretty simple.

It is heavy, very heavy for a bolt action military rifle.
At this time period everyone was used to 'V' notch sights, and didn't want to use aperture sights (personally I have the same mindset myself I shoot way better with a 'V' notch), this problem was also shown in WWII with the No. 4 Mk. 1s as the already trained troops didn't want to use apertures.
The P14 was made in the States, not Britain (still very imperialistic/nationalistic mindset at this point), and they didn't use common parts as a P14 made by Winchester couldn't use Remington parts etc.
Massive stocks of Lee Enfields were on hand, which Britain already had the tooling set up for (and some of the colonies/commonwealth nations as well).

The P14 is a fantastic rifle, and can easily hold its own with contemporary rifles. It just happened at the wrong point of time in history. It is also pretty funny that the M1917 almost became the American standard rifle after they technically wrote off roughly 1 million 1903s due to poor heat treating.