Lee Enfield vs P14

[Parashooter]

Lots of Mausers cock on closing. The P13 and its offspring have more in common with the '93 Mauser than with the '98 - no third bolt lug, internal receiver collar, or flanged sleeve; same sear interruptor, cock-on-close feature.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

It would seem that the “learned gentlemen” who designed the P-13 / P-14 had looked closely at Gebruder Mauser’s efforts, but had somehow missed their masterpiece, the ’98.The one thing they DID get "right" was to provide helical locking surfaces in the breech, a la the Lee Enfield.

It gets better.

In the late 1930s, the “Ainley” rifle briefly appeared on the scene. See pages 94-96 of Ian Skennerton’s “British Sniper” book.

A sort-of “Gucci” P-13: Integral scope base, miniature Mk1 Bren-style rearsight, same dog-legged bolt handle, recoil-buffer springs in the butt, tunnel foresight protector/housing, integral scope “base”.

Specified muzzle velocity of 3700 ft/sec. (obviously NOT in .303 ).

One would hope that the "learned gentlemen" were actually thinking along the lines similar to those that have taken the .300 Win and the awesome .338 Lapua onto the battlefield: A VERY specialist rifle.

Only a handful of prototypes, (one of which went to Canada and now resides in Oz), were made and the project was abandoned by 1940. I had a quick fondle of an/the Ainley when it arrived in Oz, before shipping to its new "owner". The BSA SMLE in .276 Pederson was kinda cute, too.

[Bindi2]

The BSA SMLE in .276 Pederson was kinda cute, too.

Got anymore info on this B i O

[Bruce_in_Oz]

All I remember was that it looked just like a standard BSA SMLE, but the hole down the middle of the barrel looked a bit small.

I vaguely recall that it was marked " .276" somewhere, but can't be sure.

As it was unlikely to be chambered for the Ainley cartridge, I took a stab and went home and rifled, so to speak, through what passed for my cartridge collection. I fished out my one example of a .276 Pederson cartridge and went back to the rifle.

Sure enough, the round dropped neatly into the chamber and the bolt closed (carefully) on it.

Best guess was that some SMLEs were set up as ammo "test beds" as a part of the Vickers Pederson rifle development project. There was a Vickers Pederson that looked like it had just rolled off the production line floating around Brisbane back then; those were the days!

Magazine in this .276 SMLE appeared to be standard .303, so, essentially, single-shot

Such a rifle also have been an early look at producing a "second-line" rifle in what was potentially the "new Service cartridge". A similar concept was the Lithgow 7.62 NATO beast based on a No.6 Trials rifle that was "modified" to take the early-pattern FAL mag.

[Promo]

In the late 1930s, the “Ainley” rifle briefly appeared on the scene. See pages 94-96 of Ian Skennerton’s “British Sniper” book.

A sort-of “Gucci” P-13: Integral scope base, miniature Mk1 Bren-style rearsight, same dog-legged bolt handle, recoil-buffer springs in the butt, tunnel foresight protector/housing, integral scope “base”.

Only a handful of prototypes, (one of which went to Canada and now resides in Oz), were made and the project was abandoned by 1940. I had a quick fondle of an/the Ainley when it arrived in Oz, before shipping to its new "owner". The BSA SMLE in .276 Pederson was kinda cute, too.

Well, as we're already by the topic: have you also seen one of those (like attached) before? Note the detachable SMLE magazine

PS: With the rifle in Oz, are you referring to the large collection which was somewhen unfortunately sold off (does someone know who has this rifle now)? Wonder where the rest of the Ainley rifles are..

[Lee Enfield]

It would seem that the “learned gentlemen” who designed the P-13 / P-14 had looked closely at Gebruder Mauser’s efforts, but had somehow missed their masterpiece, the ’98.The one thing they DID get "right" was to provide helical locking surfaces in the breech, a la the Lee Enfield.

...snip....

Actually, as you mention, I believe that they looked at both the '93/'95 (which they experienced in SA) and the '98 (which was being flogged to all and sundry).

I believe that they considered it superior to the M.98, P14/17 is an improved Mauser 1893/95, but modified as it partially cocks on opening, and completes the action upon closing.

[Peter Laidler]

Haven't read all of this bumph but regarding non interchangeability of components between different P'14 manufacturers, there is a whole page devoted to the non interchangeable parts and semi-interchangeable 'with adjustments' in a 1939 reprint of a 1920 Armourers handbook issued when the war broke out and the rifles were being issued out again. So we were aware early on the some component parts issued as replacement spares were NOT interchangeable.

And you go to war with what you've got. What you need comes next followed by what you want……… Army doctrine that holds good today!

[ssj]

Do we have this anywhere i can read? "a whole page devoted to the non interchangeable parts and semi-interchangeable 'with adjustments' in a 1939 reprint of a 1920 Armourers handbook" ?

[Peter Laidler]

The short answer to the Q is No, you don't!. But don't be shy SSJ. If you want to read it, then when I get home I'll arrange to put it up for everyones general interest

[ssj]

Peter I tend to read everything I can find on Enfields at least once.