The search function is your friend. Many threads include EY and P14.
Printable View
The search function is your friend. Many threads include EY and P14.
harry-- There is no difference in the body (receiver) between the MKI and MKI* rifles. But the specifications between the three manufacturers were so loosy goosy that they were considered non interchargeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
Sorry, I should have phrased that better. Is the breech face o the barrel machined to the Mk1* spec, or is it the flatMk1 profile?Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
Thanks Daan. That was a tremendously helpful post that added a great deal of interest to the Forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
The breech face of the Mark 1 barrel is what blocks installation of a Mark 1* bolt. The receivers are the same. A Mark 1 bolt can be installed in a Mark 1* rifle and a Mark 1* bolt can be shortened to fit in a Mark 1 rifle, but either one leaves the feeding problem, which was the reason for the modification in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
M
The feeding issue was true on a majority of the Mk1 rifles, but not all. I have an early Rem Mk1 (serial #811) with the Maltese cross stamped on the side of the butt (another indicator of non interchangeability?) that feeds just as well as my later Rem Mk1*. It did have a replacement bolt stop (Winchester) that needed to be fitted though...
I found that to be true also. My Mark 1 rifle feeds quite well. I suspect that at least some of the problem that led to the Mark 1* modification was the product of dimensional irregularities of WWI British .303 ammunition, especially rim diameter, rim thickness and rim chamfering. There were several different magazine follower designs as well, which may have contributed. I am not sure how thoroughly the cause was investigated before the modification was ordered; it is possible that it was just a hurried wartime expedient to cure the problem, whatever its cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
M