New P14

"The marks below the RE is not an asterisk mark. It is like two perpendicular Vs. Like a V was struck twice."


That looks to me like the British "sold out of service" mark - two broad arrows point-to-point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

That looks to me like the British "sold out of service" mark - two broad arrows point-to-point.

---

You are quite right Patrick however the mark referred to as the "star" is the one below that (or to the right if looking at the RE straight on).

To see it clearly make sure to remove your cursor from the photo so the control box is removed.

It also looks like a series of V's but they do not connect and a circle is formed in the center. - Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

Harry you are most likely correct. I can only reiterate information I have read but will never consider myself an expert on these rifles, at best a somewhat versed amateur!

However the rifle I have was made during mid to late June 1916 based on its serial number and published production figures, it does have the milled barrel face and was brought up to * spec someplace and sometime unknown.
Perhaps it was done by one of the various English contractors at the time of the Weedon repairs during WWII which makes more sense than pulling rifles off the line during a war unless it was deemed a dangerous condition.

My P14 didn't come in it's original stock so there are no markings that give me a definitive answer as to where and when it was changed over to * spec.
The bolt does have what appears to be a force match serial number in a non original location, no actual manufacturers markings but does have the daisy stamp.

Also what the need for the larger bolt lug was has never been explained especially on such an already robust rifle. If you have any info on this I'd love to know it.

When comparing the bolt of my M1917 to my P14 bolt it seems this change was not incorporated into the M1917, so why was it deemed necessary for the less powerful .303 round?

I assume when the new spec was introduced any already manufactured but not yet shipped rifles would have been pulled back in and had the change made in the US where possible.
I have read of an anywhere from 3 week to 3 month time lapse between manufacture, acceptance and shipment which would leave a possible window going back to September 1916 manufactured rifles which could have been modified in the US but this is purely speculation on my part. - Bill

---

The left lug was lengthened on the P14 because the powers that be thought the rim of the cartridge was sliding off the left edge of the bolt face before hitting the ejector. On some of these rifles, that may have been true, however I have had no such problems with my P14 Mk1. This was unnecessary on the M1917 since it was a rimless cartridge.

At the start of P14 production, there was no interchangeability between parts from the 3 manufacturers, as such the British inspectors were reluctant to accept the rifles. In the end, they did, but they were deemed substitute standard and not for front line issue. I believe the later manufactured P14 Mk1* were manufactured with some level of interchangeability.

I should correct my post in that there were "Interchangeability issues". Some parts would fit all 3 manufacturers rifles, others would not.

I also need to expand further on the issue of the extended Bolt lug relative to the P14 and M1917. Because the M1917 had a much larger extractor claw that held the case rim to the bolt face more securely than the substantially smaller claw used on the P14, the longer left lug was unnecessary on the M1917.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

The left lug was lengthened on the P14 because the powers that be thought the rim of the cartridge was sliding off the left edge of the bolt face before hitting the ejector. On some of these rifles, that may have been true, however I have had no such problems with my P14 Mk1. This was unnecessary on the M1917 since it was a rimless cartridge.

---

Thanks for clearing this up for me Jake. I'd often wondered why it was done but could never find a viable explanation. Well once again I've learned something new here. - Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldpaul

I hadn't noticed the lack of a screw in the bass disc until F10UK mentioned it, but it looks, to my untrained eye to be Farsi or some other middle eastern letter imprinted on it. Perhaps a member here recently graduated from the sand box will comment. Regards Tom

---

allah

OK, this is fun! I don't have a lot of these rifles since I don't collect military rifles per se: I seem to go for old, odd, or unusual rifles. I do have a couple of P14's and 2 1917's along with some Remington model 30's that were made from left-over 1917 parts. One of my P14's is like the ones being discussed here. It has an RE receiver with the *, the machined gouge in the rear face of the barrel, the serial number stamped on the outside of the bolt handle, what might be a star on the underside of the bolt handle, grind marks and illegible electric pencil marks on the outside of the bolt handle, the 16 date stamped in the usual place. The serial number is a good bit lower than those discussed here (67918). It has a mixture of parts including a Winchester stock and a smattering of "E" on small parts. The barrel has the serial number and an "R" on it.

Was the larger lug confined to extending the "prong" forward or was that lug made larger in some other way also?

It was moved forward only, to create a deeper ledge for the cartridge rim so it wouldn't slide off the edge of the extractor claw upon extraction. The bad part, is that the relief cut to the chamber face to accommodate the longer lug, resulted in the cartridge rim only being supported by approx. 1/3 of the barrels chamber face circumference , as opposed to being supported by over 3/4 of the chambers circumference on the earlier mk1.