Eddystone P.14 Sniper

Finally received the rifle I purchased quite some time ago: a heavily modified Eddystone P.14 rifle, which features scope bases I've never seen before.

The front scope base is a dovetailed part, which is obviously made in a way that the scope is first placed downwards, then slid forward into the dovetail. The rear scope base is made via a circular cutout in where the rear sight originally would have been, also dovetailed to then slide forward. The scope mount is locked in place with a spring-made "locking key".

In the position where the end on the arm of the key touches the top of the receiver, exactly the milled flat position on the key arm is inside the milled hole. This means in this position the scope can be inserted or removed. If the arm is then slid downwards into the locking position (with a small cutout in the side of the receiver, locking it in place), the scope then is locked in place. The arm seems to be made of spring steel, as it's quite moveable.

Note the additional cutout on the rear handguard, obviously made for a very deep mounted scope.

The rifle itself is an Eddystone action which is fully matching. The trigger guard is serialized to the rifle, as sometimes seen on other P.14 sniper rifles. The originally "Fatso" stock has been milled flat on the sides.

The rifle features what appears to be a modified SMLE magazine, which is detachable. The magazine as the stock on the heel is marked with a single "4". I yet have to remove the handguards, but I've been told by the previous owner they also feature the "4" inside of them. The stock is shortened, which I am unable to tell if it's original or not, but I believe rather not. The caliber is of course the original .303 British. The history itself is lost (or remains unknown), since it came from an estate.

Any suggestions to this gun? The detachable magazine reminds me of the Ainley rifle, but the Ainley rifle had the original PPCo mounts (to my knowledge). And why did they use an Eddystone action?


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

Second and last set of pictures.


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

Interesting looking rifle. Presumably the scope mounting over the top would preclude use of stripper clips - hence somone thought that adding a magazine to reload would be useful.

What country was this found in? The work looks like it was done a long time ago and was skillfully done. The missing screw through the muzzle band and lack of hole for same in the stock makes one wonder about the stock, as you say, as does the poorly fitting handguard. The band has been enlarged around the barrel? It would be interesting to see without the stock and whether the barrel channel was enlarged also. There must be machining to the underside of the receiver also I assume?

A very interesting piece; someone was thinking whether if was a private individual or someone in government service. The front base does look very vulnerable to damage and there is no provision for lateral adjustment; that might suggest a Patt.18 scope with the windage adjustment prism. It seems doubtful that anyone would go to that much trouble or arrange the mounts in that way if they were not intending this to be a service rifle.

That mag must be a replacement somewhere along the way, judging by its condition. The fact that it is not a No.4 mag would fit with the likely dates: mid 20s to mid 30s? Col. Acland probably wasn't the only military marksman working on these matters.

There doesn't appear to be any need for the scope to tip forward, so that long relief in the handguard is either a modified M17 one, or grooved to clear a very low mounted scope, and in that case, not an Patt. 18.

Why not do up a CAD drawing of the rings as you can determine them from the bases; the scope might still be out there somewhere. I found an Ainley rifle scope (Patt. 18) on eBay years and years ago that ended up in Australia I understand. You never know. And the Ainley rifle didn't use a PPCo. mounting BTW.

I would agree. It's certainly VERY professionally done and a credit to whoever did it. I'd say that the front mounting was adequate because the breeching ring area here on a P'14 is more substantial than that of the totally inadequate No4. So the 4BA(?) screws get the necessary min. of 3 complete threads hold. Am I mistaken or is that a feint blob of silver solder on photos 5 & 6 (2nd set, top row). A good job. But I don't think that it's military because we always insisted on the presence of an iron sight too. Detachable magazine..... not a feature that would concern a sniper in my opinion

Hey Rob, this rifle was found in the US and I brought it back to Europe. Someone brought it up in a forum asking for more opinions on it, and I thought it was something special and we did a trade on it. He had bought it from an estate with a few other guns, but except that it was accordingly from a WWII vet there is not much more known.

To me the shortening of the stock has NOT been done by the same person who also did the scope bases. Below the bayonet lug the wood looks rather knife-cut than professionally milled, also someone who is able to do scope bases in this manner is able to properly drill a hole for a bayonet lug. It might also be that it featured a different stock ending than the bayonet lug and someone just re-shaped it to be able to refit a bayonet lug, but this is something I am not able to verify. The barrel channel at the front end is in fact inletted larger than the barrel itself, but this might also be because of the original inletting.

Why do you think of the Patt'18 scope? Did you see the long inletting on the rear handguard? It's so long that I hardly believe it really had one of those on it. The rifle uses an Enfield magazine, therefore I believe it to be of British origin (also the serial number on the magazine guard would proof this, since this was a British thing), which would also suggest a British scope. But which British (used) scope is at about this length and that deep? And of course the lateral adjustment must have been made either in the scope (rings), or with the scope itself. Probably I should hold a No. 32 scope next to it, who knows?

Did you identify the magazine as being a "No. 4 Mag" by the number "4" on it, or by any other small differences which I am unable to tell?

Doing a drawing of the scope rings is quite hard, as this would only be of the thing touching the receiver, which however can in fact be quite differently shaped. But it might be worth giving it a try.

Edit:

@Peter Laidler: the Ainley sniper rifle, which was also based on the P.14, also featured a detachable magazine. But I have no details upon how this was realized.


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

The relief cut in the upper hand guard is interesting, thinking about sight lines, if a scope body did lay low enough to the bore to require such a cut would the foresight block not occlude the optic?

If that channel is cut for a scope body, I would suggest that the rifle may have been originally configured without a foresight, like the 1903 below:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3/kcxtsz-1.jpg

Or it could be possible that the optic had a large objective lens which would require the channel for physical mounting and dismounting but the sight line might clear of the foresight block.

I have never seen anything like this but I am trying to envision the optics and mounts based on the modifications for the sake of discussion.

Doug, sorry for posting it in the Enfield section. It was on purpose, because I thought the Enfield guys might have more information than the ones on the M1917 and Pattern 1913/1914 section, which is not that often frequented.

I disassembled the rifle today and made some comparison pictures with another Eddystone P.14 in normal service configuration. Especially the extremely well made magazine conversion is very interesting.

The stock looks - as I said - to have been unprofessionally shortened. The front sight does NOT appear to have been removed (well, not by bubba since there are no traces..), at least that is what the pin seems to indicate.

Peter, the Ainley rifle featured a detachable magazine (which was a rifle in a different caliber, but based on the P.14 action). And since the magazine of this rifle seems to be a SMLE magazine, I assume this conversion was done PRIOR to the invention of the No. 4 rifle/the No. 4 magazine.

... and the second and last set of pictures I did today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Hey Rob, this rifle was found in the US and I brought it back to Europe. Someone brought it up in a forum asking for more opinions on it, and I thought it was something special and we did a trade on it. He had bought it from an estate with a few other guns, but except that it was accordingly from a WWII vet there is not much more known.

To me the shortening of the stock has NOT been done by the same person who also did the scope bases. Below the bayonet lug the wood looks rather knife-cut than professionally milled, also someone who is able to do scope bases in this manner is able to properly drill a hole for a bayonet lug. It might also be that it featured a different stock ending than the bayonet lug and someone just re-shaped it to be able to refit a bayonet lug, but this is something I am not able to verify. The barrel channel at the front end is in fact inletted larger than the barrel itself, but this might also be because of the original inletting.

---

The quality of the work doesn't match does it? On the other hand, what work was done to that stock looks like it was done a long time ago doesn't it? And if it was a work in progress that was abandoned for some reason, that might be reflected in the state of the woodwork. Where the long range sight peep is ground off, how is the area finished?

Overall, much too clean don't you think? I see no residues in the nooks and crannies where one would expect it on a rifle that age. Around the butt marking disc for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Why do you think of the Patt'18 scope? Did you see the long inletting on the rear handguard? It's so long that I hardly believe it really had one of those on it. The rifle uses an Enfield magazine, therefore I believe it to be of British origin (also the serial number on the magazine guard would proof this, since this was a British thing), which would also suggest a British scope. But which British (used) scope is at about this length and that deep? And of course the lateral adjustment must have been made either in the scope (rings), or with the scope itself. Probably I should hold a No. 32 scope next to it, who knows?

---

Patt. 18 is just a possibility, used on the Ainley rifle as well, probably because they were supported and available (then current on the No.3MkI*(T) rifles on issue) and because comparison with the No.3 would then be on a level playing field in that respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Did you identify the magazine as being a "No. 4 Mag" by the number "4" on it, or by any other small differences which I am unable to tell?

---

I was just observing that it is a No.1 MkIII mag, not a No.4 mag and that fact suggests at date before the later 1930s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Doing a drawing of the scope rings is quite hard, as this would only be of the thing touching the receiver, which however can in fact be quite differently shaped. But it might be worth giving it a try.

---

Do you think so? Obviously the upper portions would be guesswork, but the "feet" are pretty clear from the bases: at the back a round leg with a circular rim that slides into the recess you can see cut into the bottom of the hole. That could be turned as one piece of course. The back face would be flat to clear the face of the locking leaver when closed. I was wondering if the flats of the original backsight recess might have been used as a bearing, but there's no wear to the finish that suggests that. It would have made the mounting much more solid if had used those shoulders way, though a bit tricky to machine.

The front base looks like a dovetail with shoulders on either side to resist recoil throwing the scope & mounts forward. Odd little complication that, when a simple projection butting against the rear face of the front base would have done the same for less machining and much greater strength. As it is, if there was any movement of the scope forward against those little shoulders, they would deform interfering with the sliding of the ring foot into the dovetail.

What I don't understand is why they didn't put a good heavy projecting shoulder on either side so that the top flat and edges of the dovetail were protected from blows. You can see the dovetail has in fact been smacked at the front on one side and pushed down, no doubt making it impossible to fit a scope as is. So much trouble and effort overall and yet something so obvious missed...

If the scope had no lateral adjustment the rings might have had a double screw dovetail at the rear and some sort of pivot at the front??

Presumably there was some sort of backsight as the recess looks like it hasn't been empty that long; just lost or someone took a fancy to it for some other project?

Is that a little green paint along the outside edge of the mag well? Edit: disregard, just the brazing line probably.

Can you show a photo like this one, but with the locking lever in the closed position?

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....3&d=1457474618

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Edit:

@Peter Laidler: the Ainley sniper rifle, which was also based on the P.14, also featured a detachable magazine. But I have no details upon how this was realized.

---

Thanks for sharing it with us; a very interesting find!

Rob, the finish on the tip of the stock is much different from the rest of the stock. In fact it doesn't look like it received any coating (linseed oil, etc.) unlike the rest of the stock. The "fatso" features of the stock had been professionally removed (if we didn't knew the stock originally was different, we probably wouldn't notice this) and refinished and is homogeneous with the rest of the stock - completely opposite of below the bayonet lug, where it looks like a shortening was started by Bubba and not finished yet. Wood chips are missing and it looks like someone cut it in shape with a knife, just allowing the bayonet lug to be mounted over the stock.

Sorry for the confusion with the magazine. I also properly identified it as being a SMLE magazine. I misunderstood your answer. And we both came to the same conclusion, that this would date the rifle prior to No. 4 rifle. I might read it wrong, but does anyone else also read the date on the barrel as '27 ... or is it just a badly stamped '17?

Does anyone have information upon the Ainley rifle and the scope? Is the scope for the Ainley rifle exactly the same as on the No. 3 T rifle (except for being calibrated for a different round), and does this also apply to the scope mount?

If the Patt'18 scope also had been used on this rifle, why would it have such a long cutout on the rear handguard? Wouldn't this rather indicate a scope with a large objective lense? Which scopes were used from 20s to the 30s in the UK?

To the pictures of the scope "base" on the rear: they were made with additional light which has a different white color than the one I have in my light box. Therefore it shows what I'd call non-existing miscolorations. This is something I forgot to mention.

I'm not sure if the rear foot itself was fully circular (could have had a flat side at the rear also) and if the circular hole is only a result of being easier to mill, or if it had a flat backside. Being circular, all it would need were some v notches on the bottom and it would be possible to lock it in various positions, so making it more independent from the dovetail in the front. I think that this rear foot most probably would have looked like the front foot of a WWI German "Semi-Turret" called scope mount. I might try and see if in fact this one would fit, who knows?

Regarding the front base: I do not believe the front base was damaged, but I agree that it might look differently in the pictures. The top is completely flat, as are the sides of the bases. I in fact believe the juvenescent dovetail was a feature, as it was known from US WWI Neidner modified Winchester scopes, which used recoil to lock themselves. And the Neidner scope rings don't feature more "flesh" around the necks than this scope base. The force is anyway held at the back with a really massive base, while the front only serves to lock it in position. And for this the dovetail as it's now is perfect.

It might have been possible that they used the original rear sight holes for a small "emergency peep sight", similar to the later fixed rear sight on the No. 4 (where you're only able to flip it between two positions), or they simply had an original P.14 rear sight cut down, so that only the peep sight is left in place.

Very interesting thread, and great pics of a unique rifle. I scanned these pages from Skenerton's "The British Sniper" for comparative purposes.

Hey SMLE addict, I have a better picture of this experimental No. 3 rifle with the detachable magazine, see the attachment. I however don't know where I got those from. I originally made the mistake and confused this rifle with the Ainley sniper.

To be more precise: this rifle looks like in fact it still is in original caliber and original No. 3 (T) configuration. They just added the detachable magazine and modified the stock. Where as my rifle had a different scope mount, but still the original stock - and for the magazine they used an existing one.

could the cut out be for something like a winchester A5 scope?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3656a22f-1.jpg

Wow... what I'd give to have those rifles....

Henry, the cutout would quite fit to the length of a Winchester A5 telescope. However, remember that the Winchester A5 is designed in a way that upon recoil the scope slides forward in the rings, and after each shot has to be pushed back into position. And the original scope rings can't be used with these cutouts .. but I guess with these bases they would have to be modified anyway. Probably swapping the rear and the front base would work ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob, the finish on the tip of the stock is much different from the rest of the stock. In fact it doesn't look like it received any coating (linseed oilicon, etc.) unlike the rest of the stock. The "fatso" features of the stock had been professionally removed (if we didn't knew the stock originally was different, we probably wouldn't notice this) and refinished and is homogeneous with the rest of the stock - completely opposite of below the bayonet lug, where it looks like a shortening was started by Bubba and not finished yet. Wood chips are missing and it looks like someone cut it in shape with a knife, just allowing the bayonet lug to be mounted over the stock.

---

If it wasn’t for that groove in the handguard, I might think the stock is a fairly recent replacement. The messing around with the muzzle band etc. could have been anyone I suppose. The roughness or lack of completion just reflects something that was never finished probably. If making a fake, why would it not be finished off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Sorry for the confusion with the magazine. I also properly identified it as being a SMLE magazine. I misunderstood your answer. And we both came to the same conclusion, that this would date the rifle prior to No. 4 rifle. I might read it wrong, but does anyone else also read the date on the barrel as '27 ... or is it just a badly stamped '17?

---

Looks like “27" to me and that could be highly significant since as far as I know, the P14 was not on issue except as the (T) model with the Patt.18 scope or (F) backsight for Regular and Territorial use respectively. Would Enfield be rebarreling P.14s in 1927? I can't see why, unless it was one of those that had seen service in WWI, but would they bother with 10,000 new Winchester P14s supposedly in war reserves? Perhaps like the Aldis No3 and 4 scopes supposed to have been set aside, that never actually happened? Both reports come from The British Sniper, but is there any proof? The odds and sods of scopes fitted up by Alex Martin to P.14s in WWII strongly suggests the Aldis scopes were not in fact kept in reserve, and the profusion of them found on sporting rifles in the 20s and 30s supports that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Does anyone have information upon the Ainley rifle and the scope? Is the scope for the Ainley rifle exactly the same as on the No. 3 T rifle (except for being calibrated for a different round), and does this also apply to the scope mount?

---

The mount for the Ainley is quite different. I have photos on another drive, perhaps someone else has some handy? The mount fitted into the machined groove on the receiver wall and locked with two thumbscrews similar to what the No32 bracket came to use. There was a recess on the underside of the mount which mated with that square lug on top of the receiver ring, in order to support the mount, and perhaps absorb some recoil forces too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

If the Patt'18 scope also had been used on this rifle, why would it have such a long cutout on the rear handguard? Wouldn't this rather indicate a scope with a large objective lense? Which scopes were used from 20s to the 30s in the Ukicon?

---

That’s what I was referring to also previously. It’s a bit of a mystery as I can’t think of any European or British scope that would need that much clearance, unless it was an American target scope in spring loaded mounts., but then the spring would have to under expansion rather than compression!

There were some trials done for other mounts as well, which are detailed in The British Sniper. I believe these were Patt. 18 scopes fitted to Springfield rifles and adjustments, at least for windage, were in the mount via a dial positioned similar to Dr. Common’s sight or a Bren MkI sight. There’s a photo or two in the book. Relevant to this only to the extent that it shows experimental work was going on different concepts between the wars, albeit a very slow pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

To the pictures of the scope "base" on the rear: they were made with additional light which has a different white color than the one I have in my light box. Therefore it shows what I'd call non-existing miscolorations. This is something I forgot to mention.

I'm not sure if the rear foot itself was fully circular (could have had a flat side at the rear also) and if the circular hole is only a result of being easier to mill, or if it had a flat backside. Being circular, all it would need were some v notches on the bottom and it would be possible to lock it in various positions, so making it more independent from the dovetail in the front. I think that this rear foot most probably would have looked like the front foot of a WWI Germanicon "Semi-Turret" called scope mount. I might try and see if in fact this one would fit, who knows?

---

Third time we’ve misunderstood each other, but no worries, your English a lot better than my German! ;) I did refer to the back of the rear ring mount being flat, but it would not have to be entirely flattened off, it would probably have had a concave or semi-circular groove that the rounded portion of the locking lever would “roll into” as it was locked. There was probably some interference in the fit to give some compression and lock the mount in place. I hope that makes sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Regarding the front base: I do not believe the front base was damaged, but I agree that it might look differently in the pictures. The top is completely flat, as are the sides of the bases. I in fact believe the juvenescent dovetail was a feature, as it was known from US WWI Neidner modified Winchester scopes, which used recoil to lock themselves. And the Neidner scope rings don't feature more "flesh" around the necks than this scope base. The force is anyway held at the back with a really massive base, while the front only serves to lock it in position. And for this the dovetail as it's now is perfect.

---

That’s good, it looked like it had had a blow on one forward corner and in fact I thought afterwards maybe both corners, which then made me wonder if someone was trying to remove some “play” in the fit by doing so. Regardless you can see how exposed that dovetail would be to damage with the scope removed. US scopes and mounts in general aren’t much of an example of anything I’m afraid, except fine workmanship and a failure to keep pace with developments, until the 1960s that is.

Those little shoulders are pointless IMO, but they took the designer’s fancy for whatever reason. The Mauser self-loading rifle of before WWI had a forward tapering dovetail scope base, and the French used them in WWI as well. Fine idea as long as you have the mechanical advantage to pry them off again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

It might have been possible that they used the original rear sight holes for a small "emergency peep sight", similar to the later fixed rear sight on the No. 4 (where you're only able to flip it between two positions), or they simply had an original P.14 rear sight cut down, so that only the peep sight is left in place.

---

I agree, those are the most likely scenarios.

Perhaps there is some British-made scope from the 1930s that is less known which might be a fit? As in the case above with the Springfields, if the mounts and mag were being assessed the scope itself was irrelevant except as it facilitated the testing of repeatability in the mounts etc.

There might be some drawings or record of this rifle somewhere in the Pattern Room files.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

could the cut out be for something like a winchester A5 scope?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3656a22f-1.jpg

---

The A5 bases have to be 7 inches apart on centers. I think 6 or 6.5 was also an option, but every change affected the adjustment as the scales on the dials were set for that radius. If it was increased or decreased, the amount of adjustment imparted to the scope tube by each increment also changed.

One has to visualize where the ocular end of the A5 would be in relation to the shooter's eye if the scope had as much recoil room as the handguard suggests. From the photo you posted, I would have to say it was impossible, unless fired from the back position! ;)

Rob, I believe the guy who owned the rifle (after it came from whatever Arsenal/company) just shortened the stock, for whatever reason. Probably the tip was damaged and therefore he decided to chop it off, I don't know. It does NOT correspond to the modification of the stock itself in any way, so I do not believe there is something more in this point.

If you also read "'27" on the barrel, would in 1927 the barrel still have the original Eddystone serial number on it? Or would the British use original Eddystone stamps? Was it an overstamp? Basically this doesn't make yet enough sense...

Pictures of the Ainley rifle had been posted a few posts earlier than yours, however not showing the scope bracket and the scope. Hugh told me you have pictures of Bob Etheringtons Ainley rifle, do you still have those? If yes, please send those to me, preferrably via e-mail!

Quite a number of official military scope mounts used tapering dovetails. The German WWII Short Side Rail mount was tapered, as was the prototype G.41 mount. The Russian PEM side mount was tapered, also the US Neidner mount (equals the USMC mount) for the Winchester A5 mount was tapered. Not only the French used it for their own mount on the APX, but also for the SOM scopes they supplied to Argentine. There might be quite a few more which I can't remember, but obviously since carried also into WWII it might not have been that of a bad design.

The already mentioned German WWI "Semi Turret" called scope mount by Goerz was based on the same principle, but not with a dovetail but a circular base with cone-shaped walls. The Germans made the rear foot adjustable lengthenwise, to make it interchangeable (the rear was only a metal cone with a locking arm). See the pictures here for the rings on the scope of this mount: scarce complete WWI german sniper scope - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

The US solution from Neidner was interesting in this term, that it used inverted dovetail mount for recoil to lock the scope in position. This would also work with the bases of this rifle. So I suppose they copied the mount of the US with their own "advantages". But on the other hand this wouldn't make that much sense, with inventing new scope bases.

The tip for checking the distance is good, will do that when I'm in my gun room again! But the cutout in the handguard would now make sense to me with the Winchester A5 telescope. They would need it for the focal adjustment of the scope, which is at the front. And after every shot the scope has to be pushed back in it's position, which is assured by a retaining ring on the tube, which can be fixed in individual position. So it just had to be fixed in the position that is correct for shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Rob, I believe the guy who owned the rifle (after it came from whatever Arsenal/company) just shortened the stock, for whatever reason. Probably the tip was damaged and therefore he decided to chop it off, I don't know. It does NOT correspond to the modification of the stock itself in any way, so I do not believe there is something more in this point.

If you also read "'27" on the barrel, would in 1927 the barrel still have the original Eddystone serial number on it? Or would the British use original Eddystone stamps? Was it an overstamp? Basically this doesn't make yet enough sense...

---

If you could take a better closeup that would help. Maybe photograph the dates on other P14s you have, for comparison?

Datestamps are just stamps, and I wouldn't draw any conclusions unless the font is unusual and identical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Pictures of the Ainley rifle had been posted a few posts earlier than yours, however not showing the scope bracket and the scope. Hugh told me you have pictures of Bob Etheringtons Ainley rifle, do you still have those? If yes, please send those to me, preferrably via e-mail!

---

He may be the gentleman who ended up with the scope from eBay.co.uk, I'm not sure. I might have such photos, but would have to look on my remote drives. Stand by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Quite a number of official military scope mounts used tapering dovetails. The German WWII Short Side Rail mount was tapered, as was the prototype G.41 mount. The Russian PEM side mount was tapered, also the US Neidner mount (equals the USMC mount) for the Winchester A5 mount was tapered. Not only the French used it for their own mount on the APX, but also for the SOM scopes they supplied to Argentine. There might be quite a few more which I can't remember, but obviously since carried also into WWII it might not have been that of a bad design.

The already mentioned German WWI "Semi Turret" called scope mount by Goerz was based on the same principle, but not with a dovetail but a circular base with cone-shaped walls. The Germans made the rear foot adjustable lengthenwise, to make it interchangeable (the rear was only a metal cone with a locking arm). See the pictures here for the rings on the scope of this mount: scarce complete WWI german sniper scope - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

The US solution from Neidner was interesting in this term, that it used inverted dovetail mount for recoil to lock the scope in position. This would also work with the bases of this rifle. So I suppose they copied the mount of the US with their own "advantages". But on the other hand this wouldn't make that much sense, with inventing new scope bases.

---

The only positive locking I see here is via the lever on the rear base. Is the front dovetail internally tapered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

The tip for checking the distance is good, will do that when I'm in my gun room again! But the cutout in the handguard would now make sense to me with the Winchester A5 telescope. They would need it for the focal adjustment of the scope, which is at the front. And after every shot the scope has to be pushed back in it's position, which is assured by a retaining ring on the tube, which can be fixed in individual position. So it just had to be fixed in the position that is correct for shooting.

---

Looking at the photo of the A5 on the Mod.17 above, the only way I can see a fit with that handguard is if the scope was mounted in a similar position; that is with the rear base on the receiver ring, but then there is no need for the groove either! If the base on the receiver would be for some kind of removable backsight...not likely is it? If the A5 or an externally adjusted scope was being used here, the center line of the scope would have to be above the remains of the sight protectors, otherwise the lateral adjustment screw would not clear the protectors. If there was a notch in one protector for the lateral (windage) screw that would be different, but there isn't. But again we come back to that long relief in the handguard...If a scope slides forward it also has to have the same distance behind the rear ring or they would hit, and 5 or 6 inches behind the rear ring would be completely impossible to use except in the back position! It may be that the handguard is a red herring that somehow ended up on the rifle or just reflects some concept that was changed or abandoned?:confused:

If you have The US Enfield have a look at the photos on page 131. Notice the shaft and knob projecting from the sight ears about where the locking lever is on this one? Some kind of experimental USMC backsight it says.

I also wondered if this might be something Soley was messing about with between the wars. That might explain the fine work and finish but apparent lack of markings. They did a bunch of odd stuff based on P.14s, as shown in the above book.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why this rifle used an Eddystone as its foundation, rather than a Winchester P-14, which was the standard sniper configuration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

If you also read "'27" on the barrel, would in 1927 the barrel still have the original Eddystone serial number on it? Or would the British use original Eddystone stamps? Was it an overstamp? Basically this doesn't make yet enough sense...

---

Did a quick search on the net and found the 2014 thread on the CMP forum relating to this rifle (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=150859) , but the picture of the date date (attached) didn't shed any light on the barrel date stamping. Another P14 Eddystone barrel stamping I found and attached a picture of (Eddystone Serial 547696) looks like the one on your rifle, but the 1 has been stamped much clearer. The 1 used in the year stamping has quite a serif at the bottom and in conjunction with the ' before the 17, I think what you are seeing as a '27 is in fact a '17.

As you know Promo my P14 tastes lay with the Winchester sniper variants (I'm slowly but surely working on my No.3 (T) A rebuild!) and for the time being I don't own an Eddystone to see one up close to confirm otherwise, but my money is on an original 1917 dated barrel with a lightly stamped 1.

it probably has no relation to your rifle, but a knowledgeable gentleman told me the australian converted ww2 P14 snipers weren't built on winchester rifles.

Andrew, I suppose this is you? Thanks for the comparison pictures. That would then be a sloppy stamped '17, but not a 27. Which would fit to the rifles serial number.

I also have no idea why they would use an Eddystone action for such a rifle, since as said the Commonwealth for snipers used only the Winchester manufactured rifles. It could either be an inter-war trial where they just used what was at hand. But it can also be that this rifle was NOT a UK trials rifle, but in fact an US trials. I've also seen Frankford Arsenal made sniper rifles, which used a P.14 action (and this particular rifle had quite an odd design with gearings to adjust the scope). Would the UK mark any of their trials rifle with a certain marking?

Rob, the picture of the P.14 with the A5 telescope also shows that the scope is quite HIGH to what it needs to be. I believe it can be lower with modified scope rings. But again, this is just an idea. I'll place a scope backwards on the bases, to see if everything would clear. And measure the distance between the scope bases, to see if it would fit to the 6" spacing of the A5.

No4 Magazine Body, was the Last Design of Magazine for the SMLE No1 Mark III*...Nothing to do with the "Rifle No.4" of the 1930s. No4 Rifle Magazines have NO number on them, and have a different Latch Piece (shorter than that of Mag Body No.4)

The Piece shown is really a very good Commercial Conversion, and could have been done either in the US or Britain> When I can't say. I have seen several P14s with the ears of the rear sight flattened in that way, to clear a large Scope tube, but none fitted with a 10 round Mag. The Fact that an SMLE mag Body was used is Not indicative of Age. It could have been done any time from 1920 to the 1950s (the fact that it still has the Volley sight in Place makes it a "surplus" of the early 1920s ) Later Surplus ( after 1930s) would be a "Weedon Repair Standard "(No Volley sights, etc)

Maybe the stock shortening was to prevent a Bayonet being Fitted to the rifle ( Not a British requirement, then or now ) If the rifle did come from Europe, there should also be some European Proof Marks on it ( substantial change of construction).

A puzzlement, but obviously Well thought out and done. Just think if the 10 shot mag had been introduced with the original P14...

Doc AV

I just "fell" over this very interesting rifle at the Royal Armouries, a P.14 with an experimental extended magazine: Centrefire bolt-action rifle - Experimental Pattern 1914 Mk.I (W) (about 1918) - Royal Armouries collections .

Edit: to also show the picture directly here...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...011_0890-1.jpg

Construction of that is VERY close to yours.

I agree with you, especially the enforced/thickened floor plate looks identical. For my rifle they just added a detach-function for the SMLE magazine.

Does anyone recognize the magazine used in this rifle? I assume it's a MG magazine.

I've by occasion found a Parker-Hale attributed scope, which is also externally adjustable (and one from Redfield too). Does anyone know which period these scopes date to? Probably they used such a (British made?) scope for this rifle, with modified mounts?