Printable View
The lower and upper handguard for a P14 and P17 are exactly the same? And what about handguards made by Eddystone, Winchester and Remington, some difference between them?
Also, I'm interested in both handguards but both comes without the metal and rivets, new "old" stock?
They'll all interchange if that's what you're asking.
And original handguards are all made of walnut?
Will a top hand guard of a "Fatboy" style P14 stock fit a non "Fatboy" version? I'm guessing it will but don't know for sure and I expect that there are few slight manufacturer variations in the guards?
They're all interchangeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
I have encountered problems fitting the lower (rear) handguard on a Model of 1917. The model of 1917 handguard will fit the P14 since the P14 has a smaller chamber diameter and the inletting on the Model of 1917 hanguard is more generous, but the P14 lower handguard will not fit the Model of 1917 as the inlet is smaller and prevents the handguard from seating correctly.
Additionally from what I can tell a lot of the pattern 14 parts are not a drop in fit between the three manufacturers. There often requires some fitting. Originally both the Pattern 14 and Model of 1917 stocks were American Black Walnut. In WWII several replacement stocks were made of hard work. These also were not a drop in fit. Additionally post war several commercial American stock companies use to manufacture replacement stocks for the M1917 as well.
Cheers
fjruple
I agree with post #6, I ordered a handguard from Sarco and it wouldn't fit right, to small.
Military wood may need tweeking, any can have issues. You've just said that wood is different between identical rifles.
P14 and Model 1917 stocks are "supposed" not to be interchangeable; has anyone found this not to be the case. My incomplete U.K. deactivated Winchester P14 came perched on a M1917 stock with no hand guards and many small parts missing. The P14 action appears a loose fit on the M1917 stock and although it is only a deact I still wan't it to be reasonably historically correct. I have recently purchased a P14 stock which I'm waiting it's arrival to fit to the deact action. I have a lower hand guard but still need the upper one and the lower band.
Flying10uk--
You are quite right the P14 action will fit loosely in the M1917 stock however not the reverse. The magazine is too long on the M1917 to fit the P14 stock. I am in the process of rebuilding two P14s and I am amazed at the lack of commonality of parts between the three different manufacturers of the P14. For example my Winchester P14 magazine box will not fit the Eddystone and the same holds true for the Eddystone. I am surprised that the British purchasing commission would let them get away with that. US Ordnance insisted on a commonality of parts for the M1917.
--fjruple
When my P14 stock arrives I'll post some pictures of it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed a bit on it because the pictures of it on eBay were not great and it was difficult to tell the condition of it but I got it for a good price. I may try to make the top/upper hand guard by converting something else if I can think of a suitable donor part.
Flying10uk--
One of the good indications of the P14 stock is the dial volley sight base on the left hand side of the gun. I am aware of subcontract replacement P14 stocks being made in the UK without the dial volley sight base. Unfortunately I am not aware of the particulars to tell them apart. I guess one way is looking at the length of the magazine box well in the stock. The P14 is shorter.
Cheers
--fjruple
fjruple, are you reusing the same stocks in your P14 rebuilds that came with the rifles or have you sourced replacements? My P14 stock arrived today and it is in much better condition than I was expecting, requiring just 2 very minor repairs to replace wood that has been chipped. I would describe the condition as having a lovely patina to it and I will post some pictures soon.
The firing pin and cocking piece are all compatible between the 3 manufacturers?Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------
P14 stock without the dial volley sight base and even without the cutout in the stock for this base exist? I know a person with a P14 with a "plain" stock, no base no cut out but with finger grooves.Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
Flying10uk--
I am actually going to redo the stocks. I have been a licensed gunsmith since 1972 and usually I have to unBubba guns that were screwed with. Repairs to the bored out holes in the stock is an easy fit. The rear upper handguard are a little thin to be fixing those holes. It was just easy to replace them with better condition ones. Those old stocks I usually soak them in hot water with wood beach to get the hundred years of grease, dirt and paint off of the stock. Then I will steam out the dents. I will leave any ordnance marks along. Once cleaned and fix the American Black Walnut stock will come out quite nice.
--fjruple
My understanding is a number of replacement stocks were manufactured in the UK as replacements for broken stocks during the major rebuild program in the late 1930's. I don't have any further information on these stocks other than they did not have the long range dial sights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
--fjruple
Buster95, my understanding is that the "plain" P14 stocks, without provision for a volley sight, were made during WW2 as replacements for the original stocks. Although I haven't actually seen one of these stocks, I believe that they look similar to the M1917 stock but the finger grooves are positioned slightly differently and the grooves are of a slightly different dimension.
P14 and 1917 rear are not the same, front is.. they came both walnut and Birch..i have some 100 or so uppers ,
What is the difference between the P14 and M1917 rear hand-guards if they are not interchangeable then, please?
The inletting for the chamber end of the handguard is narrower on the P14 and larger for the m1917. M1917 handguard will work on a P14 but not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The floorplate/trigger guard area of a P14 in a P17 stock look like this? Number "339" is stamped in the stock.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...j8ps0otg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tfvirr8n-1.jpg
US acceptance mark.
So the trigger guard floorplate assembly is the same for both gun?
The floorplate assemblies are different for each. The easiest way tell is the front edge of the floorplate for the P14 is rounded on the front corners and the M1917 front corners are squared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
--FJR
Additionally, there are differences between P14 manufacturers. The Winchester magazine box will not be a drop in fit for the other manufacturers. The Eddystones also had two different models, a #1 and #2 which do not fit each other.
The above floorplate have squared corners so it's a P14 in a P17 stock with P17 bottom metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
The floor-plate pictured in post 22 looks to me as if it has rounded corners albeit of a small radius.
Photos of two P14 floor-plates they are both more rounded than the one in post 22.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6vanwlab-1.jpg
Buster--Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster95
The floorplate looks like it's to a M1917 and the triggerguard is a P14. None of these parts are a sure fit. I am currently working on three P14s from each of the manufacturers and it truly is mind numbing to get the right parts to fit. I can see why the Empire very quickly made these rifles a secondary weapon and probably DP a lot of them for the lack of spare parts.
--fjruple
My deactivated Winchester P14 has a floor-plate similar to one of the examples in post 28 but I haven't looked at my deact ERA P14 to see what that has yet. I don't think that the floor-plate in post 22 can be described as having square corners, only of having a small radius to it's corners.
We should remember that the British were dealing with each factory on a commercial basis and there was no incentive for each facility to ensure interchangeability or cooperation or revelation of trade secrets. The British thought they needed the guns a lot more than the manufacturers needed their business (and indeed Winchester ended up making a loss on their British contracts, which made them reluctant to treat with Britain again in the next war.)Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
Once Uncle Sam was paying the bills they were forced to start paying closer attention to interchangeability. But it remained problematic.
C.S. Ferris's United States Rifle Model of 1917 shows photos of Winchester and Remington front h/g's with the different length of the metal clip and the placement of the rivets.
Winchester has always been a problem child with the M1917 production. They started off by producing 10,000 M1917 rifle of their design and not to any US government specification. General Pershing insisted that no Winchester M1917s be shipped to the AEF due to the lack of compatiblity. In WWII, Winchester always dragged their feet in making updated changes to the M1 they were producing. I could never understand why collectors always preferred the Winchester over the Springfield Armory produced guns. I always found the Winchester's to be poorly finished compared to the Springfield Armory M1s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk VII
--fjruple
I think that parts made for the SMLE by the various manufacturers were generally interchangeable, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. It seems illogical for the P14 to not be the same with regards to parts interchangeability between the 3 manufacturers. It must have caused headaches just stocking the right spare parts with some parts having to be kept in duplicate or even triplicate from each of the manufacturers. My experience of store-men is that they tend to be temperamental types at the best of times. One can imagine having to take a part back to the stores and trying to explain to an irate store-man that the part he has just given you is wrong because it's made by the wrong company even though the actual part itself is the correct part.
That's where hand fitting goes into effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Unfortunately that quite true, some parts of the SMLE and M1917 are compatible with the P14s. The parts that are compatible are like the piling or stacking swivel, front and rear sling swivel, front sight blades, etc. for the SMLE The trigger groups, the safety catch parts (excluding the early Winchester P14), nose cap and screw, Buttplate assemblies, lower barrel band, front handguard, and butt swivel backet and screw. The parts that are NOT compatible between P14 manufacturers are barrels, breech bolt and plug, rear sight slide, cocking piece, extractor ring, firing pin, front sight band, magazine bottom plate, magazine case or box, triggerguard, fore-end tie bolt (R & W interchangeable, not E), locking lug cover plate R & E interchangeable, not W), Lower band stop pin (R & E interchangeable, not W) and Magazine platform (R & E interchangeable, not W). As Jim states a lot of hand fitting is required. You also have to bear in mind there were at least six different rifle between the two different MKs of the P14. I did not realize how bad the interchangeablity was until I started to assemble parts for the three manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
--fjruple
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6vanwlab-1.jpg
The bottom picture shows a large gap at the right. Is that because it’s a P14 in a P17 stock?
I don't know if this helps, vincent? It may sort of half answer your question in a round about way. I have a known P14 stock which I've marked as such and a Model 1917 stock which I tend to call P17 out of habit and so have marked it as such also. The floor plate came with a U.K. deactivated Winchester P14 in P17 stock but I believe the floor plate to be P14 although I haven't noticed any markings on it. As can be seen there is much greater clearance and in my opinion an excess clearance with the floor plate in the P17 stock. The plan is to build up a complete and accurate deactivated Winchester P14 when all the missing parts have been sourced and time permits.
Vincent -- The m1917 stock should be easily identified with the Eagle inspection marks and the letters W, E and R stamped on the front end unless the stock was made as part of the WWII rebuild program. The appropriate arsenal should be on the left side just in front of the pistol grip of the stock. Of course this does not take into account the stocks which were never used and the post WWII commercial copies made by Boyds.
--fjruple
Yes. I think you will see it pulled toward the rear of the hole when you tighten the screws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Interestingly, the P17 stock seems a much better quality hardwood than the P14 stock which feels significantly lighter.
Flying10uk--
The type of wood used on both the P14 and M1917 was American Black Walnut. In comparing the M1917 and P14 stocks the front ends on the P14 appears to be a bit thinner. I don't know if the thinness is from the constant handling of the rifles as drill rifles or made that way. The front and rear bands for the P14 and M1917 rifles are identical.
--fjruple
I have a P14 stock in the 1917 pattern on one of my P14 Winchesters. No gap in front of the forward action screw, but you can tell from the shape (squared off) of the front 2 corners of the floorplate, that its for a 1917. Looks good. Looks old. Is it totally incorrect?
Are you sure that it's not a WW2 manufactured replacement P14 stock made in the U.K.? Are the finger grooves exactly the same length each side or a different length? Is there an eagle marking anywhere on it?
I know this thread started with a question about P14/P17 hand guards and i think the question was answered and has moved through stocks, floor plates, fit, interchangeably etc. I just bought a P17 Eddystone off of GB and plan to bring it back to an original Model 1917 as close as i can get with the parts i have on hand. Here is the auction and since the last subject was floor plates, do you think what i am getting is for a P14, i do. I will post better pictures and show the progress along the way. http://www.gunbroker.com/item/717750642
uhjohnson-- Your rifle is a M1917 .30-06 Enfield. I can see the US Army Ordnance flaming bomb stamp on the left side of the receiver wall. Additionally the floorplate on the front has the more squared edges for the .30-06. Other than the stock being bubba, it looks like a nice project to restore to a shooter if the barrel is OK.
--fjruple