Mk. I*or Mk. I?

I recently acquired a Pattern 14 rifle manufactured by Eddystone. I'm having some difficulty identifying whether it is a Mk. I or a Mk. I*. Sorry for the long explanatory post, but I wanted to provide sufficient information for anyone willing to help (plus I'm a lawyer and it's an occupational hazard - ha ha).

I had originally assumed the rifle was a Mk. I* since there is a five-sided star on the receiver ring above the serial number on the receiver ring, and a seven-sided star on the barrel above its serial number. The rifle has a "fatboy" stock and a serial number in the 215XXX range, which are consistent with a late 1916 or early 1917 manufacture from what I gather.

It's my understanding that the order authorizing the variation giving rise to the Mk. I* was issued in December 1916, but this rifle has a "'16" mark on the barrel, suggesting a 1916 manufacture. It seems unlikely that many, if any, Mk. I*'s were constructed in 1916. My suspicion was raised as a result, but I also surmised that it could mean a 1916 barrel was put on a rifle manufactured in early 1917.

Stratton's "Pattern 14 and US Model of 1917" at page 20 indicates that the * should be on the right side of the buttstock next to the IW roundel, on the shank of the bolt handle, or on the extractor. The VGCA's "A Short History of the American Enfield" by Gorelick states that the * should be on the bolt handle, the barrel/receiver top, and the right side of the buttstock. Upon further inspection, my rifle has a faded five-pointed star on the bolt handle, as well as stars on the receiver ring and barrel (as noted above); however, it doesn't have a star on the buttstock or the extractor, so my curiosity increased.

On a hunch, I then measured the left locking lug. It came out at 0.625 inches ... the measurement for a Mk. I left locking lug (with the Mk. I* left locking lug being 0.725 inches). So, although the receiver ring, bolt handle, and barrel have markings for a Mk. I*, the locking lug is a Mk. I variant and some other indicia of a Mk. I* rifle are not present.

I then wondered if I had a "mix-n-match" rifle, but the serial numbers on the bolt handle, the receiver ring, and the barrel all match. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that the last figure on the barrel's serial number was "marked-over" with the matching number. I don't know if that was just a correction at Eddystone. It seems unlikely that a mix-n-match would have ended up with a barrel within an almost-identical serial number, but it's possible.

Gorelick's fine article at p. 12 cites Skennerton (I don't have his pricey book ... at least yet) as stating that some transitional rifles with the Mk. I* barrel were fitted with the Mk. I bolt, but had no * on the buttstock and were described as Mk. I rifles (unless and until a Mk. I* bolt was later added). So, perhaps I've got a transitional rifle using a Mk. I bolt but a Mk. I* barrel.

That would imply my barrel, though made in 1916, was later recessed to the Mk. I* standard. I'm not exactly sure what sort of metalwork constitutes a such "recess", but a visual inspection shows some shallow cuts at the back of the barrel when the lugs fit. I also saw another thread on this forum with a picture of a Mk. I barrel, and the rear of that barrel didn't have the cuts that mine has.

Incidentally, the volley sights have been removed (except for the dial sight plate), and the brass disc in the buttstock replaced by a wooden plug. I don't, however, see a Weedon Repair Standard marking anywhere on the rifle.

I have enclosed some pictures of the rifle to illustrate the points raised above (however, I couldn't take a picture of the apparently "recessed" barrel).

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether I have a Mk. I, a Mk. I transitional, a Mk. I*, or some mix-n-match "Franken-rifle"?

If I have a Mk. I transition rifle, is it unsafe to fire for that reason alone? I can't imagine that the factory (and inspectors) would have let the rifle out the door that way if it was unsafe. To be clear, the headspace seems fine, I've already put about 100 rounds through it without a problem ... at least so far (the lawyer in me talking - ha ha), and the fired brass looked fine (I've already neck-sized and reloaded).

Any comments are much appreciated.

The mark on your barrel is indicative of the Weedon refurbishment, however the mark on your receiver is not. That is the double broad arrow which means the rifle was sold out of service but the 2 are often confused for each other. All rifles that they could get a hold of that were built prior to December 14? 1916 were candidates for the Weedon refurb, those made after that date already had the * bolt update built in to them. With your bolt numbers in their original location chances are that it is original to the action and the "daisy" stamp is indicating the rifle to be a MkI* from birth. Probably a later 12/16 or early 1/17 build date. I've included some pics of my Remington April 1916 built P14 with the Weedon stampings plainly visible. Sadly this rifle was not in it's original stock when I bought it but I have acquired a matching stock for it since. The receiver shows both a Weedon stamping and a sold out of service double broad arrow. The last pic shows a view of the relieving done to the barrel face for the larger bolt lug. - Bill

ETA: Between the 3 manufacturers there were hundreds of thousands of rifles built prior to the cut off date. I know for a fact that Remington began production in March 1916 and I believe Eddystone could have started even earlier. I'm unsure when Winchester started but it was in the same timeframe. A carry-over barrel could have been used in an early January built rifle but it would have been one configured to the new * standard. Another thing to consider is after existing for 102 years chances are unlikely that your rifle could be completely original. It's something we all want and would like to think we have but chances are that it's not. BTW I also have the Weedon stamp on my extractor and can tell the bolt was force matched because the numbers are on top of the bolt handle not underneath like yours and I can see the spot where the old numbers were ground off and it was reblued. If you look at your barrel face and it doesn't have the milling marks mine does then it started life as a MkI* for sure.

Thanks for the input, and the pictures. I understand your point about the two different stars. My barrel does have the recess as shown in your picture. It seems that I've got a Mk. I* barrel (with the recess and marked as such), but the bolt, receiver, and rest of the rifle are still in Mk. I configuration.

Thanks for the additional comments. I did an inspection and confirmed that my barrel did not have the milling marks like yours, which further suggests that it was a created as a Mk. I* barrel from the outset. I also understand that not all parts may be original (see my "mix-n-match" discussion above; however, at least here the bolt handle, receiver, and barrel do have the same serial number.

Seeing as you have an Eddystone as long as all your parts are marked with an E it can be considered "all matching" whether they are original to the rifle or not. Experience has shown me that after all this time and having been used by the British Military in it's past life the ejector has probably been changed.

Have you ever fired it Jack? As long as your barrel and muzzle crown are ok they are excellent shooting rifles. More than reasonably accurate, light recoil with a somewhat mild round, heavy weight, long barrel and excellent sights for it's day. If I do my part I routinely get MOA groups with my handloads which mimic the British MkVII round. 175gr flat base bullet at 2400fps is the perfect formula! - Bill

Yes, I've shot about 120 rounds so far. The barrel and crown are decent, but not great. I'm getting between 3-5 MOA on average; it's sufficient for me to consistently hit my steel targets at various distances between 50-300 meters (which is good enough for me). Out of the 120 rounds, about 80 were PPU 180 gr. SP (I had gotten some on sale awhile back for my Mk. III* Lee Enfield, and hadn't fired them yet), and the rest have been reloads (neck-sized only). I've been playing around with various reloads so far, trying to find the best combination for my P14. I made a couple mistakes on loads so far, and also have a few "adequate" loads. But I'm trying to get a better choice. Currently, I'm working up a load that mimics the Mk. VII round (similar to what you do).

I have always assumed that any milsurp I get isn't completely original. With enough time and service, it's bound to have some replacement parts. I'm reminded about the old story: "This axe has been in my family for a century. The handle has been replaced a few times, and the axe head on a couple occasions, but it's a hundred-year old axe." (ha ha).

If your barrel is showing some wear might I suggest you try some Hornady .312dia bullets. their 174gr heads help greatly with accuracy. They work very well in a worn .303 barrel as opposed to the original .311dia bullets. They made a huge difference in my 2 groove barrel No4 rifle. I will also suggest using flat base bullets exclusively as that's the basis of the MK VII round. They provide greater stability as there is more bearing surface than a boat tail bullet has. 2 of my pet loads for the .303 are 46gr of IMR 4350 and 40.4gr of IMR 4064 behind the 174gr heads. Both of which provide identical ballistics to the MK VII round giving 2400fps from a 24" barrel. I have tried making the rounds hotter but that has actually reduced accuracy. The .303 in my experience is a very load specific round and doesn't respond well to tinkering like a 30-06 does.

As a side note these .312 bullets are actually for the 7.7mm Japanese round so the cannelure rarely lines up with the case neck on the .303 as the cartridge overall lengths are different. I use a Lee factory crimp die on them which makes up for it.

Another thing I have noticed is the brass comes out of the P14 looking like it was full length resized compared to how beat up it gets out of the Lee Enfield actions I have. - Bill

Thanks for the advice. I've already gone to .312 bullets for my Lee-Enfield and this P14. I don't have the flat base bullets, and I'll have to look for those. I will have to try out your pet loads (I've got both of those powders on hand).

Jack, I'm sorry I forgot to give you an accuracy improving tip for your P14.

Check the wood to metal fit at the front band. If you can move the barrel up and down, that is the front barrel band is not in contact with the barrel there is a remedy. This is a critical spot for accuracy with these rifles. They actually had a fixture that measured the upward pressure on the barrel in pounds when these rifles were built. The P14/M1917 series rifles are designed this way. If it is loose the rifle will always shoot badly. After 102 years the wood tends to dry out and shrink. The remedy is to shim the barrel directly under it's centerline the length of the barrel band. There should be no other contact of the barrel and the stock between this point and the chamber. Find yourself some stable older wood to make the shim from, Walnut is preferred. Years ago I purchased a $5 beat-up cut down M1917 stock at a gun show just for this purpose. It doesn't have to be super tight just enough so that the front band is in contact with the barrel. You should be able to get the front band off with a little effort.

It doesn't seem like much but this little trick closed up the groups on my P14 by nearly a 1/2" and my M1917 by a 1/4". It all depends on how loose the fit was to begin with. I hope this can help with your accuracy issue as a P14 should shoot better than a 3-5" group. - Bill

Thanks for the advice. Yes, my barrel is loose in that area, and I had been pondering whether to try something like that; I'm glad to hear it's an accepted approach and seems to be helpful.

I tried 8 different reloads today (I remember that I had some flat base bullets, though in .311), so I did varying combos of .311 or .312 bullets, with differing load of IMR 4064. I used the one you suggested and it worked pretty well. I think I'm pretty close to getting a preferred load for this rifle. I just need some slight tweaking at this point.

Tighten up the barrel at the fore end Before you really try to dial-in a load. There will be a big difference once that's done. You may find loads you passed up on may still be worth going back to. But for me the "go-to" accuracy load in any .303 is the MkVII spec. - Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackStones

I recently acquired a Pattern 14 rifle manufactured by Eddystone. I'm having some difficulty identifying whether it is a Mk. I or a Mk. I*. Sorry for the long explanatory post, but I wanted to provide sufficient information for anyone willing to help (plus I'm a lawyer and it's an occupational hazard - ha ha).

I had originally assumed the rifle was a Mk. I* since there is a five-sided star on the receiver ring above the serial number on the receiver ring, and a seven-sided star on the barrel above its serial number. The rifle has a "fatboy" stock and a serial number in the 215XXX range, which are consistent with a late 1916 or early 1917 manufacture from what I gather.

It's my understanding that the order authorizing the variation giving rise to the Mk. I* was issued in December 1916, but this rifle has a "'16" mark on the barrel, suggesting a 1916 manufacture. It seems unlikely that many, if any, Mk. I*'s were constructed in 1916. My suspicion was raised as a result, but I also surmised that it could mean a 1916 barrel was put on a rifle manufactured in early 1917.

Stratton's "Pattern 14 and US Model of 1917" at page 20 indicates that the * should be on the right side of the buttstock next to the IW roundel, on the shank of the bolt handle, or on the extractor. The VGCA's "A Short History of the American Enfield" by Gorelick states that the * should be on the bolt handle, the barrel/receiver top, and the right side of the buttstock. Upon further inspection, my rifle has a faded five-pointed star on the bolt handle, as well as stars on the receiver ring and barrel (as noted above); however, it doesn't have a star on the buttstock or the extractor, so my curiosity increased.

On a hunch, I then measured the left locking lug. It came out at 0.625 inches ... the measurement for a Mk. I left locking lug (with the Mk. I* left locking lug being 0.725 inches). So, although the receiver ring, bolt handle, and barrel have markings for a Mk. I*, the locking lug is a Mk. I variant and some other indicia of a Mk. I* rifle are not present.

I then wondered if I had a "mix-n-match" rifle, but the serial numbers on the bolt handle, the receiver ring, and the barrel all match. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that the last figure on the barrel's serial number was "marked-over" with the matching number. I don't know if that was just a correction at Eddystone. It seems unlikely that a mix-n-match would have ended up with a barrel within an almost-identical serial number, but it's possible.

Gorelick's fine article at p. 12 cites Skennerton (I don't have his pricey book ... at least yet) as stating that some transitional rifles with the Mk. I* barrel were fitted with the Mk. I bolt, but had no * on the buttstock and were described as Mk. I rifles (unless and until a Mk. I* bolt was later added). So, perhaps I've got a transitional rifle using a Mk. I bolt but a Mk. I* barrel.

That would imply my barrel, though made in 1916, was later recessed to the Mk. I* standard. I'm not exactly sure what sort of metalwork constitutes a such "recess", but a visual inspection shows some shallow cuts at the back of the barrel when the lugs fit. I also saw another thread on this forum with a picture of a Mk. I barrel, and the rear of that barrel didn't have the cuts that mine has.

Incidentally, the volley sights have been removed (except for the dial sight plate), and the brass disc in the buttstock replaced by a wooden plug. I don't, however, see a Weedon Repair Standard marking anywhere on the rifle.

I have enclosed some pictures of the rifle to illustrate the points raised above (however, I couldn't take a picture of the apparently "recessed" barrel).

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether I have a Mk. I, a Mk. I transitional, a Mk. I*, or some mix-n-match "Franken-rifle"?

If I have a Mk. I transition rifle, is it unsafe to fire for that reason alone? I can't imagine that the factory (and inspectors) would have let the rifle out the door that way if it was unsafe. To be clear, the headspace seems fine, I've already put about 100 rounds through it without a problem ... at least so far (the lawyer in me talking - ha ha), and the fired brass looked fine (I've already neck-sized and reloaded).

Any comments are much appreciated.

---

Remington and Eddystone quickly changed from the MK1 to MK1* . Winchester changed over much later in their production.