I recently purchased a decent Eddystone P-14 that is all matching and in very good overall condition - appears un-fired. The butt and left side of the receiver are stamped with "EY" (Emergency Use) markings. What was the criteria for "EY" markings?
Printable View
I recently purchased a decent Eddystone P-14 that is all matching and in very good overall condition - appears un-fired. The butt and left side of the receiver are stamped with "EY" (Emergency Use) markings. What was the criteria for "EY" markings?
Those with the information you require will come along shortly but my thinking onthe matter is a weapon which is considered not good enough for front line service.
I understand that. The question is WHY was it designated suitable for emergency use only other than the fact that P-14s were not regular issue rifles? However, since P-14 rifles also had problems with non-interchangeable parts and bolt modifications I wonder if the FY marking indicates there is some other reason that it was only suitable for emergency use. For example is the rifle considered safe to shoot? don't know how common the FY marking is on P-14 rifles. Frankly I have not paid much attention to P-14s that are not in sniper configuration. This rifle was purchased a part of a two-gun lot with an SMLE that I wanted. However, the P-14 turned out to be a very original rifle in extremely good condition. I can't find much on the FY marking in Skennerton's books.
Is it a low serial number? The very early rifles from all 3 manufacturers were considered unfit for front line troops due to the part incompatibility situation.
What mfg?
I have to look for the reference but I believe the EY designation was used on the early Pattern 1914 MKI due to the feeding problems with the early rifles. The MKI* modification to the bolt and barrel corrected the feeding problem. You probably guessed that a rifle with feeding issues is not a rifle for front line service but can be used for other duties to free up No. 1 MKIII for the front line service. I don't believe parts compatibility was ever achieved with the six major variations and other sub-variations of the Pattern 1914. All Pattern 1914 required hand fitting of parts to the rifles.
I suspect you are right. My rifle is an Eddystone, no. 401970. That is not an early production rifle but it does lack the * markings on the receiver, bolt and stock.
This is a good question. Complete parts interchangeability was never achieved between P'14 rifles of different makes, which complicated front-line maintenance. This is a serious concern because weapons in combat suffer extraordinary abuse and constantly need service. When the U.S. adopted its .30 caliber version as the M1917, the Ordnance Corps believed that interchangeability was important enough that production should be delayed until at least substantial interchangeability was attained. The British, however, had a less leisurely attitude; they had heavy combat losses to make up, and gave overwhelming priority to getting rifles into the hands of their troops. However, even they had limits: lack of interchangeability was really serious in the case of P'14 Mark 1 vs. Mark 1* rifles. The bolt of the Mark 1 rifle not only was not interchangeable with the Mk1*, but its functioning was believed unsatisfactory. In order to retrofit a Mark1* bolt, the barrels of Mark 1 rifles would have to be taken out and remachined. This was not deemed feasible in wartime, so existing Mark 1 rifles were simply relegated to second-line service; i.e., not overseas at the front. This is why some rifles in almost new condition were stamped "EY". In this instance, the designation "emergency" is perhaps a bit of hyperbole; the guns are perfectly safe to shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Jackson
Apparently a large quantity of Mk.1 rifles were produced before the Mark 1* change; I have examined Eddystone Mk 1 bolts with s/ns as high as the 192,000 range. Mark 1* bolts, which have a slightly longer feed guide lip on the left locking lug, are readily distinguished by a "*" stamped on the bolt root.
I have an early Eddystone P'14 Mk 1 that feeds and functions very nicely, leading me to believe that some of the complaints, at least, may have been attributable to the loose tolerances of wartime British ammunition, as well as the abysmally adverse conditions of trench warfare.
M
Good post Mike.
As for parts interchange. The US would have been better off to run them as were while working up to it. No troops were in combat initially and they desperately needed training rifles.
AN * (or some such) could have been a hold indicator and the combat ones without it.
The Brits did not use it much in combat from what I can gather so a non critical issue for them though likely annoying to the armorers. AT least they had rifles to train with and not broom sticks or cutout slabs of wood.
Is the body of the rifle a Mk1, or a Mk1*?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Jackson
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