A LOVELY WINCHESTER P 14 MK1*........with pictures!!!!!!!

Well I must first confess this is my first attempt at posting pictures so hopefully everything goes according to plan, browningautorifle......has been my "go to guy" in the past for posting pictures (thanks again Jim).....with a little encouragement from Jim and pointing me in the right direction.....here we go.......

I recently added one to the family and I think it's a lovely rifle....too bad I couldn't take a picture of the bore.....it's about as close to perfect as it gets!!!

I by no means am a P14 expert fellows, so correct me, chime in with your thoughts, tell me I'm crazy etc,.

I've been referring to Statton's booklet on the P14/US Model 17 as my basis for research as soon as I unpacked this rifle.

I initially thought this rifle was a MK1 and not a MK1*.
I was sent a number of pictures before I purchased the rifle and noticed the "absence" of the * stamp on the receiver ring and bolt that would normally indicate a MK1, not a MK1*. Stratton's book say's the MK1* will have the star or asterisk on the receiver ring, bolt handle, barrel and buttstock roundel. Stratton also says serial number on the MK1* will be stamped on the rear sight, barrel, receiver ring and bolt handle.
When I un-packed the rifle. I noticed the * stamped on the extractor (which seems to have a phosphate finish unlike the rest of the blued metal parts), I was curious to see the barrel date etc., so I removed the handguard and noticed the * stamped on the barrel, this is when the confusion started.
I then removed the bolt to look at the rear barrel face and did see the relief machined in it to accommodate the longer bolt locking lug.......well that confirmed to me I was the owner of a MK1* not a MK1, unless, unless.....this is not the original barrel?
Can a MK1* barrel work fine in a MK1 action and MK1 bolt, I don't see why not ? The barrel is a '17 dated barrel but no serial number stamped that I could see...another anomaly or is Stratton not always "bang on" he says a MK1* barrel will be serialized! Do you believe this to be the original barrel? If this is not the original barrel maybe the the rest of the rifle is a MK1 with a MK1* barrel!

This gun I must admit has me a bit puzzled, not in a bad way though. On close examination I'm sure this is a "period correct rifle", I have no doubt. I don't believe it was cobbled together from a bunch of parts. The first thing that attracted me besides the fact it was a Winchester was the shape of the stock and especially the clarity of the manufacturer's roundel. Most P14's I have seen do not have the roundel anymore....they are not deeply struck and a lot of P14 stocks have had the living daylight sanded out of them, to the point where the stock is absent of any markings. This also has a nice deep Weedon stamp under the butt...I looked up the code letter "0" and it indicates Skimin & Wood was the contract firm that did the work.
Upon further "close" inspection I saw that below where the marking disk should be, there undoubtedly is the "Maltese Cross" stamp which Stratton says, " is found on the buttstocks of a small number of very early rifles that the war office found doubtful". Now I'm asking the question, why was this rifle considered "doubtful" especially when it has a as new bore, tight action, nice clean bolt face (have not checked headspace yet) etc., This rifle does not look like it fought even part of the "100 Year War".
Now really getting confused.......the stock looks to me like the rifle had a relatively easy life but maybe the rifle had a tremendous amount of rangetime and bore was compromised and therefore received the Maltese stamp....this all prior to the Weedon Repair Standard. When WRS came on board this rifle could have been re-barreled with a MK1* barrel, explaining the lack of the * on the various places Stratton indicates it should be for a MK1*rifle.

Are my thought's sort of on the right track trying to put together the journey this rifle had or am I completely out to lunch?? One thing I will check in the next few days is, I'll get the gauges out and check headspace.
Help me out here guys!! if you want additional pics I can do that too. I've got ample amounts of time now as a badly sprained ankle has me more less confined to the couch and bed, that's whats enabled me to be so long winded. LOL.

Whatever the case, I think (at least in my own mind) this rifle is a bit of a gem and I'm a happy camper to be the owner of it. I guess the only period correct thing that is absent is the wooden plug in place of the marking disk.....just maybe I'll fine a nice brass disk to temporarily put in it's place.

It's going to be a tack driver and I'll be eager to try it out soon.

Thanks!!
[ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH][ATTACH]Attachment 105479[/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH][/ATTACH]

Love that rifle!

Nice P-14 pity they removed the butt disc as you can sorta get a jist of where the rifle has been.

A quick note on pictures - is before you submit the thread after inserting the pictures hold Rt mouse button highlight the Attach then delete them then hit submit post and the Attach wont be part of your post as what can happen is the pics can end up with the text instead of down the bottom like has happened here.

When I go to insert or attach I should say my pics I always ensure the cursor is under the last bit of text that way its easier to highlight the attach and get rid of it

Nice looking old rifle, you can make a brass disc from brass round stock and a cut brass screw. Look for an older slot screw...short... Pics look fine mostly.

Really nice looking rifle.....

That one isn't lovely, that one is marvellous! You can be proud of this one, have not seen such a nice rifle in a long time. Congratulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Nice looking old rifle, you can make a brass disc from brass round stock and a cut brass screw. Look for an older slot screw...short... Pics look fine mostly.

---

Yup ......Jim a few technical errors but I got them there.....still some junk that managed to follow along with the pictures but I feel like I made it to the moon!!!!!!

That's an excellent looking rifle be happy with and shoot it often.

Now for the bad news, a phosphate finish was never originally used on a P14 in fact it wasn't introduced until late in Model 1917 production so the extractor is a refurbished WWII era replacement.

The short bolt lug * upgrades were performed on rifles produced prior to December 1916. By 12/16 all rifles were factory produced with the longer lug so a Weedon process upgrade wasn't required. My point is any rifle with a 1917 production date wouldn't require an * added to it. However your rifle has a low serial number under 100,000 so it would have certainly been in the group of * converted rifles if it was in stores. I see your in the 93,000 range so while early its not early enough to have been condemned so I'm assuming the stock is a replacement. Without question the barrel is a replacement to be dated '17 with a receiver number that low. And I'm going by your sight number assuming its matching to the receiver. Production began at Winchester in April 1916 so by December the serial number range was well over 130,000 and even higher by 1917.

Don't feel bad as any 100+ year old military rifle has been through many hands and situations so plenty has happened to them over the years. Perhaps it was sportered with a cut down barrel and stock and returned to military spec, so be thankful for that.

Also don't put all your eggs in one basket by assuming that just one author is all knowing. Read all you can on the subject including the excellent reference of the 1914/1917 series rifles on the Remington Society of America website which has the actual production information from those who built them and not someone who copied and reprinted it.

Edit: the rifles that were considered doubtful were labeled as so for a parts interchangeability aspect and not the physical condition of a particular unit. Those rifles never made it into service and no P14 was used in front line service by the British military during the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

That's an excellent looking rifle be happy with and shoot it often.

Now for the bad news, a phosphate finish was never originally used on a P14 in fact it wasn't introduced until late in Model 1917 production so the extractor is a refurbished WWII era replacement.

The short bolt lug * upgrades were performed on rifles produced prior to December 1916. By 12/16 all rifles were factory produced with the longer lug so a Weedon process upgrade wasn't required. My point is any rifle with a 1917 production date wouldn't require an * added to it. However your rifle has a low serial number under 100,000 so it would have certainly been in the group of * converted rifles if it was in stores. I see your in the 93,000 range so while early its not early enough to have been condemned so I'm assuming the stock is a replacement. Without question the barrel is a replacement to be dated '17 with a receiver number that low. And I'm going by your sight number assuming its matching to the receiver. Production began at Winchester in April 1916 so by December the serial number range was well over 130,000 and even higher by 1917.

Don't feel bad as any 100+ year old military rifle has been through many hands and situations so plenty has happened to them over the years. Perhaps it was sportered with a cut down barrel and stock and returned to military spec, so be thankful for that.

Also don't put all your eggs in one basket by assuming that just one author is all knowing. Read all you can on the subject including the excellent reference of the 1914/1917 series rifles on the Remington Society of America website which has the actual production information from those who built them and not someone who copied and reprinted it.

Edit: the rifles that were considered doubtful were labeled as so for a parts interchangeability aspect and not the physical condition of a particular unit. Those rifles never made it into service and no P14 was used in front line service by the British military during the war.

---

First......thanks a lot "oldfoneguy" for taking the time to respond to this thread!!!

Yeah I'm aware that the extractor is a replacement, the phosphate finish certainly looks out of place.

You state that the bolt lug upgrade was incorporated into rifle production (MK1 to MK1*) around Dec 1916. Now, the rifles that went thru the W.R.S during WW2..... are you suggesting that the conversion from a MK1 to MK1* was also something completed at this time as well?..........or......once a rifle left the factory as a MK1 it stayed a MK1 thru it's entire life and never upgraded to a MK1* whether it went thru the W.R.S or not?
The reason why I ask this is, if the reason for the conversion to MK1* was the longer bolt lug ( which undoubtedly it was) and this was an upgrade also completed during the W.R.S process......have all the rifles that were upgraded to MK1* been issued new bolts incorporating the longer lug, and then stamped with rifle serial number? You just can't take a original MK1 bolt and merely add some length to the locking lug....bolt and locking lugs are the same piece of steel!!! I need you to clarify this for me. Sorry I just never heard of new bolts being issued but that's the only way I can see it if there was a W.R.S conversion to MK1*

I'm not understanding your reason for figuring the stock to be a replacement......you mention that the rifle is, "in the 93,000 range so while early it's not early enough to have been condemned so I'm assuming the stock is a replacement".

The Maltese Cross .....after jogging my memory, (and this was verified by a well respected member here) refers to "non-standard parts". Example....I have a Long Branch made rifle with a Maltese Cross stamped on the fore-stock, in this instance it is in reference to the rifle having a rear sight made by the Savage Co. and not Long Branch.........Stratton say's in his book the Maltese Cross means "emergency use only" that implies rifle must be on the cusp of being un-serviceable, not sure what to think about that!!

That is getting extremely interesting. Also my P14 is a Winchester, with Maltese cross etc.
By the way, it shoots divinely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

You state that the bolt lug upgrade was incorporated into rifle production (MK1 to MK1*) around Dec 1916. Now, the rifles that went thru the W.R.S during WW2..... are you suggesting that the conversion from a MK1 to MK1* was also something completed at this time as well?..........or......once a rifle left the factory as a MK1 it stayed a MK1 thru it's entire life and never upgraded to a MK1* whether it went thru the W.R.S or not?
The reason why I ask this is, if the reason for the conversion to MK1* was the longer bolt lug ( which undoubtedly it was) and this was an upgrade also completed during the W.R.S process......have all the rifles that were upgraded to MK1* been issued new bolts incorporating the longer lug, and then stamped with rifle serial number? You just can't take a original MK1 bolt and merely add some length to the locking lug....bolt and locking lugs are the same piece of steel!!! I need you to clarify this for me. Sorry I just never heard of new bolts being issued but that's the only way I can see it if there was a W.R.S conversion to MK1*

---

The * conversion was outside the remit of the WRS. According to Skennerton, the * upgrade was incorporated into the manufacturing process, it was not a "retro-fit".
If rebarreling was within the WRS spec, (and I'm not sure if it was) it is possible that some Mk1 rifles became "upgraded" by default if a canibalised Mk1* barrel got fitted. In such cases it wouldn't have been necessary to replace the bolt, as a Mk1 bolt will function in a Mk1* rifle. It's also a possibility, of course that the barrel was replaced post service.
FWIW, the serial number stamping on your bolt looks original to that component.

I'm also having a bit of a tough time to imagine how to enlarge a locking lug. Skennerton however does not speak of "upgrades" from Mk.I to Mk.I*, just that on 21st December 1916 the Mk.I* was approved and that some transitional models were made with recessed barrels, but fitted with Mk.I breech bolts which were not marked with the star on the butt and were described as Mk.I, but when the Mk.I* breech bolt was fitted, the rifles were redesignated Mk.I* and the star was marked on the butt stock.
Could it therefore be that the "upgrade" was only referring to these transitional models where the "upgrade" was possible at all, and aside of that all rifles that don't have a * on the receiver are Mk.I, and all that have the * on the receiver are Mk.I*?

As a result to this, this particular rifle here might had been one of these transitional rifles which were made at the very beginning in January 1917 and escaped the Mk.I* order?

The upgrade to pre 12/16 rifles was done primarily between 1938 and 1939 at small shops throughout the Kingdom. This was done in an expedient manner in order to pump up if you will the available store of weapons needed for the now swelling ranks of the military due to the impending/existing war. If a particular rifle was in stores at that time and was considered worthy of the upgrade as opposed to being broken up for parts then the work was done to it. Even if the stock is original to the rifle there is no true way to verify unless the receiver number made its way into the barrel channel ect. It was condemned from front line service by an armorer for whatever reason, to determine that would require an in depth inspection with caliper and micrometer of every working part.
It would make no sense for a relieved barrel to be used with a short lug bolt if it was in service. The entire point of the lug change was to increase the bearing surface that the case rim came in contact with in order to prevent the round from slipping off the bolt face during fast bolt manipulation (rapid fire). Without the increased bearing surface and adding the relief to the chamber face gives even more of a gap for the round to work loose. If that is indeed the situation with your rifle then for sure the barrel wasn't replaced by an arsenal or contracted shop.
Incidentally upgrade is my own term and not a regurgitation from anyone's book. Apologies if it offends any here.

The bolt lugs size itself wasn't increased which is impossible but rather a used or new production bolt was put in it's place. If used the numbers were scrubbed and restamped as a forced match. Check the underside or the rear of your bolt handle for any evidence of grinding away an original number. Its also possible that it was a new production replacement bolt. Check for both a W and NS stampings somewhere on the bolt handle. If none it's most likely a newer manufacture bolt body and not original to the rifle.

The condemned rifles I believe didn't extend to the 20,000 serial range for Winchesters therefore your particular rifle was not part of that batch.

I agree with harry mac in that the * upgrade was a manufacturing change. The retro fit came later for the early rifles.

Facts on this rifle:
1. The bolt in his rifle is without any doubt the original Winchester factory font and therefore the original factory matching bolt.
2. The bolt in his rifle does NOT have the * mark on it, therefore is a non-* bolt.
3. The stock on this rifle does NOT have the * mark added, so the stock originates from a non-* rifle.

oldfoneguy, if I understood you correctly that based on the serial of this rifle and the fact that the barrel in this rifle dates to 1917 and does not have a rifle serial on it you would assume this barrel was replaced and the whole rifle is in * configuration. As a result to this you also assume the stock is not the original stock to it since it doesn't have a * mark on the butt. Did I understand this correctly?

In my opinion, based on the fact that this rifle carries the original matching numbers bolt, has no * on the receiver nor on the bolt it would had left factory as non-* rifle. Therefore the stock is correct to this rifle. Since the order was given on 21st December 1916 it surely could had been the case that this rifle for example was made on 1st January 1917 and still be a non-* rifle and correct as pictured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

It would make no sense for a relieved barrel to be used with a short lug bolt if it was in service.

---

Exactly this is what Skennerton mentions had been the case with the transitional rifles. Read it yourself.

It couldn't be a 1917 build based on the serial number, a physical impossibility. Believe whatever you want your entitled to. Winchester produced 225,008 p14 rifles with production ceasing April 1917 upon Americas entrance into WWI. How is it even possible that they only achieved the 93,000 serial number range between April '16 and January '17 and managed to produce another 128,000 rifles between January and April?

You know what You are more correct than I, how dare anyone question your expertise on this subject. After all you read A book. The fact is you have an incredible, immaculate, untouched, virgin of a 106 year old rifle that was never fired and lived in a vacuum until you bought it. How lucky you are, shrewd buy. In fact if I were you I would re-vacuum seal that incredibly rare exceptional example of a rifle the British didn't want and never fielded in combat and plan on retiring with the funds it will bring if you ever decide to sell it. Good luck, good bye.

Bolt is stamped on the underside, "W", so it appears a factory original bolt and not a replacement.

Well the discussion of this rifle has certainly got the blood pressures up of some of our good members here.......well at least all the work of figuring out how to post pictures etc., was not done in vain.....it seems to have been the hot topic of the day to which I'm grateful for. LOL.
Guys I thank you all for your input and it's not always easy trying to figure the in's and out's of old collectible rifles especially when everyone thinks they have the million dollar rifle only to be told by another it's worth only two bucks.
I understand that's not the case here......I didn't think this rifle was a million dollar rifle nor was I told it was only worth two bucks......let's get that straight!!

Oldfoneguy I felt that I was part recipient of your rant today that was directed at Promo as I believe you were responding to his previous post, you were referring to the the rifle owner and that's me not Promo that's me Bros. Anyhow that's fine takes a bit more than that to get my hackles standing up. I don't think Promo and certainly I meant no disrespect to you in our respective discussions with you regarding this particular rifle. You refer to "because you read it in a book" well speaking for myself books are the only means of research I have other than the Net but anybody can post anything they want on there, books at least.... we can be quite certain that the author would have made a fairly comprehensive study on the subject otherwise what would be the point. Anyhow I certainly learned a few things from this thread.

I also put my foot in my mouth a few times especially questioning Stratton's interpretation of the Maltese cross and that's a bit still unclear but late last night I read parts of Skennerton's book on the US Enfield and his mirror's Stratton's interpretation, that it refers to "emergency use only". I'm still wondering why in the same war the Maltese Cross was used in the rifle building/re-building process with entirely different meanings and I know that newly manufactured Long Branch produced snipers left the factory with the stamp of the Maltese Cross indicating the use of "nonstandard parts", in this case a Savage manufactured rear sight on a Long Branch sniper rifle, that certainly has an entirely different meaning than "emergency use only".

Anyhow one of the main things questions I was trying to have answered in this thread was "once a MK1 rifle left the factory did it always stay a MK1 or in the Weedon process were MK1 rifles upgraded to MK1* as well......I think it's safe to say that during the Weedon process rifle's were not upgraded to MK1*........but I'm going to re-read all the posts just to make sure I've got that right so don't hit me over the head with the hammer just yet!!!!!

A well respected member here also told me that Melvin Johnson who made the 1941 Johnson rifle re-barreled a whole pile of P14 rifles and if memory serves me correct they are stamped on the breech.....possibly underneath with a "J A C" stamp I believe.....I will check that out in due time, but that's a topic for a different day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

It couldn't be a 1917 build based on the serial number, a physical impossibility. Believe whatever you want your entitled to. Winchester produced 225,008 p14 rifles with production ceasing April 1917 upon Americas entrance into WWI. How is it even possible that they only achieved the 93,000 serial number range between April '16 and January '17 and managed to produce another 128,000 rifles between January and April?

---

Have you ever heard of manufacturing ramp-up? I wouldn't call it impossible. By the way, total Winchester production was 235.448 rifle (225.008 plus 10.440 rifles without bayonet) which are officially listed per End of July 1917 - this is when production ceased, not April. Anyway, it seems there are charts available of how many rifles British inspectors accepted. I found online sources originating from the "Record of US Deliveries" in the Ministry of Munitions Series that WRA P.14 serial 91.532 was accepted in week ending 6th January 1917. This serial is very close to the OP rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

You know what You are more correct than I, how dare anyone question your expertise on this subject. After all you read A book. The fact is you have an incredible, immaculate, untouched, virgin of a 106 year old rifle that was never fired and lived in a vacuum until you bought it. How lucky you are, shrewd buy. In fact if I were you I would re-vacuum seal that incredibly rare exceptional example of a rifle the British didn't want and never fielded in combat and plan on retiring with the funds it will bring if you ever decide to sell it. Good luck, good bye.

---

Neither it is my rifle nor do I see any reason for you to write in such a manner. It seems you were running out of arguments since you do not answer any statements but prefer to personally attack. If you see yourself superior to Skennerton and his books it would be great however if you could give reasons to your statements as well.

Took action out of stock in case I may have missed something. No serial on barrel, it is a replacement!! As well did not see the "J A C" stamp on the breech as well.

Both hand-guards had the "W" stamp on the inside so that was nice to see!!