New Remington Pattern 14 - PICS

Morning all - I've wanted a P14 to add to my Enfield collection and came across this Remington at auction. I could see that the stock had been sanded but I felt confident I could get it back to a darker color. I was just hoping you all had some insights into the rifle. There are some markings I cant seem to find an explanation for.

I understand the maltese cross signifies emergency use only but its hard to gauge what that means 80 years later. Was this due to obsolescence or an armorers decision it was unsafe to fire.

I have found a CAI import stamp on the barrel. Does anyone remember when these were brought in and from where?

Anyway, hoping you all might have some info to help me better understand this rifle. I wonder if you think there are better P14's out there to add to my collection instead. The sale isnt final.


Attachment 106918Attachment 106919Attachment 106921
Attachment 106911Attachment 106912Attachment 106913Attachment 106914Attachment 106915Attachment 106916Attachment 106917Attachment 106918Attachment 106922

This is an Eddystone stock. Bolt has been force matched, at least that serial is not from factory. Check rear sight backside top, should have a rifle serial on it as well.

Thanks Promo. Force matched by whom? Armorer or something more seditious like an importer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

Bolt has been force matched...

---

What exactly does this term mean?

The bolt has been replaced, in Service. So what? It's a maintenance replacement part, it gets worn and changes tolerance. Gets replaced and if fine. The asterisk (*) on the extractor body indicates that at Weedon this rifle had a bolt with a longer left locking lug fitted as a the Mark 1* modification, at the same time its volley sights and stock disc were removed.

So nothing forced, at all.

For not being a native speaker I was using the term that I've learnt for bolts that were matched to a rifle by anyone else than the factory. So I may put it into other words: the serial number on the bolt was not applied by the factory where it was made.

As p14's go, this is in very good condition. Any sanding was lightly done. I like the non-finger groove stock. A lot of P14's were imported in the 1980's. I picked up a Winchester from Springfield Sporters back then. Nice find! Salt Flat

Here's a good thread about which countries the imports came from - see the post by Fredrick303.
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=57416

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salt Flat

I like the non-finger groove stock.

---

Looks to be an earlier production Eddystone 'fatboy' stock.

Thanks for the info. Interesting that a Remington would end up in a Eddystone stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrawnformbi

Interesting that a Remington would end up in a Eddystone stock.

---

Sadly, not at all. A couple of things to consider:

1. During the Weedon Repair process, rifles were stripped, inspected, modified and reassembled with parts that met the minimum requirement of 70% or slightly more tolerance of new parts. Not a lot of care was taken to "match" rifle parts for collectors benefits in decades to come. They were a tool being maintained.

2. The surplus stock in civilian hands now came from all over the world, often from poorer, less caring Governments. They mixed and matched with what they had to meet a need. Not a collector's preference.

3. These rifles were deemed by the British Army to be obsolete and consigned to War Stocks post WWI. When the Home Guard was raised in precaution to the threat of German invasion, the Patt 14s (and M1917s) were released into the hands of the Home Guard. The training, awareness and conscientiousness of the Home Guard was varied. Some former WWI soldiers were smart and disciplined. They took matters more seriously. The same couldn't be said for all, either from ignorance, indifference or simple inability to comprehend the role and actions of a soldier. Many of the younger Home Guard, unfit or unsuitable for active duty, were not much more than school cadets.

4. On the raising of threat of invasion, the Patt 14s returned by the Home Guard were available for arming many smaller resistance or guerrilla groups, and supported Governments post war. And that's where a lot ended up. Not a lot of care and attention to them there.

So, finding a Remington in an ERA stock is common and to be expected. As is a Winchester in a Remington stock (I've had 2...) There's a lot of mixing and matching.

Recall that Eddysone, or the Balwin Locomotive Company, was a Remington subsidiary. In essence, ERA is simply a Remington satellite factory. Nothing surprising there. Winchester was the only independent manufacturer and that's why they were slower to start up manufacture, initially had higher quality rejection rates and decided to alter the design slightly to suit their production, whereas Remington and ERA stuck with the original specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

Recall that Eddysone, or the Balwin Locomotive Company, was a Remington subsidiary. In essence, ERA is simply a Remington satellite factory. Nothing surprising there. Winchester was the only independent manufacturer and that's why they were slower to start up manufacture, initially had higher quality rejection rates and decided to alter the design slightly to suit their production, whereas Remington and ERA stuck with the original specs.

---

Just a side note, on the relationships between Baldwin Locomative and Remington. The only thing they had in common they were all indirectly owned by J.P. Morgan, the banker and major stock holder. Baldwin in WWI in addition to production of steam locomatives also leased its land out to several "associate" corporations to produce arms and other munitions. The Eddystone plant was established by a subsidiary Remington Arms Company of Delaware (which is a separate entity from Remington Arms of New York) which leased the propriety and built the factory with the proviso that the factory be returned to Baldwin at the end of the war for locomotive production. Nice way to get someone else to pay for major post war expansions at some one else expense. During WWI, a separate section of Baldwin was leased by another Remington Subsidiary to produce artillery shells for the Brits and Russians. This plant actually blew up during the war killing a number of workers. This location now the site of Boeing Helicopters. The explosion only blew out windows in the Eddystone rifle plant. After termination of the Pattern 1914 contract, Eddystone started production of the Model of 1917 .30-06 rifle based on the Pattern 1914 rifle. Most folks believe that all Eddystones were produced by Remington of Delaware which is untrue. In January 1918, Eddystone was acquired by the Midvale Steel and Arms Company, another company who J.P. Morgan was a major stock holder. After the acquisition, Eddystone was known as the "Eddystone Rifle Plant." after the war the rifle plant was turned back over to Baldwin and all of ordnance materials and machinery was shipped to Rock Island Arsenal for storage as that material was owned by the US Army.

Fascinating history. Appreciate you both taking the time to share all of that information.

Well done fjruple! Great expansion. :thup:

I'll stick with a central theme, that without Remington as an established, equipped and knowledgeable arms manufacturer, the Eddystone subsidiary would have not flown. Technically, Eddystone was separate, but practically the smarts, capability and management came from the Parent company. But learning a little more about its history beyond just the WWI contracts is great!

I'll draw a similarity of the exercise of the Eddystone plant establishment by Remington, with that of the Australian Small Arms Factory Lithgow being established by cooperation and observation of the RASF Enfield. And, we did it with US made Pratt and Whitney machinery, too. (And that in itself adds another intriguing misalignment between English speaking countries all using a different datum!)

I've not heard anybody talking about ERA rifles produced by the Remington factory in Delaware. That's a new one to me. In intriguing wander down one of Alice's rabbit burrows that... :rolleyes:

The detailed description of how the Baldwin Loco works was used and changed is insightful. As you rightly point out, the Loco Company was shrewd in getting others to pay for expansions, which they sold off in any case.

Out of interest, the manufacturing equipment that went to RIA, are you aware of what become of that in later years? Was it established again for WWII? Much of the equipment would have been fine for building the M1903A3 and other weapons. The specific tools and gauges for the Patt 14 and M1917 wouldn't have been of much use.

I wanted to just further clarify several of your comments. See comments below: I put my comments in BOLD so you can more easily see them from the rest of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

Well done fjruple! Great expansion. :thup:

I'll stick with a central theme, that without Remington as an established, equipped and knowledgeable arms manufacturer, the Eddystone subsidiary would have not flown. Technically, Eddystone was separate, but practically the smarts, capability and management came from the Parent company. But learning a little more about its history beyond just the WWI contracts is great! While Remington did have input into the production by Eddystone. One of the driving factors was in the person of Colonel (later General) John T. Thompson who worked in US Army Ordnance before retiring. He helped establish the production factilities at Eddystone. After the US entered the war, in April 1917, he was recalled to active duty promoted to Brig. Gen. and headed up the US Rifle Board which made major decisions on the production of Model of 1917 which he named. Gen. John T. Thompson would go on to develop the Trench Broom and his name sake, the Thompson Submachinegun

I'll draw a similarity of the exercise of the Eddystone plant establishment by Remington, with that of the Australian Small Arms Factory Lithgow being established by cooperation and observation of the RASF Enfield. And, we did it with US made Pratt and Whitney machinery, too. (And that in itself adds another intriguing misalignment between English speaking countries all using a different datum!) I believe the British Empire was still using the inch system of measurement until the 1950 or 60's when they switch to metric. Pratt and Whitney at the time was a major supplier of machine tools for ordnance.

I've not heard anybody talking about ERA rifles produced by the Remington factory in Delaware. That's a new one to me. In intriguing wander down one of Alice's rabbit burrows that... :rolleyes: Actually there was no production facilities in Delaware. New Corporations are generally established in the State of Delaware since it is a corporate tax haven. The companies then register with the States location, Eddystone, PA as a "foreign" corporation thus avoiding the local state's corporate taxes.

The detailed description of how the Baldwin Loco works was used and changed is insightful. As you rightly point out, the Loco Company was shrewd in getting others to pay for expansions, which they sold off in any case.

Out of interest, the manufacturing equipment that went to RIA, are you aware of what become of that in later years? Was it established again for WWII? Much of the equipment would have been fine for building the M1903A3 and other weapons. The specific tools and gauges for the Patt 14 and M1917 wouldn't have been of much use. At the end of production specific tools, gauges and any spare parts from the Pattern 1914 rifle production was returned to the British government. The US Government purchased all of the usable machine tools and equipment from the British Government for pennies on the dollar for the Production of the Model of 1917. After the war, production at all three manufacturers were continued to use of existing parts until early 1919. In the case of Eddystone eveything was shipped to RIA for storage. At the time the US Ordnance Department was considering adoption of the Model of 1917 as the Standard rifle of the US Army with the Springfield M1903 as the limited standard. Then self preservation took hold as the M1903 was produced by the US Ordnance Department and if they adopted the M1917 which can be subcontracted out the Ordnance Department would lose their cash cow. The US Army decided through several rather poor excuses to make the M1917 a limited standard. After the war there were several major rebuild M1917 programs before the rifles were put in long term storage. The M1917 was not ungraded as the Ordnance wanted to save money and was looking next for the semi-automatic combat rifle which would be the M1 Garand. Machinery not used was probably sold on the surplus market or convert for other uses. as an additional side note Remington had so many parts left over from the M1917 production they modified the existing parts and sold commercial sporting rifle as the Model 30 for quite a years after production of the M1917 halted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

Out of interest, the manufacturing equipment that went to RIA, are you aware of what become of that in later years? Was it established again for WWII? Much of the equipment would have been fine for building the M1903A3 and other weapons. The specific tools and gauges for the Patt 14 and M1917 wouldn't have been of much use.

---

The BAR tooling retained from WW1 turned out to to be of very little value when production resumed in WW2 as production engineering (and in particular the introduction of high speed steel) had changed so much in twenty years.

Does anyone recognize this faint marking near the stock disc?

Attachment 107616

An associated problem that arose with Lithgow No1 productions was the spectre of the "Pratt and Whitney Inch", as opposed to the "Enfield Inch".

The entire Lithgow production plant, tooling and gauging were manufactured by Pratt and Whitney. When the first rifles rolled off the line at Lithgow, samples were sent to Britain for "evaluation" and this is where the fun started. Whilst the lithgow rifles were pretty much interchangeable among themselves, there were "issues" once the Enfield gauges came out.

There used to be a chart at the Lithgow factory that showed a graphic representation of the difference: it was tiny, but with tolerance "stacking", problems could arise. Those early Lithgow rifles were built SLOWLY, at first, on brand new machines, using brand-new fixtures, tooling and gauging. ONE factory; ONE product, (two if you count the bayonet). And all to the Pratt and Whitney Inch!

What I found interesting is that when the US contractors tooled up for the P-14, it was with all the weird "Enfield" thread sizes and forms that had been designed into the P-13. All this occurred just scant years after the US had settled on a series of "standardized" threads and metrology standards across industries. The burgeoning car-building business had a lot to do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrawnformbi

Does anyone recognize this faint marking near the stock disc?

Attachment 107616

---

Its a indian army unit/armourers marking. See them bit on ex indian rifle stocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

The BAR tooling retained from WW1 turned out to to be of very little value when production resumed in WW2 as production engineering (and in particular the introduction of high speed steel) had changed so much in twenty years.

---

Mk VII -- Quite true. The US military found that out early just before our involvement in WWII (1941). When the UK requested arms from the US besides the Model of 1917 rifle (the red stepdaughter of US Ordnance), the early BAR Model of 1918 automatic rifles and Browning Model 1917 Machineguns were provided to the UK as they were obsolete and surplus to US needs. The US Army wanted newer designs and upgrades to these weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiwi

Its a indian army unit/armourers marking. See them bit on ex indian rifle stocks.

---

Cheers Kiwi! It did remind me of the S^A stamp I've seen on Ishapore 2a's. Looks like it was checked over in 62. The barrel is marked '16 yet shows very very little use so maybe I got lucky with how it was treated over there. Coming from a month of cleaning out a horrendous Ishapore bore, this surprised me.

Another question for you all. Was it common for P14's to have a mismatched makers between bolt and receiver. My receiver/barrel is a Remington but the bolt is marked E for Eddystone. I understand there were all sorts of interchangeability issues so just wanted to make sure this was an appropriate swap so long as headspace checks out.

Now to find a 303 Field gauge....

Im curious if a bolt should close on a spent casing. I took a 303 shell and fit into the chamber and tried to close the bolt but it wont budge. Is there something about a casing without the bullet that makes a bolt unable to close on it?

So broker her down and meticulously cleaned her of dirt, cosmoline, and various other cruds. Stripped the lacquer, pulled the oil out of the stock, and spent a few days rehydrating the stock with a 50/50 turpentine RLO mix. The bolt had been put back together incorrectly so the extractor claw wouldn't bend making it impossible to chamber or extract a round. Fixed that issue and she cycles very well. She's a lovely rifle even with her flaws and I dont regret the $550 she cost me. Off to the cornfield now to see how she shoots. Will report back. Cheers for all your help gents!

Attachment 107715Attachment 107716