P14 w98

[Patrick Chadwick]

Maybe this rifle isn't a mixmaster after all. Anyone care to add comment for my education.[

Yes. Maybe the sequential logic in my previous post was not quite clear. I am very wary of absolutist words such as "always" and "never". We should rather stick to words like "probable" and "improbable" and remember that the goal of armorers was to have the rifles working, not to worry about numbering or marking perfection for collectors a century later. For the Pattern 1914 production, it was not a requirement that the parts must be interchangeable between manufacturers. That came later, with the M1917. The War Office had approved 3 separate models: .303 Pattern 1914 MK I E, .303 Pattern 1914 MK I R, and .303 Pattern 1914 MK I W. Hence the IE marking on the butt.

So I will not categorically rule out that a Winchester rifle could have acquired an Eddystone stock at a later stage - maybe during the WRS procedure. But I think you can regard it as extremely unlikely that the very first batch from Winchester used Eddystone stocks.

The sequential logic argument is: regardless of who made the bits, a rifle that had been through WRS would have been upgraded to the * configuration beforehand. In other words, a WRS stock and non-upgraded system just do not match. Avoiding the risky "Never", let's just settle for very, very unlikely. And the fact that the rifle was marked for emergency use only indicates an official judgement that there was something "iffy" about it.

The volley sight pointer is, of course, a later addition by some private person, and is in no way original. And although the backsight leaf spring might break because of a bad temper, it is more likely to happen if it is removed and replaced. Likewise, the backsight itself (which appears to be non-original) did not just fall off and jump back on again - the original sight was removed and another one fitted later. This could be the result of, for instance, fitting Parker-Hale competition sights. Who can tell? But the rifle is no longer the same assemblage of components that originally left the Winchester factory as number 98.

All this doesn't matter a hoot unless you are a serious collector. I am a serious shooter, so my final comment is: to hell with the marking fetish - how does it shoot?

Patrick

[Demo]

Patrick I don't know how it shoots, I'm a serious collector of SMLE's and don't care to shoot.

Parts get replaced and it doesn't matter to me if it isn't as it was when it left the factory either. Doesn't make them mixmasters though. My 1913 Lithgow is not as it left the factory but it's still of the rarist nature and highly collectible.

This is what I've learned. Winchester did use Eddystone stocks. When is not clear and rifles were not always upgraded to MkI* during WRS. It seems there is some debate on that point. Still doesn't prove anything either way with this gun but it's a long way off thumbs down to me.

What I know about P14's, I've learned in the last two weeks off two forums but it's all very interesting.

Demo