Eddystone P.14 Sniper

[Promo]

Rob, the finish on the tip of the stock is much different from the rest of the stock. In fact it doesn't look like it received any coating (linseed oil, etc.) unlike the rest of the stock. The "fatso" features of the stock had been professionally removed (if we didn't knew the stock originally was different, we probably wouldn't notice this) and refinished and is homogeneous with the rest of the stock - completely opposite of below the bayonet lug, where it looks like a shortening was started by Bubba and not finished yet. Wood chips are missing and it looks like someone cut it in shape with a knife, just allowing the bayonet lug to be mounted over the stock.

Sorry for the confusion with the magazine. I also properly identified it as being a SMLE magazine. I misunderstood your answer. And we both came to the same conclusion, that this would date the rifle prior to No. 4 rifle. I might read it wrong, but does anyone else also read the date on the barrel as '27 ... or is it just a badly stamped '17?

Does anyone have information upon the Ainley rifle and the scope? Is the scope for the Ainley rifle exactly the same as on the No. 3 T rifle (except for being calibrated for a different round), and does this also apply to the scope mount?

If the Patt'18 scope also had been used on this rifle, why would it have such a long cutout on the rear handguard? Wouldn't this rather indicate a scope with a large objective lense? Which scopes were used from 20s to the 30s in the UK?

To the pictures of the scope "base" on the rear: they were made with additional light which has a different white color than the one I have in my light box. Therefore it shows what I'd call non-existing miscolorations. This is something I forgot to mention.

I'm not sure if the rear foot itself was fully circular (could have had a flat side at the rear also) and if the circular hole is only a result of being easier to mill, or if it had a flat backside. Being circular, all it would need were some v notches on the bottom and it would be possible to lock it in various positions, so making it more independent from the dovetail in the front. I think that this rear foot most probably would have looked like the front foot of a WWI German "Semi-Turret" called scope mount. I might try and see if in fact this one would fit, who knows?

Regarding the front base: I do not believe the front base was damaged, but I agree that it might look differently in the pictures. The top is completely flat, as are the sides of the bases. I in fact believe the juvenescent dovetail was a feature, as it was known from US WWI Neidner modified Winchester scopes, which used recoil to lock themselves. And the Neidner scope rings don't feature more "flesh" around the necks than this scope base. The force is anyway held at the back with a really massive base, while the front only serves to lock it in position. And for this the dovetail as it's now is perfect.

It might have been possible that they used the original rear sight holes for a small "emergency peep sight", similar to the later fixed rear sight on the No. 4 (where you're only able to flip it between two positions), or they simply had an original P.14 rear sight cut down, so that only the peep sight is left in place.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[smle addict]

Very interesting thread, and great pics of a unique rifle. I scanned these pages from Skenerton's "The British Sniper" for comparative purposes.

[Promo]

Hey SMLE addict, I have a better picture of this experimental No. 3 rifle with the detachable magazine, see the attachment. I however don't know where I got those from. I originally made the mistake and confused this rifle with the Ainley sniper.

To be more precise: this rifle looks like in fact it still is in original caliber and original No. 3 (T) configuration. They just added the detachable magazine and modified the stock. Where as my rifle had a different scope mount, but still the original stock - and for the magazine they used an existing one.

[Surpmil]

Rob, the finish on the tip of the stock is much different from the rest of the stock. In fact it doesn't look like it received any coating (linseed oilicon, etc.) unlike the rest of the stock. The "fatso" features of the stock had been professionally removed (if we didn't knew the stock originally was different, we probably wouldn't notice this) and refinished and is homogeneous with the rest of the stock - completely opposite of below the bayonet lug, where it looks like a shortening was started by Bubba and not finished yet. Wood chips are missing and it looks like someone cut it in shape with a knife, just allowing the bayonet lug to be mounted over the stock.

If it wasn’t for that groove in the handguard, I might think the stock is a fairly recent replacement. The messing around with the muzzle band etc. could have been anyone I suppose. The roughness or lack of completion just reflects something that was never finished probably. If making a fake, why would it not be finished off?

Sorry for the confusion with the magazine. I also properly identified it as being a SMLE magazine. I misunderstood your answer. And we both came to the same conclusion, that this would date the rifle prior to No. 4 rifle. I might read it wrong, but does anyone else also read the date on the barrel as '27 ... or is it just a badly stamped '17?

Looks like “27" to me and that could be highly significant since as far as I know, the P14 was not on issue except as the (T) model with the Patt.18 scope or (F) backsight for Regular and Territorial use respectively. Would Enfield be rebarreling P.14s in 1927? I can't see why, unless it was one of those that had seen service in WWI, but would they bother with 10,000 new Winchester P14s supposedly in war reserves? Perhaps like the Aldis No3 and 4 scopes supposed to have been set aside, that never actually happened? Both reports come from The British Sniper, but is there any proof? The odds and sods of scopes fitted up by Alex Martin to P.14s in WWII strongly suggests the Aldis scopes were not in fact kept in reserve, and the profusion of them found on sporting rifles in the 20s and 30s supports that.

Does anyone have information upon the Ainley rifle and the scope? Is the scope for the Ainley rifle exactly the same as on the No. 3 T rifle (except for being calibrated for a different round), and does this also apply to the scope mount?

The mount for the Ainley is quite different. I have photos on another drive, perhaps someone else has some handy? The mount fitted into the machined groove on the receiver wall and locked with two thumbscrews similar to what the No32 bracket came to use. There was a recess on the underside of the mount which mated with that square lug on top of the receiver ring, in order to support the mount, and perhaps absorb some recoil forces too.

If the Patt'18 scope also had been used on this rifle, why would it have such a long cutout on the rear handguard? Wouldn't this rather indicate a scope with a large objective lense? Which scopes were used from 20s to the 30s in the Ukicon?

That’s what I was referring to also previously. It’s a bit of a mystery as I can’t think of any European or British scope that would need that much clearance, unless it was an American target scope in spring loaded mounts., but then the spring would have to under expansion rather than compression!

There were some trials done for other mounts as well, which are detailed in The British Sniper. I believe these were Patt. 18 scopes fitted to Springfield rifles and adjustments, at least for windage, were in the mount via a dial positioned similar to Dr. Common’s sight or a Bren MkI sight. There’s a photo or two in the book. Relevant to this only to the extent that it shows experimental work was going on different concepts between the wars, albeit a very slow pace.

To the pictures of the scope "base" on the rear: they were made with additional light which has a different white color than the one I have in my light box. Therefore it shows what I'd call non-existing miscolorations. This is something I forgot to mention.

I'm not sure if the rear foot itself was fully circular (could have had a flat side at the rear also) and if the circular hole is only a result of being easier to mill, or if it had a flat backside. Being circular, all it would need were some v notches on the bottom and it would be possible to lock it in various positions, so making it more independent from the dovetail in the front. I think that this rear foot most probably would have looked like the front foot of a WWI Germanicon "Semi-Turret" called scope mount. I might try and see if in fact this one would fit, who knows?

Third time we’ve misunderstood each other, but no worries, your English a lot better than my German! I did refer to the back of the rear ring mount being flat, but it would not have to be entirely flattened off, it would probably have had a concave or semi-circular groove that the rounded portion of the locking lever would “roll into” as it was locked. There was probably some interference in the fit to give some compression and lock the mount in place. I hope that makes sense?

Regarding the front base: I do not believe the front base was damaged, but I agree that it might look differently in the pictures. The top is completely flat, as are the sides of the bases. I in fact believe the juvenescent dovetail was a feature, as it was known from US WWI Neidner modified Winchester scopes, which used recoil to lock themselves. And the Neidner scope rings don't feature more "flesh" around the necks than this scope base. The force is anyway held at the back with a really massive base, while the front only serves to lock it in position. And for this the dovetail as it's now is perfect.

That’s good, it looked like it had had a blow on one forward corner and in fact I thought afterwards maybe both corners, which then made me wonder if someone was trying to remove some “play” in the fit by doing so. Regardless you can see how exposed that dovetail would be to damage with the scope removed. US scopes and mounts in general aren’t much of an example of anything I’m afraid, except fine workmanship and a failure to keep pace with developments, until the 1960s that is.

Those little shoulders are pointless IMO, but they took the designer’s fancy for whatever reason. The Mauser self-loading rifle of before WWI had a forward tapering dovetail scope base, and the French used them in WWI as well. Fine idea as long as you have the mechanical advantage to pry them off again!

It might have been possible that they used the original rear sight holes for a small "emergency peep sight", similar to the later fixed rear sight on the No. 4 (where you're only able to flip it between two positions), or they simply had an original P.14 rear sight cut down, so that only the peep sight is left in place.

I agree, those are the most likely scenarios.

Perhaps there is some British-made scope from the 1930s that is less known which might be a fit? As in the case above with the Springfields, if the mounts and mag were being assessed the scope itself was irrelevant except as it facilitated the testing of repeatability in the mounts etc.

There might be some drawings or record of this rifle somewhere in the Pattern Room files.