Eddystone P.14 Sniper

[Promo]

Rob, I believe the guy who owned the rifle (after it came from whatever Arsenal/company) just shortened the stock, for whatever reason. Probably the tip was damaged and therefore he decided to chop it off, I don't know. It does NOT correspond to the modification of the stock itself in any way, so I do not believe there is something more in this point.

If you also read "'27" on the barrel, would in 1927 the barrel still have the original Eddystone serial number on it? Or would the British use original Eddystone stamps? Was it an overstamp? Basically this doesn't make yet enough sense...

Pictures of the Ainley rifle had been posted a few posts earlier than yours, however not showing the scope bracket and the scope. Hugh told me you have pictures of Bob Etheringtons Ainley rifle, do you still have those? If yes, please send those to me, preferrably via e-mail!

Quite a number of official military scope mounts used tapering dovetails. The German WWII Short Side Rail mount was tapered, as was the prototype G.41 mount. The Russian PEM side mount was tapered, also the US Neidner mount (equals the USMC mount) for the Winchester A5 mount was tapered. Not only the French used it for their own mount on the APX, but also for the SOM scopes they supplied to Argentine. There might be quite a few more which I can't remember, but obviously since carried also into WWII it might not have been that of a bad design.

The already mentioned German WWI "Semi Turret" called scope mount by Goerz was based on the same principle, but not with a dovetail but a circular base with cone-shaped walls. The Germans made the rear foot adjustable lengthenwise, to make it interchangeable (the rear was only a metal cone with a locking arm). See the pictures here for the rings on the scope of this mount: scarce complete WWI german sniper scope - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

The US solution from Neidner was interesting in this term, that it used inverted dovetail mount for recoil to lock the scope in position. This would also work with the bases of this rifle. So I suppose they copied the mount of the US with their own "advantages". But on the other hand this wouldn't make that much sense, with inventing new scope bases.

The tip for checking the distance is good, will do that when I'm in my gun room again! But the cutout in the handguard would now make sense to me with the Winchester A5 telescope. They would need it for the focal adjustment of the scope, which is at the front. And after every shot the scope has to be pushed back in it's position, which is assured by a retaining ring on the tube, which can be fixed in individual position. So it just had to be fixed in the position that is correct for shooting.

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.

[Surpmil]

Rob, I believe the guy who owned the rifle (after it came from whatever Arsenal/company) just shortened the stock, for whatever reason. Probably the tip was damaged and therefore he decided to chop it off, I don't know. It does NOT correspond to the modification of the stock itself in any way, so I do not believe there is something more in this point.

If you also read "'27" on the barrel, would in 1927 the barrel still have the original Eddystone serial number on it? Or would the British use original Eddystone stamps? Was it an overstamp? Basically this doesn't make yet enough sense...

If you could take a better closeup that would help. Maybe photograph the dates on other P14s you have, for comparison?

Datestamps are just stamps, and I wouldn't draw any conclusions unless the font is unusual and identical.

Pictures of the Ainley rifle had been posted a few posts earlier than yours, however not showing the scope bracket and the scope. Hugh told me you have pictures of Bob Etheringtons Ainley rifle, do you still have those? If yes, please send those to me, preferrably via e-mail!

He may be the gentleman who ended up with the scope from eBay.co.uk, I'm not sure. I might have such photos, but would have to look on my remote drives. Stand by.

Quite a number of official military scope mounts used tapering dovetails. The German WWII Short Side Rail mount was tapered, as was the prototype G.41 mount. The Russian PEM side mount was tapered, also the US Neidner mount (equals the USMC mount) for the Winchester A5 mount was tapered. Not only the French used it for their own mount on the APX, but also for the SOM scopes they supplied to Argentine. There might be quite a few more which I can't remember, but obviously since carried also into WWII it might not have been that of a bad design.

The already mentioned German WWI "Semi Turret" called scope mount by Goerz was based on the same principle, but not with a dovetail but a circular base with cone-shaped walls. The Germans made the rear foot adjustable lengthenwise, to make it interchangeable (the rear was only a metal cone with a locking arm). See the pictures here for the rings on the scope of this mount: scarce complete WWI german sniper scope - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

The US solution from Neidner was interesting in this term, that it used inverted dovetail mount for recoil to lock the scope in position. This would also work with the bases of this rifle. So I suppose they copied the mount of the US with their own "advantages". But on the other hand this wouldn't make that much sense, with inventing new scope bases.

The only positive locking I see here is via the lever on the rear base. Is the front dovetail internally tapered?

The tip for checking the distance is good, will do that when I'm in my gun room again! But the cutout in the handguard would now make sense to me with the Winchester A5 telescope. They would need it for the focal adjustment of the scope, which is at the front. And after every shot the scope has to be pushed back in it's position, which is assured by a retaining ring on the tube, which can be fixed in individual position. So it just had to be fixed in the position that is correct for shooting.

Looking at the photo of the A5 on the Mod.17 above, the only way I can see a fit with that handguard is if the scope was mounted in a similar position; that is with the rear base on the receiver ring, but then there is no need for the groove either! If the base on the receiver would be for some kind of removable backsight...not likely is it? If the A5 or an externally adjusted scope was being used here, the center line of the scope would have to be above the remains of the sight protectors, otherwise the lateral adjustment screw would not clear the protectors. If there was a notch in one protector for the lateral (windage) screw that would be different, but there isn't. But again we come back to that long relief in the handguard...If a scope slides forward it also has to have the same distance behind the rear ring or they would hit, and 5 or 6 inches behind the rear ring would be completely impossible to use except in the back position! It may be that the handguard is a red herring that somehow ended up on the rifle or just reflects some concept that was changed or abandoned?

If you have The US Enfield have a look at the photos on page 131. Notice the shaft and knob projecting from the sight ears about where the locking lever is on this one? Some kind of experimental USMC backsight it says.

I also wondered if this might be something Soley was messing about with between the wars. That might explain the fine work and finish but apparent lack of markings. They did a bunch of odd stuff based on P.14s, as shown in the above book.

[Seaspriter]

Does anyone have any thoughts on why this rifle used an Eddystone as its foundation, rather than a Winchester P-14, which was the standard sniper configuration?