Australian P14 Snipers, or Rifle No 3 Mk I* (T)

[22SqnRAE]

G'Day All,

I've been investigating a P14 sniper conversion aspirant from Lithgow during WW2. I say aspirant, as the rifle had not been completed as a fully-fledged sniper model. The initial machining work to score the breech ring and the left rear receiver face had been completed, but no scope attached.

The rifle is a Remington and comes complete with a Winchester (F) sight.

My question to the wider audience is: how often do you see a complete No 3 Mk I* (T) rifle? I have only seen one for sale, and no others in the past few years.

Does anyone have any feel for the price one would go for in $AU? If you're commenting from overseas, would be grateful to hear your experience and price knowledge too.

Thanks in advance.

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.

[Badger]

Check the MKL in the Sniper Rifles Category (click here) for both examples including the BSA and PP scope versions, plus the Alexander Matin conversion ...

Check the Knowledge Library for extensive photo montages and all examples of P14 sniper rifles

No.3 MkI* (T) Rifle (BSA Scope) - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T) Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester - Serial #W226763)
c/w Model 1918 (3x) Scope Serial #226763 (Mfg by B.S.A Guns)
c/w 1907 Pattern leather sling


No.3 MkI* (T) Rifle (PP Scope) - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T) Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester - Serial #W196128)

c/w Model 1918 (3x) Scope (Mfg by Periscopic Prism Co. Ltd.)
c/w 1908 Web Pattern sling (Mfg in 1913 by M.E. Co.)

No.3 MkI* (T)A Sniper Rifle - (Pattern 1914 Mk1* W (T)A Sniper Rifle)
(Manufactured by Winchester) Serial #W209977
Sniper conversion by Alexander Martin (Glasgow) - Scope Mount Serial #209977
c/w Model 1916 (3x) Pattern 4 Scope Serial #71262
(Mfg by Aldis Bros. - Birmingham)
c/w 1907 Pattern leather sling
(Mfg by W.T.& B. Co. - 1918)
(Also marked J.J.M. - 1918)

BTW, they are all for sale, but only the BSA conversion is still left ...

Hope that helps ...

Regards,
Doug

[Promo]

I think there was a rifle for sale in Australia last year which had the Lithgow manufactured scope handfitted to a rifle, using the SMLE scope rings. Might this be the one you're referring to? Probably someone removed the non-original parts and sold on the rest.

There is not a single rifle from another manufacturer other than Winchester that I know of being an official sniper rifle (OK, aside of the obviously of Eddystone-manufactured Canadian P.14 with the Warner & Swasey scope and some single trials rifles). The No. 3 T snipers I am aware of with Australian property marking are also all of Winchester manufacture.

[22SqnRAE]

Thanks, Doug, I did use this excellent advice on the weekend in my earlier research. In particular, the detail of the (F) sight.

I'd love to make an offer, but the Gummint here is dead against we untrustworthy citizens importing dangerous, nasty firearms. We are apparently all likely to go and commit evil crimes, so the barrier to free trade is Everest high.

---------- Post added at 08:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

Promo, there is speculation that the Australian Army, being woefully prepared and kitted out for the kick off of WW2, took anything and everything they could get their hands on. We inherited a lot of No 3 Mk 1* (F) and even non-(F) and Lithgow was to turn these into (T) rifles. Of course, the No 1 Mk III* was the usual base for our (T) rifles, but that was once the panic had subsided in 1943 and Tojo was on the run north of the Owen Stanleys. I have not found enough history specifically relating to our (T) rifles, as I haven't yet read Skennerton's book on Commonwealth sniper rifles. Maybe time to get my hands on a copy.

The rifle in question is not in the public domain and I won't undermine the owner's privacy. I have seen evidence to support the claim that the rifle was prepared for further work, it just never happened.

[Promo]

All No. 3 (F) rifles were Winchester based. Even if those were converted in Lithgow to snipers, they wouldn't be a Remington rifle. I therefore still see no reason why it would be a Remington rifle they picked.

Summarizing what you have is a Remington rifle with modifications in similar manner to what are required to have the PPCo scope bases fitted. These are basically a very small inletting on the receiver ears, and drilling two holes on the receiver. Nothing which can only be done in a military workshop and when considering that reproduction mounts are available it is quite possible that someone just wanted to have a sniper rifle built himself, but picked the wrong action and didn't complete his work.

There is no proof that this rifle was started by Lithgow (why wouldn't it be completed?), and even if they had started to work on it, why would they sell it off partially converted rather than throw away the action which is basically weakend.

Edit: does it have a D proof on the left side of the receiver? The Australian No. 3 T snipers I am aware of had those.

[Surpmil]

I suspect that if the Australians needed some P14s to convert to "T" spec. in wartime, they would convert Remingtons just as happily as Winchesters. The original selection of Winchesters for conversion is a bit of a mystery to me, since AFAWK there was no inherent superiority in their product over Remington Illion and as is pointed out in "The U.S. Enfield" by I.D.S., the American Expeditionary Force actually requested that no further Winchester rifles be sent to France in 1918, reportedly due to problems with interchangeability of parts. From how American militiary procurement worked at the time, that could have been nothing but politics, but that's what the record says.

That's not to say that they did convert any RE rifles, only that in the absence of reliable records I wouldn't assume that they didn't just because the War Office specified Winchesters originally. On the other hand, after the various "fast ones" that Winchester tried to pull on the British government with the P14 contracts, you'd think they wouldn't have specified Winchester without a good reason!

[22SqnRAE]

All No. 3 (F) rifles were Winchester based. Even if those were converted in Lithgow to snipers, they wouldn't be a Remington rifle. I therefore still see no reason why it would be a Remington rifle they picked.

Summarizing what you have is a Remington rifle with modifications in similar manner to what are required to have the PPCo scope bases fitted. These are basically a very small inletting on the receiver ears, and drilling two holes on the receiver. Nothing which can only be done in a military workshop and when considering that reproduction mounts are available it is quite possible that someone just wanted to have a sniper rifle built himself, but picked the wrong action and didn't complete his work.

Some rather interesting and potentially valid views there, Promo.

Let's take a step back, to Mr Skennerton's research, which is very close to the mark and widely cited. Ian has spent a lot of time talking to people whom worked in or around armaments production during the war. Much of his research is real stuff- talking to people whom did see/touch/do work on various armaments. Not a lot of detail of their input to war production was recorded formally, until Ian talked to them from the 1980's onwards. Some 40 years after the event.

To suggest anyone's detailed recollection after 40 years is spot on is a stretch. I'm not suggesting information presented is incorrect, fabricated or otherwise. What I am suggesting is it is unwise to believe everything one reads (particularly on the internet!)

Now Australia, as mentioned earlier, was in a real pickle when WW2 started. When we answered Great Britain's call to arms, we were a rag-tag Army of hastily cobbled together people and equipment. Luckily, we fell on our feet and learned quickly, thanks in part to one Erwin Rommel who decided that training the second AIF and their Kiwi cousins was part of his brief. Kindly, he gave us much opportunity to hone our soldiering skills in the Western Desert and in the Palestine against the scurrilous Vichy French. When we managed to wrap up our relatively successful innings in North Africa, we were hastily dispatched to turn Tojo around from PNG. Now the fellows initially thrown at Tojo were effectively Reservists, Citizen Soldiers, or Militia. These fellows were a mix of callings, capabilities, effectiveness and reliability. When they were thrown into action in New Guinea, they had WW 1 equipment, on average, at best. Whatever they could get their hands on, they used. Australia's logistics were disgraceful, at best.

Now, while Ian Skennerton concentrates on what the Brits did with their No 3 Mk I* (T) that is a relatively different story. One needs to accept that Australia was in dire peril in 1941/42 when we were about ot be invaded and all our fighting forces were in the Western Desert, or about to be annihilated in Singapore and Malay. What ever we could scrounge, steal, requisition, buy, beg, lift, borrow - we did.

So, the P14s coming from Britain were valued. They were taken to Lithgow, our principal small arms factory or 'armoury' (in US terms). Lithgow was the main producer of rifle actions and other infantry and light artillery weapons. Further on in 1942, Orange Annex opened up, some 80 miles away, and it was the principal assembler of components from Lithgow (SAF) and the feeders: Wellington, Forbes and Bathurst. The specialist work for (T) rifles was done at Lithgow. Why the rifles (several known) were not complete is a wartime uncertainty. As for the potential of some one 'having a crack' at starting their own (T), that's a valid possibility. Is it probable, who knows?

What I would suggest, is that the vagaries of wartime necessity, production, availability, constraints from enemy action all add up to some differences in the norm. Peter Laidler, an expert with front line experience in both the UK and AU army logistics chain under combat duress, cites frequently the differences found from time to time that Base or Field workshops need to correct or work with.

Perhaps this Remington was supposed to be a (T) but priorities changed (ever hear that from the Army?), or stocks of No 1 Mk III* became available for the job. Perhaps the Army in its infinite wisdom decided to consolidate and only use the No 1 rifle, as spares were readily available, where P14s were not.

Dunno... All good possibilities and food for research and thought.

[Promo]

One can never rule out the small possibility of such an item really being made. It is however very uncertain that they picked a very handful of Remington made rifles - I have never yet seen any convincing Remington based No. 3 T rifle. For me this would be necessary to at least give a slight chance there was another Remington made rifle which was - for whatever reason - stopped during conversion.

Another fact that speaks against this is the fact that I do not know a single No. 3 T rifle with Australian acceptance/proof/property marking which features anything particular Australian, aside of the marking. These rifles ALL carry the PPCo scope, the scope blocks are all shaped exactly the same way as the WWI scope blocks (in contrast to the 1935-1938 scope blocks on the BSA made rifles for Ireland! They are different both in shape of the bases, the way the serial number was added and if the serial number was with the W prefix or not). This for me is a sign that nearly all Australian No. 3 T snipers were simply leftover British WWI No. 3 T snipers.

I do know some No. 3 T rifles which for whatever reason surface in Italy which are rather oddly spread all over the right side of the rear sight protector marked with D (arrow) D and the rifle serial number, compared to the D with the broad arrow in it on the left side of the receiver towards the barrel as on my Australian No. 3 T rifle, which may make the "Italian rifles" a possible WWII Australian assembled snipers, but yet they are Winchester made too.

So we know that Winchester might not had been the one which allowed interchangeability of parts with the ones from Remington and Eddystone, and we also know for sure that Australia had British WWI No. 3 T's. Why then now start a manufacturer mix which can end in having no interchangeability between your own sniper rifles. These are highly valueable in war, even under great pressure you would very carefully produce them and make sure they are not lost or damaged, and to have spare parts available (fun fact from WWI: an Italian sniper always consisted of two persons - the sniper and the person who was in charge to bring home the rifle in case the sniper was killed, because it was so valueable).

I therefore understand your point and I can't rule out 100% that there was never such a rifle as you mentioned. What I tried was to give you facts which speak against this. If you want to believe in the 1 in 1 Million chance it's up to you, but always remember to buy the gun and not the story. And even if you had been the engineer at Lithgow who has drilled and modified the Remington P.14 action for sniper useage you don't have a written proof of what this rifle is, just a chance of appearing more reliable than any gun owner who might tell you the greatest stories just to get a few bucks more for his rifle, or even just envies!

[22SqnRAE]

And even if you had been the engineer at Lithgow who has drilled and modified the Remington P.14 action for sniper useage you don't have a written proof of what this rifle is, just a chance of appearing more reliable than any gun owner who might tell you the greatest stories just to get a few bucks more for his rifle, or even just envies!

Promo, that is really the valuable message I deduced from your earlier post. Thank you. I do hope others read into it the same way.

As it stands, for much of that reason (that there was no evidence of provenance) and the silly price, the offer was politely, but firmly declined.

[bigduke6]

Promo, that is really the valuable message I deduced from your earlier post. Thank you. I do hope others read into it the same way.

As it stands, for much of that reason (that there was no evidence of provenance) and the silly price, the offer was politely, but firmly declined.

A very wise choice 22Sqn........... at least you asked the questions first and covered all bases and by doing so have saved yourself a lot of hard earned cash. There is nothing worse than seeing folk convincing themselves they have a rare example when everyone else is trying to be as diplomatic as possible and tell them what they do have is not what they think they have......... these are the kind of items that do a few laps of the fairs etc, then are sold in the auction.

I bought a lemon a good few years back, of course never really knew much or anything about it but it was a sale or return........ (very quickly returned) but it showed up again with a very high price tag, although the new owner was convinced he had something special.......... even when I told him where it had come from and what the experts on this forum had quickly described it as, he still thought different......