Quote Originally Posted by oldfoneguy View Post
That's an excellent looking rifle be happy with and shoot it often.

Now for the bad news, a phosphate finish was never originally used on a P14 in fact it wasn't introduced until late in Model 1917 production so the extractor is a refurbished WWII era replacement.

The short bolt lug * upgrades were performed on rifles produced prior to December 1916. By 12/16 all rifles were factory produced with the longer lug so a Weedon process upgrade wasn't required. My point is any rifle with a 1917 production date wouldn't require an * added to it. However your rifle has a low serial number under 100,000 so it would have certainly been in the group of * converted rifles if it was in stores. I see your in the 93,000 range so while early its not early enough to have been condemned so I'm assuming the stock is a replacement. Without question the barrel is a replacement to be dated '17 with a receiver number that low. And I'm going by your sight number assuming its matching to the receiver. Production began at Winchester in April 1916 so by December the serial number range was well over 130,000 and even higher by 1917.

Don't feel bad as any 100+ year old military rifle has been through many hands and situations so plenty has happened to them over the years. Perhaps it was sportered with a cut down barrel and stock and returned to military spec, so be thankful for that.

Also don't put all your eggs in one basket by assuming that just one author is all knowing. Read all you can on the subject including the excellent reference of the 1914/1917 series rifles on the Remington Society of America website which has the actual production information from those who built them and not someone who copied and reprinted it.

Edit: the rifles that were considered doubtful were labeled as so for a parts interchangeability aspect and not the physical condition of a particular unit. Those rifles never made it into service and no P14 was used in front line service by the Britishicon military during the war.
First......thanks a lot "oldfoneguy" for taking the time to respond to this thread!!!

Yeah I'm aware that the extractor is a replacement, the phosphate finish certainly looks out of place.

You state that the bolt lug upgrade was incorporated into rifle production (MK1 to MK1*) around Dec 1916. Now, the rifles that went thru the W.R.S during WW2..... are you suggesting that the conversion from a MK1 to MK1* was also something completed at this time as well?..........or......once a rifle left the factory as a MK1 it stayed a MK1 thru it's entire life and never upgraded to a MK1* whether it went thru the W.R.S or not?
The reason why I ask this is, if the reason for the conversion to MK1* was the longer bolt lug ( which undoubtedly it was) and this was an upgrade also completed during the W.R.S process......have all the rifles that were upgraded to MK1* been issued new bolts incorporating the longer lug, and then stamped with rifle serial number? You just can't take a original MK1 bolt and merely add some length to the locking lug....bolt and locking lugs are the same piece of steel!!! I need you to clarify this for me. Sorry I just never heard of new bolts being issued but that's the only way I can see it if there was a W.R.S conversion to MK1*

I'm not understanding your reason for figuring the stock to be a replacement......you mention that the rifle is, "in the 93,000 range so while early it's not early enough to have been condemned so I'm assuming the stock is a replacement".

The Maltese Cross .....after jogging my memory, (and this was verified by a well respected member here) refers to "non-standard parts". Example....I have a Long Branch made rifle with a Maltese Cross stamped on the fore-stock, in this instance it is in reference to the rifle having a rear sight made by the Savage Co. and not Long Branch.........Stratton say's in his book the Maltese Cross means "emergency use only" that implies rifle must be on the cusp of being un-serviceable, not sure what to think about that!!