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.

[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.

[henry r]

could the cut out be for something like a winchester A5 scope?

[smle addict]

Wow... what I'd give to have those rifles....

[Promo]

Henry, the cutout would quite fit to the length of a Winchester A5 telescope. However, remember that the Winchester A5 is designed in a way that upon recoil the scope slides forward in the rings, and after each shot has to be pushed back into position. And the original scope rings can't be used with these cutouts .. but I guess with these bases they would have to be modified anyway. Probably swapping the rear and the front base would work ..

[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.

[Surpmil]

could the cut out be for something like a winchester A5 scope?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3656a22f-1.jpg

The A5 bases have to be 7 inches apart on centers. I think 6 or 6.5 was also an option, but every change affected the adjustment as the scales on the dials were set for that radius. If it was increased or decreased, the amount of adjustment imparted to the scope tube by each increment also changed.

One has to visualize where the ocular end of the A5 would be in relation to the shooter's eye if the scope had as much recoil room as the handguard suggests. From the photo you posted, I would have to say it was impossible, unless fired from the back position!

[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.

[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.