EY marked P14 questions

[Enfield trader]

I saw on one of the auction sites a Pattern 14 that is EY marked on the receiver and wood and I would like clarification on the EY marking. Rifle looks brand new. So what determines the EY spec ? Safe to shoot not safe ? Did the Brits mark them EY because they were concerned about the quality of the rifles as someone sated to me ? Was also stated that many early (MKI)
P14's were so marked because of the quality issue.

Thanks for the help.

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]

Also posted this in other thread with question posed by lngstrt.

On the subject of the meaning marks and paint colors, here's something that may help ....

With thanks to Advisory Panel member Peter Laidler, check out his set of Armourers training notes in the Technical Articles for Milsurp Collectors and Re-loaders (click here).

1945 Rifle & Pistol Armourers Training Notes (click here)

1945 Miscellaneous Armourers Training Notes (click here)

As Peter describes it … Here are 1945 copies of some Armourers training notes that list hundreds of snippets of good info. It is very old and the paper is a bit thin and torn. I use it for some of the info I get. The only problem with this info is that everyone soon becomes a theoretical expert! But the practice is a whole new ball game. You can only get that by doing it. Not just once or twice........., but HUNDREDS, if not thousands of times for years. ...... Kind regards, Peter Laidler

The MKL article also includes initial remarks under the “Collectors Comments and Feeback” section.

Regards,
Badger

[GerryRA]

Early production Pattern 1914 rifles of all makes were rated and marked EY (for Training Use Only) on stock, receiver and barrel, until interchangeability issues had been worked out enough to permit the rifles to be deployed overseas. The rifles were safe and functional, just would have been too difficult to repair. Even after deployment, armorers tried to use the same manufacture of parts as replacements.

In US service, the M1917 had similar problems, with no rifles made before 1 Jan 1918 considered suitable for deployment.

Above gleaned from a recent wade thru the P14 and M1917 literature.

[breakeyp]

Houze's Winchester Bolt Action book has a wonderful chapter on the Pattern 1914/M1917 development problems. The 1914 .303 action was plagued with magazine feed problems through its entire life with three distinct design changes that apparently still did not solve the rim cartridge feed problem. Guns found to have the problem were initially marked with a maltese cross on the buttstock flat and later the EY markings. The concern was function and feeding not safety. The authorities determined that the guns were to be used for training and not combat, which I believe to be the real reason that they were not issued to combat troops (not the often reported issues with additional parts in the supply system) and were marked EY--safe to use ball ammunition in an emergency. At least this is my intrepretation of things I have found over the years.

[Mk VII]

EY rifles (both Lee-Enfield and P-14) are reserved for projecting rifle grenades. (The strain this placed on the action made it undesirable for any and all rifles to be used for this purpose, and often the bore would be damaged or ringed).
Sometimes obsolescent or worn rifles would be relegated to this role, if none were available one would be chosen arbitrarily.