Eddystone P.14 Sniper

[Promo]

Finally received the rifle I purchased quite some time ago: a heavily modified Eddystone P.14 rifle, which features scope bases I've never seen before.

The front scope base is a dovetailed part, which is obviously made in a way that the scope is first placed downwards, then slid forward into the dovetail. The rear scope base is made via a circular cutout in where the rear sight originally would have been, also dovetailed to then slide forward. The scope mount is locked in place with a spring-made "locking key".

In the position where the end on the arm of the key touches the top of the receiver, exactly the milled flat position on the key arm is inside the milled hole. This means in this position the scope can be inserted or removed. If the arm is then slid downwards into the locking position (with a small cutout in the side of the receiver, locking it in place), the scope then is locked in place. The arm seems to be made of spring steel, as it's quite moveable.

Note the additional cutout on the rear handguard, obviously made for a very deep mounted scope.

The rifle itself is an Eddystone action which is fully matching. The trigger guard is serialized to the rifle, as sometimes seen on other P.14 sniper rifles. The originally "Fatso" stock has been milled flat on the sides.

The rifle features what appears to be a modified SMLE magazine, which is detachable. The magazine as the stock on the heel is marked with a single "4". I yet have to remove the handguards, but I've been told by the previous owner they also feature the "4" inside of them. The stock is shortened, which I am unable to tell if it's original or not, but I believe rather not. The caliber is of course the original .303 British. The history itself is lost (or remains unknown), since it came from an estate.

Any suggestions to this gun? The detachable magazine reminds me of the Ainley rifle, but the Ainley rifle had the original PPCo mounts (to my knowledge). And why did they use an Eddystone action?


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

[Promo]

Second and last set of pictures.


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

[newcastle]

Interesting looking rifle. Presumably the scope mounting over the top would preclude use of stripper clips - hence somone thought that adding a magazine to reload would be useful.

[Surpmil]

What country was this found in? The work looks like it was done a long time ago and was skillfully done. The missing screw through the muzzle band and lack of hole for same in the stock makes one wonder about the stock, as you say, as does the poorly fitting handguard. The band has been enlarged around the barrel? It would be interesting to see without the stock and whether the barrel channel was enlarged also. There must be machining to the underside of the receiver also I assume?

A very interesting piece; someone was thinking whether if was a private individual or someone in government service. The front base does look very vulnerable to damage and there is no provision for lateral adjustment; that might suggest a Patt.18 scope with the windage adjustment prism. It seems doubtful that anyone would go to that much trouble or arrange the mounts in that way if they were not intending this to be a service rifle.

That mag must be a replacement somewhere along the way, judging by its condition. The fact that it is not a No.4 mag would fit with the likely dates: mid 20s to mid 30s? Col. Acland probably wasn't the only military marksman working on these matters.

There doesn't appear to be any need for the scope to tip forward, so that long relief in the handguard is either a modified M17 one, or grooved to clear a very low mounted scope, and in that case, not an Patt. 18.

Why not do up a CAD drawing of the rings as you can determine them from the bases; the scope might still be out there somewhere. I found an Ainley rifle scope (Patt. 18) on eBay years and years ago that ended up in Australia I understand. You never know. And the Ainley rifle didn't use a PPCo. mounting BTW.

[Peter Laidler]

I would agree. It's certainly VERY professionally done and a credit to whoever did it. I'd say that the front mounting was adequate because the breeching ring area here on a P'14 is more substantial than that of the totally inadequate No4. So the 4BA(?) screws get the necessary min. of 3 complete threads hold. Am I mistaken or is that a feint blob of silver solder on photos 5 & 6 (2nd set, top row). A good job. But I don't think that it's military because we always insisted on the presence of an iron sight too. Detachable magazine..... not a feature that would concern a sniper in my opinion

[Promo]

Hey Rob, this rifle was found in the US and I brought it back to Europe. Someone brought it up in a forum asking for more opinions on it, and I thought it was something special and we did a trade on it. He had bought it from an estate with a few other guns, but except that it was accordingly from a WWII vet there is not much more known.

To me the shortening of the stock has NOT been done by the same person who also did the scope bases. Below the bayonet lug the wood looks rather knife-cut than professionally milled, also someone who is able to do scope bases in this manner is able to properly drill a hole for a bayonet lug. It might also be that it featured a different stock ending than the bayonet lug and someone just re-shaped it to be able to refit a bayonet lug, but this is something I am not able to verify. The barrel channel at the front end is in fact inletted larger than the barrel itself, but this might also be because of the original inletting.

Why do you think of the Patt'18 scope? Did you see the long inletting on the rear handguard? It's so long that I hardly believe it really had one of those on it. The rifle uses an Enfield magazine, therefore I believe it to be of British origin (also the serial number on the magazine guard would proof this, since this was a British thing), which would also suggest a British scope. But which British (used) scope is at about this length and that deep? And of course the lateral adjustment must have been made either in the scope (rings), or with the scope itself. Probably I should hold a No. 32 scope next to it, who knows?

Did you identify the magazine as being a "No. 4 Mag" by the number "4" on it, or by any other small differences which I am unable to tell?

Doing a drawing of the scope rings is quite hard, as this would only be of the thing touching the receiver, which however can in fact be quite differently shaped. But it might be worth giving it a try.

Edit:

@Peter Laidler: the Ainley sniper rifle, which was also based on the P.14, also featured a detachable magazine. But I have no details upon how this was realized.


Edit 18.06.2023: re-uploaded pictures that were lost in forum crash.

[Sentryduty]

The relief cut in the upper hand guard is interesting, thinking about sight lines, if a scope body did lay low enough to the bore to require such a cut would the foresight block not occlude the optic?

If that channel is cut for a scope body, I would suggest that the rifle may have been originally configured without a foresight, like the 1903 below:


Or it could be possible that the optic had a large objective lens which would require the channel for physical mounting and dismounting but the sight line might clear of the foresight block.

I have never seen anything like this but I am trying to envision the optics and mounts based on the modifications for the sake of discussion.

[Promo]

Doug, sorry for posting it in the Enfield section. It was on purpose, because I thought the Enfield guys might have more information than the ones on the M1917 and Pattern 1913/1914 section, which is not that often frequented.

I disassembled the rifle today and made some comparison pictures with another Eddystone P.14 in normal service configuration. Especially the extremely well made magazine conversion is very interesting.

The stock looks - as I said - to have been unprofessionally shortened. The front sight does NOT appear to have been removed (well, not by bubba since there are no traces..), at least that is what the pin seems to indicate.

Peter, the Ainley rifle featured a detachable magazine (which was a rifle in a different caliber, but based on the P.14 action). And since the magazine of this rifle seems to be a SMLE magazine, I assume this conversion was done PRIOR to the invention of the No. 4 rifle/the No. 4 magazine.

[Promo]

... and the second and last set of pictures I did today.

[Surpmil]

Hey Rob, this rifle was found in the US and I brought it back to Europe. Someone brought it up in a forum asking for more opinions on it, and I thought it was something special and we did a trade on it. He had bought it from an estate with a few other guns, but except that it was accordingly from a WWII vet there is not much more known.

To me the shortening of the stock has NOT been done by the same person who also did the scope bases. Below the bayonet lug the wood looks rather knife-cut than professionally milled, also someone who is able to do scope bases in this manner is able to properly drill a hole for a bayonet lug. It might also be that it featured a different stock ending than the bayonet lug and someone just re-shaped it to be able to refit a bayonet lug, but this is something I am not able to verify. The barrel channel at the front end is in fact inletted larger than the barrel itself, but this might also be because of the original inletting.

The quality of the work doesn't match does it? On the other hand, what work was done to that stock looks like it was done a long time ago doesn't it? And if it was a work in progress that was abandoned for some reason, that might be reflected in the state of the woodwork. Where the long range sight peep is ground off, how is the area finished?

Overall, much too clean don't you think? I see no residues in the nooks and crannies where one would expect it on a rifle that age. Around the butt marking disc for example.

Why do you think of the Patt'18 scope? Did you see the long inletting on the rear handguard? It's so long that I hardly believe it really had one of those on it. The rifle uses an Enfield magazine, therefore I believe it to be of British origin (also the serial number on the magazine guard would proof this, since this was a British thing), which would also suggest a British scope. But which British (used) scope is at about this length and that deep? And of course the lateral adjustment must have been made either in the scope (rings), or with the scope itself. Probably I should hold a No. 32 scope next to it, who knows?

Patt. 18 is just a possibility, used on the Ainley rifle as well, probably because they were supported and available (then current on the No.3MkI*(T) rifles on issue) and because comparison with the No.3 would then be on a level playing field in that respect.

Did you identify the magazine as being a "No. 4 Mag" by the number "4" on it, or by any other small differences which I am unable to tell?

I was just observing that it is a No.1 MkIII mag, not a No.4 mag and that fact suggests at date before the later 1930s.

Doing a drawing of the scope rings is quite hard, as this would only be of the thing touching the receiver, which however can in fact be quite differently shaped. But it might be worth giving it a try.

Do you think so? Obviously the upper portions would be guesswork, but the "feet" are pretty clear from the bases: at the back a round leg with a circular rim that slides into the recess you can see cut into the bottom of the hole. That could be turned as one piece of course. The back face would be flat to clear the face of the locking leaver when closed. I was wondering if the flats of the original backsight recess might have been used as a bearing, but there's no wear to the finish that suggests that. It would have made the mounting much more solid if had used those shoulders way, though a bit tricky to machine.

The front base looks like a dovetail with shoulders on either side to resist recoil throwing the scope & mounts forward. Odd little complication that, when a simple projection butting against the rear face of the front base would have done the same for less machining and much greater strength. As it is, if there was any movement of the scope forward against those little shoulders, they would deform interfering with the sliding of the ring foot into the dovetail.

What I don't understand is why they didn't put a good heavy projecting shoulder on either side so that the top flat and edges of the dovetail were protected from blows. You can see the dovetail has in fact been smacked at the front on one side and pushed down, no doubt making it impossible to fit a scope as is. So much trouble and effort overall and yet something so obvious missed...

If the scope had no lateral adjustment the rings might have had a double screw dovetail at the rear and some sort of pivot at the front??

Presumably there was some sort of backsight as the recess looks like it hasn't been empty that long; just lost or someone took a fancy to it for some other project?

Is that a little green paint along the outside edge of the mag well? Edit: disregard, just the brazing line probably.

Can you show a photo like this one, but with the locking lever in the closed position?

Edit:

@Peter Laidler: the Ainley sniper rifle, which was also based on the P.14, also featured a detachable magazine. But I have no details upon how this was realized.

Thanks for sharing it with us; a very interesting find!