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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[harry mac]

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,
:

The only reason I can see for their insistence on Winchesters for conversion to snipers (and it's only a theory), is that, if I remember correctly, the first shipments of rifles apparently came from Winchester, so the sniper rifles were probably initially selected from those. Thereafter, once the interchangeability issues became apparent, they insisted on Winchesters so that at least all the sniper rifles could share common components.

[lmg15]

Found this thread while looking for something else, but maybe worth providing some clarity on some of the theories presented so far. Reading between the lines in a recent Gunboards post, this post may have been the basis for some of the comments therein.

The gist is that Remington No,3 rifles appear to have had some work done on them at Lithgow to convert them to No.3(T). The jury is still out on that, but only one plausible example has been found purportedly at the Lithgow SAF collection back room.

What can be said with certainty is that Australia received one third of the total P14(T) production (668 of 2001) in the early 1920s. These appear in the official Small Arms Returns between the wars. That may be surprising to many that such a large number and proportion of total production ended up in Australia. But alas, this is in black and white. Such rifles were marked with the small /I\ inside a D mark on the left side of the receiver ring, and on the right side of the butt.

It would appear that at least 247 of the Australian issued No.3(T)s were issued to the 2nd Military District, and were marked D/I\D over 2 over the rack number. The rack number was positioned such that it formed a prefix to the existing serial number on the RH sight protector. Rack number and serial number are separated by a "."

eg,

D/I\D
2
247.191511

It is likely that the bulk of the rifles were issued to NSW (2nd MD) and Victoria (3rd MD) which were the most populous states.

The theory that the D/I\D over 2 marks were put on Lithgow converted No.3(T)s is not borne out by any evidence. In fact, it is clear that the serial number font is identical to the standard PPC set up rifles, and the rack number is in a different font applied later by the 2nd MD.

The only evidence I have seen to link Australian production to No.3(T)s is a spare Pattern 1918 scope made by AOC in 1944. Identical to the scopes fitted to the No.1Mk.3H(T), the only difference is that the rear mount is set further back against the ocular cone to fit the No.3 rifle. It appeared that the rear mount was placed there in the first instance rather than being moved aft at a later stage that would leave traces of solder and disrupted blueing. On the face of it, it would appear that defective or lost PPC scopes may have been replaced by AOC scopes, but fitted to original PPC set up No.3(T) rifles.

I have also seen an original No.3(T) rifle fitted with a US M84 scope in original Patt 1918 scope mounts. While one could theorise that it was a field replacement of a broken 1918 scope, I think it was done well post WW2.

Without some additional info, the best light I can put on Australian converted Remington No.3 snipers is some experimental tinkering at the SAF.

[Terry Hawker]

D/I\D
2
247.191511

A bit of a correction is in order, at least as far as the example cited is concerned. It is not marked, "D /l\ D over 2" as mentioned, but the reverse - " 2 over D /l\ D".

Also, lest there be any confusion, No. 247 is a Winchester product.

The only reason I am certain these points are facts, rather than speculation, is because this rifle has been sitting in my safe for the last 19 years.

Cheers,

Terry