![pattern 14 enfield parts pattern 14 enfield parts](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4tZSesfrn4Y/maxresdefault.jpg)
Manual, as determined by skill of operator
![pattern 14 enfield parts pattern 14 enfield parts](https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/3dimages/No3-22-roto/No3-22-roto-vert/No3-22-roto-vert-hr-01.jpg)
The inspectors considered the Winchester rifles to be superior and these were the only ones used for Marksman (F) and Telescoped (T) sniper versions.Sniper (telescopic and unmagnified), grenade launcher, US M1917 rifle This led to the odd situation where the rifle actually had 3 official designations Pattern 1914 MkI(E), Pattern 1914 MkI(R) and Pattern 1914 MkI(W). The British inspectors considered that the production differences between the three manufacturers (Eddystone, Remington and Winchester) were so significant that the rifles were not standardised and parts were not interchangeable. There were actually about 20 modification made during initial production (but they did not apply to all manufacturers) prior to the official addition of the * to the Mark I. 276 cartridge and perhaps the original lugs were the same dimensions so it was thought that they needed beefing up? It may be to do with the fact that the design (p13) was originally for a new rimless. I have never seen any reports of the action failing (in fact it recognized as a very strong action). I believe it was to strengthen the locking of the action. So what advantage was gain or issue solved with the redesign/install of the lugs? I've also attached images of the bolt head I think it has the MK1* lugs. Those are the marks that keep me starring at the ceiling at night, wondering what the heck do they mean! And the more I study the 3s, some of them start looking like 5s! I wonder if they were special order for the No3 MkII conversions.Ībout those 3s stamped down the top of the stock and the circles. I laid out an 03 next to the No3 MkII to compare the guards, and they do seem to be of the same design, but the guard on the No3 MkII is longer. Good eye on noting the 03 handguard style. On other P14s, I've seen images of online, they all have a broadhead stamped next to the crown/GR/cross lance/P stamp and I thought the broad head was the acceptance into service mark. The reason I suspected the rifle was rejected, is because the receiver is not stamped with a broad head arrow. Thank you for the info on dating the rifle and your knowledge of the stock manufacturer. It looks to me as though the front handguard is from a Springfield M1903 rather than a P14 (the metal semi-circles showing) I have seen this before on restocked rifles. Question does it still have the MkI bolt? or has it been modified to MkI* (with larger lugs)? Winchester rifles were held in higher regard by the British than other manufacturers and I don't see anything that makes me think it was rejected (although again these markings were on the stock - EY or a Maltese Cross. All the marks I see look fairly standard apart from the 3s down the buttstock and the 4 circles on the underside - I have not seen those previously A lot of the original stamping on P14s was (a bit unusually for British rifles) on the stock so that is lost when it is replaced. Rifles fitted with these stocks were called the No3 MkII (after the terminology change in the late 20s) but this was applied to rifles in British service so as you say it was accepted. I believe 1306 was accepted by British Inspectors during the week ending 6th of May 1916 (MUN/5/189/1400/21) so yes it is an early rifle.Īs you indicate the MkII refers to the stock fitted to the rifle which is a WWII vintage replacement (made by H Morris and Co in Glasgow) - you will note it is without the volley sight and butt marking disk.