entropy
Member
M1917.
Which: Eddystone M1917 or Enfield No4 Mk1?
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
- Status
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Thanks awfully, chum. Now, if you had a chap trained on a roight proppa SMLE, how long do you think you would train him on a No. 4?
"See here, the sight is better. It's simpler to take the bolt out, push here. Time to brew up, then."
Last edited:
Oh without a doubt the No4 sights are better.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
I'd still rather have an M1917. But, queerly, either design retains the philosophy that a rifleman may adjust his range as he likes, but changing the windage is an armorer's job.
lysanderxiii
Member
"Better" is highly subjective.
History on the P14: The Pattern 1914 started life as the Pattern 1913, a Mauser-Lee hybrid that shot a new and different rimless .276 cartridge. This was to be adopted as standard replacing the SMLE, MK III is service. However, WW1 put a stop to changing over the standard small arms caliber. Vickers produced a handful of P13s chambered in .303, but stopped to concentration on machine gun production
In 1915, it became apparent that there was a lack of industrial capacity in the UK for production of the SMLE, and the British asked Remington and Winchester to produce SMLEs for them. The two companies stated that yes, they could, but production of the P13 in .303 would be faster, as the P13 design was more in line with what they were used to making. So, the P13, chambered in .303 became the P14.
Due to various reasons, Winchester, Remington and Remington's subsidiary Eddystone had delays in getting up to full rate production, and by the time they did, the British had solved their own production capacity problems, and started to cancel the contracts for the P14.
Enter the US into the war and a lack of M1903s. Rather than re-retool these three factories to make M1903s the design was rechambered for a third time to .30-'06 and entered US service as the M1917.
Why the British dropped the P14 design after the war was an overabundance of SMLE, MkIII and III*s (now re-designated Rifle, No. 1, Mk III or Mk III*).
By the late 1920's the British began a program to simplify the production of the SMLE (No. 1) and improve it's minor short-comings, with no interest in changing calibers, The result was the No. 4.
Why did they not use the P14 as the basis for the new rifle?
- The P14 is almost a pound heavier than an SMLE, Mk III.
- The P14 is two inches longer than an SMLE, Mk III.
- The SMLE had twice the ammunition capacity (and still was lighter).
- The SMLE has a faster smoother action than a P14. This is due to the type of steel used in P14 production, while a stronger steel, it is softer, and P14s and M1917 feel "gummy" compared to M1903 and SMLEs.
- It was originally intended that the No. 4 just be a "product-improved" version of the SMLE, and that many spare parts were to be interchangeable.
The up-shot is they felt that the technical and financial risk of making relatively minor improvements to the SMLE design was much lower than trying to redesign the P14 to be an SMLE, with the locking lugs in a different place.
Last edited:
armabill
Member
Get the Eddystone 1917. I went to Eddystone High School which is the same town where the rifle was made.
The factory is long gone but not forgotten. I have an Eddystone 1917 too.
I also have a Westinghouse M91 Mosin. I worked for Westinghouse Electric Co. in Tinicum Township that's not too far from Eddystone.
The factory is long gone but not forgotten. I have an Eddystone 1917 too.
I also have a Westinghouse M91 Mosin. I worked for Westinghouse Electric Co. in Tinicum Township that's not too far from Eddystone.
Jim Watson
Member
Do you reckon the reason Eddystone barrels are so tight is because they were built in a locomotive factory? <grin>
Just thinking, what kind of collection could you accumulate of US made weapons for foreign armies?
P14, Savage No 4, Westinghouse and Remington Mosin Nagants, Winchester 1895 7.62 Russian,
Back in the 19th century, Remington Rolling Blocks and Peabody Martinis. Colt Berdans and Winchester Turkish 1866.
Sidearms I can think of include S&W No 3s to Russia et al, Portuguese Savage, 1911s to Norway and Argentina before they tooled up to make their own.
Just thinking, what kind of collection could you accumulate of US made weapons for foreign armies?
P14, Savage No 4, Westinghouse and Remington Mosin Nagants, Winchester 1895 7.62 Russian,
Back in the 19th century, Remington Rolling Blocks and Peabody Martinis. Colt Berdans and Winchester Turkish 1866.
Sidearms I can think of include S&W No 3s to Russia et al, Portuguese Savage, 1911s to Norway and Argentina before they tooled up to make their own.
FL-NC
Member
Buy American! Eddystone!
tark
Member
All SMLEs do NOT have excessive headspace, I had one that was too tight. Some rounds wouldn't chamber. Doubtless, the wrong bolt head was installed.
The case stretch came from the fact that there was a tiny bit of "spring" in that bolt, with its locking lugs way rear of the breech face. Mine had tight headspace and was still a lousy gun to reload for. Cases lasted three or four loadings and no more.
Get the 1917. It's just a modified P-14, which the Brits designed to REPLACE the #4 Mk 1. One thing to consider, 1917s were (are) notorious for breaking the ejector spring. It's a tiny little flat spring, easy to replace.
Did you know that the 1917s magazine will hold six rounds?
Why did the Brits go with the #4 instead of the P-14? They didn't, for reasons LysanderIII pointed out. They went with their #1Mk3s. The #4Mk1 didn't exist until the late twenties.
The case stretch came from the fact that there was a tiny bit of "spring" in that bolt, with its locking lugs way rear of the breech face. Mine had tight headspace and was still a lousy gun to reload for. Cases lasted three or four loadings and no more.
Get the 1917. It's just a modified P-14, which the Brits designed to REPLACE the #4 Mk 1. One thing to consider, 1917s were (are) notorious for breaking the ejector spring. It's a tiny little flat spring, easy to replace.
Did you know that the 1917s magazine will hold six rounds?
Why did the Brits go with the #4 instead of the P-14? They didn't, for reasons LysanderIII pointed out. They went with their #1Mk3s. The #4Mk1 didn't exist until the late twenties.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
Excessive headspace in an Enfield (No. 1 or No. 4) is a strange beast. The cartridge headspaces on the rim, so an excessive gap between the bolt face and rim recess in the barrel produces excessive head space.
However, the British also had a practice of boring the chambers too deep, the idea being to have a place where crud could be pushed when chambering filthy ammunition. The result of this is to produce something that LOOKS like excessive head space -- except the shoulder is blown forward, rather than the head being blown back.
The effect is pretty much the same in both cases -- the cartridge case stretches, resulting in thinned brass at the juncture of web and case wall.
I have an M1905 Ross that is bored so deep that an ejected case looks like a .303 Epps!
However, the British also had a practice of boring the chambers too deep, the idea being to have a place where crud could be pushed when chambering filthy ammunition. The result of this is to produce something that LOOKS like excessive head space -- except the shoulder is blown forward, rather than the head being blown back.
The effect is pretty much the same in both cases -- the cartridge case stretches, resulting in thinned brass at the juncture of web and case wall.
I have an M1905 Ross that is bored so deep that an ejected case looks like a .303 Epps!
Curator
Member
While I am a BIG fan of ALL Lee Enfields, were I in your position, I would buy the M1917 Eddystone. Frankly, it is a much better rifle if you are not fighting your way up a beach in Normandy. It is a bit of a log to carry around, and a bit clunky, but easy to find .30-06 ammo and nearly indestructible count for something. Once you get it in your collection save up and get a No4 Mk2 Lee Enfield--you won't be sorry even if you have to reload your own ammo. Believe me I own and shoot both
tahunua001
Member
personally I would take the eddystone, and then turn back around and trade it for more ammo. the springfield is a far better rifle in my personal experience. the enfield is a good one, but either the guy is asking way too much for the enfield or an extremely good price for the 1917.
Ignition Override
Member
Rockrivr1:
Be aware that a large fraction of Enfields produced in North America have 2-groove rifling, instead of 4.
The 2s can be just as accurate, but with certain chamber/muzzle wear combined with most modern .303 ammo having BT bullets, some of those Enfields can 'keyhole' badly at 100 yards. It happened with mine, although it seemed to have good rifling.
Be aware that a large fraction of Enfields produced in North America have 2-groove rifling, instead of 4.
The 2s can be just as accurate, but with certain chamber/muzzle wear combined with most modern .303 ammo having BT bullets, some of those Enfields can 'keyhole' badly at 100 yards. It happened with mine, although it seemed to have good rifling.
tark
Member
Vern, YOU TOO! I have a 1905 Ross that is just like yours. Curiously enough, it is very accurate, despite that grossly oversize chamber. My 1910 Mk III has a fairly tight chamber.
OP
OP
Rockrivr1
Member
Update: I met with the owner of both rifles yesterday and I was fully prepared to purchase the M1917. After looking both the Eddystone and Enfield over it was pretty apparent that the description of the 1917 was more then a little overstated. I'm thinking that might account for the "same price" statement. I got to shoot both of them and I was able to keep all shots out of the enfield within the 10 ring at 100 yards off the bench. Another incorrect statement was the bolt was marked as #1. It was marked with a 0. With the 1917 lets just say the the group, if you could even call it that, was much more expanded.
So after some haggling I bought the Enfield. As part of the deal I received 100 pieces of unfired primed brass, 300 Sierra 2315 (174 HPBT .311) bullets, set of Lee dies, factory crimp die, trimmer and RV Wilson case gauge. All for $500. I'm thinking I made out pretty good and am pretty excited to get out to the range and stretch it's legs a little out to 200yrds.
So after some haggling I bought the Enfield. As part of the deal I received 100 pieces of unfired primed brass, 300 Sierra 2315 (174 HPBT .311) bullets, set of Lee dies, factory crimp die, trimmer and RV Wilson case gauge. All for $500. I'm thinking I made out pretty good and am pretty excited to get out to the range and stretch it's legs a little out to 200yrds.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Mine is accurate, but I don't shoot it that much -- it's hard to reload those strange cases!
desidog
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,595
OP, cool! You done fine. I like the tone of that stock. Do all numbers match? Is that paint and not park? Which factory made it? Has it been FTR'd?
IF the headspace is long, you can sell a 0 bolt head for much more than the loot to buy the 1 or 2 to fix it, so no worries there. It's hard to find a '0.' IF it is a two groove, you can still shoot cast (and gas checked) flat based bullets very well (or at least my 2 groove does...), and since you got brass, I assume you're a reloader.
Enjoy the rifle! ...and be careful, it may lead to others... I guess you will have to find a 1917 eventually!
IF the headspace is long, you can sell a 0 bolt head for much more than the loot to buy the 1 or 2 to fix it, so no worries there. It's hard to find a '0.' IF it is a two groove, you can still shoot cast (and gas checked) flat based bullets very well (or at least my 2 groove does...), and since you got brass, I assume you're a reloader.
Enjoy the rifle! ...and be careful, it may lead to others... I guess you will have to find a 1917 eventually!
Last edited:
tark
Member
And you're lucky to get more than one or two loadings out of a case, Vern!
Rockrivr1, that looks like a beautiful #4Mk1. You got a good deal. I have only owned one #4Mk1 in my life but I remember it being slick feeling and very smooth operating.
The nickel steel used in the 1917s could often have a "sticky" feel.
Rockrivr1, that looks like a beautiful #4Mk1. You got a good deal. I have only owned one #4Mk1 in my life but I remember it being slick feeling and very smooth operating.
The nickel steel used in the 1917s could often have a "sticky" feel.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Dang lucky! All I can do is neck size them, and that ain't easy!
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,308
Rockrivr1
Sorry to hear that the Eddystone wasn't quite up to par but good to find out that the Enfield No.4 Mk.1 was a decent buy, especially with everything else you got with it.
Sorry to hear that the Eddystone wasn't quite up to par but good to find out that the Enfield No.4 Mk.1 was a decent buy, especially with everything else you got with it.
Ignition Override
Member
Rockrivr1:
That stock looks too good to be on an Enfield #4 Mk. 1, unless very well-preserved. It appears to be the blond color of all #4/Mk. 2s which I've seen.
My .303 cases produce a very narrow, pale ring at the bottom when they stretch too much.
You can also use Russian .310/.311 bullets.
Doesn't the Japanese Arisaka use the 7.7 mm bullets? Whether the same bullet weight(s) is listed in reloading charts for modern powders, have no idea.
That stock looks too good to be on an Enfield #4 Mk. 1, unless very well-preserved. It appears to be the blond color of all #4/Mk. 2s which I've seen.
My .303 cases produce a very narrow, pale ring at the bottom when they stretch too much.
You can also use Russian .310/.311 bullets.
Doesn't the Japanese Arisaka use the 7.7 mm bullets? Whether the same bullet weight(s) is listed in reloading charts for modern powders, have no idea.
Last edited:
GBExpat
Member
By the look of that rifle (a gorgeous blond Nº4) ... I am wondering if it is one of the new (until the last 10-15 years probably still in its OEM bag) Irish Contract rifles rather than an old, refurbed warhorse. If so, you have scored a real gem. 
Steelworker
Member
You did fine OP
lysanderxiii
Member
The Irish rifles that were 'new-in-bag' were all No. 4, Mk 2.
That is obviously a Mk 1.
All British FTRs were paint-over Parkerizing. Canadian FTRs were straight Parkerizing.
The only external visual difference between the Mk 1 and the Mk 2 is the method of reinforcing the rear of the fore-end*. The Mk 1 has a stamped steel strap across the back and a large distinctive "D" shaped cut to accommodate this. The Mk 2 has a small bolt through the rear of the fore-end, and a small round hole for the bolt head or nut.
No 4, Mk 1
No4, Mk 2
______________________________
* These differences also apply to the No 4, Mk 1/2 and Mk 1/3. The only difference in the Mk 2 was the method of mounting the trigger pivot. With the Mk 1 & Mk 1*, the trigger was mounted on the trigger guard. The Mk 2 moved the mounting to the receiver. The Mk 1/2 was a Mk 1 converted to Mk 2 standard by brazing a block for the trigger mount. The Mk 1/3 was a Mk 1* similarly converted.
- Status
