Historical Question for the knowers of Lee-Enfield and P14s

[Tower75]

Hello, all.

I’ve got more of a historical question for the knowers of all things Lee-Enfield and P14 related.

Ok, here’s my question (and my understanding, so I could be wrong):

After the Boer War we decided to look at Mauser rifles and to see if we could make our own version of the Mauser to replace the Lee-Enfield then in service. The result was the P13, which was chambered for a new cartridge, I think it was a .267 calibre round. A few production rifles were made up and tested, but ultimately the P13 was shelved until further notice. Am I right in that so far?

When WWI kicked off (technical term) the British Government found itself short of SMLEs, so it decided to fill the gap with something else. They took the P13 design, hit it with a hammer until it could chamber a .303 MkVII round, and thus the P14 rifle was born.

However, this is where I get confused. From my understanding we still couldn’t make enough P14s to fill the gap, so we commissioned some US private companies to make them for us. Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone. Correct?

What I’ve never understood is; if the P14 was only ever designed to be stop-gap rifle, why did we not ask the US companies to make SMLEs for us? If we’re short of SMLEs - the standard service rifle of the armed forces – why would we not ask contractors to make more of them? Why give them a contract for a previously-shelved, stop-gap rifle?

Just seems odd to me. Was there an actual reason for that choice; Economical? Political?, etc.

On a side note, does anyone else think it odd that the Brass at the time were looking to replace the ten-round SMLE with a five-round “Mauser”, I wonder why they never gave the P13/14 an SMLE ten-round magazine.

Anyway, thanks for readin’

[Rearlugs]

IIRC the P14 was thought to be much simpler and cheaper to produce than the SMLE, and also the British thought that the US would find it easier to produce than the SMLE - given that the US service rifle was also a Mauser derivative. There was probably also some reserve about handing over the blueprints for the main service rifle to a country that wasn't necessarily a friend (USA considered the British Empire a potential enemy and target well into the 1930s), whereas the P13/4 design was already more or less abandoned by that stage.

In the event, the US manufacturers initially proved unable to deliver war production rates of rifles, especially in the quality control and commonality of parts across different manufacturers. Meanwhile back in Blighty the gun trade had pulled its finger out and achieved astonishing production rates for the SMLE (and other military equipment - a sign of just how strong British manufacturing was at the time). By the time the first P14s arrived in UK in 1916, the Army was awash with SMLEs - and by that time the SMLE had really shown its true combat potential.

A British purchasing commission did look into US production of the SMLE, or a rifle with some commonality to the SMLE. One or two US manufacturers did produce designs and prototypes. A (in)famous example is the two incomplete prototypes of a mauser-actioned SMLE that have recently surfaced - apparently made by Savage Arms. These rifles have mauser-type actions and one piece stocks, but barrels, sights, bands and nosecaps from the SMLE.

My own personal opinion about the 5-round magazine on the P14 is that that was simply an intermediate step in the design process. I.e. they could quickly get the P13/14 design assembled by copying existing Mauser rifle technology. If the P13 had been approved for further development, probably they would have looked at the magazine, and perhaps the barrel length and bayonet, etc. The P13 and even the SMLE itself were actually regarded as unfinished development rifles, they simply became set in concrete due to the necessity of war production.

[rox]

a sign of just how strong British manufacturing was at the time

Yeah, until Maggie (RIP) destroyed it in 1928. :cool2:

..

[Tower75]

Thanks, rearlugs.

That pretty much explains it sign92 Very detailed answer.

[ovenpaa]

I read an article many years ago about the history and development of the P14 and the build issues and rejections. Apparently the War Office wanted interchangeability of parts between the three manufactures which was never truly met plus some parts were not even interchangeable between rifles from the same factory. Personally I think the P14 is an outstanding and much under rated rifle.

Was it the Springfield or the P14/M17 that royalties had to be paid for to Mauser?

[saddler]

Hello, all.

I’ve got more of a historical question for the knowers of all things Lee-Enfield and P14 related.

Ok, here’s my question (and my understanding, so I could be wrong):

After the Boer War we decided to look at Mauser rifles and to see if we could make our own version of the Mauser to replace the Lee-Enfield then in service. The result was the P13, which was chambered for a new cartridge, I think it was a .267 calibre round. A few production rifles were made up and tested, but ultimately the P13 was shelved until further notice. Am I right in that so far?

NOPE
Caliber of the P'13 was .276"
NOT shelved until further notice, it was in active development when WW1 started

When WWI kicked off (technical term) the British Government found itself short of SMLEs, so it decided to fill the gap with something else. They took the P13 design, hit it with a hammer until it could chamber a .303 MkVII round, and thus the P14 rifle was born.

However, this is where I get confused. From my understanding we still couldn’t make enough P14s to fill the gap, so we commissioned some US private companies to make them for us. Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone. Correct?

SORT OF

What I’ve never understood is; if the P14 was only ever designed to be stop-gap rifle, why did we not ask the US companies to make SMLEs for us? If we’re short of SMLEs - the standard service rifle of the armed forces – why would we not ask contractors to make more of them? Why give them a contract for a previously-shelved, stop-gap rifle?

Just seems odd to me. Was there an actual reason for that choice; Economical? Political?, etc.

On a side note, does anyone else think it odd that the Brass at the time were looking to replace the ten-round SMLE with a five-round “Mauser”, I wonder why they never gave the P13/14 an SMLE ten-round magazine.

Anyway, thanks for readin’

Get the Ian Skennerton book, The US Enfield.
Explains ALL your queries...and then some

I read an article many years ago about the history and development of the P14 and the build issues and rejections. Apparently the War Office wanted interchangeability of parts between the three manufactures which was never truly met plus some parts were not even interchangeable between rifles from the same factory. Personally I think the P14 is an outstanding and much under rated rifle.

Was it the Springfield or the P14/M17 that royalties had to be paid for to Mauser?

It was for the Springfield, in a way, as the squareheads thought that their stripper clip patents had been infringed - though the biggest royalty as far as I remember was actually for the spitzer-type bullet that the Americans adopted

[saddler]

a sign of just how strong British manufacturing was at the time

Yeah, until Maggie (RIP) destroyed it in 1928. :cool2:

..

WHO destroyed what, in 1928??

1928

[huntervixen]

I seem to recall something about high chamber pressure with the .276" causing issues with the P13, but this did lead to the bulldozer build strength of the P14/17....you only have to handle one to appreciate just how strongly built the action is !

I agree with Ovenpaa, much underrated rifles, high time I added a nice WW1 spec P14 (a Weedon rebuild escapee) to my collection...got to love those volley sights!

[dromia]

There is a lot of truth in the old saw relating to WW1-WW2 B/A military rifles.

"The Americans made target rifles, the Germans made hunting rifles and the British made battle rifles."

The P14/M17 is indeed a fine rifle and the M17 especially is on a par with the '03 for target accuracy potential as issued. However from what I have read, heard and experienced over the years if I was in a combat situation then I'd want an Enfield. That is applying as much objectivity to it as I can bearing in mind the morale point of view that the best rifle is the one that you have experience and confidence with.

My un Weedoned P14 is a good target rifle when fitted with its PH aperture sight, I am currently sans an M17 but on the search for a good shooter as every one I've had and used previously has been an excellent shooter, mind you the 30-06 is an excellent round that has been unfairly overshadowed by the 308/7.62, which is a mild development of the .300 Savage, slightly longer neck, but not in the 30-06 class.

[dromia]

Metropolis - great film.

So is Steam Boat Willie.


:goodjob: