![1917 enfield eddystone markings 1917 enfield eddystone markings](https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2012/02/DSC_0084-1.jpg)
30, M1917 by Dick Culver is certainly an interesting paper and it does mention Sergeant Alvin York and some extracts from his personal diary (as member of the AAD), I certainly have plenty of background reading, It was the P14 that Brits used as a Sniper Weapon then, all cleared up, hopefully I will stop mixing these two rifles up now. It is not spring clipped but held under a fixed ring on the front of the receiver (at the back of the hand-guard) and the barrel band (at the front), in much the same way as was done later on the No4 rifle. In order to remove the hand-guards on the P14/M1917 you have to remover (or at least loosen) the middle band (where the sling swivel attached) this will allow you to lift off the rear handguard. From the factory however they were fitted with the disc. The same appears to have been done in India. It appears that when rifles were taken out of storage in the late 30s early 40s to prepare them for war use (so called Weedon Repair Programme), in addition to removing the volley sight and checking them over, many rifles had this disc removed. Regarding the unit disc, yes these were fitted as standard in WWI. Britain only used Winchester produced rifles in these roles. Indeed received wisdom is that it is really only in this Sniper role that the P14 Mk1*(W) T, saw any significant battle use during WWI. There were several versions of the Pattern 14 that were used in this role both with "Fine" (F) versions of the standard sight (with a screw adjuster) and with telescopic sights. The US attachment to the 1903 Springfield is less obvious although the A3 version also incorporated a receiver sight a la M1917.Īnd with the Garand and M1 Carbine in the wings.īritain did not, to my knowledge, use the M1917 as a sniper weapon in either war. I think the decision has as much to do with the huge stocks of one weapon type on hand inter-war (in severely straightened economic times) as it does anything else. In my opinion, they made the wrong choice for an overwhelming number of right reasons.īy the mid 30s the UK was developing the No4 rifle which, although based on the Enfield action (which of course had proven remarkably efficient, safe and strong) and the intermediate length (again clearly an advantage) but also incorporated several features that were in common with the P14 - the receiver mounted ladder rear sight and battle peep sight, heavier barrel and other modifications which assisted in mass production. The interesting thing is how both countries treated the 14/17 in the post war era, deciding to remain with the familiar (and as Chris pointed out, arguably more obsolescent) old standards, and relegating both variants to colonial, territorial and reserve uses. I love my Enfields for what they are, but at 6' 3", with even longer arms, the 1917 just fits better. I must admit - not being large of stature I prefer the SMLE in terms of balance and handiness, but the P14/M1917 design was certainly a reliable, accurate rifle.Īmusingly, I am on the exact opposite side of the coin. The P13/P14/M1917 was modern in a number of ways (the proposed calibre of the P13, the design that made mass production easier (certainly than the 1903 Springfield), the incorporation of a peep ("ring") battle sight zeroed at 300yds.all very modern in many respects. the 1903 Springfield and the 1907 SMLE MkIII but the development of these started earlier. Most of the other rifles date to the late 19th. On the WWII use, you should note that Britain also purchased a large number of M1917s prior to the the existence of the lend-lease program (so they were not all lend-lease by any means).Īs noted above the M1917 is interesting in lots of ways - and arguably it was one of the very few (I might argue ONLY) twentieth century designed rifle used in the war. They were indeed used for the whole period in which the AEF was in action. The M1917 was produced in far larger numbers than the M1903 Springfield (during the Great War) and armed a larger number of the AEF by most accounts.