The American M1917 vs British P14, History, Range and Review of these Classic WW1 Rifles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июл 2024
- These two underrated rifles from World War One got our attention recently. With their classy aesthetics, pronounced rear sights, and Enfield like appearance, we just had to compare them at the range. In this video, we go over the British Pattern 14 and the American M1917, both of which derive from the British Pattern 13 design.
History… During WW1, Britain was in dire need for more rifles so they called on America to produce the Pattern 14 Enfield (P14) or Rifle, .303 Pattern 14. Britain had already designed the P14 but it's factories were busy producing the SMLE and other weapons. They also needed high quality manufacturing capabilities for the P14 so they sought out U.S. manufacturers. Remington, Remington-Eddystone, and Winchester would produce the Pattern 14s, totaling 1,235,293 rifles built. In WW1 and WW2, they saw some use but were obsolete by 1947. Many of these rifles were used as Drill Purpose rifles after those wars.
The M1917 was a U.S. adaptation to the P14. The M1917 rifles were produced when the U.S. entered World War One and they were designed in 30-06. They were never meant to be a primary service rifle for U.S. forces but fulfilled the role during World War One due to short supply of M1903 rifles.
These American made Pattern 14 and M1917 rifles are great rifles for collectors and enthusiasts. Though never having been adopted as a primary service rifle, they still hold a prestigious position in the history of weaponry.
❗️note: the P14 and M1917 rifles shoot high, they were designed for longer ranges and the battlesight is set to around 400m
Note: These rifles have a 5 rd and 6 rd magazine.
🇺🇸 Shoutout to our sponsor for this video, All American Firearms! Check out their content below!
Instagram: @All_American_Firearms
Facebook: All American Firearms
💥💥💥
#militaryhistory #milsurp #militarysurplus
🪖 Check us out on Instagram and Facebook for more Epic content!
#collectibles #ww2 #americanhistory #shootingrange #guncollection #historic #historyoftheworld
History is an important part of our past, and it must be well preserved to understand and mitigate future shortfalls. We do not condone motives of war, but just present history for how it was documented. We do not attempt to sell you anything in this video. We are not financial advisors nor do we give legal financial advice, please talk to your CPA. We do not give any advice to buy sell or trade assets, collectibles, or weapons. Information contained in the content is based from personal experience, opinion, or available on the internet. Our videos are for entertainment purposes.
I have a " Eddystone" P17. Its still in its WW1 dressing, meaning blued, not re parked for WW2 service. Its shoots very well and its a piece of history.
I own a 1917 with the red stock stripe, indicating that it served both with the American forces in WW1 and the Commonwealth in WW2
If the wood and steel could talk...
10:50 I own each of these rifles, with their appropriate bayonets. They both shoot well and have never had any problems with either. Yes, my 1903’s are more accurate, but as MBR’s the P14 and M1917 excel, IMHO.I consider myself lucky to have one of each.
I think the 1903 is a brilliant target/competition rifle.
For combat that front sight really needs something to protect it.
The 1917 is going to be my next rifle. .30-06 is my fav rifle cartridge and I want a WW1 iron sight rifle to go with it.
“It was born American out of a British family”. Kinda like America itself.
Yep lol
Have you seen "Mark and Sam After Work" in Australia shooting volley sights at 3,000 yards? Surprisingly impressive. If you haven't, it's definitely worth a watch. It's currently the only known modern video of the sights being used as intended.
Was that a male firer and a female spotter? I think I saw that one
@@BattlefieldCurator yep husband and wife team
Had both love both. To me they are the same rifle just one is chambered in 303 and the other is 30-06.
Nice! I couldn’t just have one, I had to get them both as well
@@BattlefieldCurator I had 3 M1917s and 2 P14 rifles. Now I only have one P14 rifle. I traded off the rest for other military surplus rifles.
My grandfather gave me a sporterized m1917 20 years ago, my dad and I fully restored it, I know for some due to it being a restore it’s not valued much. But it is my favorite rifle I own
Rim lock was a non-issue in this rifle with factory loaded clips, battlesight was set at 540 yards not 200 as you said. Eddeystone was a Remington factory for only a short time, it had three owners during the war, Eddiestone was the worlds largest rifle plant when the war ended.
Yep. I have both rifles and custom rifles made from both. Like you said, rim lock is a non-issue with the P-14, as the rifle was designed for a rimmed cartridge. I've deliberately tried every conceivable way I could think of to rim-lock my P-14 and it just won't!
Even single loading intentionally putting one cartridge behind the one below it in the magazine as well as intentionally loading the clip incorrectly resulted in no rim-locks. Also, as you alluded to, the rear sight folded down is the battle sight setting at about 540 yards. You have to fold up the rear sight to attain a 200 yard setting. I chuckled when he was talking meters on a British WWI rifle. They used yards 😅
Kept my P-14 , of all my old military rifles
They are really interesting rifles
Armory note: if you have to repair a broken ejector/spring, don’t bother using a spring from a pen (common recommendation from community)
After 20 minutes of frustration you will turn that spring into a rocket and it will disappear behind your neglected houseplant or couch.
Get the “HD clip latch spring” from Fulton Armory in their “M1 Garand” section. It’s a perfect fit and works well.
You had it backwards there about the Winchester P 14 not fitting the Remington or the Eddystone. The Winchester was made to stringent standards set by the Brits and it was the Remington and Eddystones that had parts that weren't interchangeable with the Winchester which was made to a higher standard. In fact, only Winchester Pattern 14 rifles were accepted as sniper rifles due to their inherent greater accuracy. Of course, 'rimlock' wasn't possible with service ammunition as those cases had a chamfered rim allowing any case to slip over the one below it. Modern commercial .303 British rims aren't chamfered by modern manufacturers in order to save a little on the manufacturing costs. Shooters familiar with .303 British chambered rifles know do do a quick depression then release of the ammo in the magazine which sorts the rounds out.
I have the P14.believe their difference is the recoil. The P14 takes a 303 cartridge which is more ergonomic than the 03-06 of the P17.
If the P-14 was built in America and has a modified Mauser action what makes it an Enfield? Isn’t the action on a reg .303 Enfield what makes it an Enfield? I have a Winchester 1917 and wondered the same, why call it an American Enfield?
The P14 was designed by the British at Enfield… that’s why.
1917 राईफल मेरी मनपसंद है बहुत अच्छा राईफल है इस राईफल का रेज कितना है कितने मिटर पर गोली जाती
I had a nice eddystone and bayonet, but 1903 ria was better .
Forgot to mention that the bolt on the 1917 sucks.
I like the bolt on the 17. I think the 03 is a solid target rifle but would take the 17 for trench duty.
@@richardflora7940cock-on close bolts are not your type then.
@@paleoph6168 yes I just don't like the dogleg style bolt that the 1917 had