JA Replacement barrel

[RC20]

Can't say I am surprised.

Same old thing, I have knowledge but won't share it. Or at least the claim of that. The usual.

[p246]

I have P14s and a M1917. What part are you wanting measured.the OD in front of receiver? They are Eddystones with original barrels. Let me know and I’ll pull some numbers. I have no JA barrels to compare though.

[RC20]

I have the 1917s and I don't believe the JA differs but I will measure that one up.

Pretty much a profile of the barrel. Where it contacts the receiver, how far the chamber section is to taper down, OD at that point.

Then the distance of the tapering and where it stops and beings the barrel OD.

and then the OD of the end of the barrel.

I will pull one out of the stock as well and get the figures for comparison.

[fjruple]

Guys-

Bear in mind that the British Armourer Supplement for the Pattern 1914 indicates that the barrels for each manufacturer is incompatible and may vary slightly in dimensions especially between the Winchester and Remington/Eddystone. I have actually experienced this with rebarreling my Pattern 1914s

--fjruple

[milboltnut]

from what I read about the brits and how uncooperative they were when trying to build guns for them.... yes I believe it. You would think our 1917 would be the same.

[fjruple]

from what I read about the brits and how uncooperative they were when trying to build guns for them.... yes I believe it. You would think our 1917 would be the same.

milboltnut-- US Army Ordnance was quite aware of the incompatibility issues with the Pattern 1914 and would not have any of the nonsense that the British experienced. They formed a "Rifle Committee" between the three manufacturers to get the maximum compatibly possible from the M1917. Hand fitting was kept to a minimum with the only part require handfitting in the long run was the firing pin which was due to the nature of the rifle design. While this issue delayed the fielding of the M1917 in the long run it paid off with quicker manufacture of rifles. The max the Brit could assemble in a day was about 50 rifles per assembler. With the compatibility of parts, an assembler often assembled 250 rifles in a day which also reduced the cost of the M1917 per copy. Later after WWI, it was also easier to rebuild the M1917 as less fitting was required.

[p246]

Wasn’t the P14 compatibility issues caused by sending a Pattern gun to each manufacturer that had slight dimensional differences. If memory serves the Brits ended up buying the lines to ultimate fix the issues. I stuck with P14 and M1917Eddystones myself.

[fjruple]

p246-- The brits really never fixed the compatibility issues with the Pattern 1914. You are right that they got off on the wrong foot by sending copies of the Pattern 1914 to each manufacturer and also permitted each to make changes to ease production. Unfortunately, each of the manufacturers did not coordinate with each other for the purpose of compatibility of parts. The UK and the Commonwealth countries were over a barrel sort of speak as they needed rifles fast to fill in the gaps where No 1, MKIII SMLE rifles were withdrawn to be issued to front line troops. The manufacturers knew this and were very resisted to any changes as it would cost them money. The Brits did provide the money for the machinery for production of the Pattern 1914 rifle. One manufacturer was also accused of using the money for other non related items to the Pattern 1914 production. The situation had gotten so bad they had to send a MOD official to straighten things out. The manufacturers produced the rifles as they wished. When the US military took over the Pattern 1914 production to produce the Model of 1917 Rifle they purchased all of the production equipment the Brits had paid for on for pennies on the dollar. The Brits could do very little the manufacturers, but the US military could if issues were not addressed. They had seen Smith & Wesson taken over by US Army Ordnance for "bucking the system." They did not want the same thing to happen to them.
I believe the hard problem most folks fail to grasp that we are really talking apples and oranges between the three different models of the rifles even though they are built in the same plants. The Pattern 1914 MKI, Pattern 1914 MKI* and the Model of 1917. (In reality you are really dealing with six different Pattern 14 rifles, two models, the MKI and MKI* from each manufacturer)

[RC20]

While the fit of the various parts of the P14 were not good, I do wonder if the overall outer profile line of the rifle was not the same.

The Brits mistake was they did not do what industrialization requires, and that is have pattern parts that are the true template of the part. Copying a copy leads to tolerance growth.

However, they did get rifles and they cold then send the SMLE into combat and train with what they had where it was vastly less an issue.

I also think it breaks down to two issues regardless.

1. Any gun is better than no gun.

2. Can you segregate the gun population?

And I am not dissing anyone, but to me, in the end the Parts compatibly paid off lacks evidence it did (short run)

A great many of US troops trained with Broom sticks and fake wooden guns.

What I think the US 1917 should have been done was that they all should have started making rifles based on each plants setup and got them into the hands of the troops for training. Any down gun could be used for drill and or practice and it would have bee the same gun that they went into combat with.

Any down gun would have been fixable, just not conveniently as a parts swap.

Those guns all could have been marked (as was early Winchester) so even a mistake would be recognized for what it was.

In the meantime working towards the better parts swap compatibility and those rifles sent over seas.

I don't think it was a binary choice.

[fguffey]

Default

While the fit of the various parts of the P14 were not good, I do wonder if the overall outer profile line of the rifle was not the same.

They are not close.

A friend was building bench rest type rifle and having a melt down when I walked in. He was swearing off of the P14 and the M1917. I asked him what it was he did not understand? He did not know so I asked him if it was the difference between the two; and he said, " YES!". And I said let us make this one like the other one so we chucked the receiver up in a mill, When finished everything from the M1917 would fit the P14 receiver. I even gave him the mill cutter tool.

F. Guffey