| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Pattern 1914 Enfield: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Shouldn't the P14 be the PRIMARY gun on this page? since the M1917 was a U.S. Adaption of the British rifle? ~~~~) |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Additional Variants= | |||
[[File:Scopedm1917enfield.jpg|thumb|none|450px|M1917 Enfield with Winchester A5 Scope - .30-06 Springfield]] | |||
== Sporter== | |||
The 1917 Enfield was at one time more popular for sporterizing than the 03 Springfield. Especially for those who wanted a strongly made rifle for the safari or Dangerous Game calibers. Mainly .375 H&H Magnum and .416 Rigby. | |||
[[File:Enfield416RigbySporter.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Custom made .416 Rigby rifle with a heavily modified 1917 Enfield action.]] | |||
[[File:Enfield1917SporterWinchesterMade.jpg|thumb|none|450px|Custom made .375 H&H rifle with a heavily modified 1917 Enfield action. Ideally the carrying strap should be attached to the barrel, but the .375 doesn't have the heavy recoil of the .416 Rigby and the origianl owner might not have seen it being an issue.]] | |||
=Discussion= | |||
Shouldn't the P14 be the PRIMARY gun on this page? since the M1917 was a U.S. Adaption of the British rifle? [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | Shouldn't the P14 be the PRIMARY gun on this page? since the M1917 was a U.S. Adaption of the British rifle? [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Well, there were more M1917s than P14s made, and the M1917 was a primary US service weapon where it was only a secondary one for the Brits, so I think M1917 should probably be the primary gun. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | |||
::which one was more prevalent is technically NOT the criterion IMFDB uses. We start with the original BASE GUN and the Pattern 1914 came first and was copied and rechambered by the Americans. At the least the P14 should be mentioned or have a section. Our page here, unfortunately, acts like the M1917 just came out of thin air, with no nods to the P14 at all. :( [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Dead discussion, I know, but if nobody has any issue with it, I'll be moving the page to P14 tomorrow. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 14:49, 16 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== Image == | |||
The image currently used for the M1917 is actually a British P14. You can tell be the style of stock and the marking disc. I'm going to try and find a decent image of an actual M1917 to upload. - [[User:Nyles|Nyles]] | |||
== General Question == | |||
Regarding the M1917 Enfield, I noticed the 6-round capacity. So, how did this work with stripper clips? Did it take proprietary stripper clips, did it use M1903 stripper clips and need an extra round to be left out/single-loaded, did it do either, or did it do something else entirely that I for some reason didn't think of? [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (EST) | |||
:For the most part I believe that it was just treated as a 5 shot rifle being loaded with the standard clips. You could top it off with an extra round, but I doubt that this would be done much in combat as this adds a lot of time to reloading as you fiddle around pulling a loose round out of your pocket and load it in after the clip. Webbing gear was designed around only carrying the 5 round clips, so if you did carry spare rounds they would just have to be shoved in a pocket. Also, I believe that the ammo itself was supplied in bandoleers of pre loaded clips so you would have to go through the effort of unloading clips to get extra loose rounds. As for whey they would give the rifle a 6 round capacity when it was so hard to utilise, the answer is they didn't really. The 6th round capacity only came from the fact that the rifle was originally designed to feed the rimmed .303 ammunition, so when converted over to the rimless .30-06 a 6th round would fit in. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 19:34, 25 November 2016 (EST) | |||
::Thanks for the info, M88. [[User:Pyr0m4n14c|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c|talk]]) 22:32, 25 November 2016 (EST) | |||
== British intentions == | |||
I understand why it was dropped with the outbreak of war in 1914, but why did the British not pick up development of the .276 cartridge after the war. They felt the .303 was outdone by Mauser cartridges, why did they keep the .303 for another thirty+ years?--[[User:Zombiedrd|Zombiedrd]] ([[User talk:Zombiedrd|talk]]) 21:18, 25 November 2016 (EST) | |||
:It happened due to financial problems and also due to large stores of existing .303 rifles and cartridges. The same problem was is USSR where a development of new rimless cartridge started as early as mid-1920s but the replacement of existing ammunition was considered inexpedient as it would take too high cost. France was the only state that managed to fulfil the program of developing a brand new cartridge. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 01:59, 26 November 2016 (EST) | |||
::Ah, they makes sense. The economic devastation from the war+the Depression probably tapped everyone's military coffers. On a side note, what was the cartridge the Soviet Union was working on? Has the USSR/Russia ever thought about replacing the x54R used in their machine guns and marksmen rifles?--[[User:Zombiedrd|Zombiedrd]] ([[User talk:Zombiedrd|talk]]) 2:34, 26 November 2016 (EST) | |||
:::The shortcomings of 7.62x54R were understood in 1912 when Vladimir Fedorov (''Fyodorov'' is more correct but English-speaking people say ''Fedorov'') started work on automatic rifle (that evolved to his [[Fedorov Avtomat|Avtomat]]). So Fedorov designed a new cartridge in 6.5x57mm caliber with a bullet of 8 gramm weight (he was impressed by Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka during Russian-Japanese war), and 200,000 cartridges were ordered in 1913. But Russian military industry was overloaded with manufacturing of standard weapons, and this order wasn't fulfilled until the outbreak of World War 1, so Fedorov redesigned his gun for using Japanese cartridges. In 1920s Fedorov contunued working on rimless cartridges in 6.35, 6.5 and 7.62 calibers, intended for new full-auto and semi-auto rifles. In 1930s the caliber was lessened once again - to 5.6 or 5.45mm. In 1941 all these works were abandoned, but Fedorov consulted Elizarov and Semin during the design of 7.62x39 cartridge, so his work wasn't in vain. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 03:07, 26 November 2016 (EST) | |||
::::Guy sounds like a very determined man. He's sealed his place in gun history, as I have heard of his name for creating the first battle rifle/assault rifle(Title various by what people consider 6.5 Arisaka to be). Good to see his work was the foundation for others.--[[User:Zombiedrd|Zombiedrd]] ([[User talk:Zombiedrd|talk]]) 3:26, 26 November 2016 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:43, 3 March 2020
Additional Variants
Sporter
The 1917 Enfield was at one time more popular for sporterizing than the 03 Springfield. Especially for those who wanted a strongly made rifle for the safari or Dangerous Game calibers. Mainly .375 H&H Magnum and .416 Rigby.
Discussion
Shouldn't the P14 be the PRIMARY gun on this page? since the M1917 was a U.S. Adaption of the British rifle? MoviePropMaster2008 03:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there were more M1917s than P14s made, and the M1917 was a primary US service weapon where it was only a secondary one for the Brits, so I think M1917 should probably be the primary gun. - Nyles
- which one was more prevalent is technically NOT the criterion IMFDB uses. We start with the original BASE GUN and the Pattern 1914 came first and was copied and rechambered by the Americans. At the least the P14 should be mentioned or have a section. Our page here, unfortunately, acts like the M1917 just came out of thin air, with no nods to the P14 at all. :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dead discussion, I know, but if nobody has any issue with it, I'll be moving the page to P14 tomorrow. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2019 (EST)
- which one was more prevalent is technically NOT the criterion IMFDB uses. We start with the original BASE GUN and the Pattern 1914 came first and was copied and rechambered by the Americans. At the least the P14 should be mentioned or have a section. Our page here, unfortunately, acts like the M1917 just came out of thin air, with no nods to the P14 at all. :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Image
The image currently used for the M1917 is actually a British P14. You can tell be the style of stock and the marking disc. I'm going to try and find a decent image of an actual M1917 to upload. - Nyles
General Question
Regarding the M1917 Enfield, I noticed the 6-round capacity. So, how did this work with stripper clips? Did it take proprietary stripper clips, did it use M1903 stripper clips and need an extra round to be left out/single-loaded, did it do either, or did it do something else entirely that I for some reason didn't think of? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (EST)
- For the most part I believe that it was just treated as a 5 shot rifle being loaded with the standard clips. You could top it off with an extra round, but I doubt that this would be done much in combat as this adds a lot of time to reloading as you fiddle around pulling a loose round out of your pocket and load it in after the clip. Webbing gear was designed around only carrying the 5 round clips, so if you did carry spare rounds they would just have to be shoved in a pocket. Also, I believe that the ammo itself was supplied in bandoleers of pre loaded clips so you would have to go through the effort of unloading clips to get extra loose rounds. As for whey they would give the rifle a 6 round capacity when it was so hard to utilise, the answer is they didn't really. The 6th round capacity only came from the fact that the rifle was originally designed to feed the rimmed .303 ammunition, so when converted over to the rimless .30-06 a 6th round would fit in. --commando552 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2016 (EST)
- Thanks for the info, M88. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2016 (EST)
British intentions
I understand why it was dropped with the outbreak of war in 1914, but why did the British not pick up development of the .276 cartridge after the war. They felt the .303 was outdone by Mauser cartridges, why did they keep the .303 for another thirty+ years?--Zombiedrd (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2016 (EST)
- It happened due to financial problems and also due to large stores of existing .303 rifles and cartridges. The same problem was is USSR where a development of new rimless cartridge started as early as mid-1920s but the replacement of existing ammunition was considered inexpedient as it would take too high cost. France was the only state that managed to fulfil the program of developing a brand new cartridge. Greg-Z (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2016 (EST)
- Ah, they makes sense. The economic devastation from the war+the Depression probably tapped everyone's military coffers. On a side note, what was the cartridge the Soviet Union was working on? Has the USSR/Russia ever thought about replacing the x54R used in their machine guns and marksmen rifles?--Zombiedrd (talk) 2:34, 26 November 2016 (EST)
- The shortcomings of 7.62x54R were understood in 1912 when Vladimir Fedorov (Fyodorov is more correct but English-speaking people say Fedorov) started work on automatic rifle (that evolved to his Avtomat). So Fedorov designed a new cartridge in 6.5x57mm caliber with a bullet of 8 gramm weight (he was impressed by Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka during Russian-Japanese war), and 200,000 cartridges were ordered in 1913. But Russian military industry was overloaded with manufacturing of standard weapons, and this order wasn't fulfilled until the outbreak of World War 1, so Fedorov redesigned his gun for using Japanese cartridges. In 1920s Fedorov contunued working on rimless cartridges in 6.35, 6.5 and 7.62 calibers, intended for new full-auto and semi-auto rifles. In 1930s the caliber was lessened once again - to 5.6 or 5.45mm. In 1941 all these works were abandoned, but Fedorov consulted Elizarov and Semin during the design of 7.62x39 cartridge, so his work wasn't in vain. Greg-Z (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2016 (EST)
- Guy sounds like a very determined man. He's sealed his place in gun history, as I have heard of his name for creating the first battle rifle/assault rifle(Title various by what people consider 6.5 Arisaka to be). Good to see his work was the foundation for others.--Zombiedrd (talk) 3:26, 26 November 2016 (EST)
- The shortcomings of 7.62x54R were understood in 1912 when Vladimir Fedorov (Fyodorov is more correct but English-speaking people say Fedorov) started work on automatic rifle (that evolved to his Avtomat). So Fedorov designed a new cartridge in 6.5x57mm caliber with a bullet of 8 gramm weight (he was impressed by Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka during Russian-Japanese war), and 200,000 cartridges were ordered in 1913. But Russian military industry was overloaded with manufacturing of standard weapons, and this order wasn't fulfilled until the outbreak of World War 1, so Fedorov redesigned his gun for using Japanese cartridges. In 1920s Fedorov contunued working on rimless cartridges in 6.35, 6.5 and 7.62 calibers, intended for new full-auto and semi-auto rifles. In 1930s the caliber was lessened once again - to 5.6 or 5.45mm. In 1941 all these works were abandoned, but Fedorov consulted Elizarov and Semin during the design of 7.62x39 cartridge, so his work wasn't in vain. Greg-Z (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2016 (EST)
- Ah, they makes sense. The economic devastation from the war+the Depression probably tapped everyone's military coffers. On a side note, what was the cartridge the Soviet Union was working on? Has the USSR/Russia ever thought about replacing the x54R used in their machine guns and marksmen rifles?--Zombiedrd (talk) 2:34, 26 November 2016 (EST)