Also the NRA: the Vickers in belt-fed .303 was one of the finest heavy support machine guns ever made. So it’s whatever they feel like to suit their story at that time, basically.
Right? There's absolutely nothing wrong with rimmed ammo in belt- or link-fed machine guns. Magazine-fed rifles are really the only place where they *might* become a problem, due to the possibility of the dreaded rim lock. But in practice that wasn't a problem with the Enfield rifles as long as you loaded your stripper clips properly.
@@hux2000 Added to which is not-insignificant fact that original .303 British cartridges had chamfered rims (you can literally see the way the rim fades forwards on the design schematics) meaning rims *couldn't* lock, at least not until modern .303 ammunition with squared off rims without chamfering were produced and some sports shooters decided that recency bias meant the rifle clearly hadn't just fought near flawlessly through 80 years of global wars...
Most definitely an enjoyable video...but I want MORE! I guess that’s a good thing, "Leave 'em wanting MORE". Thanks very much for sharing this, from 'The Quadfather'.
If anyone has a stock, handguards and barrel bands for a P14, let me know. I recently got a sporterized model for dirt cheap at a pawn shop and the only thing that isn't original is the stock. Edit/Update: I found everything I needed to restore mine to its original 1916 manufactured state. The front volley sight arm and screw was the hardest part to find. It looks fantastic.
@1:30. The .276 was ballistically more efficient that's true. But here's what he didn't say, it had the power and recoil of a 7mm Rem Mag and of the 1500 or so rifles issued for troop trials, they complained about large muzzle flash, large recoil, loud report, and the fact that it within 1000 rounds caused chamber throat and bore erosion!
And most sources say the 1917 Model rifle ended up being more numerous than the "official" U.S. rifle at that time, the Springfield Model 1903, with the A.E.F. in World War I. Both the 1914 & 1917 seem to have been excellent rifles, it's a shame they aren't better known.
I’ve collected both and resurrected both from parts. The P-14 and U.S. M-1917 are both more robust than the M1903. Solid, dependable, sturdy, accurate and near-soldier-proof. But if you get a Springfield 03 dialed in and comfortable, it becomes like your 3rd arm. You can hit anything at any reasonable range. I respect my P-14’s and M-1917’s, but I have true affection for my ‘ought-threes’.
Pro tip: if you ever hear anyone describe the SMLE as the "short magazine" Lee-Enfield (as opposed to "short, magazine") and then talking about a "detachable box magazine", you're not listening to someone who knows what they're talking about. "Short" is referring to the rifle's length; it has nothing to do with the magazine. Meanwhile, although that magazine was literally detachable, it wasn't used like detachable box magazines are used today. The soldier was issued one magazine and the rifle was loaded via chargers (i.e. stripper clips). The only time you detached the magazine was for cleaning or to deal with a malfunction. Also, contrary to what they said in the video: it was very easy to tell the difference between a 1914 and 1917 pattern Enfield rifle: the former had volley sights.
My 1917 has a red stripe on the muzzle end of the stock. Seems that it was shipped to Britain during WWII to serve in their homeguard and the stripe indicating a .30.06. Greetings from Germany.
One thing not mentioned: the .276 round produced excessive recoil and muzzle blast because it was so powerful. They were working on this when world war 1 broke out so they had to forget it and stick with .303.
I Don’t Have A British Pattern 14 Rifle 😭 But I Do Have Three Nice American Enfield’s(US Model Of 1917), A Remington,A Winchester And An Eddystone. Yeah Buddy 🇺🇸👍
I wonder if that .276 round would still be around today and as popular as the .303 is currently if it had been developed and mass produced. I feel like it’s such a loss of a potential amazing cartridge
So sprinfield pattern 1914 and Enfield pattern 1917 are basically the same but chambered in different calibers. OK bc i thought they only used 1903 Springfields and Enfiled MK III's
After WW1 the U.S. Army had seveal times as many M1917 rifles than M1903 Springfield rifles. But the M1917 was a "British" rifle not invented here. Even though the M1917 had sights and was as durable and reliable as the M1903
The Germans made the match rifle The Amercans made the hunting rifle The British made the battle rifle WW1 saying from some anon on a blog, but I think it accurate so to speak.
nra: " the problem with this gun was it was too much gun" also the nra: " the American version was converted to .30-06 and was our primary gun in ww-1" l
only an idiot officier would think that the rifle was better then the lee enfield save from the .270 which would of better then the .303 however the rifle in question would have a lower rate of fire due to the cock on open mauser bolt, and bolt handle not tuned down less rounds in a fixed magazine how anyone can that this rifle is actually better then lee enfield i dont know
This is cock on close, just like the Lee Enfield. Just because it's based on the Mauser design doesn't mean it has to be cock on open. The Swedish Mausers are also cock on close. It's a much more reliable action and the sights are way better. It's a much more effective rifle than the SMLE.
The Pattern 14 was more accurate at longer ranges, and much easier to mass produce. Not as fast firing as the SMLE, but fully equal if not superior to the Mauser 98. In some ways it was better than the SMLE, but it was decided that it was not better enough to replace it.
