P14 DG rifles

[BlueFlyer]

9.3X64Br built on a P14 with a Timney trigger and Numrich Arms cock on openning

280AI on a P17, Timney trigger and Numrich Arms cock on opening

 

[Ontario Hunter]

The OP was inquiring about P14 not SMLE. Springfield 03A3 and P14 both have five cartridge capacity magazines. If the cock on opening rifle was subject to enough rapid fire, in theory fired cases could become sticky enough so that extracting them + added effort of cocking the striker while lifting the bolt supposedly required effort in excess of Enfield closing and cocking on a hot barrel. I have fired my Springfield with a hot barrel and never noticed cases hanging up. But nothing like rapid fire combat hot.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

The OP was inquiring about P14 not SMLE. Springfield 03A3 and P14 both have five cartridge capacity magazines. If the cock on opening rifle was subject to enough rapid fire, in theory fired cases could become sticky enough so that extracting them + added effort of cocking the striker while lifting the bolt supposedly required effort in excess of Enfield closing and cocking on a hot barrel. I have fired my Springfield with a hot barrel and never noticed cases hanging up. But nothing like rapid fire combat hot.

@Ontario Hunter
The M17 is actually a six shot mag but a lot of people don't realise this because it uses a 5 round stripper clip
Bob

 

[Ontario Hunter]

@Ontario Hunter
The M17 is actually a six shot mag but a lot of people don't realise this because it uses a 5 round stripper clip
Bob

1917 Enfield is 303 British rebarreled to 30-06 Springfield. 30-06 is significantly narrower cartridge so it would not surprise me if 1917 magazine held one more cartridge.

 

[Daryl S]

Thought the action rails were different, in that the P14 rails had a cut-out for the rim to climb up, and the model 1917's rails were straight like a Mauser. Now, Remington did re-barrel P14's with .308 barrels, their model 60, I think, chambered for the '06. I got one from my uncle when he passed. My rifle fed '06 perfectly, but it was a slow barrel, producing 150fps under all book loads used in it. The groove dia. was .308. I slugged it.
My buddy who has been shooting both P14's and M1917's for 30 years, looked at it and said "they" used a P14 action, showing me the cuttouts for the rim. He then said, the M1917's had straight rails.

 

[Ray B]

In addition to the cocking system, I wonder is the taper of the 303 case caused the cases to break the attachment with the chamber, making the 303 easier to pull out of the chamber, thus possibly faster.

 

[Daryl S]

That was the theory many, many years ago.
I do not believe it for a minute.
I have a rifle whose chamber has only. 005" taper each side. The base is .470" and the shoulder is .460". Extraction with loads that scared me (2,740fps w/270gr. tsx), was still normal, a 2 finger operation on a mark10 Mauser action. Same thing with 300gr. at 2,472fps, 2 fingers. Extraction couldn't be easier and pressures HAD to be 60,000psi or over. This, on an improved .30/06 case necked to .375.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Thought the action rails were different, in that the P14 rails had a cut-out for the rim to climb up, and the model 1917's rails were straight like a Mauser. Now, Remington did re-barrel P14's with .308 barrels, their model 60, I think, chambered for the '06. I got one from my uncle when he passed. My rifle fed '06 perfectly, but it was a slow barrel, producing 150fps under all book loads used in it. The groove dia. was .308. I slugged it.
My buddy who has been shooting both P14's and M1917's for 30 years, looked at it and said "they" used a P14 action, showing me the cuttouts for the rim. He then said, the M1917's had straight rails.

Just checked my British P14 and the rails are straight end to end. No cutout anywhere.

 

[Badboymelvin]

I think you are confused? For cock on closing "all the leverage" is used to shut the bolt, not extract the case. It requires pushing the rifle away from the shoulder and down to cock. For my 98 Mauser and O3A3 cock on closing rifles, all the physical effort to cock occurs when the rifle remains seated in the shoulder and the bolt is lifted. No lateral "leverage" in either direction is required to cock so the butt stays put in shoulder. The same amount of leverage is needed to withdraw the bolt and extract the case no matter which cocking design is employed.

I know the Brits always claimed their Enfield could be fired faster than Mauser or Springfield because of the cock on closing design but I do not see how that could be possible. Maybe something else in the design ... or maybe the test was rigged. Also, for Mauser all the effort to cock is made with an empty case in the chamber. For Enfield the considerable effort to cock not only pushes the gun away from the shoulder, but it's with a live round in the chamber. And Enfield only has a two position safety so the wrestling to cock not only involves a live round, but rifle must be off safe. Mauser and Springfield have 3-position safeties so in theory when the bolt is closing (relatively effortlessly), the safety could be engaged. Enfield design is okay but it's not the greatest. And that stuff about them firing faster because of the cocking feature is pure myth. Anyway, for a dangerous game rifle I certainly do not want to be pushing the rifle away from my body to cock it. I don't generally cock either Mauser or Springfield on my shoulder but I generally don't have to make followup shots to save my life. If I do have to cycle the gun on my shoulder, I don't want to be fighting with it to load and cock. Lift the bolt and it's cocked is preferable. After that it's effortless cycling while I'm getting back on target.

I agree, I don't like the cock on close either...
I love the Lee Enfields but I just wish they were cock-on-open.

Russ