Enfield P14

[Token]

Are you going to name them all?

My guesses at what these cartridges are, there are 2 that could be several possible cartridges each, so I am not trying to guess them, there are 3 I have no idea on. There are 17 shown, starting from the left in the image:

1. .276 Enfield Pattern 13
2. 6.5 x 50SR Arisaka
3. .276 Pedersen
4. Some kind of 6.8
5. .280 British
6. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
7. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
8. Unk possible 6mm?
9. 7.62 NATO
10. 5.56 NATO
11. 6.8 SPC
12. 6.5 Grendel
13. Unk possible 7mm
14. 7.62 x 54R
15. 7.62 x 39
16. 5.45 x 39
17. 5.8 x 42 Chinese ?

T!

 

[Shortround6]

My guesses at what these cartridges are, there are 2 that could be several possible cartridges each, so I am not trying to guess them, there are 3 I have no idea on. There are 17 shown, starting from the left in the image:

1. .276 Enfield Pattern 13
2. 6.5 x 50SR Arisaka
3. .276 Pedersen
4. Some kind of 6.8
5. .280 British
6. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
7. Unk possible 6 or 6.25mm?
8. Unk possible 6mm?
9. 7.62 NATO
10. 5.56 NATO
11. 6.8 SPC
12. 6.5 Grendel
13. Unk possible 7mm
14. 7.62 x 54R
15. 7.62 x 39
16. 5.45 x 39
17. 5.8 x 42 Chinese ?

T!

Thank you and very good. The caption says
4. .270 British or (6.8x46)
6. 6.25mm British prototype (6.25x43)
7. 6.25mm British proposed (6.25x46)
8. 6mm SAW (6x45) Squad Automatic Weapon, Experimental back in the 70s for a light machine gun round to supplement or replace the 5.56.
13. 7mm UIAC (7x46)

All other identifications are correct.

 

[Shortround6]

Odd. We have come full circle. The P13 was deliberately chosen for long range accurate target shooting. Because the Boers were showing the way.

Problem comes in that the Boers had a high percentage of hunters/marksmen and this is a real consideration when planning rifle selection. Just like not all fighter pilots are equal not all soldiers are equal marksmen, especially with the rather dismal amount of marksmanship training most soldiers get/got.

I sincerely doubt a rifle can ever be built that can shoot targets 1km away and then can be used in CQB like a Sten.
The Arisaka got around that by having a chuffing huge bayonet for close ups and of course a rifle is made of wood so use it as a club.

1st part is right but the second is rather iffy. Long bayonets look good in a group (bring back the Greek phalanx?) and according to wiki " The design was intended to give the average Japanese infantryman a long enough reach to pierce the abdomen of a cavalryman" sicking this thing on longer than average Japanese rifle actually gave the Japanese soldier a rather clumsy weapon for really close quarters work unless they dismounted it and used it as a short sword.

Size of rifle is important as can't be too heavy and has to fit into a jeep or helicopter. Something Mauser was not aware of! So bullpup or folding collapsing stock?

Hold that thought

The best option is M16 for ranges of 3cm to 300 metres and designated marksman for 800 metres carrying M14/Dragunov semi auto. Hmm just described the Soviet order of things

.
Actually the M16 using 62 grain bullets can extend it's range a bit. Problem here is that M16s are getting more than bit scarce as it was thought that their 20" barrels were too long to fit into jeeps/helicopters and they were replaced with M4s with 14.5" barrels which cost a few hundred FPS in velocity. Want to trying firing a .276 British with a 14.5in barrel? At night?

I do find it quite odd that the P14 would beat any modern assault rifle in long distance sniping. Shows that the old guys didn't need computer aided design and carbon composite to blow a hole in your targets noggin.

Yep and the Model T Ford was a better car than post 2000 Honda Accord too

First you need soldiers that can actually HIT a man sized target at over 400yds with a single shot from a rifle (any rifle). This is rarer than you might think outside of elite units. 2nd is that standards of accuracy have changed. I would like to compare actual test results and .not statements like " it was considered to be an accurate rifle" which actually says almost nothing except the rifle wasn't junk.
3rd try comparing the sights. The P-14 had no windage adjustment. In a cross wind the rifleman had to estimate how far off target to point the rifle to compensate for the wind. A SKILLED rifleman with an M-16 or M4 can twist a knob dial in a correction and then put his front sight right on the target.

As a personal note I was an active competitive shooter (sometimes 3 clubs at once) from my late teens to my late 50s and include several matches of a state militia team I was a member of against state/unit National Guard teams They lost all but one match and usually badly. I also knew a number of members of the Connecticut State National Guard team back in the 70s and 80s and what they could do with M16s was amazing, however they were also the champion National Guard team at the All Army Annual matches for a number of years and usually beat whatever regular army teams were put up against them. So you have what the gun could do (from a mechanical stand point)(or selected guns) vs what the vast majority of men issued the gun could do with it. Some guns are easier to use than others but that is a huge consideration in evaluating all small arms.

 

[The Basket]

Of course the vast majority of soldiers in the world today are conscripts who would rather be somewhere else and even the bulk of professional armies are cooks and suppliers and techs who are not front line so their sharpshooting is not ideal either.
My military service was done using a bullpup. A few years earlier it would have been the SMLE or SLR or Sterling. The SLR was a genuine contender for long range but was long and unwieldy hence the Sterling.

The Arisaka design is pretty old so the idea of using the bayonet as anti Calvary makes perfect sense. Calvary was still considered a viable weapon even when the type 38 was new. The Johnson rifle was not considered due to bayonet issues... allegedly although the Johnson came too late. Whether it's genuine military doctrine or some old duffers pretending to romanticise the past the rifles of WW1 came from the late 1800s and were still in service WW2 so the bayonet was still a major concern.

It's said the AK is not a replacement for a Mosin but a replacement for the PPSh 41. No 1 km range needed.

The bayonet is certainly no longer a consideration as it was years ago. the bayonet on the SA80 was tiny and made of some awful metal that easily snapped. Also the weapon wasn't robust so doing the clubbing with it would result in a broken gun.

I sincerely doubt the AK or AR15 platforms will be replaced by a similar weapon. Too expensive for a few percent better. Until the advent of directed energy weapons although if Star Wars has taught us anything it has taught us that large imperial forces can't shoot straight with them either.

 

[The Basket]

I got me an idea.

How to make a short manageable rifle into a big long range rifle.
Interchangeable barrels! Genius.
U is in an urban environment in a jeep or the jungle so you keep your 9 inch barrel for close engagement.
Then once on the plains bring the 29 incher out for those 1km moments.

I haven't decided on the calibre or type but I suspect a .276 round would suffice. This must have been tried.....surely?

I know soldiers are forgetful and may lose a barrel or too. But it surely has merit

 

[Shortround6]

Not quite the same but:

With optical sights the idea has some merit, with iron sights it gets harder.
And the ammo is going to give you real problems. Powder that gives the best results in a 29 in barrel is going to blowing out the muzzle of a 9 in barrel partial unburnt. Huge muzzle flash and large velocity variation. Best powder for a 9in barrel doesn't really need a 29in barrel. Velocity gain in the last several inches will be minimal. Different loads will not work well because in a gas operated rifle you will have different pressures at the gas port. See problems with the SR80 for an example.
Target shooters love long barrels because of the distance between the sights. However long barrels can have whip or increase barrel time(time bullet spends in the bore after trigger is pulled. Hot modern set up is a shorter, stiffer barrel with a 2-8in extension tube to hold the front sight, commonly called "bloop tube"

Use of optical sights removes need for long sight radius.

 

[The Basket]

The length of the barrels would have to be tested both short and long to see which is best.
The cartridge also.
The TERA rifle of the Arisaka would be an interesting starting point plus the AUG which also has an easily removed barrel.
Of course using a weaker round for SMG and a more stout round for distance would be preferable but now we are going too far as this means 2 different rounds with the logistics to go with it. Plus more parts to lose. So an intermediate round like the Carcano 6.5mm or smaller would be chosen. Again trial and error.

The rifle is a battlefield rifle so accuracy only has to be adequate at distance.

 

[Elvis]

So why wasn't the P14 kept o. If the plan was to replace the SMLE?
Why wasn't the P13 picked up again after the war if the .276 cartridge was a good idea?
Why did the Enfield 1917 not replace the Springfield in American service after the war if it was more numerous?
Seemed that both the P14 and the M1917 Enfield disappeared even thought it merited better

Well, not in the military, but in the public sector, the P17 (or a version of it, anyway) soldiered on as the Remington Model 30 for many years.