They have a page with a 1917 based rifle available on 300 H&H, 375 H&H, and 404J.
At the top it states they are no longer going to offer the Enfield action as an option and return to policy of using Pre-War Mauser actions.
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid" -- Ronald Reagan
"Ignorance of The People gives strength to totalitarians."
Want to make just about anything work better? Keep the government as far away from it as possible, then step back and behold the wonderment and goodness.
I have one in 375 H+H w/o the peep (which would be nice) but W/' express sights + scoped out. It is a stout rifle but I would hate to carry it all day.
I've just read an interesting article in the Hatari Times (International No 22) by Harold Wolf on the 'P17' matter.
He said H&H couldn't get back to the Mausers quick enough, when new sources were found after the war.
Despite liking the safety on the Enfield, Wolf is also a Mauser man and found making a 416 Rigby from the American action hard work. He found the 'ears' hard to mill off, the square barrel threads a challenge, the lack of the Mauser's C receiver-ring reinforcement a demerit.
The most interesting complaint was that unlike Mausers, the Enfield magazine box can't be set back 2mm to allow for long cartridges, and efforts to accommodate them often compromises the safety of the ring's feed ramp.
Ironically, despite the P14 bolt face being big enough for standard magnum cartridges, it seems the claw-like extractor is less able to handle big rimless cartridges than one adapted from the M17.
Though admitting that the Enfield did have some length advantage over standard Mauser actions, Wolf suggested anyone able to source a modern magnum Mauser would be nuts to use a P14 or M17.
Posts: 5168 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
I agree with Norman Conquest. I've no issues with our "Brit" cock on closing system. But my Lord those Pattern '14 conversions either by H & H or BSA's own models they aren't one to carry all day. Yet the No4 and/or the SMLE always were carry friendly.
Posts: 6823 | Location: United Kingdom | Registered: 18 November 2007
Originally posted by sambarman338: I've just read an interesting article in the Hatari Times (International No 22) by Harold Wolf on the 'P17' matter.
He said H&H couldn't get back to the Mausers quick enough, when new sources were found after the war.
Despite liking the safety on the Enfield, Wolf is also a Mauser man and found making a 416 Rigby from the American action hard work. He found the 'ears' hard to mill off, the square barrel threads a challenge, the lack of the Mauser's C receiver-ring reinforcement a demerit.
The most interesting complaint was that unlike Mausers, the Enfield magazine box can't be set back 2mm to allow for long cartridges, and efforts to accommodate them often compromises the safety of the ring's feed ramp.
Ironically, despite the P14 bolt face being big enough for standard magnum cartridges, it seems the claw-like extractor is less able to handle big rimless cartridges than one adapted from the M17.
Though admitting that the Enfield did have some length advantage over standard Mauser actions, Wolf suggested anyone able to source a modern magnum Mauser would be nuts to use a P14 or M17.
In my case I'll disagree. My Mod1917 did not have the "duck pond" or ears. It easily handles 416 Rigby cartridges.
I disagree with most everything Wolf said, or thought. It is obvious he just liked Mausers; and good luck with finding as many, (or any now) Pre War Magnum Mauser actions. He is flat wrong on most of his comments. An Enfield can do anything with big cartridges that a Mauser can, and usually better. He is full of hay coming from the stern of a cow.
Posts: 17396 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009
Originally posted by dpcd: I disagree with most everything Wolf said, or thought. It is obvious he just liked Mausers; and good luck with finding as many, (or any now) Pre War Magnum Mauser actions. He is flat wrong on most of his comments. An Enfield can do anything with big cartridges that a Mauser can, and usually better. He is full of hay coming from the stern of a cow.
Originally posted by dpcd: I disagree with most everything Wolf said, or thought. It is obvious he just liked Mausers; and good luck with finding as many, (or any now) Pre War Magnum Mauser actions. He is flat wrong on most of his comments. An Enfield can do anything with big cartridges that a Mauser can, and usually better. He is full of hay coming from the stern of a cow.
Can the P14 extractors be used with H&H belted magnums or is he right in adapting a Model 17 one instead?
Posts: 5168 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
Yes the P14 extractors and bolts work fine with belted magnums as is. Wolf obviously just didn't like them. Sure, anyone would choose a pre war Magnum Mauser over an Enfield, but at 30 times the cost at least. As for Butch's fine rifle; if it didn't originally have a duck pond in it, then yes, it was a Remington. Winchesters and Eddystones, do. Easy to fill in though, so that is not a consideration if you are building one up. It was just there to save one ounce of weight. Duane; What?
Posts: 17396 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009
Originally posted by Aaron Little: Where can one see and learn more of your rifle Butch?
The finest Enfield I have ever seen. Permanent imprint on my retinas.
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid" -- Ronald Reagan
"Ignorance of The People gives strength to totalitarians."
Want to make just about anything work better? Keep the government as far away from it as possible, then step back and behold the wonderment and goodness.
Originally posted by dpcd: Yes the P14 extractors and bolts work fine with belted magnums as is. Wolf obviously just didn't like them. Sure, anyone would choose a pre war Magnum Mauser over an Enfield, but at 30 times the cost at least. As for Butch's fine rifle; if it didn't originally have a duck pond in it, then yes, it was a Remington. Winchesters and Eddystones, do. Easy to fill in though, so that is not a consideration if you are building one up. It was just there to save one ounce of weight. Duane; What?
DCPD...I was asking what in your opinion makes the Enfield better than the Mauser..
Posts: 3671 | Location: Phone: (253) 535-0066 / (253) 230-5599, Address: PO Box 822 Spanaway WA 98387 | www.customgunandrifle.com | Registered: 16 April 2013
Oh, I never said it was better. I said that everything that Wolf said was nonsense. I said, anyone would pick a pre war Magnum Mauser over an Enfield, but given the fact that they cost as much as a car and are very scarce, there is no reason not to use an Enfield. And all the things he said about them are not true. He clearly was biased toward the Mauser. Or didn't know much about Enfields.
Posts: 17396 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009
I don't get the issue with the '17/'14 safety. I think it is possibly the best turnbolt safety ever devised. Positively locks the bolt and mechanically draws back and secures the cocking piece. Super placed for the right or left handed shooter. Why bother and expense of converting to a M70 side swing? How often would you need to do it anyway?
If you want to withdraw and takedown the bolt just open the bolt, place on safe and close and lock the bolt. Insert a coin between the cocking piece and bolt shroud, open bolt and takedown like a Mauser.
Also, with the interest in keeping as many rounds down as possible with some shooters why is the original bottom metal overlooked? Seems as though it was tailor made for that purpose. The "belly" can be an advantage. Nobody bitches about it with the Garand. The focus seems to be on straightening it.
My opinion is that it is a great choice for magnum conversions and ripe for weight reduction of unneeded metal. Still a bunch out there. Sarco has tons of barreled actions.
quote:
Originally posted by dpcd: I disagree with most everything Wolf said, or thought. It is obvious he just liked Mausers; and good luck with finding as many, (or any now) Pre War Magnum Mauser actions. He is flat wrong on most of his comments. An Enfield can do anything with big cartridges that a Mauser can, and usually better. He is full of hay coming from the stern of a cow.
Posts: 3837 | Location: SC,USA | Registered: 07 March 2002
Wolf actually liked the M17 safety and though I've seen the M70-type safety employed on Enfields, even by H&H, I don't see the point in it either, unless for stock aesthetics.
I agree with you about the pregnant magazine look. I think obsession with getting rid of it came from a time when they stayed .30-06 or were converted to standard calibres.
Posts: 5168 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
Originally posted by lindy2: The only thing I find strange is that Holland and Holland would use a lowly Parker Hale sight on their rifles rather than make their own.
You'd be surprised what they 'borrow'.
People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf.
"Burgess did all the metal work on the scoped version and it is a 416 Rigby. The bottom one began life as a 340 Wtby that Burgess did all the metalwork on and was used quite a bit in the field as a 340. At some point it was re-barreled to 416 Rem by Gene Simillion at a later date. I did the stock work on both.
The 416 Rigby now resides in Africa where it is likely to stack up quite a body count. "
Why does the Enfield have the dropped belly magazine anyway? Because it was developed for the 276 Enfield cartridge, a magnum sized case (not belted but with a diameter of .530) that needed the larger magazine. (They couldn't just have used the wonderful, and proven 7x57?) I know, hindsight is 20-20. Unfortunately, they were loading it with Cordite, and didn't have the slow burning powders to take advantage of the large case, and WW1 came on, so it was quickly converted to .303. And 30-06, neither of which needed a drop box, 6 shot mag. All of which is a good for all of us, 100 years later, who want a very large action, very cheaply. (not counting labor)
Posts: 17396 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009
My P-14 Enfield in caliber .505 SRE (the middle cartridge in the foreground). Fires a 570 grain bullet at 2150 fps. Weighs 8 3/4 pounds. Metal work by Harry Creighton, stock by Reinhart Fajan.
It has made the trip to Africa three times and accounted for one rhino, three elephants and five Cape buffalo. Cocks on opening, with a Dayton Traister conversion unit which has been in use since 1960 with no difficulties.
Very Nice Darcy...Tom always said the only way to make a good looking Enfield was to make it look like a Mauser. But, this one reminds me of the CZ a little...Great job!
Curious...Who did the photography?
Posts: 3671 | Location: Phone: (253) 535-0066 / (253) 230-5599, Address: PO Box 822 Spanaway WA 98387 | www.customgunandrifle.com | Registered: 16 April 2013
Did anyone else notice that in the H&H add, that the rear sight insert appears to be in backwards? The folding leaf is to the rear of the fixed and the fixed is angled rearward !!??
DRSS(We Band of Bubba's Div.) N.R.A (Life) T.S.R.A (Life) D.S.C.
Posts: 2276 | Location: Texas | Registered: 18 May 2004
Duane the pics were taken by Kevin Dilley of Klik Photography in Ogden Utah
kevin@klikphoto.net
We have worked together for 27 plus years. He is brilliant, fast and best of all only 45 miles away I can not say enough good things about him, a true professional in every sense. He has shot a lot of commercial pics for many household name firearm products that we've all heard of. Interestingly enough his studio is in the old John Browning building in Ogden.
Originally posted by DArcy_Echols_Co: Duane the pics were taken by Kevin Dilley of Klik Photography in Ogden Utah
kevin@klikphoto.net
We have worked together for 27 plus years. He is brilliant, fast and best of all only 45 miles away I can not say enough good things about him, a true professional in every sense. He has shot a lot of commercial pics for many household name firearm products that we've all heard of. Interestingly enough his studio is in the old John Browning building in Ogden.
I wonder how he did the deep etching - much better than when we used to cut out a piece of red cellophane to go over the rifle and over-expose the background
Posts: 5168 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
Originally posted by Recoil Rob: That's a M30, not a 720.
Who said it was? I was pointing out the rifle at Champlins is the same or very similar to the one in the H&H catalog that was the subject of this post.
I used an African buddies Cogswell & Harrison .404 on an Enfield a couple times when visiting. It had been converted to cock on opening if I remember right.
The most interesting complaint was that unlike Mausers, the Enfield magazine box can't be set back 2mm to allow for long cartridges, and efforts to accommodate them often compromises the safety of the ring's feed ramp.
Say what? The P14 is plenty long enough for the long magnums, it's the 98 where you have to cut into the front ring.
And when talking DGR, the Enfield has a magazine capacity advantage over the Mauser.
The 98 is certainly more compact and perhaps a little more elegant, a good choice for 30-06 and 8x57 class ctgs. The big Enfield is a better starting point for the heavy cals. To make it look pretty is a bit more work, but to make it work you don't need to make it pretty.
Russ Gould - Whitworth Arms LLC BigfiveHQ.com, Large Calibers and African Safaris Doublegunhq.com, Fine English, American and German Double Rifles and Shotguns VH2Q.com, Varmint Rifles and Gear
Posts: 2934 | Location: Texas | Registered: 07 June 2003
Russ is exactly right; look at the 276 Enfield cartridge the the Enfield was designed for; it is really what later would be called a magnum. They wanted it to be like 3.6 inches long. Cordite, remember. No belt though!
Posts: 17396 | Location: USA | Registered: 02 August 2009
Except for the ears etc on top, I think it looks fine. Were I getting one converted to a heavy kicker, I'd even look at narrowing the r/h side of the grip somehow to save needing to replace the bolt handle.
Perhaps if the wood were left wider just ahead of the grip, analogous with some old Mauser sporters, your trigger finger would be pulled up by the wood, not the bolt knob.
Posts: 5168 | Location: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: 31 March 2009
