Comments by "Kevin Oliver" (@kevinoliver3083) on "Pattern 1913 Enfield Trials Rifle" video.

  1. The Home Guard were mostly issued with the P14, the US M1917 (P17 in British service), and the Canadian Ross Mk.IIIB. Some SMLEs were issued in 1940. In 1943, as the Rifle No.4 replaced the SMLE in the Army, SMLEs were passed on to the Home Guard. But they had not replaced all the P14s and P17s, when the Home Guard was stood down.
    2
  2. The bolt handle is shaped that way so it was in the same location, relative to the trigger, as on the Lee-Enfield. Making it easier for men trained on one rifle to use the other. Also the Mauser action was changed to cock on close, like the Lee-Enfield, as that was what British soldiers were used to.
    2
  3. Never say never. The M1917 was known as the Pattern 17 when used by the UK Home Guard in WW2.
    1
  4. The P14 saw little frontline service and when it did it was generally regarded as an inferior battle rifle to the SMLE. So the British prefered to improve the sights on the Lee-Enfield and re-engineer it to make it easier to mass produce.
    1
  5. ​​​ @deepsouthredneck1 Neither Lee-Enfields, well made and maintained chargers, or rimmed cartridges are finicky. If you know what you are doing and use them properly.
    1
  6. The 17-pounder was a WW2 anti-tank gun and never had a shrapnel shell. The standard WW1 18-Pounder field gun had shrapnel shells As did the French '75', the German 7.7 cm Feldkanone 96 nA, and all its other contemporaries.
    1
  7. Because the P-13 had been designed for marksmen rather than soldiers. And combat experience in WW1 showed that it was an inferior battle rifle to the Lee-Enfield.
    1
  8. Not really. The debate and lobbying over the Army's new rifle, and if it even needed one was never resolved. Only some of the British (mainly engineers, target shooters, and hunters) wanted a Mauser. But others, (mainly practical soldiers) wanted to keep the SMLE. At least until automatic rifles became practical.
    1
  9. Because it had not been decided that the British Army were going to adopt a new rifle. Let alone this one. And practical experience in WW1 showed that the arguments offered by the opponents of the Lee-Enfield were largely specious. So after WW2 they improved the Lee-Enfield's sights and re-engineered it to make mass production easier.
    1
  10. The P13 was not a Lee-Enfield. And it was actually patterned on the Springfield 1903 rather than the Mauser directly.
    1
  11. The Mauser action was out of Patent when the British designed the P12.
    1
  12. Because on a real battlefield, rather than a target range, the P13/14 wasn't 'such a good rifle'. The No.4 adopted the P13's good points; the aperture rear sight and being easier to mass produce. But it retained the SMLE's shorter length, easier handling, and larger magazine.
    1
  13. Because after WW1 the British wanted something less powerful than either .303 or .30-06. Preferably in a semi-automatic rifle. And transitioning to .30-06 while waiting for such a new round and rifle to be developed, would have been an unnecessary complication and expense at a time when military budgets were constricted. And once War was looming the British military wisely decided to stick with the rifle and machine gun round they had, and could mass-produce.
    1
  14. "British troops liked the rifle"!? Except for the many who thought the P13 was too long, too heavy and unwieldy. And who despised the .276" cartridge for its excessive muzzle blast, flash and recoil. Although there was a strong lobby to replace the Lee-Enfield, mostly from target shooters and other armchair pundits, there was an equally strong resistance from practical soldiers. Who felt that the modifications made to Lee-Enfield, and musketry training, since the 2nd Boer War were sufficient to justify its retention. Although most would have agreed that a rimless round would have been an improvement. The decision to change rifles was by no means a fait accompli when "war were declared".
    1