Kendal Black, if the P14 was better, why did they go with the No4 Enfield instead? During WW1 they just needed rifles fast, and found the P14 available.
OP, you can't go wrong with either model, but I'd want to check the headspace on both. That might be a deciding factor. The bolt head on the enfield being stamped "1" doesn't really matter, it's bolt setback that matters. Have either or both been rearsenaled? The enfield will be engraved FTR if it has, for Factory Thorough Repair.
"Better" is highly subjective.
History on the P14: The Pattern 1914 started life as the Pattern 1913, a Mauser-Lee hybrid that shot a new and different rimless .276 cartridge. This was to be adopted as standard replacing the SMLE, MK III is service. However, WW1 put a stop to changing over the standard small arms caliber. Vickers produced a handful of P13s chambered in .303, but stopped to concentration on machine gun production
In 1915, it became apparent that there was a lack of industrial capacity in the UK for production of the SMLE, and the British asked Remington and Winchester to produce SMLEs for them. The two companies stated that yes, they could, but production of the P13 in .303 would be faster, as the P13 design was more in line with what they were used to making. So, the P13, chambered in .303 became the P14.
Due to various reasons, Winchester, Remington and Remington's subsidiary Eddystone had delays in getting up to full rate production, and by the time they did, the British had solved their own production capacity problems, and started to cancel the contracts for the P14.
Enter the US into the war and a lack of M1903s. Rather than re-retool these three factories to make M1903s the design was rechambered for a third time to .30-'06 and entered US service as the M1917.
Why the British dropped the P14 design after the war was an overabundance of SMLE, MkIII and III*s (now re-designated Rifle, No. 1, Mk III or Mk III*).
By the late 1920's the British began a program to simplify the production of the SMLE (No. 1) and improve it's minor short-comings, with no interest in changing calibers, The result was the No. 4.
Why did they not use the P14 as the basis for the new rifle?
- The P14 is almost a pound heavier than an SMLE, Mk III.
- The P14 is two inches longer than an SMLE, Mk III.
- The SMLE had twice the ammunition capacity (and still was lighter).
- The SMLE has a faster smoother action than a P14. This is due to the type of steel used in P14 production, while a stronger steel, it is softer, and P14s and M1917 feel "gummy" compared to M1903 and SMLEs.
- It was originally intended that the No. 4 just be a "product-improved" version of the SMLE, and that many spare parts were to be interchangeable.
The up-shot is they felt that the technical and financial risk of making relatively minor improvements to the SMLE design was much lower than trying to redesign the P14 to be an SMLE, with the locking lugs in a different place.