View Full Version : Model 1917 the American Enfield
MilitaryArms
02-12-12, 19:42
The U.S. Service Rifle, Caliber .30 Model 1917 is one of the more interesting rifles used by the U.S. Military. It's service is often eclipsed by the 1903 Springfield even though more U.S. Soldiers carried the M1917 into battle than they did 1903's during the First World War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1Zhe17CX4
Questions and comments are welcome.
Love the P14, and the Model 1917....
Great video, both guns are gorgeous.
All the guys that I know that own a 1917 love them.
I thought the Mauser and Enfield designs were two completely different designs?
RiflemanBobcat
02-13-12, 00:50
I thought the Mauser and Enfield designs were two completely different designs?
They are. To my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge, the P14/M1917 rifle is built like a Mauser (front locking lugs, controlled-feed claw extractor, fixed internal magazine) but functions a bit like an Enfield (cock-on-closing, simple switch safety).
The M1917 rifle is called an Enfield in the US (again, to my incomplete and possibly flawed understanding) at least in part because its parent, the P14, was a British design, from RSAF Enfield. And because it was originally seen (in the US) in .303 British chambering...like Short Magazine Lee-Enfields were known to be.
Again, I could well be wrong about this, especially the second half, but this is what I'm given to understand.
The M1917 rifle is called an Enfield in the US (again, to my incomplete and possibly flawed understanding) at least in part because its parent, the P14, was a British design, from RSAF Enfield. And because it was originally seen (in the US) in .303 British chambering...like Short Magazine Lee-Enfields were known to be.
Enfield is a suburb of London (the Borough of Enfield) and together with Birmingham were the centre of the firearms industry here in the UK. The Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield and Birmingham Small Arms.
The Pattern 14 (P14) was originally the P13 chambered in .276. Just prior to WWI some questions were raised about the performance of the SMLE and a number of 'experts' were asked to design a new rifle. The issues with the SMLE was that is didn't use the Mauser action and wasn't considered by certain 'experts' accurate enough... :suicide:
The .276 cartridge was abandoned and the P13 chambered in .303 as the P14. With the expansion of the British army at the start of WWI large number of rifles were required to equip the new volunteers (we even purchased Japanese Type 38 rifles which were used for training - but thats another story). Orders were therefore placed overseas as production of the SMLE was given priority at home.
In addition to equipping the new volunteer battalions the P14 was used as a sniper rifle as it did prove slightly more accurate than the SMLE.
Interestingly enough a local firearms dealer over here has a P14 for sale at £395 while an SMLE is going for £525. I'm quite tempted as I already have an SMLE but given our firearms licensing issues....
Nice but ugly rifles. They do however make a good platform for big bore stopping rifles.
MilitaryArms
02-14-12, 12:36
Nice but ugly rifles. They do however make a good platform for big bore stopping rifles.
Ugly? I think it's one of the best looking military bolt action rifles ever built.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for sure.
Not a bad rifle. Some valuable info in that video on it. Where in Indiana are you?
MilitaryArms
02-14-12, 13:52
Not a bad rifle. Some valuable info in that video on it. Where in Indiana are you?
I'm in NW Indiana, about 9 miles south of Lake Michigan.
I'm in NW Indiana, about 9 miles south of Lake Michigan.
Damn that is way up there. Just curious as my wife is from plainfield and we are moving up there as I am getting out of the army soon.
I had one, (Eddystone) it had been sporterized, but it still had the orginial barrel, It had the ears for the rear sights milled off and was drilled and tapped for a scope, But, It still shot very well, One thing I do remember reading about these is, that during WWII, many of these were re barreled, usually with a barrel marked "JA" for Johnson Automatics..Anyway, if you encounter one of these that's been rebarrled, be careful..It'd be a good idea to pop the action out of the stock,and check the front receiver ring for cracks. These actions (Rem, Win, and Eddystone) were known to occasionaly crack upon being rebarreled,And it's quite possible that during the rush to get rifles out in the early part of WWII, some of these slipped out.. Just a heads up.
Yeah, the actions are very strong. They will hold the pressures of any cartridge that you can fit between the feed lips, which opens up many possibilities.
I restored this former "light" sporter rifle back to Military configuration. Ugly? Not hardly.
http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v8/p908234421-5.jpg
It shoots well and is built like a tank.
RiflemanBobcat
02-28-12, 21:49
I restored this former "light" sporter rifle back to Military configuration. Ugly? Not hardly.
http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v8/p908234421-5.jpg
It shoots well and is built like a tank.
Gorgeous rifle. Really reminds me how much I want one of these...I'd settle for a P14, though, if I had to ;)
I have one that I have owned for better than 20 years. Nice looking gun for being made in 1918.
I want to like it a lot, but I just don't.
I got to finally play with one today (sadly no shooting involved), and I have to say that this rifle is seriously awesome! I can't wait until my buddy lets me shoot it!
I am convinced that it is the best rifle of the era. The only advantage the later Enfields (of WWII), the No.4s have is that they hold and additional four rounds.
The only thing I did not like about the example I played with was that the grooves on the trigger felt way too coarse. Not a big deal, but annoying.
RiflemanBobcat
03-09-12, 02:40
I got to finally play with one today (sadly no shooting involved), and I have to say that this rifle is seriously awesome! I can't wait until my buddy lets me shoot it!
I am convinced that it is the best rifle of the era. The only advantage the later Enfields (of WWII), the No.4s have is that they hold and additional four rounds.
The only thing I did not like about the example I played with was that the grooves on the trigger felt way too coarse. Not a big deal, but annoying.
Agreed with the bolded portion. IMO, the P14/M1917 action, plus the MLE/SMLE/No.4Mk.1 magazine (10 rounds, detachable), in an "intermediate" length (like the SMLE or M1903) package, would have been THE premier bolt-action military rifle (IMO)...if only it had been designed in about 1902. Even more so if it were scaled appropriately to a rimless .30 cartridge at the time, and not "oversized" or beefed-up for a magnum .276 that the Brits thought they needed for 1000yd battles.
As to the magazine comment, though: the Lee-Metford had the 10-round magazine in the late 1880s. Certainly the Magazine Lee-Enfield had the 10-round mag, and it entered service in about 1895, IIRC.
So, really, there's not much excuse for the P13/P14/M1917 to not have had a better magazine, since the UK had better magazines in their service rifles for 30 years by that point.
And that would have made it a world-beater, in my opinion. But I'm no expert, just some guy on the Internet with an opinion. :D
Straight Shooter
03-09-12, 07:22
Ive always wondered about the grand ole WW2 bolt guns...
are the GTG with modern, more powerful ammo?
What about the heavier 200gr.-220gr. stuff?
P17s were commonly converted to various magnum calibers, they are more than strong enough.
RiflemanBobcat
03-09-12, 21:33
P17s were commonly converted to various magnum calibers, they are more than strong enough.
This. Heck, the original P13 British design was chambered in a .276 "magnum" cartridge.
According to This site (http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=338-.256-inch-and-.276-inch-Enfield-Experimental-Ammunition), the .276 Enfield cartridge was designed to launch a 165gr bullet at about 2800fps
comparison picture on the same site of .276 Enfield vs. contemporary cartridges (L to R, .30-06, .276 Pedersen, .303 Brit, .276 Enfield, .280 Ross):
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgnmilsurpknowledgebase/britishpedersensemiauto/icons/cartridges.jpg
Alaskapopo
03-09-12, 21:59
The U.S. Service Rifle, Caliber .30 Model 1917 is one of the more interesting rifles used by the U.S. Military. It's service is often eclipsed by the 1903 Springfield even though more U.S. Soldiers carried the M1917 into battle than they did 1903's during the First World War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1Zhe17CX4
Questions and comments are welcome.
Great videos. I really liked the one on the Vepr in 7.62xs54.
Do you plan on doing a video review on a Mosen Nagant? I just got one and have not even had a chance to fire it yet. I could not resist the price. These surplus guns are neat.
Pat
Everyone should own at least one Mosin!
It is my opinion that if someone can master shooting a 91/30 well, that this makes almost any other rifle even easier to shoot well. Especially if you can successfully manipulate the trigger on it. :D
Of course, one of my Mosins has a super decent trigger all things considered, it's heavier but just as crisp as the 2nd stage of my K-31.
I got mine for less than $250 a couple of years back...I need to get it out and see what markings are on it. The lines are classic on that rifle.
RiflemanBobcat
03-15-12, 00:22
I got mine for less than $250 a couple of years back...I need to get it out and see what markings are on it. The lines are classic on that rifle.
Please post pictures if you're able. These old war-horses deserve some appreciation.
brickboy240
03-21-12, 12:03
The M1917 often gets eclipsed by the 03, but truth be known...the M1917 is in many ways the better rifle.
The M1917 has better sights than the WWI issued 03 Springer. The 03 has a thin, dinky and easily broken front blade sight.
The M1917 also has a cock-on-closing bolt that operates faster than the 03's bolt.
The M1917 also lacks the fragile 2 piece firing pin that the 03 has. Why the Yanks deviated from THIS 98 Mauser feature and put the 2 piece unit in the 03 is beyond me. The 2 piece firing pin is an Achilles heel of the 03 rifle.
I also think the M1917 is a heavier and heartier rifle than the 03.
- brickboy240
Ugly? I think it's one of the best looking military bolt action rifles ever built.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for sure.
Concur.
http://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v1/p909754503-5.jpg
tfltackdriver
05-17-12, 13:02
I have done a lot of writing and research about the Sgt. York MOH incident in my day. I finally scored a black army 1911 (see avatar), but I have been after a nice 1917 for a long time now without any luck. I have seen far more excellent-quality P14s. All of the 1917s I've come across have been beaten to hell, bubbaed and/or have been completely shot out.
BigBuckeye
05-17-12, 19:43
The M1917 often gets eclipsed by the 03, but truth be known...the M1917 is in many ways the better rifle.
The M1917 has better sights than the WWI issued 03 Springer. The 03 has a thin, dinky and easily broken front blade sight.
The M1917 also has a cock-on-closing bolt that operates faster than the 03's bolt.
The M1917 also lacks the fragile 2 piece firing pin that the 03 has. Why the Yanks deviated from THIS 98 Mauser feature and put the 2 piece unit in the 03 is beyond me. The 2 piece firing pin is an Achilles heel of the 03 rifle.
I also think the M1917 is a heavier and heartier rifle than the 03.
- brickboy240
I have both, the 03 feels "handier" than the big 1917, it also has windage adjustment. I call it about even....I would have been happy with either if I was a soldier in the "Great War.".
BigBuckeye
05-17-12, 19:44
Also, I think the 1917 is a fantastic looking rifle.....especially with the ladder sight up...
brickboy240
05-18-12, 11:55
Take apart and examine the bolts on both the 03 and the M1917.
The M1917 has the better set-up.
Why we went to a strange 2 piece firing pin instead of keeping the 98 Mauser's hefty 1 piece set up is beyond me.
- brickboy240
Deputy Dan
05-18-12, 14:29
The failing of the M1903 2 piece striker system is mainly academic. It was not proven an issue in combat in two major wars. Lock time is a bit faster in the M1903 than the Gewehr 98.
There are more weaknesses with the M1917... not parts interchangable between manufacturers (interchangability was better than the Pattern '14, but not anywhere near the M1903) Most components were interchangable, but some parts require hand fitting... if you are in an ordnance base shop or arsenal, that isn't a problem... but more than a unit armorer can handle.
The M1917 ejector is more of a weak point than the M1903 striker. The flat ejector spring is very prone to breakage.
The lack of a windage adjustable rear sight was the deciding factor in keeping the m1903 as the standard service rifle, and relegating the M1917 to limited standard as war reserve.
HackerF15E
05-19-12, 07:49
There are more weaknesses with the M1917... not parts interchangable between manufacturers (interchangability was better than the Pattern '14, but not anywhere near the M1903) Most components were interchangable, but some parts require hand fitting... if you are in an ordnance base shop or arsenal, that isn't a problem... but more than a unit armorer can handle.
Which parts are you talking about?
I've swapped parts between Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester '17s and never had an issue. 6 to 9 years ago when CMP first started selling 1917s, I bought a batch of 'em at the North Store and went about parts-swapping to 'correct' the manufacturers. Everything interchanged just fine.
The one and only problem I've had was trying to use a gunshow-purchased P14 upper handguard on a 1917, and that didn't work because of a difference in the internal contour of the handguard (the P14 guard was too thick and required some wood removal before it fit).
Now, I've never had to swap barrels between two 1917s, but everything else -- including bolts, bolt parts, extractors, trigger group parts, barrel bands, sights, etc -- has all swapped between the three manufacturers just fine for me.
Deputy Dan
05-19-12, 11:14
Which parts are you talking about?
I've swapped parts between Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester '17s and never had an issue. 6 to 9 years ago when CMP first started selling 1917s, I bought a batch of 'em at the North Store and went about parts-swapping to 'correct' the manufacturers. Everything interchanged just fine.
The one and only problem I've had was trying to use a gunshow-purchased P14 upper handguard on a 1917, and that didn't work because of a difference in the internal contour of the handguard (the P14 guard was too thick and required some wood removal before it fit).
Now, I've never had to swap barrels between two 1917s, but everything else -- including bolts, bolt parts, extractors, trigger group parts, barrel bands, sights, etc -- has all swapped between the three manufacturers just fine for me.
Barrels, Stocks, Handguards, Strikers (firing pin) and cocking pieces, and some bolts have to be hand fit. Winchester produced rifles and components BEFORE the master gauge sets were fabricated... their rifles weren't initially sent overseas to the AEF bacause they couldn't be supported in the field... they were marked with a star in a circle on the receiver rail to mark them. They only started sending the Winchester rifles until well into 1918 when the Ordnance Department was satisfied with interchangability. Stocks and handguards have to be hand fitted in all cases... P14 components are even worse. Remington and Eddystone components have fairly good interchangability... but we are still talking 90%.
P.S. The reason the striker has to be hand fit is to set correct firing pin protrusion.
Deputy Dan
05-19-12, 11:33
Here's one of mine that is just about brand new:
http://www.fototime.com/797B333E906C124/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/F4B49C40DA47D51/standard.jpg
Another example of a rifle I owned several of, but always needed something else worse. Thank God I hung onto a few 03's.
Great pictures. Thanks guys.
LonghunterCO
05-23-12, 14:23
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l318/Longhunter-CO/OldAndNew1919A4.jpg
I searched long and hard before I found one (about 14years ago). Nice rifle. Will not be selling it.
Here's one of mine that is just about brand new:
http://www.fototime.com/797B333E906C124/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/F4B49C40DA47D51/standard.jpg
Is that a canvas 1907 sling?
Deputy Dan
05-23-12, 19:49
No, it is a WW1 Kerr.
Deputy Dan
05-23-12, 19:57
Instructions for adjusting the Kerr Sling.
Here's an Eddystone 1917 American Enfield, made in November of 1918, that belonged to my grandfather.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7422276178_133c8152e0_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7277/7422267976_6dd2ca39e0_c.jpg
I have a sporterized 1917 with a build date of 1918. It has been rebarreled and the walnut stock has been carved with a ram on a rock coming out of the right side of the butt stock, a bull elk carved in just below the action and a cougar extruding out on both sides of the forearm. The sights had been ground off prior to me getting it. Very smooth gun with a Timney trigger and spring. I set the scope off of a bench and the gun is a tack driver. Has layed waste to many a deer in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/HondaCowboy82/061.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/HondaCowboy82/063.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/HondaCowboy82/062.jpg
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e49/HondaCowboy82/064.jpg
A coworker of mine knew I was interested in picking up an all around bolt action .308 and just told me he has a friend looking to sell a sporterized 1917. I don't know much about 30-06 vs .308 or the 1917 rifle. My coworkers friend wants to sell him the rifle with a scope for $200. He said he'd buy it and sell it to me at no extra cost if I want it, or else he is going to try and sell it for a more at the local gun show.
For 200 with scope it seems like a good deal to me. I have wanted a decent bolt action for a while now and was looking at getting a low cost 308, mainly for "fun" target shooting out to 600 yards(farthest range to shoot locally). From what I have read the 1917 is a pretty decent rifle(besides a crapy ejector, that can easily be fixed).
What should I look for to make sure this one is good to go? Will I regret getting a 30-06? Is it an obsolete round, as some have told me?
Deputy Dan
04-19-13, 14:34
30-06 isn't obsolete by any stretch.
The rifles action cocks on closing the bolt, you may or may not care about that.
If the rifle has the original barrel and it is toast you might want to pass... M1917s had their barrels installed with pneumatic tools and it can be a real bastard to get the barrel off. If the barrel has to come off a relief cut has to made in the barrel near the receiver face... if a relief cut isn't made you can crack the receiver ring and now you have a paperweight.
As to the rest, tough to say without additional information about the rifle.
What should I look for to make sure this one is good to go? Will I regret getting a 30-06? Is it an obsolete round, as some have told me?
I'd look to see condition of the bore and action. then I'd see how bad or good a chop job was done in the sporterizing. It can bring tears to your eyes if the old rifle was butchered by some hack with a dremel...but if it looks decent and is in good condition, it sounds like a steal at $200, even sporterized.
HackerF15E
04-20-13, 07:08
If the rifle has the original barrel and it is toast you might want to pass... M1917s had their barrels installed with pneumatic tools and it can be a real bastard to get the barrel off. If the barrel has to come off a relief cut has to made in the barrel near the receiver face... if a relief cut isn't made you can crack the receiver ring and now you have a paperweight.
Just for clarity here, this does not apply to ALL M1917s.
Eddystone installed their barrels with hydraulic machinery which supposedly created a tight enough fit which has resulted in some receiver cracks when rebarreling.
It is not a widespread phenomenon, and it is only with Eddystones.
Deputy Dan
04-20-13, 08:21
Actually, the documents in the national archives relating to the manufacture of the M1917 states that pneudraulic tools were used... Pneumatic vices (designed at Eddystone) held the barrel in place while the receiver was screwed in place..."enabled 5 men to do the work formerly required of 10 men" The machines had an air clutch.
Not arguing the point, just following the evidence.
There is an Ordnance Supply Letter of 14 May 1947 to Chief of Ordnance discussing cracked receivers... referencing shooter complaints through the DCM that their M1917 receivers were cracked "especially" Eddystone receivers... but the phenomena was not confined to Eddystone.
The determination of the issue was that the barrels were installed incorrectly, most likely because the barrel register mark was placed incorrectly.
kaltesherz
04-20-13, 11:09
Here's a Pakistani DIY made M1917 we captured in Afghanistan back in 2008. It's kinda hard to see from the crappy pic but they copied the markings but got a few things off, and added "Made In Germany" on the other side of the receiver. I wish I would've taken more pictures but I was on overwatch as our SDM and they called me over as the "gun guy" 'cause they had no idea what it was...
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u64/kaltesherz/031-2.jpg (http://s165.photobucket.com/user/kaltesherz/media/031-2.jpg.html)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.