How Well Do 1917 Enfields Shoot?

[Gandolf]

Hi All,

I was at a gun show today, and saw a 1917 Enfield that had a very good bore. The lands and grooves look sharp and crisp right up to where they join the leade. The bore looks a bit dark, but looks like it has hardly been shot.

The stock wasn't great, but the price was reasonable, I thought, as the guy was asking about $450, and I think would take $425. The rifle, overall, looked pretty good. Not excellent, but good. Eddistone action, Winchester barrel I think.

The question is how well do 1917s shoot cast bullets. Is the price reasonable? The seller seems like a good guy, and would answer any questions that I have, I think.

I didn't see an easy way to adjust for windage on the receiver sight. Does it have any, and does it adjust easily?

I really want an 03A3, but the Enfield was tempting.

Thanks and regards,

Gandolf

[Charley]

M1917s shoot very well. IME, the average M1917 will outshoot the average M1903 or 03A3. Good castshooters. My M1917's favorite load is Lee's 200 grain RB, over about 18 grains of SR4759. Light load but very accurate.
Windage is adjusted by drifting the front sight, but I've never had to do it.

[mooman76]

I have owned a couple ant they are good shooters. It's hard to say on the price without seeing it and you did say the stock wasn't that great. There are allot of these around but most have been buberized. I'd say if it has the original wood that it is a fair buy but if it's been buberized I'd look around some more, they are all over in fact I would like to get an unaltered original some day as well as a 03 but they are quickly getting out of my price range (with the original wood).

[NoDakJak]

During the past sixty years i have owned at least a dozen 1903s and A3s. The 1903's are one of the finest rifles ever built but with the rather crude peep sight and two groove barrel the o3A3 will usually out shoot it. I have owned almost as many 1917s and they outshoot all of my Springfields. That is with jacketed bullets. At this time I have never put a castbooolit through either model. If the rfle has a replacement barrel check it closely. Various manufacturers made 2, 4 and six groove replacements. At one time I had a bunch of new 2 groove barrels that were produced by "Johnson Automatics". They have a reputation for superior accuracy with cast boolits.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

These are solid, well made rifles and the price on them keeps climbing. Some folks don't like the cock-on-closing feature of the bolt, but Gun Parts Corp sells a gizmo that eliminates that. Replacement stocks are also available for rational prices as are spare parts if you need one. There were 3 manufacturers of these rifles; Winchester, Remington and Eddystone. The Eddystones were made by the Baldwin Locomotive Works which was owned by Remington. It was all milspec so all the parts were/are interchangeable and a lot of that went on so a very high percentage of rifles are mixmasters. The barrels are 5 lands and grooves of equal size so lands take up half of the bore. As a result of this feature, boolit design choice should be the same as for the O3-A3 that has 2 groves, that is a boolit with a relatively short body and a longer nose section. The lands in the bore of the 1917 positively support and guide such a design and several makers of molds offer other choices that also shoot very well with boolit bodies and nose sections of equal length. The steel and the actions of these 1917's are very strong and many conversions have been done over the years to much larger calibers than .30 As far as accuracy goes they can and do shoot very well. If you have to adjust for windage, it has to be done by drifting the front sight blade. An easy way to do this is with a front sight adjustment tool that is made for the SKS rifle. These are quite cheap and a little filing gets them to fit the 1917 and move the blade. One item to watch out for is being in a hurry and inadvertently sighting in on one of the front sight "ears".... guaranteed you'll mis the whole township. LLS

[DonH]

Slug the barrel on that 1917 if you buy it. This rifle was designed for and originally made in .303 Brit (Pattern 1914). When the US version came out they used the same barrels but with .30-06 chambers. Rifles which may have been rebarreled prior to WWII may have mor standard .30 cal barrels.

[StrawHat]

Slug the barrel on that 1917 if you buy it. This rifle was designed for and originally made in .303 Brit (Pattern 1914). When the US version came out they used the same barrels but with .30-06 chambers.

Interesting, never heard that mentioned before.

It is a great rifle.

I had two P14s and two actions for P14s. Wish I still had them!

[DonH]

A friend who has spent lifetime in precision rifle shooting spent the last few years competing with milsurp bolt actions in local matches. He did not beat the AR or M1A shooters but was close enough behind them that they should have been embarrassed. Any way, John had a 1917 Enfield in really great condition. When he got it to shoot to his satisfaction it was with .311 dia. Sierra match bullets. Knowing that the WWI 1917s had the same 5 groove rifling and direction of twist as the .303 1914, I casually mentioned my suspicion that the barrels maight be the same. A gunsmith friend who is full of history of 20th century US martial arms. He was there ahead of me and confirmed what I suspected ( and quoted a source of the info). That those barrels shoot well with jacketed .308 bullets is not so surprising as many rifles of that era had greater variation than .003 when they tried to get them the same.

I described my friend's experience in the past tense because at present he is suffering from terminal cancer and has sold the Enfield along with his extensive notes, etc. This gentleman is a PhD, professor and department chairman at a relatively liberal university all the while maintaining his conservative gun-owning and shooting lifestyle. The shooting world will be diminished when he takes his leave.

[nicholst55]

The fellow who picture I use as my avatar, Sergeant Alvin C. York, used his M1917 and an M1911 pistol to win the Medal of Honor in WWI. He reportedly could put two bullets through the same hole on the rifle range, on more than one occasion.

[Freightman]

Saw the same rifle and if I could sell a couple of mine I would have baught it, but funds are tight now and the gunshow will be gone before I get the funds. The thing is I know the man who owns it and if it don't sell today I still have a chance.

[Bret4207]

I have seen in print somewhere a test of the '17 vs '03 vs '03A3. IIRC the '03 beat the others, but I got the impression this was the expected, if not desired, result. Thing is there was another test about the same time frame, mid-50's, and the '17 just trashed the Springfields. Not having ever had a '17 and an '03 or A3 to put to the test I can' say for sure. I know the '17 had an awful lot going for it. It was very robust and stout. I don't wonder if that bulkyness and weight was a turn off for those old boys brought up on Krags and '03's.

[DonH]

There were two really big problems with the 1917 Enfield rifle. The first was that it was not made at the Springfield Armory. The second was that it was not designed at the Springfield Armory. In that era, primary arms for the military were not contracted out. The men who ran the Springfield facility and officers in charge of procuring weapons were a fraternity and as jealous of their own interests as they were those of the militery. That is not to say the arms they designed or produced were not good. The Pattern 1914 rifle as designed by the Brits was probably the better rifle, as well it should have been with the designers having had the luxury of studing all those which came before it. All 1914s and 1917s were manufactured in the uSA by Winchester and Remington (Remington owned Eddystone) on machinery provided by the British government.

To suggest that the 1917 Enfield WAS a better battle rifle than the '03 Springfield would bring an outcry from diehard Springfield fans. That point COULD be argued. What cannot be argued, and seems to not be widely understood, is that there were so few Springfield rifles as to relegat the '03 to a minor role in WWI. I don't recall the exact number I recently read but the number of '03s on hand amounted to less than 1/4 the number of rifles needed by the end of the war. Put more succinctly, our doughboys mostly fought our part of WWI with 1917s.
Reasons for this were many but it was mostly due to our propensity to cut our peacetime military to hardly more than a border patrol. That combined with a president ambitious or foolish enough to declare a war we had no army to fight and you have take what you can get to fight with. To the credit of US sporting arms makers, Winchester and Remington suggested that the rifle they were already making at rates far beyond the capacity of S.A could be without to much difficulty be adapted to use our .30 cal ammunition. If not for this our troops would have to have been armed with French rifles (our arty boys fought with French cannons as we had virtually none). It was bad enough that the majority of them had to be trained by the French. Yuk!

So much for ramblings on history (which most of yu probably already know) but it really is a shame that the 1917 Enfield which played such a major role in our military history has been sort of a misunderstood stepchild.

BTW. I AM NOT an expert on the things; just made it a point to read up on the rifle for my own benefit. One thing I gleaned along the way is that post WWI some guys would replace the rear sight staff with it's counterpart from the BAR which had both elevation and windage adjustment. So if you find one...

[Lead melter]

Slug the barrel on that 1917 if you buy it. This rifle was designed for and originally made in .303 Brit (Pattern 1914). When the US version came out they used the same barrels but with .30-06 chambers. Rifles which may have been rebarreled prior to WWII may have mor standard .30 cal barrels.


Maybe that would explain why I've never been able to get mine to shoot inside 8" at a hundred yards. Well, that AND the terribly creepy trigger....much like a lot of M-N's. I'll give those .311s a go. Thanks for the info.

[Buckshot]

Slug the barrel on that 1917 if you buy it. This rifle was designed for and originally made in .303 Brit (Pattern 1914). When the US version came out they used the same barrels but with .30-06 chambers. Rifles which may have been rebarreled prior to WWII may have mor standard .30 cal barrels.

..........DonH, I'll have to disagree if what you're saying is that they used the same barrels dimensioned as those on the 303 version. When they altered the design and their tooling to produce the P14 as the 30-'06 P17 version, they used the Springfield armoury bore and groove tolerances. While it's true they retained the left hand 10" pitch and the same 5 lands and grooves of equal width that is the extent of it.

An 'On' P17 will have a .300" land and a .308" groove. They may stray to a .301" land and a .310" groove but they'd be the exceptions. My P-17 Remington has a 11-17 dated barrel of .300"x.308" dimensions.

Re: Accuracy of the P-17 vs the Springfield should be very similar if both rifles are correct. One major difference however is feel, and compareing feel and handleing the P-17 is a club compared to a Springfield.

.............Buckshot

[StrawHat]

Didn't Alvin York use a P17 for his shooting foray at the Germans?

[Bret4207]

Yup. Check post #9 in this thread.

FWIW- The USMC had an almost religious loyalty to the Springfield. Considering their experience in the "Banana Wars", Hati, China and WW1 I suppose the "Old Corps" felt a proven rifle was preferable to some new fangled repeater like the M1 Garand. The COrps went into WW2 with '03's and 03A3's and from what I read there wasn't a lot of whining about it. Of course after the M1 entered service the Marines loved it, most of them anyway. Anecdotal eveidence suggests there were a few die hard '03 men who clung to the bolt rifle long after they could have had an M1.

This of course has nothing to do with the '17, but does relate to the institutional mindset mentioned earlier. Personally, I hope to have a '17, an '03, an 03A3, a Garand and every other gun I can get me mitts on! I'll let you if I find one to be radically superior to the others.:-D

[DonH]

..........DonH, I'll have to disagree if what you're saying is that they used the same barrels dimensioned as those on the 303 version. When they altered the design and their tooling to produce the P14 as the 30-'06 P17 version, they used the Springfield armoury bore and groove tolerances. While it's true they retained the left hand 10" pitch and the same 5 lands and grooves of equal width that is the extent of it.

An 'On' P17 will have a .300" land and a .308" groove. They may stray to a .301" land and a .310" groove but they'd be the exceptions. My P-17 Remington has a 11-17 dated barrel of .300"x.308" dimensions.

.............Buckshot

You may know more about this than I do but the friend to whom I referred is a scientist and high precision shooter and his rifle takes .311/.312 jacketed bullets for optimum accuracy. Another friend has bought the rifle and having expressed in shooting cast bullets will allow me to slug the bore. That will tell the tale but for now I see no reason for a .003" -.004" oversize bullet to shoot more accurately than a .308" unless indeed the bore dia. is indeed larger.

Respectfully

DH

[DonH]

Yup. Check post #9 in this thread.

FWIW- The USMC had an almost religious loyalty to the Springfield. Considering their experience in the "Banana Wars", Hati, China and WW1 I suppose the "Old Corps" felt a proven rifle was preferable to some new fangled repeater like the M1 Garand. The COrps went into WW2 with '03's and 03A3's and from what I read there wasn't a lot of whining about it. Of course after the M1 entered service the Marines loved it, most of them anyway. Anecdotal eveidence suggests there were a few die hard '03 men who clung to the bolt rifle long after they could have had an M1.

D

I don't wish to offend any old (or new) Marines out there; I get into enough trouble with own brother. Many things about the Marine Corp have been "gospel"* for so long that few questiion it. During my lifetime Marines have made do with equipment long after other services have moved on largely due to a "hind t**t" situtatiion. An example was the 03/ 03A3/M1 thing. Springfield Armory was under the auspices of the Army so the Army got M1s first. Marines were re-armed when the Navy saw fit. There were no doubt those who would have preferred to keep the bolt action however.

Most people are probably of the belief that the 1917 was a secondary weapon in WWI. Truth is that the number of 03s in service and what could be produced by Springfield relegated THAT rifle to secondary status during that war. There were likely no more than about a fourth of our troops in France armed with 03s. That the 1917 has been sort of stepchild is no doubt due to the fact that it was niether designed nor produced at S.A.

*Few people realize that Marines never fought as stand-alone Marine units in a major war prior to WWII. They were in many company-size or possibly regiment size actions around the world over their history but even in WWI they fought integrated with Army units. In that war there was one brigade of Marines (4th) in front-line service. That brigade was half of an AEF division, the other half of which was regular Army infantry. Division commander was Marine but CO of the Marine brigade was Army. The 5th and 6th Marine regiments and 9th and 23d USA Infantry regiments performed with equal valor at Belleau Wood, the Marne, Blanc Mont, etc. ( Read DEVIL DOGS, a history of WWI marines). Marine accomplishments were written up ( and not disputed by Marine commanders) back home to the exclusion of their Army brothers, creating bad blood for succeeding generations in both services.


Boy, I stepped in it now! " Lord forgive me and please help the starving pygmys in New Guinea"

[45 2.1]

Didn't Alvin York use a P17 for his shooting foray at the Germans?

According to Yorks diary that his son has, he didn't. I think I remember reading from the article about it that he "liberated" a Springfield from the cooks shanty that he used that day.

[yeahbub]

I've a question on another minor detail. Is it P17 or M17? I know the Pattern 14 is the P14, but I read in various commentary about the Model of '17, and elsewhere, the Pattern 17.

It all reminds me of the general confusion about "to", "too", and "two", which, like the poor, will always be with us.

[curator]

My Remington M1917 does indeed have a .302-310 bore/groove diameter. It also has a .314 diameter throat but doesn't show excessive wear with a bore scope, so I assume it is as originally made. It would shoot jacketed .308 diameter bullets into pie-plate diameter groups at 50 yards. Using Sierra .311 150 grain PSPs it would shoot 1 1/2" at 100 yards. I now shoot Lyman's #314299 with exceptional accuracy. I also have a Winchester P14 with identical bore/groove measurements. A real tack driver for a .303 british rifle.

[Bret4207]

*Few people realize that Marines never fought as stand-alone Marine units in a major war prior to WWII. They were in many company-size or possibly regiment size actions around the world over their history but even in WWI they fought integrated with Army units. In that war there was one brigade of Marines (4th) in front-line service. That brigade was half of an AEF division, the other half of which was regular Army infantry. Division commander was Marine but CO of the Marine brigade was Army. The 5th and 6th Marine regiments and 9th and 23d USA Infantry regiments performed with equal valor at Belleau Wood, the Marne, Blanc Mont, etc. ( Read DEVIL DOGS, a history of WWI marines). Marine accomplishments were written up ( and not disputed by Marine comm anders) back home to the exclusion of their Army brothers, creating bad blood for succeeding generations in both services.


Boy, I stepped in it now! " Lord forgive me and please help the starving pygmys in New Guinea"


I shall peruse my USMC history for the details. I believe you're right overall. The Marines were considered and expeditionary force and Naval Infantry. The engagements did lack the size of Army engagements, but considering the size of the USMC in those years I think they did rather well. No offense taken. It was WW2 that really solidified the Marine role, and they EXCELLED in that role.:drinks:

[Buckshot]

...............While the CO-AH recieves it's pay, provisions and transportation from the Navy, (and uses up all the fresh water, and flops down anywhere and everywhere to clean weapons and sharpen bayonets while afloat) it gets it's ordnance from the Army. The Army Dept did offer the Marines that were to be landing on Guadlecanal, the chance to be armed with Garands.

However the Marines declined as they wanted nothing to do with that Buck Rogers Piece of Sh#t and would rather fight with thier 1903's. It was not long after the Army's 164th regiment arrived as relief that thier Garands began to mysteriously disappear. It became so bad that they had to post guards around thier supply areas. It didn't take the jarheads long to learn that in the jungle there wasn't much occassion to flip up the ladder and run the elevator up to make those long range shots the Springfield was so well known for. The fact that you could put 8 rounds up a jungle trail in a big ass hurry with a Grand was comforting :-)

.................Buckshot

[10-x]

45 2.1 is correct in his statement that York "liberated" a 03 from elsewhere. York was in the 82nd Infantry Division , AEF. The 82nd as well as most US Army units were armed with 1917's. Many US units were attached to Brit. or French Army units for training and then combat. These units(usually Regiments) were issued weapons and gear by the Parent unit. The famous "Harlem Hellfighters" from NY (all black regiment) were totally equiped by the Frogs, but had white US officers.
As mentioned by 45 2.1 York "picked up" a 03 from a nearby Marine unit . I believe this was a recent addition in the American Rifleman, I will check.
Regardless the 1917 was a stop gap weapon to supplement the production of 03's.
Like it or not Springfield and RIA could not produce enough 03's.
1917's required little modifications to the 1906 cartridge.

Most of this is print in various books pertaining to WWII or US Military weapons, not opinion.

Hatchers Notebook
Smith and Smith Bruce Canfield's books on weapons
the late J.C. Harrisons books on 03's/1917's
Hayes Otoupalik's WWI Collectors Handbook:drinks:

[TooManyMisses]

According to the Sporting Rifle and Takedown & Reassembly Guide by J.B. Wood from Gun Digest about 1981 it was referred to as the U.S. Model 1917 or P-17 Enfield as they were converted from P-14 Enfields left over from British contracts. Have just started casting and only have tried the Lee C309-160-R in mine but have had good results at 50 yards and hope to try it at longer ranges once the snow goes away.

[Bret4207]

Buckshot! Thee has beeschmerched (?) my honor and that of the entire USMC. TAKE THAT! (Picture Bugs Bunny slapping the Black Knight with a glove with a brick in it!) The entire USMC is on our way to your house to settle this! Get the beer ready.

BTW- Whuts "the CO-AH"?

[TNsailorman]

I have owned several Model 1917's and several 1903 & 1903A3 rifles. I like the balance of the 1903 better, I like the acuracy of the 1917 follwed by the 1903A3. The problem I had with the 1903 was the sights. They were fine for a target range where you had plenty of time to acquire a sight picture with a very hard to see rear sight(at least for me), but try that in a dark jungle or low light situation and things change in a hurry. The most accurate 30/06 I ever owned was a 1917 with a Remington receiver and a Johnson automatic barrel. It would cut holes at 100 yards with a 168 grain boatail bullet and 4350 powder. The next best was a 1903A3 with a 2 groove RA 44 barrel. The barrel was relieved just enough to free float it and still retain a bayonet. It would shoot the same load as the 1917 and was so close in accuracy that it really didn't matter. The next best was a Remington Model 30, which was nothing more than a Remington civilian version of the 1917 rifle. My 1903 is accurate but the sights really hurt it with my shooting. I never shot cast bullets in any of the above rifles but will be remeding that this summer as I am just now getting serious about bullet casting. I have always bought my lead cast by someone else in the past. While we are on the subject of accuracy in the 1917, I have had one really good outing with it and the 2 groove barrel 1903A3 and the new 175 grain Sierre match bullet last summer. Both shot one ragged hole with that bullet and 4350 powder. Time will tell on tht load and bullet as I do intend to try it again this summer. I had a friend who was on the canal in 42 and he told me that the Marines stole every BAR that they could find loose or trade for when the army showed up with them. He called them the best "bunker busters"in the pacific until the flame thrower & tanks showed up.

[Charley]

I've a question on another minor detail. Is it P17 or M17? I know the Pattern 14 is the P14, but I read in various commentary about the Model of '17, and elsewhere, the Pattern 17.

It all reminds me of the general confusion about "to", "too", and "two", which, like the poor, will always be with us.

ALWAYS an M-1917. M is for Model, as in M-1903, M-1917, or M-1 The P stands for "pattern", Brittalk for the final approval of the production model... a "sealed pattern" means no more changes before production.

[Buckshot]

Buckshot! Thee has beeschmerched (?) my honor and that of the entire USMC. TAKE THAT! (Picture Bugs Bunny slapping the Black Knight with a glove with a brick in it!) The entire USMC is on our way to your house to settle this! Get the beer ready.

BTW- Whuts "the CO-AH"?

................And how pray, did I besmurch the loveryly Corp? I spoke only the truth. Co-ah is the southern pronunciation of Corp. My cousin Johnny Riley from Tennessee retired from the co-ah, as a Master Gunner. My youngest brother is also a gyrene (no longer practicing lo these past few years) so far be it for me to say anything bad about them.

My best buddy was an Electricians Mate on the USS San Bernardino LST 1189. Their home port was changed from Long Beach, CA to Norfolk, VA. Upon their decending upon Norfolk the ship's company including their Marine contingent had a ships party. After tallying up the damage done to the facility ashore, it cost the ship's welfare and rec fund $4200 in 1972 dollars :-)

I don't know if the Sailors or the Marines won, but my buddy said a great time was had by all.

...............Buckshot

[Bret4207]

Hey, I was just looking for an excuse to find free beer!

[DonH]

I shall peruse my USMC history for the details. I believe you're right overall. The Marines were considered and expeditionary force and Naval Infantry. The engagements did lack the size of Army engagements, but considering the size of the USMC in those years I think they did rather well. No offense taken. It was WW2 that really solidified the Marine role, and they EXCELLED in that role.:drinks:

No offense intended! I respect Marines and Marine vets; they have done well and didn't really need skewed history which cam eout of WW1. An NY paper reporter who wrote up Belleau Wood was killed before finishing his piece for submittal. It was found, submitted and published as it was to hero-ize the reporter. The incomplete and slanted view presented to the public resulted in much bad blood between the services from there on. There have been enough turf wars (over roles, equipment, etc.) without stuff in the press causing more of them.

BTW, Marines should hate Pershing as his predjudices disallowed them their own supply system and relegated them to fighting in USA uniforms!

[Bret4207]

Pershing, that rings a bell. Must have read that some place. The odd bits of trivia floating around are what makes this stuff so interesting. Things like MacArthur putting putting all his troops in the Phillipines in for awards, EXCEPT the USMC. "They've got enough medals." was his reasoning. Or Truman, and old WW1 Army man, wanting to disband the Corps entirely.

Pride notwithstanding, the Corps has done a remarkable job through the years. As with the Coast Guard being small and under funded, compared to the Navy/Army/ Air Force, didn't stop them from performing very well in a variety of roles. Of course a little massaging of the details goes on in any outfit and pride demands a bit of bravado being added on. It could be worse. Read up on the Air Force someday. Those birds think they're actually a MILITARY ORGANIZATION. HAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!!!!:bigsmyl2:

:kidding:

[Herb in Pa]

Here's a good article on the 1917 Enfield authored by Dick Culver..........

http://www.odcmp.com/Forms/M1917.pdf

[Bob S]

..........An 'On' P17 will have a .300" land and a .308" groove. They may stray to a .301" land and a .310" groove but they'd be the exceptions. My P-17 Remington has a 11-17 dated barrel of .300"x.308" dimensions.
.............Buckshot

Groove diameter was not specified for the Model 1917 (there is no "P-17" or "Pattern 17") The internal dimensions were specified in the British format ... bore diameter .300", and groove depth .005". (compared to the British dimensions of .303" bore, groove depth .0055") Do the math, and the groove diameter of the original Model 1917 5-groove barrels is nominally .310, and most run closer to .311. The WW relacement barrels were made following US dimensioning practice, and the groove diameter was .308" +.0015, -.0005 after 1942.

Buckshot, if you have an original 5 groove barrel that is truly .308 in the grooves, you have a very rare one. How did you measure the groove diameter?

It appears that I can't access photobucket from here, more later.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[DonH]

Pershing, that rings a bell. Must have read that some place. The odd bits of trivia floating around are what makes this stuff so interesting. Things like MacArthur putting putting all his troops in the Phillipines in for awards, EXCEPT the USMC. "They've got enough medals." was his reasoning. Or Truman, and old WW1 Army man, wanting to disband the Corps entirely.
:kidding:

Same 4th Marine Brigade as at Belleau Wood. " They got enough awards in the last war." Exactly the kind of rift I alluded to. As for Truman, if memory serves, he was some sort of low level staffer at AEF under Pershing. Far enough of track for now though.

cheers

[DonH]

Here's a good article on the 1917 Enfield authored by Dick Culver..........

http://www.odcmp.com/Forms/M1917.pdf

Good Read! From reading other history I will say that the folks at the gov't arsenals were not going to take any threat to their job security lying down. So much is made of the dislike of the cock-on closing feature of the Enfield-designed action being unpopular and even maybe detrimental. It is fair to say however that bolt actions played such a minor role in US riflery prior to our entering WW1 that outside of regular military virtually everyone was learning from scratch. I can't help but wonder how much the Arsenal folks may have contributed behind the scenes to get all the mileage they could out of this,

I am just now working on my first Enfield so I have no first hand experience with that action but I do know the cock-on-closing Lee Enfield gives up nothing to the 03 as a battle rifle. Further I am not so sure just how much the $#4 Enfield gave up to the Garand in actual practice. I don't fight battles with 'em but my M1 left and the #4 is still here

[4570guy]

I highly recommend C.S. Ferris' book on the Model 1917.

Also, I just finished reading Miracle at Belleau Wood by Alan Axelrod. Good read.

[Bob S]

The National Match sight that wasn't quite ready for the 1918 National Matches:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917backsight.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917matchsight2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917matchsight1.jpg


I had a hard time getting this one to shoot acceptably with .308 jacketed bullets until I reread the entry in Hatcher's Notebook about the bore/groove dimensions. This is about the best it would do with .308 bullets (this is a darn good lot of GI Match):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_M72.jpg

When I switched to the Hornady 174 grain FMJBT ".303 bullet", which mikes .3105 (laughably too small for any .303 Brit I have ever fired, but perfect for the 5-groove M1917), instant success. This was fired at 100 yards prone, using the "National Match" rear sight, 42 grains of "new" surplus 4895, which is considerably quicker than any 4895 I ever got from the DCM, or the DuPont cannister 4895:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_group.jpg

I don't consider three rounds a "group", but I will shoot "triangles" when I am working up a table of elevations for military sights, which is what I was doing when I fired this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_314299_4350.jpg

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[45nut]

Thank You Bob, I always look forward to your contributions here. Any other photos and information would be most welcome.

[Lumpie]

Thank You Bob, I always look forward to your contributions here. Any other photos and information would be most welcome.I can not expand on the attributes of these rifles. The post alone, has covered it quite well. However I would like to tell you about my experience with these rifles. I first had an encounter with one of them in 1952. My father was a creature of habit. Haircut every Saturday. Not that he needed one. It was an excuse to visit the barber-gun dealer. No yellow sheets in them days! This man would be arrested today. He had an oilfield steel building, behind his barber shop. This was where he stored the guns, he had for sale. One saturday when my father was finished in the barber chair,he asked the barber what he had for sale? He said lets go look. We went into the steet shack, and ther were a bunch of wooden boxes. In these boxes were the uglist guns I had ever saw. Mule's ears, and a sow's belly. I thought at the time, what would anyone want with one of them ugly turkeys? My father bought two of them, and we went home. I asked him why he wanted them ugly old guns for. He said son you don't have any idea what they are!I don't remember much about them 2 guns, only they were fun to shoot! Some 12 years later,when I came back form Vietnam, I met a man named Tom Chase. He was a WW11 P-51 mustang pilot. He is one of the best tool and die makers I have ever known. He is 86 years old, and still builds guns.When I made his acquaintance, he was my shop foreman. We hit it off, just like guys on this forum. One day he asked if I would like to go to the rifle range with him. I told I would. The next day when we got to the range, he unloaded his gear, and there it was. No mule's ears,no sow belly, only there it was. The weird bolt handle. I knew right off what it was. It had mounted on it a Lyman 48 long slide target sight, and it would shoot light out. It was an instant love affair.Cinderelle! Now to make a long story short,he gave me that rifle in 1980,for Christmas. Since then he has built one of the following for me.And when I say built, I mean that includes making the stock from a Walnut blank. 300H&H,35Whelan,8MM-06,338-06,7MM-06,257Robts,303Brittish,25-06Rem.244Rem,and the latest project a 22-250Rem. He built a 416Rem. Mag, for a friend of mine, and 45Nuts, and gave it to him! If any of you guys would like to talk to this man? Pm. me and it will happen! Carl

[dromia]

M17s were sent over to the UK at the start of the second world war to help out with the shortage of rifles, they went to Home Guard Units and such like and it would have been referred to as the P17 here, a P14 in 30-06.

They were replaced as soon as possible, because of ammo supply, with .303"s. This where I think some of the confusion arises over nomenclature. The rifle was made and designated as Model (M) 17.

[Bob S]

A lot of the M1917's also went to the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies, and after WW II, to Denmark. We found a few of them in Vietnam, how they got there I have no clue.

I haven't looked at it in awhile, but I had a couple of issues with MAJ Culver's article. I don't know where he got the minimum trigger pull as 3 lbs; all of the original gov't lit in my collection says 4-1/2 lbs min. Despite the issues with the crude sight adjustments and "cock on closing", the rapid fire scores in the 1918 National Matches were considerably higher than those fired in previous years. This was the year that Small Arms Firing School was established, to instruct shooters in the use of the new-fangled M1917. What is frequently not mentioned, or appreciated, in discussions of the debate over adoption of the M1917 as THE service rifle in the post WW I period is that the three production lines for the M1917 had already been closed down, and the machinery either sold off or converted to other uses. And all three facilities had a history of labor difficulties. So the rifle was not "sustainable" without another round of significant "start-up" costs. Contrast that with two fully operable production lines for the M1903 staffed by government employees who had little to stand on in the event of labor disputes in those days. (the Rock Island production facility was deactivated shortly after this debate concluded).

Remington Illion cobbled together a modification of the M1917 in 7mm from left over parts, for foreign military sales, and produced a greatly modified version as the M30 sporting rifle (also using a fair bit of left over parts), up through the Model 720 of 1941. I won two 720's in the 1980's as Secretary of the Navy Trophy Rifles, and you have to look close to see the M1917 lineage, but it's there.

The Marine Corps developed a windage-adjustable rear sight for the M1917 just in case it was adopted as the service rifle. (The match sight illustrated in my previous post was far too delicate for service use, and did not have a battle sight. Bruce Canfield attributed this sight development to Remington Illion, but the one that I own is clearly made on a Winchester ladder.) For those familiar with the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, the USMC experimental M1917 rear sight had a windage mechanism that is close to or identical to that used on the last mod of the BAR. The first two mods of the BAR used the unmodified rear sight leaf from the M1917 rifle, and it also had no windage adjustment. I have only seen a couple of fuzzy photos of the USMC M1917 sight, but I would be willing to bet that the windage adjustment on the late BAR's was developed in the USMC design/overhaul facility in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard circa 1919, and simply adopted by Army Ordnance a few decades later.

For us Yanks not familiar with the cock-on-closing action, a minimal amount of training with it should convince you that you can operate it as fast as a cock-on-opening action, and with less disruption to your position while doing so. You need to put a nickel in the magazine between the rear of the follower and the feed lips of the receiver to prevent the follower from stopping the bolt while practicing. Of course, if you want a manually-operated service rifle with a fast action that will really stay on the target as you operate it, pick up a Swiss Schmidt-Rubin or a K31. But that's another story. :-D

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[45nut]

For us Yanks not familiar with the cock-on-closing action, a minimal amount of training with it should convince you that you can operate it as fast as a cock-on-opening action, and with less disruption to your position while doing so. You need to put a nickel in the magazine between the rear of the follower and the feed lips of the receiver to prevent the follower from stopping the bolt while practicing.

Well there is a idea I had not come across before. Seems like it would work with any coin that would fit a particular rifle huh? So simple its genius.

[TENRINGS]

The National Match sight that wasn't quite ready for the 1918 National Matches:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917backsight.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917matchsight2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917matchsight1.jpg


I had a hard time getting this one to shoot acceptably with .308 jacketed bullets until I reread the entry in Hatcher's Notebook about the bore/groove dimensions. This is about the best it would do with .308 bullets (this is a darn good lot of GI Match):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_M72.jpg

When I switched to the Hornady 174 grain FMJBT ".303 bullet", which mikes .3105 (laughably too small for any .303 Brit I have ever fired, but perfect for the 5-groove M1917), instant success. This was fired at 100 yards prone, using the "National Match" rear sight, 42 grains of "new" surplus 4895, which is considerably quicker than any 4895 I ever got from the DCM, or the DuPont cannister 4895:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_group.jpg

I don't consider three rounds a "group", but I will shoot "triangles" when I am working up a table of elevations for military sights, which is what I was doing when I fired this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/BobS1/M1917/M1917_314299_4350.jpg

Resp'y,
Bob S.
BOb

niice looking 17, question on the site is it available anywhere?
you also say 4895 surplus but new surplus. where would that be avail.?? especially today...

nice shooting,i just bought a 17 have'nt got ityet but very soon,don't know much bout it cept its a 17 and was closet for many years.. an old bud of mine.. i got high hope's lol

thanks
tenrings

[Jim]

Well there is a idea I had not come across before. Seems like it would work with any coin that would fit a particular rifle huh? So simple its genius.

The rear of the follower in my '17 has been carefully machined to a chamfer to allow the bolt to close without having to "nickel" it or push the follower down. I didn't do that, that's the way it was when I got it. I kinda' like that, personally.

[Buckshot]

http://www.fototime.com/4390B1B70F52B11/standard.jpg

Group fired at Winnemucca, NV (NCBS 2006) . Very first 'For Effect' group fired with new rifle. Load 23.0grs H4198 + Dacron, Lyman 311284. Fired at 50 yards, 1.050".

http://www.fototime.com/36BEAF825B756E0/standard.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/82D49C5E1A41BD7/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/25E47382292E8CD/standard.jpg

...............Buckshot

[Bob S]

The prototype sight is somewhat unique; it's the only example I have ever seen. It seems that no one else knew what it was when it was up for bids, except maybe one guy who said he "forgot" to bid, and then pestered me with emails for weeks after offering to trade everything under the sun, and then sums of cash. That was back when eBay didn't mask bidders ID's. I can appreciate why they did that now ....

If you want a "target" sight for the M1917, and you don't want to alter the rifle, a Parker-Hale No. 5B is the best bet. They come up on the auction sites regularly. The sight is designed for the P14 rifle: it is held on the receiver primarily by spring tension from the bolt stop, but also uses the existing axis screw. For those unfamiliar, the bolt stop spring for the M1917 differs from the P14 part, which was originally used to tension the volley sight on the P14 as well as provide tension for the bolt stop. The P14 part is a little narrower on the tail. To get the P-H sight to fit the M1917 properly, you will have to stone the M1917 bolt stop spring down to fit the dovetail on the sight base, or just purchase the P14 part and substitute it for the M1917 part.

Follower: most military rifles have a "blocking follower" to let the soldier know that the magazine is empty and needs to be recharged. In the heat of battle, one doesn't count shots, and the ability to close the bolt on an empty chamber could be fatal. For some strange reason, some South American and Yugo mausers don't have the feature. In a sitting or prone rapid fire string, the ability to close the bolt on an empty chamber can cost you points, that's why I choose to leave it be, and just improvise for practice operation. My Model 70 Target rifles do not have the feature, so I substituted a M1903 Springfield follower in the 30-06 rifle, and an Israeli mauser follower in the .308 International Match. For most hunting situations, the blocking follower is an inconvenience, and altering it is usually one of the first things done in the "sporterization" process. I didn't invent the coin trick; my grandfather showed me that one many years ago. He was issued a M1917 in 1918.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Stoats]

Bob, I have found cock-on-closing (COC) to be far faster than COO, since it is FAR easier to open the bolt. Bu then I'm a Brit brought up on Lee-Enfields, so expect 20+ nrounds per min from a boltgun :D

[Echo]

My 1917 started as a barreled action I got from my FIL. Kept it around for years, finally policed up action, sights, furniture on eBay and gave it to a smith friend to assemble. He got it back to me with a target. Barrel needed re-crowning, almost counterboring. Bore wasn't concentric with OD, so crown was inconsistant, and accuracy had a lot of randomness. Should have a picture of it - 100-yard cloverleaf. Load was 165 gr AMax and 60 grains of 4831 down a lonnng drop tube.

Haven't really shot it much, but intend to send only Pb down the bore...

[Three44s]

I am just getting acquainted with my first M1917 Enfield .......

...... but COC works for me!

Three 44s