How Well Do 1917 Enfields Shoot?

[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 It also has a .314 diameter throat but doesn't show excessive wear with a bore scope, so I assume it is as originally made.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.

[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

[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.

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!!!!!!!!!!

[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.

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:









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):



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:



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:



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