Model 1917 the American Enfield

S

Sturmgewehre

New member
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.
 
Actually about twice as many carried P-17s as did the Springfield. Also, they didn't suffer from the "crappy heat treating, blow up the gun" problem that the first 10,000 or so M-1903s did.
 
The P17 was a copy of the British P14 in .303 caliber. Both were good rifles and issued in great numbers. Sergeant York earned his Medal of Honor with a 1917.
 
And, while not quite as pleasant to hump around as the more svelt Springfield, nor posessed of the Lee-Enfield's 10 round capacity, it was more durable than the former, and more accurate than the latter...

...as a rule.
 
The 1917 also enjoyed what at the time was about the best military sight available. The Enfield's peep sight, in my opinion was about as good as it got in 1917 and 1918.

1917 Enfields were made by ERA, Remington and Winchester. As noted in a previous post, these were modifed British Pattern 14 rifles. With production space and expertise already available in the USA, it was an easy matter to modify the bolt face, extractor and magazine from the 303 British to the 30/06. This was what the rapidly expanding US Army needed as Springfield Armory could not produce enough 1903 rifles.

Had not WW I interfered with the British transition to the Pattern 14, the Lee Enfield would have led a much shorter life. As it was, the Brits stayed with what they had and never looked back.

The Pattern 13 predecessor to the Pattern 14, was in a .276 calibre cartridge. Any more about that cartridge I don't know other than it was reportedly very hard on the bores with its cordite charge and small bore.
 
I believe the M1917 was superior to the 1903 in most aspects. The 1903 wasn't as robustly built but it wasn't as long and heavy either. Given a choice, I would take a M1917 over the 1903 without hesitation.

I've often wondered why the U.S. didn't adopt the M1917 after the war as our standard service rifle given the number of them in service.
 
It's painful to see them sporterized. I will die with mine in my possession. I only hope my sons will respect it as much as I do and see the value in such historic firearms.
 
I have both, a SC 1903A3 and a Eddystone 1917.

My 1903a3 is more accurate and easier to shoot, for me anyway.

One advantage of the 'A3 is the ability to adjust for windage.

I have another Remington 1917 action that I built a 416 Rigby on. IT works good but I made it a bit light, it kick like a mule.

There is a reason the 1903 has its own match in the CMP GSM games and the 1917 competes with "any other military rifle".
 
Last edited:
The 1903A3's rear sight being windage adjustable is a nice advantage. That was the one weakness of the 1903, the forward rear Mauser type sight.

I still prefer the M1917. It shoots the best for me, and I think it's pure sexy. :)
 
I've got one also.

It was arsenal refinished, but is all Winchester except for the thumb safety and bolt release. They probably got sweat on them when it was blue. The original barrel (2-18) bore is bright and perfect and it shoots fairly accurately.

I don't know, its definitely a strong design, but I'm a Mauser fan and more partial to the 03a3.

100_1145.jpg

Smith-Corona 03a3, dated 1943, Winchester 1917 Enfield, barrel dated 2-18, Springfield M1, made in 4/44.

Sorry for the bad pic. :o
 
Nice collection Nate!

Speaking of the 1917 Enfield, when adopted by the US, it was adopted with the British style stock. I've never understood the low comb and the pistol grip that really acts more as a stop for but strokes rather than for shooting. Nate's photo shows these traits well.

Does anyone know the raison de etre of the Enfield style stock? It dates back to the very first Lee-Metford rifle.

One other note: As brute strong as the 1917 Enfield action is, the ejector is easily broken on them. If you have one with a still functional ejector, go easy on it!
 
Last edited:
Sergeant York earned his Medal of Honor with a 1917.
Click to expand...
this is actually a heavily disputed claim. york actually hated his 1917 and at some point in France traded for the more accurate 1903..it is unknown whether he swapped out before his legendary actions or after but after the war he was allowed to take his 1903 home to Tennessee.
 
No, I am not 100% on that number. But 10,600something sticks in my mind. That could be an unrelated number. I'm too lazy to check right now, so I'll let someone else ferret out the actual number. But I am VERY sure on the "blow up the gun" part.
 
No, I am not 100% on that number. But 10,600something sticks in my mind. That could be an unrelated number. I'm too lazy to check right now, so I'll let someone else ferret out the actual number. But I am VERY sure on the "blow up the gun" part.
Click to expand...

:) the rule of thumb is 1,000,000, the actual number probably more like ~870,000. The rifles are not 'going to' blow up; it's not a certainty. They do have questionable heat treat that makes them a terrible gamble to shoot. Simply not worth the risk.
 
03 v. 17s.

I enjoy three 1903s.

One manufactured in 1915 with a 600,000 range serial number, original blue finish, original case hardened straight handle bolt and barrel dated to the serial number range. While it was made before the press of WW I production, I still shoot just cast bullets through it. If I recall, the original 1903s were basically case hardened or single heat treated depending on the jargon of the author. This required that the man doing the heat treating had to judge the heat of the metal by its color when heated. Apparently during the press of production during WWI, many new employees were hired and many didn't have the prerequisite skill in doing so. Makes sense to me. I believe I read that it in either Canfield's or Brophy's tome on the 1903.

My second 1903 was made in 1920 in the serial number range of 1,200,000. It's barrel is dated 1931. Without getting it out of the safe, I can't remember where it was rebuilt at. I use this one in old timer matches sometimes with 150 MKs or 155 grain Palma bullets.

With the 1931 rebuild date on it, it would also be correct as a 1903A1 rifle with the nice pistol grip stock. Guess what? I just happen to have one of those stocks in the garage with all the proper cartouches and rebuild stamps that would match this 03. Perhaps someday I'll screw it on and see if it shoots as well as with the straight grip stock. The Army considered any 1903 with a pistol grip stock on it a 1903A1 due to many of the original 1903s getting the pistol grip during the rebuild process. I don't thik the Army ever stamped a Springfield as a 1903A1, but I might be wrong.

Both of them are about two and a half minute rifles off of the bench with well cast bullets (RCBS or Lyman molds) and jacketed bullets out of the 1920 Ought Three will generally go 2 MOA for 10 shot groups.

The 1903A3 is a Remington with the two groove barrel. The two grooves take to cast bullets like a duck to water and it will drop them into one and half MOA with boring regularity. It's peep sight is also an aid to accuracy, although that thin front sight keeps getting harder to see for some reason.

My 1917 is a Remington in the 300,000 range and believe it or not, it will shoot MOA with 150 grain MKs or 155 grain Palma bullets. I think that it is original and it just shows the normal WW I acceptance stamps. Now if it just had a windgauge sight, I'd be a happy camper!

I was at Cabellas in Lacey last month and there was a 1917 with the Ogdon, Utah Arsenal rebuild stamp. Yep it was EKOG! Elmer Keith was the inspector there during WW II.

I guess it's a flip of the coin for me on preference.

Here are my Springfields. They are all original as issued.

1903 A3 (Remington with two groove barrel)
1903 circa 1920
1903 circa 1915
1898 circa 1903 (30/40 US)

I don't seem to have a photo of the US Enfield. I'll have to correct that.

Springfields2640-75.jpg
 
Last edited:
While I don't own an '03 yet, it is on my list. I'm very partial to my '17 because of the family connection. Solid solid rifle. Mine is a fairly low 5 digit serial number as well, around (193XX).

p908234421-5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top