You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Remington arms co model 1916 & 1917
- Thread starter aushunter
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
You show a Mosin Nagant model of 1891, from the Russian contract to Remington in 1916. Calibre is 7.62x54R just like the millions of other MNs produced over the years.
The first thing that showed up upon internet search was at:
http://texastradingpost.com/militaria/usmosin.html
The first thing that showed up upon internet search was at:
http://texastradingpost.com/militaria/usmosin.html
Reminington Model 1916 & 1917
Your first responder to your thread was dead on. That is a 1916 contract MN, caliber 7.62 x 54R.. Not even close to the 1917 Remington...The 1917 Remington is nearly identical to the British 1914. When America entered WWI, we has 600,00 1903 Springfields, and needed weapons badly. The British contract was still open and the U S, assumed the contract, twekked the rifle making it the standard (.30 cal) 30-06 vs the British .303R. The 1917 served with distinction during the war, but always had the stigma of being a British rifle, with the troops. Believe the 1917 was manufactured by Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone..Correct me if I am wrong, guys..
Your first responder to your thread was dead on. That is a 1916 contract MN, caliber 7.62 x 54R.. Not even close to the 1917 Remington...The 1917 Remington is nearly identical to the British 1914. When America entered WWI, we has 600,00 1903 Springfields, and needed weapons badly. The British contract was still open and the U S, assumed the contract, twekked the rifle making it the standard (.30 cal) 30-06 vs the British .303R. The 1917 served with distinction during the war, but always had the stigma of being a British rifle, with the troops. Believe the 1917 was manufactured by Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone..Correct me if I am wrong, guys..
Mike Irwin
Staff
One possible fly in the ointment...
Bannerman took some of these rifles and "converted" them to .30-06 in the 1920s.
If the if the top of the receiver in front of the magazine has a half-moon cut out, DO NOT SHOOT IT without having it checked out by a competent gunsmith.
If it HAS been "rechambered" (I put that in quotes because it was poorly and improperly done) to .30-06, don't shoot it at all.
Bannerman took some of these rifles and "converted" them to .30-06 in the 1920s.
If the if the top of the receiver in front of the magazine has a half-moon cut out, DO NOT SHOOT IT without having it checked out by a competent gunsmith.
If it HAS been "rechambered" (I put that in quotes because it was poorly and improperly done) to .30-06, don't shoot it at all.
Jim Watson
New member
Bannerman's to New South Wales?
Possible, I guess.
Possible, I guess.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Believe the 1917 was manufactured by Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone..Correct me if I am wrong, guys.."
Actually, manufactured by Remington and Winchester.
Eddystone wasn't a company, it was a town and manufacturing plant.
The plant was a wholely owned subsidiary company of Remington -- the Remington Arms Company of Delaware -- and was located on land owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works.
Actually, manufactured by Remington and Winchester.
Eddystone wasn't a company, it was a town and manufacturing plant.
The plant was a wholely owned subsidiary company of Remington -- the Remington Arms Company of Delaware -- and was located on land owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Bannerman's to New South Wales?
Possible, I guess."
Bannerman bought sold literally all over the world. And, it's actually the most logical way for one of these rifles to have gotten there.
When the Soviets defaulted on the remaining contracts for the Mosin-Nagants, the US military stepped in, purchased virtually all of the remaining guns, and used them for training purposes to free up Springfields and Enfields for troops going to France.
After the war, Bannerman purchased something like 20,000 of these guns, or virtually all of the guns on which the Soviets had defaulted, from the US military.
Commercially, via post war surplus, is virtually the only way one of these guns could have gotten to Australia.
Given that the gun is in Australia, it's most likely that this is NOT one of the ones chambered in .30-06, although that is possible.
Not that many were rechambered for .30-06. Remington started loading 7.62x54 for the US commercial market right after the war, so ammo wasn't exactly scarce.
Possible, I guess."
Bannerman bought sold literally all over the world. And, it's actually the most logical way for one of these rifles to have gotten there.
When the Soviets defaulted on the remaining contracts for the Mosin-Nagants, the US military stepped in, purchased virtually all of the remaining guns, and used them for training purposes to free up Springfields and Enfields for troops going to France.
After the war, Bannerman purchased something like 20,000 of these guns, or virtually all of the guns on which the Soviets had defaulted, from the US military.
Commercially, via post war surplus, is virtually the only way one of these guns could have gotten to Australia.
Given that the gun is in Australia, it's most likely that this is NOT one of the ones chambered in .30-06, although that is possible.
Not that many were rechambered for .30-06. Remington started loading 7.62x54 for the US commercial market right after the war, so ammo wasn't exactly scarce.
Thanks for the responses guy's.
All I had to go on was the markings on the rifle which state the Remington Arms Co & the year model!
The registration papers say its an 8mm in calibre & not 7.62 x 54R but I will have to check that out further.
Very interesting reading there.
Thanks again!
All I had to go on was the markings on the rifle which state the Remington Arms Co & the year model!
The registration papers say its an 8mm in calibre & not 7.62 x 54R but I will have to check that out further.
Very interesting reading there.
Thanks again!
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The registration papers say its an 8mm in calibre..."
That would have to be something that was done later by an independent gunsmith, then, as I have never heard of any of these rifles being rechambered for an 8mm cartridge.
That would have to be something that was done later by an independent gunsmith, then, as I have never heard of any of these rifles being rechambered for an 8mm cartridge.
FWIW, a friend had a M-N in .30-'06 that he hunted with for years, so I know at least one made it to one of the most remote areas of the globe, the wilds of Pennsylvania.
IIRC, the Rifleman used to publish warnings from time to time about those rifles, but his never had any problems and may still be shooting.
Jim
IIRC, the Rifleman used to publish warnings from time to time about those rifles, but his never had any problems and may still be shooting.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yep, we got a number of responses from people who said the same thing (we published an article about a pro-Czarist militia group that used those rifles in the US in the 1920s when I was on staff at Rifleman.).
Of course, we also had well documented reports of rifles that turned into grenades using factory ammo...
Same thing whenever we mentioned low serial number Springfields.
Of course, we also had well documented reports of rifles that turned into grenades using factory ammo...
Same thing whenever we mentioned low serial number Springfields.
Mike, I assume you mean the Czarists were around in the 1920's not that you were on the Rifleman staff in the 1920's (you would have to be older than... well, me). But if you had current reports of M1903 SHT rifles blowing up at that time, did the NRA document them? I repeatedly see posts saying, in effect, that stories about those guns being dangerous are wrong, or even lies told by Hatcher, as proven by the "fact" that no blowups have been reported since 1918, or 1920 or whenever. AFAIK, after those guns were taken out of service no one kept track of blowups, so I wonder if the NRA did.
Jim
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
As far as I know, the last verified known report of a low-serial-number Springfield failing was in the 1950s during the National Matchs, or an NRA certified match.
I've heard people say Hatcher lied.
Gotta ask, though, what would his motivation have been?
Considering the nature of the military at the time, and his position in it, it would make more sense, a LOT more sense, for him to have covered up any such incidents.
Sorry, but I don't buy the claims that Hatcher lied about either the failures he investigated, or his findings or theories on why they failed.
It's a known fact that more than a few of those guns got into public hands, outside of structured reporting mechanisms.
I've always looked at the low-number Springfield situation the way a lot of people look at a Webley that's been converted for .45 ACP.
"Well, they wouldn't have converted it if it were unsafe, would they?"
That's a bad, bad logic trail to follow because there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that such a conversion is a serious problem waiting to happen (especially with a Webley Mk IV or lower), and yet people still insist on shooting them because they're a British gun, and it's a well known fact that the British have ALWAYS made GREAT guns, and if it looks big and beefy it just has to be strong. Right?
If someone wants to shoot his low-number Springfield, and follow it up with a couple of cylinders of .45 ACP out of his Webley Mk whatever, that's great. More power to him.
I just don't want to be anywhere near him when he's pulling the trigger.
I've heard people say Hatcher lied.
Gotta ask, though, what would his motivation have been?
Considering the nature of the military at the time, and his position in it, it would make more sense, a LOT more sense, for him to have covered up any such incidents.
Sorry, but I don't buy the claims that Hatcher lied about either the failures he investigated, or his findings or theories on why they failed.
It's a known fact that more than a few of those guns got into public hands, outside of structured reporting mechanisms.
I've always looked at the low-number Springfield situation the way a lot of people look at a Webley that's been converted for .45 ACP.
"Well, they wouldn't have converted it if it were unsafe, would they?"
That's a bad, bad logic trail to follow because there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that such a conversion is a serious problem waiting to happen (especially with a Webley Mk IV or lower), and yet people still insist on shooting them because they're a British gun, and it's a well known fact that the British have ALWAYS made GREAT guns, and if it looks big and beefy it just has to be strong. Right?
If someone wants to shoot his low-number Springfield, and follow it up with a couple of cylinders of .45 ACP out of his Webley Mk whatever, that's great. More power to him.
I just don't want to be anywhere near him when he's pulling the trigger.
"The registration papers say its an 8mm in calibre..."
Just to muddy the waters further....
During WWI the Austro-Hungarian empire did convert some captured M91s to their 8X50mmR cartridge.
http://www.mosinnagant.net/global mosin nagants/Captured-Mosin-Nagants1.asp
Thanks for the info, Mike Irwin, I had not been aware of that 1950 one, but did know of a slightly later case when an SHT 1903 let go with a "rat shooting" load of 9 grains of Bullseye and a round ball. That seems mild enough, but would give exactly the kind of quick, sharp blow that a brittle receiver could not take.
One particular pain on that subject is a certain "Doctor" who claims that either blowups never happened or that they can't happen again because the dangerous ones have already blown. This was "proved" by statistics and we all know that statistics are never wrong.
Jim
One particular pain on that subject is a certain "Doctor" who claims that either blowups never happened or that they can't happen again because the dangerous ones have already blown. This was "proved" by statistics and we all know that statistics are never wrong.
Jim