US Model of 1917 Eddystone.

Tad T, someone spray painted the red band on your rifle, I have stamps on a few of my rifles and bayonets with arrows, all of my arrow stamps are broken, when looking at your pictures I do not see an arrow, it is rumored the rifles went overseas with an arrow and came back with a broken arrow, all of my DPs have broken arrows. NOTICE!!! I said it was rumored, we will wait for the delay between posting a response and ‘Googlers’ to catch—up.

F. Guffey
 
Who looks at the butt stock and of for stock when loading a rifle in the excitant of a conflict.
Click to expand...
Could well be the stripe is for the benefit of the supply clerk or sergeant issuing ammo, not the guy actually using the rifle, who would just use whatever he was given.
 
Dick Culver said the the butt stock had a band, he did not mean butt plate and I am not going to demean his effort.
Click to expand...
nobody is saying anything about the buttplate. on any given rifle stock, be it a 1, 2 or 3 piece stock, the buttstock always refers to the portion rear of the receiver, this is where there seems to be some confusion because you keep using the term "buttstock" and Jim and I keep using the term "foregrip", foregrip being the portion of the stock forward of the trigger group that runs the length of the rifle. though it may be a 1 piece stock, you can not say "buttstock and expect everyone else to know what you are talking about.

no idea why I was quoted in a complaint against arguments when I was clearly offering no input on that matter. more to that point. the entire reason for a gun forum is debate, conversation, and education. without debate, there is no room for accurate education and without education all we would have "is look at my pretty new rifle" threads.
 
There was almost no issue of .30 ammo to British troops. Almost all the Lend Lease and pre-Lend Lease American weapons spent the war in depots, to be issued only as a last ditch measure in the event of an invasion. Although Model 1917's were issued to the Home Guard*, they were rarely fired because of the lack of ammunition. The markings ensured against accidentally issuing those rifles to active units.

*And often seen in propaganda pictures of that time as the British tried to pretend that the Home Guard was a real defense force and presumably scare the Wehrmacht into calling off the invasion. Sea Lion was eventually called off, but I doubt that pictures in British papers of sexagenarians armed with obsolescent American rifles had much to do with it.

Jim
 
And I hear we did not need the Russians, it was not until Public Television told the Russian story, somewhere in there and about that time a high ranking general in Hitler’s army went for a plane ride and ‘GOT LOST?

He landed in England.

Propaganda? Hitler was a mental midget, I am the only one that says “Thank GOD!!”

F. Guffey

http://translate.google.com/transla...=Enfield+M1917+Eddystone&start=110&hl=en&sa=N

I dug the two links out of old hard drives I use for storage, these two came from 2007, I KNOW, the links are still out there but but it is easier for me to find links when there are a few hundred instead of the search used today.

http://imageevent.com/willyp/firearmsalbums/britishww1enfieldp14
 
Last edited:
Point? The first link describes the painting on the stock, the article describes the area as ‘butt’, not butt plate.

We could change the nomenclature of the stock to one stock, two stock, three stock and four stock.

F. Guffey
 
again, nobody here has used the term "BUTT PLATE". butt plate is the thin strip of metal at the back of the gun that prevents you from getting a shoulder full of slivers every time you fire the gun. you can argue that nomenclature is not important all you want but mislabeling the specific parts and locations of those parts/features only serves to discredit your side of the argument.

also, since there are no pictures describing the location of the band, which I was able to locate(nowhere near the butt), it would seem logical to assume that the article has errors. even before the actual essay begins he has already made a glaring error that claims the 1917's ammo capacity is 5 rounds. though 30-06 came on 5 round stripper clips, the M1917 actually had a 6 round magazine due to the fact that it used the same mag as the P14 enfield and 5 rounds of rimmed 303 ammo took up more space in the magazine than 30-06. also if memory serves correctly only two facilities made the P14 while 3 made the M1917.

also claiming that the 7mm brit cartridge and P13 enfields were a huge success and a majority of the british military were unhappy with the enfield NO1 are all far from the truth. the push to move to a mauser styled rifle was purely political and the 7mm brit cartridge never saw the light of day. there is a reason that after WWI, the brits continued to modify the NO1 enfield rather than the P14 and by WWII, the NO1 and 4 were front line issue while the P14 hung back to the homefront security forces.
 
also claiming that the 7mm brit cartridge and P13 enfields were a huge success and a majority of the british military were unhappy with the enfield NO1 are all far from the truth. the push to move to a mauser styled rifle was purely political and the 7mm brit cartridge never saw the light of day. there is a reason that after WWI, the brits continued to modify the NO1 enfield rather than the P14 and by WWII, the NO1 and 4 were front line issue while the P14 hung back to the homefront security forces.
Click to expand...

The military does not like change. Even changes to something as insignificant as uniforms, hats, insignia create large cries of protest that the service “has changed for the worst”. An retired Marine I know, he is convinced the Marine Corp has gone to hell in a handbasket because now, Marines have their names on their uniforms, whereas before, you were all just nameless Marines. A Marine was a Marine, was a Marine, now, they are individuals. Yes, the Marine Corp has gone to hell in handbasket. :rolleyes: Many in the Army hate the ACU's, want their BDU's back. Except for those who started their careers during the ACU era and they will be balling their eyes out when the ACU is replaced, as it will. There are those whom I met who were convinced the Army was better during brown shoe era than the black shoe. Because of the shoe, apparently. Maybe they wore Wingtips?

What I have observed, is that the military likes what it has, wants something better but only a little different, and totally rejects revolutionary change. Taking the side hammer off the musket is way too much change for these guys. Introducing a new rifle encounters a lot of push back from all levels and because the resistance to change is so high, little things can derail progress.

The time was right at WW1 to change from a rimmed cartridge to a rimless and to dump the Lee Enfield action. This did not happen because WW1 hit with a big bang and inventories after the war were so huge that it became impossible to cost justify change. The British had gone through troop trials with the P13, the 276 cartridge pushed a 165 grain bullet at 2785 fps. Clearly this is much better ballistically than the Mk VII round at 2440 fps with a 174 grain bullet.

I have owned both M1917’s (the 30-06 version) and SMLE’s, and No 4’s,. The M1917 is a more advanced rifle than the SMLE and was a success with US troops who used the M1917 in WW1. I wish I knew the exact unit production costs, neither the SMLE or the M1917 look all that cheap to make, but I believe the advantage was to the M1917.

Anyway, history shows that after WW2 the British finally acknowledged that the Lee Enfield and the 303 round had to be replaced, and that turned into another messy, unsatisfactory, rifle and cartridge conversion.
 
“again, nobody here has used the term "BUTT PLATE".

Yes there is, I am saying “Butt Plate” Jim Tarelton sent me a picture of a butt plate, I know what a butt plate looks like. I said Dick Culver published an an article, I furnished the link, in the link he made reference to paint on the butt, I then furnished pictures gathered by Google. I was then informed Dick Culver was wrong, I have no ideal what Dick Culver meant to say, I said he did not say ‘BUT Plate’, I knew I had a link that agreed with Dick Culver, and for my unappreciated effort, you are welcome.

Jim’s picture of a butt plate was was covering a butt. There is a remote possibility there are others that read this and other forum that see some (a little good) in everything they read.

I also found an old link about 30/06 ammo, there was no excuse for the Barney" Milton Fife philosophy of one gun one bullet.

F. Guffey
 
you posted an article that was chocked full of misinformation, errors and opinions stated as fact and then left a link to a picture gallery full of P14s, neither strengthens your case the the red bands are painted around the butts. your posts are not unappreciated but I just see no logic in expecting everyone to understand a viewpoint that is being formed through misinformed essays and pictures of unmarked rifles.
Many in the Army hate the ACU's, want their BDU's back. Except for those who started their careers during the ACU era and they will be balling their eyes out when the ACU is replaced, as it will.
Click to expand...
I for one joined the navy during the prison uniform days and very much welcomed the digital camos. I do not miss utilities in the least.
 
It seems nobody really liked the 1913/1914/1917. Nobody whose opinion counted, anyhow.

The .276 1913 was calculated to give the best combination of long range ballistics and manageable recoil. But the powders of the day gave high pressure and fast barrel erosion.

The 1914 was something The Arsenal of Democracy (US!) could tool up for easier than SMLE but the British made no more use of them than they had to. Longer, heavier, and slower rate of fire wiped out advantages of receiver sight and accuracy.

With three "modern" factories tooled up, we fought out part of the War with more 1917s than 1903s. But NIH outweighed availability, sights, and strength, so the "Enfields" were shelved and the '03 ruled until the M1 came along.
 
The "general" was not a general, he was Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, and he didn't get lost. I suggest that television may not be the best source of factual information or that perhaps some TV watchers might not recall the information correctly.

I might also suggest that a Google translation is not too reliable when technical terms are involved, and one can easily be misled, for example as to the difference between "butt" and "stock" - there is a difference, isn't there?

Most of the information in the link appears accurate, allowing for translation quality.

One minor point; the large magazine of the M1917 originated with the P-13, not with the P-14. The .276 Enfield cartridge was not a long cartridge, but it was fat, with a case length of 2.34" but with a base diameter of .522" and a rebated rim. It is sometimes compared to the .280 Ross, but that is in power, not in physical dimensions; the Ross cartridge is much longer and semi-rimmed.

So the large magazine of the P-13 was made to hold 5 rounds of .276 Enfield. When the conversion to .303 took place with the P-14, there was plenty of room for the rimmed .303. When the same magazine was used in the Model 1917 for the slimmer .30-'06, the magazine would hold 6 rounds, even though the rifle was loaded with 5-round M1903 clips and was almost always described as having a 5-shot capacity.

Jim
 
The 1914 was something The Arsenal of Democracy (US!) could tool up for easier than SMLE but the British made no more use of them than they had to. Longer, heavier, and slower rate of fire wiped out advantages of receiver sight and accuracy.
Click to expand...
don't forget lower ammo capacity.
One minor point; the large magazine of the M1917 originated with the P-13, not with the P-14. The .276 Enfield cartridge was not a long cartridge, but it was fat, with a case length of 2.34" but with a base diameter of .522" and a rebated rim. It is sometimes compared to the .280 Ross, but that is in power, not in physical dimensions; the Ross cartridge is much longer and semi-rimmed.
Click to expand...
my mistake, I'll have to book mark that for future discussions on the matter.
 
At the start of WWI, the British considered the Pattern 1914 to be their new (current) service rifle, but they had not been able to set up mass production facilities before the war came, so they had to fall back on factories that were already tooled up to make the SMLE, MK III. (It would not become the Rifle No. 1 MK III until c. 1926.) So they contracted with American companies to make the P-14. As that link says, that British contract was completed just before the U.S. entered the war, and U.S. Army Ordnance supervised the retooling of the factories to make essentially the same rifle in .30-'06 for the U.S. The first AEF units in France were regular army and carried their Model 1903's, but the majority of Americans sent over were issued the M1917.

It is not true that the P-14 and the M1917 are identical. A number of changes (other than the rifle bore and chamber) had to be made before the Model 1917 met the Army's requirements. For one thing, the receivers are not the same, although even folks who own both often don't notice the differences.

Some writers have claimed that the M1917 was not adopted to replace the M1903 after the war because it was "not invented here" and that there was some kind of "secret conspiracy" to keep the "American" rifle. There is probably some truth to that, but soldiers who were familiar with both the M1917 and the M1903 generally preferred the latter, considering "the Enfield" to be too long, too heavy and too clumsy, compared to "the Springfield."

After WWI, some two million M1917 rifles were in the U.S. war reserve. The majority, about 1.1 million, were sent to England in 1940 when that country was expecting invasion at any moment. Note that that was not done under Lend-Lease; the Lend-Lease Act was not signed until March, 1941.

Worse, as Army Ordnance waved goodbye to its war reserve, they faced a huge problem. War was surely coming for the US and production of the new M1 rifle was not going well, so one thing they did was to contract Remington to begin production of the Model 1903.

Jim
 
Rudolf Hess also didn't land in England.

He parachuted into Scotland near the town of Strathaven.


That said, either the snark and tone of some of the messages that are being posted in this thread ramp back, or there will be consequences.
 
"Some writers have claimed that the M1917 was not adopted to replace the M1903 after the war because it was "not invented here" and that there was some kind of "secret conspiracy" to keep the "American" rifle."

To which I've always said balderdash.

A cursory examination of what happened to the US military immediately following the war gives ample explanation as to why the 1917 was relegated to secondary status.

The US military drawdowns were immediate, and they were SEVERE. Think of a 900,000 pound sequestration gorilla.

With those budget cuts came cuts in the budgets of US arsenals.

Springfield and Rock Island were already well established to manufacture the M1903 Springfield.

Converting them to manufacture 1917s would have taken money that was no longer available, and which Congress wasn't going to provide (When a national hero on the order of John J. Pershing addresses Congress, but can't get them to stop swinging the budget cutting axe, nothing is going to stop it.)

And remember, the three manufacturers of 1917s were all civilian corporations, and the military was not going to turn over production of its primary arm to the civilian market. That was still 50 years down the road.

Thus, in my estimation, the US sticking with the M1903 was not a case of "it was invented here, the 1917 is some bloody limey fawfawdaw," it was a case of strict economic pragmatism.
 
Oh, and it's my understanding that the primary use for the P1914 in British service was as a sniping rifle, where it was very highly thought of.


And here's a thumbnail from an old Armslist sale (now expired) that says it's a P1914.

Note that it has the red and white band.

Their meaning, I have no clue.

images
 
Mike Irwin, forgive me for my part in this, you posted a picture of a stock that is identical to 5 stocks I have, a member of this forum that comes for a visit at least once a year saw two of them, we have an arrangement, no matter what, call me, do not post. He is on vacation somewhere ‘up’ in Ohio.

http://imageevent.com/willyp/firearmsalbums/britishww1enfieldp14

I furnished the link above, one picture is identified as P14BUTTMKG, the identifying stamps include B117, PATT14, EY,, above the stamps is a ‘broken arrow’ stamp, I know James K. knows about the stamp, as sure as I am about James K. knowing about the stamp I am equally convinced tahunua001 knows about the stamp, the one person that was to benefit from the link was the original poster, TAD T. TAD T’s rifle does not have the broken arrow stamp, on the rifle or stock, fore and aft or in the (mid ship) middle.

Painted rifles, the paint was placed on the rifles Huckleberry Finn style, not Earl Schibe style, the paint was applied with a brush and masking tape was not used. The rational as in claiming “I have never seen a rifle painted like that, because I have never seen it painted like that it does not exist”, Me? I have seen pictures of M1917 with red bands painted around M1917s, but because someone has not seen one, it does not exits. That is the reason I did not think my rifles with the red bands and the white stripe was unusual.

Then there was a suggestion about painting the rifle for rack location, All of my painted rifles have rack location numbers, same paint, some with stenciled, others free style.

Then there was the part about having never seen a painted band that was painted 360 degree style, my receivers were painted and the painter did not bother to remove the bolt, meaning, the bolt was also painted. I forgot, the trigger guard and the floor plate was also painted.

F. Guffey
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top