AJ
US Veteran
Remington thought enough of the design, that they took the "ears" off and called it the Model 30.
1917 Winchester Enfield
- Thread starter Narragansett
- Start date
Remington thought enough of the design, that they took the "ears" off and called it the Model 30.
I helped a friend sell one about four years ago. We consigned it to a local shop and it brought $1000. It was in as issued, used condition. I would think the OP's rifle would bring close to the same number today, given the right buyer.
I have several 1917’s. The key to value is the bore. Most were used with corrosive ammo. If not cleaned often the bores suffered. My guess is between 800 to 1200 for a quick sale.
This is my full-Winchester Model 1917 "Enfield." I still way prefer the '03 Springfields..
John
(Click for larger image)
John
(Click for larger image)
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
M2 is a powder puff in the Model 1917. It must be remembered that the original design, the Enfield Pattern 13, was built for some fire breathing monster of a round up there with 7mm Magnum in terms of performance. The P14 in .303 and subsequent 1917 in 30-06 pretty much define "overbuilt".
The P13 was designed for the .276 Enfield, which was intended to replace the .303 British as the service round. However, the plan was postponed with the start of WWI as no one with a lick of logistical sense wanted to introduce a rifle firing an entirely different cartridge. Consequently, the P14 was developed from the P13 modified to fire the .303 British cartridge.
For similar reasons the P14 was further developed into the P17/Model 1917 Enfield to fire the .30-06 for US Service. As Remington was already tooled up and producing the P14, it was a quick way to get an alternate standard service rifle into US service, using the .30-06 cartridge.
In the big picture the British plan was to still adopt the .276 Enflield post war, where the P14 rifles could have been converted back to the P13 pattern. However at the end of the WWI, the British had several million rounds of .303 in the inventory as well as a public and government that were unwilling to spend money on things like a new service rifle and cartridge.
The same thing essentially happened in the US with the .276 Pedersen. They wanted a semi auto rifle and were intending to adopt the .276 Pedersen as a shorter, lighter cartridge capable of being fired in a smaller semi auto rifle than current semi auto designs suitable for the .30-06 round. The M1 Garand was initially designed for the .276 Pedersen, but when it was realized the M1 Garand would work just fine with the .30-06.
That was also A much more economical approach as the US also had millions of .30-06 ammo left over from WWI. Had the M1 Garand had to use the .276 Pedersen it’s possible the adoption of the M1 would not have happened given the depression era economy and the largely isolationist public and political environment of the time.
——
In terms of Remington and the Model 1917, after WW1 Remington was tooled up for M1917 production and also had lots of leftover receivers, barrels and parts for cancelled government contract rifles. It made a great deal of sense to adapt the rifle for civilian production as the Model 30.
Similarly, surplus Pattern 14 and M1917 receivers were very attractive as a basis for a custom rifle in a large (and later magnum) caliber given the strength of action, the size of the internal magazine box, and the size of the bolt face designed for the .276 Enfield, and cut for the .303 bolt face.
I’ve owned several 1917s over the years- even a Presentation rifle given to a Railroad Exec (John A Topping) who supplied Eddystone with materials. Wish I’d hung onto a few of them- the 1917 is my favorite milsurp.
Trooper224
Member
There is NO SUCH THING as a 1917 "Enfield ".
And yet since 1917 it’s been a common term applied to the M1917 .30-06 rifle, due to both its origins and as short hand to clearly distinguish it from the Browning M1917 machine gun and the S&W M1917 revolver, without getting bogged down in the whole long winded military designation.
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,079
- Reaction score
- 7,182
You are correct. It's a US Model of 1917.
Also, there is no .45 Long Colt, nor a Partridge sight.
Irregardless, when the words are erroneously spoken, we all know whay they are talking about.
cgt4570
Member
Trooper224
Member
Words have meaning, we use them for a reason. Being dismissive of inaccuracy is a weak minds excuse for ignorance.
Alternatively “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
There’s clearly a balance between using language carelessly and intentionally avoiding correct terminology, and getting overly mired in a narrow point of view and intolerance.
One of my personal pet peeves is the fairly recent tendency for people to refer to “projectiles” or “bullets” as “heads”, as in “this isn’t loaded ammunition for sale, it’s just the heads” when trying to sell a box of bullets.
Obviously, that developed over time as people commonly started referring to small arms “ammunition” as “bullets” in casual conversation or the movies. And yet it occurred for probably a 100 years before the people engaged in the communication apparently lost the ability to determine what was actually being discussed from the larger context.
So now we have actual honest to God retailers using the term “heads” rather than “bullets” to prevent idiots from assuming “loaded ammunition” and complaining when they get a box of 100, 250 or 500 bullets at an obviously suspiciously low price for loaded ammunition.
But that’s clearly not the case when someone says “M1917 Enfield”, “Pattern 17 Enfield”, or for that matter “.45 Long Colt”.
Those are all readily understood terms, and in fact those “incorrect” M1917 rifle alternatives using “Enfield” offer a lot more clarity than “Model of 1917” which could refer to the rifle, the machine gun, the revolver or even the tank.
They are also less of a mouthful than “United States Rifle, cal . 30, Model of 1917”.
GypsmJim
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,079
- Reaction score
- 7,182
In a past life, one of my responsibilities was writing specifications and instruction manuals. Since any type of inaccuracy could cause a catastrophic event, I have been keenly aware of using proper words.
OTOH, I have simply given up trying to educate others on simply trivial matters. Is using "Partridge" a sign of ignorance, or merely a typo? If the author's words convey the correct message, why bother chastising him! (spilling and grammare are another subject)
I once had a boss that was such a stickler that he garnered snickers wherever he went. Given the opportunity I always said "irregardless", just to p*** him off....LOL.
LVSteve
Member
Yes, I noticed you trailed your coat with that non-word in post#30. I was a little surprised that nobody bit.
OP
I saw that too, but it is not worth mentioning. The thread is about guns, not grammar
Hey Pete...Terrific Job..good on ya!
I think that self finished stock is just exactly what this "hobby" of ours is all about! Whatever pleases the individual doing the work whether it's restoring, rebuilding, repairing, etc. it is your gun and doing what pleases you is always rewarding.
I've certainly had some (and still do own a few) collector grade, original rifles and handguns. Some arsenal rebuilds too but one of my favorites is an old SMLE sporterized by Sears Roebuck about 1961.
I didn't do the work like you did but that rifle was and still is a good solid whitetail rifle in the old days of Adirondacks, or over the line Pennsy woods and dense brush. Simply just as good as my 30-30 Winchester Model 94.
I don't care if it is heresy. More accurate than the original ladder battle sights, sure I could never reach out to 1000 meters like battle sights but I also never took a shot at any deer more than 1/2 mile away either.
Love your work on the stock....would like to see some pics of the sporter too!
I think that self finished stock is just exactly what this "hobby" of ours is all about! Whatever pleases the individual doing the work whether it's restoring, rebuilding, repairing, etc. it is your gun and doing what pleases you is always rewarding.
I've certainly had some (and still do own a few) collector grade, original rifles and handguns. Some arsenal rebuilds too but one of my favorites is an old SMLE sporterized by Sears Roebuck about 1961.
I didn't do the work like you did but that rifle was and still is a good solid whitetail rifle in the old days of Adirondacks, or over the line Pennsy woods and dense brush. Simply just as good as my 30-30 Winchester Model 94.
I don't care if it is heresy. More accurate than the original ladder battle sights, sure I could never reach out to 1000 meters like battle sights but I also never took a shot at any deer more than 1/2 mile away either.
Love your work on the stock....would like to see some pics of the sporter too!
Attachments
My father and grandfather, who were issued that rifle, both referred to them as "Enfields".
I grew up wondering what they were doing with 303s
I grew up wondering what they were doing with 303s
OP
My father and grandfather, who were issued that rifle, both referred to them as "Enfields".
I grew up wondering what they were doing with 303s
Not a big military weapon guy. The original posting is my second 1917, and I never owned anything else.
I think the .303 is British or Lee Enfield. Probably wrong
Similar threads
