I think its interesting that the Danes have been using the 30-06 since '53, must be some bad blood between them and the Swedes and the 6.5x55.
Model 1917 .45 Revolver
- Thread starter SFlanigan
- Start date
Jack Flash
Member
Ok, you got me.
Strictly speaking, however, the Pattern 14 (later Rifle Number 3) was chambered in .303 British. When modified to fire .30-06 and accepted by the US Army, they designated it the Model of 1917.
DWalt
Member
As the AR article mentions, the main problem with the M1917 Enfield was the non-interchangeability of some parts between Winchester production and Remington/Eddystone production. That was because Winchester began 1917 production first, before standardization issues among manufacturers had been resolved.
It was very fortunate that American P-14 Enfield rifle production for the British was already underway before the USA entered the conflict so the P-14 could have been easily modified to produce the M1917. Springfield Armory would have never been able to manufacture enough Springfield '03s to meet AEF needs, and they might have needed to use British and/or French rifles. As it was, the AEF was forced to use mainly French machine guns as the USA had essentially none in service prior to the US entry. It wasn't until almost the Armistice that US-made Browning M1917 MGs and BARs landed in quantity on French docks. Even so, very few saw action.
The M1917 rifle I had was a crude sporterization of a service rifle, done mainly by shortening the stock with a saw, and not much else. I bought it for $15 back around the early 1970s. After several years I sold it for about the same amount. Another one I wish I could have kept, as it shot quite well after you got over its looks.
It was very fortunate that American P-14 Enfield rifle production for the British was already underway before the USA entered the conflict so the P-14 could have been easily modified to produce the M1917. Springfield Armory would have never been able to manufacture enough Springfield '03s to meet AEF needs, and they might have needed to use British and/or French rifles. As it was, the AEF was forced to use mainly French machine guns as the USA had essentially none in service prior to the US entry. It wasn't until almost the Armistice that US-made Browning M1917 MGs and BARs landed in quantity on French docks. Even so, very few saw action.
The M1917 rifle I had was a crude sporterization of a service rifle, done mainly by shortening the stock with a saw, and not much else. I bought it for $15 back around the early 1970s. After several years I sold it for about the same amount. Another one I wish I could have kept, as it shot quite well after you got over its looks.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
As I understand it, arms production was ramping up enormously in 1918. Nobody really expected the Germans to fold in November, preparations were under way for the Spring Offensive of 1919.
There would have been a lot more BARs and BMGs on the line then.
Not just officers got pistols and revolvers; handguns were just too handy for trench raiding to be left to the brass. Colt and S&W were making lots of revolvers to supplement Colt, Springfield, and Remington-UMC 1911s. Not to mention the contract to North American Arms of Canada but only 100 pistols made before the end of hostilities. There were six other 1911 contractors but nobody got into production except Savage Arms who turned out a fair supply of slides eventually used for repair.
I worked for TVA which, when organized in 1933, picked up US Nitrate Plant No 2 which had been completed shortly AFTER the Armistice and was immediately mothballed. TVA shifted it from explosives to fertilizers as the nucleus of the National Fertilizer Development Center, a lesser known function than dams and power plants.
There would have been a lot more BARs and BMGs on the line then.
Not just officers got pistols and revolvers; handguns were just too handy for trench raiding to be left to the brass. Colt and S&W were making lots of revolvers to supplement Colt, Springfield, and Remington-UMC 1911s. Not to mention the contract to North American Arms of Canada but only 100 pistols made before the end of hostilities. There were six other 1911 contractors but nobody got into production except Savage Arms who turned out a fair supply of slides eventually used for repair.
I worked for TVA which, when organized in 1933, picked up US Nitrate Plant No 2 which had been completed shortly AFTER the Armistice and was immediately mothballed. TVA shifted it from explosives to fertilizers as the nucleus of the National Fertilizer Development Center, a lesser known function than dams and power plants.
Jack Flash
Member
I have a crudely sporterized M1917 rifle, originally made by Eddystone. I bought it because it was a good deal, and I always intended to replace it with a collector-quality rifle, maybe even one by Winchester. Alas, prices seem to stay just over my personal definition of reasonable.
A couple of things about the Eddystone:
1. The magazine does indeed hold six rounds. That's a 20% increase over the much-vaunted M1903.
2. Its sights are indeed better than the M1903. The M1903A3 negates this advantage, but that improvement didn't arrive till years later.
3. When shooting this rifle, I seem to invariably put the first shot out of a cold barrel dead center on target (a bulls eye with a six o'clock hold). Subsequent shots seem to wander around a little (ok, maybe more than a little), but that first shot really endears it to me. Some day I'll have to take it to a rifle state to hunt with it.
Edited to add:
4. The M1917 rifle doesn't have that ridiculous magazine cut off.
A couple of things about the Eddystone:
1. The magazine does indeed hold six rounds. That's a 20% increase over the much-vaunted M1903.
2. Its sights are indeed better than the M1903. The M1903A3 negates this advantage, but that improvement didn't arrive till years later.
3. When shooting this rifle, I seem to invariably put the first shot out of a cold barrel dead center on target (a bulls eye with a six o'clock hold). Subsequent shots seem to wander around a little (ok, maybe more than a little), but that first shot really endears it to me. Some day I'll have to take it to a rifle state to hunt with it.
Edited to add:
4. The M1917 rifle doesn't have that ridiculous magazine cut off.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
"Nobody really expected the Germans to fold in November, preparations were under way for the Spring Offensive of 1919."
I suppose most know what the Pedersen Device was. A Top-Secret method to convert the '03 Springfield to a semautomatic rifle firing what was essentially an elongated .32 ACP round from a high-capacity magazine. There were plans to make the PD to fit both the 1917 Enfield and the M91 Moisin-Nagant also, but only a very few of those were made. The whole idea was to arm allied troops with "Assault Rifles" for the big planned "1919 Offensive" which of course never happened. After the Great War, most PDs were destroyed but there are still a few in collector hands and museums. .30 PD ammunition in full boxes is, surprisingly, fairly common (at least among ammo collectors) as very large quantities were loaded in expectation of using the PD-equipped rifles for the 1919 Offensive.
There has been a story that a large number of PDs (maybe all of them) was buried in concrete at the San Antonio Arsenal in the early 1930s. The SA Arsenal has long been closed and is now the headquarters of the large H-E-B supermarket chain, so I doubt if anyone will ever be allowed to discover if that story is true. Most of the PD story is to be found here: American Rifleman | Never In Anger: The Pedersen Device One of the older editions of Gun Digest also carried a feature article about the PD. An upcoming auction of a well-known gun auction house will include a PD. But it will not go cheap.
I suppose most know what the Pedersen Device was. A Top-Secret method to convert the '03 Springfield to a semautomatic rifle firing what was essentially an elongated .32 ACP round from a high-capacity magazine. There were plans to make the PD to fit both the 1917 Enfield and the M91 Moisin-Nagant also, but only a very few of those were made. The whole idea was to arm allied troops with "Assault Rifles" for the big planned "1919 Offensive" which of course never happened. After the Great War, most PDs were destroyed but there are still a few in collector hands and museums. .30 PD ammunition in full boxes is, surprisingly, fairly common (at least among ammo collectors) as very large quantities were loaded in expectation of using the PD-equipped rifles for the 1919 Offensive.
There has been a story that a large number of PDs (maybe all of them) was buried in concrete at the San Antonio Arsenal in the early 1930s. The SA Arsenal has long been closed and is now the headquarters of the large H-E-B supermarket chain, so I doubt if anyone will ever be allowed to discover if that story is true. Most of the PD story is to be found here: American Rifleman | Never In Anger: The Pedersen Device One of the older editions of Gun Digest also carried a feature article about the PD. An upcoming auction of a well-known gun auction house will include a PD. But it will not go cheap.
Last edited:
ABPOS
Member
I would imagine that thing would've not had any recoil. Bullet hose.
DWalt
Member
The idea was to engage the enemy at long range using the rifle and the standard cartridge, then everyone was to install the PD into their rifles and advance on the enemy using rapid fire at close range. I always wondered how well that plan would have worked. It's probably good that the Armistice deal was struck before there was a chance to find out.
While the PD cartridge ballistics don't compare to the ballistics of the 30-06, 1300fps and 300 ft-lbs ME is nothing to sneeze at. Somewhere between modern 9mm Luger and 9mm Makarov. Better than most sidearms available at the time. I can see the appeal.
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,142
- Reaction score
- 1,562
I assume you are speaking of time spent in Vietnam?
white cloud
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,142
- Reaction score
- 1,562
My maternal grandfather was WW1 infantry and carried an Enfield. He held it in high regard. I wish that I had more time to spend with him before he passed.
Last edited:
Just to help out the OP....here's his photos of his really nice 1917. By the way, Welcome to the forum!! Great way to introduce yourself!!
Best Regards, Les
Best Regards, Les
Last edited:
Thanks all. When I attempt to post a reply (other than 'Quick Reply' I am greeted by two boxes, the 'Reply to Thread' and the 'Additional Options'. Both are blank, (no text boxes shown), dark grey and does not allow any way to type in information or attach photos. I tried in Chrome, Firefox and in Edge, (formally I.E.) with the same results.
Texas Star
US Veteran
Doesn't the M1917 bolt cock on closing? Some felt that was a disadvantage. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I think all sporting rifle bolts cock on opening.
You need to scroll to the right to see the editor. Something has happened to the forum software and it is not centering the text box in your browser window. To scroll over, look below the blank window for the right/left scroll bar and drag it to the right until you see the editor.
Yes, it does. Most modern sporting bolt actions cock on opening. After WW I, Remington built hunting rifles based on the 1917 action. I have read about a custom rifle builder who uses 1917 actions for very large caliber cartridges.
The British Short Model Lee Enfield (SMLE) also cocks on closing and many folks felt that the SMLE was the fastest operating bolt action.
Just to help out the OP....here's his photos of his really nice 1917. By the way, Welcome to the forum!! Great way to introduce yourself!!
Best Regards, Les
You tried Les, you tried!
DWalt
Member
"The British Short Model Lee Enfield (SMLE) also cocks on closing and many folks felt that the SMLE was the fastest operating bolt action."
Part of the British infantry doctrine back then was the "Mad Minute" and it was practiced frequently by the Tommies. Basically, it involved everyone in the squad, company, etc. opening up, firing their SMLEs as rapidly as possible at the enemy. The British felt that the cock-on-closing bolt action was a better design for facilitating rapid fire and I can see that it probably was. Many may not be aware that the SMLE's detachable magazine very rarely left the rifle. It was loaded in the rifle by using stripper clips.
Part of the British infantry doctrine back then was the "Mad Minute" and it was practiced frequently by the Tommies. Basically, it involved everyone in the squad, company, etc. opening up, firing their SMLEs as rapidly as possible at the enemy. The British felt that the cock-on-closing bolt action was a better design for facilitating rapid fire and I can see that it probably was. Many may not be aware that the SMLE's detachable magazine very rarely left the rifle. It was loaded in the rifle by using stripper clips.
Jim Watson
Member
The 1917 Enfield held six .30 because its magazine was originally designed to hold five near-magnum .280 in 1913. Since the standard stripper clip held five for a Springfield, if you wanted to make use of that extra round of capacity, you would have had to have some loose ammo in your pocket.
Lacking a cutoff, the troops soon found that they could wedge the follower down with a penny and execute the drill field manual of arms smoothly. Lots of '17 and Mauser sporters had the rear of the follower beveled so you could close the bolt on an empty without manipulation.
Lacking a cutoff, the troops soon found that they could wedge the follower down with a penny and execute the drill field manual of arms smoothly. Lots of '17 and Mauser sporters had the rear of the follower beveled so you could close the bolt on an empty without manipulation.
Jack Flash
Member
I always thought it was because the P-14 was designed to accommodate five rounds of .303 British, which is of course a rimmed cartridge. The rimless 30-06 requires less space per round so that six rounds fit easily.
I doubt that these two different explanations are mutually exclusive.
The Brits were about to go to a .276 cartridge in a Mauser action when the first world war began. Prudent heads decided to stay with the tried and true .303 British and the SMLE.
DWalt
Member
The .276 Enfield cartridge didn't last very long and was not formally adopted by the British due to the onset of hostilities in August 1914. There was a small number of rifles chambered for the .276 cartridge manufactured for Army field trials, called the P-13. After the decision was made to stop further work on the .276 development, the P-13 rifle design was then modified to accept the standard .303 British cartridge and thereafter was called the P-14, which was manufactured mainly in the USA, and in large numbers, for the British military. I don't know about the P-14's magazine capacity situation. The .276 Enfield cartridge case was somewhat fatter (larger diameter) than the .303 (or for that matter, even the U. S. .30-'06) case so the P-13 might have required a deeper and wider magazine well in order to hold 5 of the .276 cartridges. When the P-13 was converted to use the .303 cartridge and became the P-14 rifle, there were probably no changes made to the original P-13 magazine dimensions. As the P-17 (M1917 Enfield) was pretty much the same as the P-14 except for the cartridge and likely used the same magazine box dimensions as the P-13, that's probably why it could hold six .30-'06 cartridges. This is all guesswork as I have no P-13 or P-14 rifles to look at and measure.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the P-13, P-14, and P-17 actions were Mausers, but they operated much the same. The U. S. '03 Springfield rifle definitely used a fairly close copy of the Mauser 98 action, and it did infringe on the Mauser patents. I have not heard of any Mauser patent infringement issues regarding the P-14 Enfield action.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the P-13, P-14, and P-17 actions were Mausers, but they operated much the same. The U. S. '03 Springfield rifle definitely used a fairly close copy of the Mauser 98 action, and it did infringe on the Mauser patents. I have not heard of any Mauser patent infringement issues regarding the P-14 Enfield action.
Last edited:
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,056
Not the software's fault.
Hit the Reply Button or the Edit button, and scroll up or down till you get to the HUGE pic in Post #8 of the two GIs.
The software resizes large pics so that no scroll bar is necessary when viewing a thread. When adding a new post or editing a prior post, the pic reverts to full size. I wish it did not do so, but that is how it works and I am glad we have it for the normal thread viewing mode.
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
Well, yes, the P14 was made to hold five rimmed .303s, but it was greatly simplified by developing from the P13 with its pot bellied magazine for the large diameter .276 Enfield case. (Oops, I called it a .280, that was the later EM rifle cartridge.) That carried over to a sixth .30 round in the 1917.
The British called the P13/14 a "Mauser type action" so I figure that is close enough.
I wonder just which Mauser everybody was looking at. The 1903 lacks the internal receiver ring wall of a 98, more like a 95. The 13 is cock on close, like a SMLE... or a 95 Mauser.
The Enfield has a very nice safety, easier to get at than the Mauser type wing safety, especially if you are keeping your thumb on the right side of the stock so recoil doesn't stuff it up your nose due to the short bayonet handle stock.
The British called the P13/14 a "Mauser type action" so I figure that is close enough.
I wonder just which Mauser everybody was looking at. The 1903 lacks the internal receiver ring wall of a 98, more like a 95. The 13 is cock on close, like a SMLE... or a 95 Mauser.
The Enfield has a very nice safety, easier to get at than the Mauser type wing safety, especially if you are keeping your thumb on the right side of the stock so recoil doesn't stuff it up your nose due to the short bayonet handle stock.
Jack Flash
Member
I believe the US government had to pay royalties to Mauser in order to manufacture the M1903. I'm not sure, but I think when the war broke out the royalties stopped.
One thing you have to say about the M1903, it is a handy rifle. With its improved sights, the '03A3 makes a great field rifle as is, no sporterizing needed. I really do like the M1917, but it is a little unwieldy compared to the '03 / '03A3.
One thing you have to say about the M1903, it is a handy rifle. With its improved sights, the '03A3 makes a great field rifle as is, no sporterizing needed. I really do like the M1917, but it is a little unwieldy compared to the '03 / '03A3.
I did some research on Harry Truman's Model 1917 Colt revolver. To quote from my book 101 Classic Firearms:
"A picture exists of a feisty Army artillery captain by the name of Harry Truman bearing one in France. He liked the gun so much that he bought it from the government at the close of the war, paying all of $18.00 for it at the time. It's now on display in the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri."
John
"A picture exists of a feisty Army artillery captain by the name of Harry Truman bearing one in France. He liked the gun so much that he bought it from the government at the close of the war, paying all of $18.00 for it at the time. It's now on display in the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri."
John
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
$18 was no puny sum in 1918.
Jim Watson
Member
O3 Army Captain was making a luxurious $220 a month for overseas duty in those days.
Wartime pay for a PFC got him a $15 boost over the traditional $21 a month.
Wartime pay for a PFC got him a $15 boost over the traditional $21 a month.
Last edited:
