U.S. Rifle Model 1917

There was a great article in a recent American Rifleman that gave good source material on these. Let me see if I can find the issue and post the date for you.

(Edited to add: ) Well, perhaps I'm nuts, or perhaps a co-worker has just borrowed the issue in question, but the most recent gun mag article I can find on the 1917 was a blurb in the June '02 Shooting Illustrated - I know I've read something a lot more in-depth on these more recently. Sorry!

The 1917 is kind of a weird action for a couple of reasons... For one thing, it's HUGE, big enough for pretty much any cartridge up to and including the .505 Gibbs. It also has square barrel threads, which is odd. It's a clear Mauser 98 derivative but retained the cock-on-close of earlier Mausers. There's also the strange advancing lockup, in that the bolt keeps moving forward until the bolt handle is COMPLETELY lowered. That makes checking headspace a little tricky, I'm told.

As far as problems, the only complaint I hear with any frequency is broken ejectors. That, and they're really, REALLY ugly

Best,
Joe

Yes, quite historically important. About 2 million made by three different manufacturers: Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone. Most were rebuilt by the U.S. government armories after WWI by taking various parts from the three different manufacturers and making "mix-master" rifles.

Mine is a Remington receiver with a variety of other manufacturer's parts. It has a Winchester bolt, Eddystone barrel, Eddystone sight, Eddystone bolt retainer, and a variety of other parts and accesories. You can tell by the fact that each part (for the most part) has either a 'W', an 'E', or an 'R' stamped on it.

They shoot very nicely. Biggest issue is getting one with a pitted bore or not. Mine is pitted, but shoots pretty well (I will find out more once I've taken it to the range for a thorough test...I've had this rifle since I was 15, or around 1984 or so back when you could get them for $150; thanks Dad!) I would not worry about headspace so much as most of these rifles would have been rebuilt at the U.S. armories and thus done right unless it has been sporterized (read, butchered.) What most M1917 'collectors' look for is parts-matching by manufacturer, pitting in the bore, and I seem to recall an issue with certain barrels which were incorrectly fitted by some other outfit that resulted in cracked recievers. Johnson barrels comes to mind.

They are big, heavy, and robust. With the bayonet attached they are 64" (5'4") long rifles. Some people don't like their cock-on-close action, or their dog-leg bolt, or their weight, or their length, or their looks, or their balance, or their smell, or the way they induce seizures when you fire them.. ..okay that's going a little far but you get the idea. The point is that the M1917 rifle is an important bit of US military history. If you get your hands on one chances are that it, or at least some of its parts, were carried and possibly fired in battle or at least in training for our troops in the last century.

Try going to one of the many M1917 forums, perhaps these folks as a start for your information search. They and other info you find might prove some of my points incorrect (I'm going from memory on this) but for the most part the M1917 is a pretty good rifle for all of its warts. It was good enough for the U.S. Army in the first quarter of the last century, and that is saying something.

The 1917 is a great rifle. Remington was making them for the British before we got in to the "Great War" as the Pattern 1913 Enfield. We didn't have enough guns when we did get involved so three "substitute standards" were pressed in to service. The Enfield we were making for the British was changed from .303 to .30-06 and issued to our troops as the Model 1917. Actually more of these saw service in Europe than the "Standard Rifle" the Model 1903. Actually the 1917 bayonett is the bayonett that fit our 1897 and 1912 Trench Guns. As far as cocking on opening as opposed as cocking on closing, I'm a little confused. My SMLE Mark III definetely cocks on closing. My 1917 Enfield is different. When you open the bolt, the cocking piece retracts about 90% of the way back. When you close the bolt it moves back the additional 10%. Does it cock on both opening and closing?

What were the other two "substitute standards"? We also did not have enough Model 1911 Pistols so both Colt and Smith & Wesson chambered their large frame revolvers for .45ACP which used half moon clips. Here is a picture of mine, both marked "US Property".

My 1917 Enfield is different. When you open the bolt, the cocking piece retracts about 90% of the way back. When you close the bolt it moves back the additional 10%. Does it cock on both opening and closing?

Click to expand...

Interesting. Mine cocks only on closing. Allow me to utilize the magic of digital imagery to clarify:



The last image is after withdrawing the bolt and then closing it completely. You have to push the bolt in with a bit of pressure to get it to close and lock. Looking closer at the mechanism it becomes clear as to why. The trigger sear catches the bolt cocking piece, and the safety also engages the same sear on the bolt to keep the firing pin from releasing when the trigger is pulled. I have not had the opportunity to handle other M1917's to determine if others operate the same way; but it would seem that they do.

Cheers!

That's interesting. I remembering them selling a "cock on opening" kit years ago. I wonder if mine has been modified. I'll try to take some digital photos tomorrow.

Although the Model 1917 (and its predecessors, the Patterns 1913 and 1914) are correctly termed "cock on closing", there is a partial cocking on bolt handle lift to ensure initial firing pin retraction and primary extraction. The cock on opening kits make this the only cocking action and they include light firing pins and strong firing pin springs to make up for the short firing pin travel.

Jim

IIRC, the US M1917 does not handle gas escape well. I seem to remember reading that a pierced primer will blow the striker back a couple inches. Be careful out there!

An outfit called "Dayton-Traister" used to make a cock-on-opening conversion. However, I got mine some 53 years back; dunno if they're still around.

, Art

Thought I might include this in the forum

JM

The Enfield Story

IIRC the Pattern 13 rifle for the British was actually the one that was developed in a .276 caliber to replace the .303 British round.

When the war broke out that round was dropped and the design slightly altered and adopted as the Pattern 14 chambering the standard .303 round.

To the best of my knowledge, US companies never made the Patter 13 rifle because it was still in development in Britain when the caliber change was made.

Anyone confirm my faulty memory?

Enjoy!

Pilgrim,
I think you're going to really enjoy your P-17. I bought mine in a Big-5 Sporting Goods in 1987 for under $100 and have been very happy with it. I just wish I'd bought two!

You now own a piece of history. In my opinion, the P-14/P-17 has some of the best practical sights on any battle rifle in the last 100 years. It als has an excellent safety. I can flick it off as the rifle comes to my shoulder with no problem. I hope the trigger on yours is as good as mine turned out to be, once I cleaned all the old grease out. Timothy Mullin, the author of Testing the War Weapons, rated it as the best WWI rifle, and one of the top rifles out of all those he tested. Heck, I like the way it looks!

Dirty Bob