Model 1917 Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nipty

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Messages
120
Location
North Eastern Pa. Bradford County
I was wondering if anyone, (I am sure many have or had one) a model 1917 rifle. It was my dad's. I really have no memory of him shooting it. Just cleaning it hear and there. It's been mine the last few years. Since his passing . Just recently I decided it's time to do some shooting with it and maybe some handloads. Ok, torn it down to clean it. After learning how the bottom of the magazine plate drops out..cool. cleaned it. Put it back in... little issues chambering a round. Feeding now, the last one, after put in place on follower. I notice it needs to be all the way forward. Guessing due to stripper clips. Well I believe I did not set spring back in all the way forward like I should have. The leaf spring. Problem is, now the darn bottom plate does not seem to want to come back out. Came out tough the first time. Could I have not put it back together correctly and now it's stuck? Seems unlikely due to design. But I don't want to damage it. Already left a little mark. Don't want to add any more. Guns really in great shape. It's a Winchester. Original barrel, and alot of parts on it. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated . Thank you.
 
You may have reversed the spring, and its letting the follower go funny in its functions.

Thats a hard rifle to beat.
Great cartridge, excellent sights, feels good in the hands kinda rifle.

I have had several, all X Alaska Territorial Guard rifles that went home with the local Militia that filled out the ranks of the ATG when the Japanese invaded Alaska..
 
I may have to dawn a flame proof suit, and hide behind a brick wall for this next statement.

I think it is a "better" rifle over our home grown 1903. I think they are stronger, and I like the sights better.

As to your question, that area is pretty basic, give a try what @caribou suggested, been a while that I shot mine, made up some test loads many moons ago just never got to it....you are going to make me dig mine out.
 
Sorry, no idea of how the floor plate removes. I found a video on line that suggest the detent at the rear is depressed by a bullet; mine will not depress, seems to be stuck. I doubt if the floor plate has been removed since the Battle of Belleau Wood.

For all the fat lot of good it will do, I add my appreciation for this rifle. The action, sights and trigger make it one of the better battle rifles of the era. Omitting the concept of loading and firing 20 rounds or so within a couple seconds, it may be on the top five for all time.
It is heavy though. Probably not so bad for shooting all afternoon, not so good for a 20 mile conditioning hike.
 
Maybe the floor plate wasn't locked in when you removed it and now the plunger popped up when you put it back in locking it. Push it down while sliding the floor plate toward trigger. Might need some drops on penetrating oil on the plunger. The stock inletting can also interfere . Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Picture as requested. I had it off. N doesn't seem possible with out being mounted. Lol. Beginning to think I was going the wrong. Goes towards the trigger guard?
 

Attachments

  • 16645671327845127180181730889069.jpg
    16645671327845127180181730889069.jpg
    85.6 KB · Views: 68
Push the plunger down while sliding the floor plate back towers the trigger guard. That has to be done simultaneously. Pull the bolt all the way to the rear or completely out that will relieve the felt pressure on the magazine follower and spring. Makes life a whole lot easier especially if you have the spring attached to the follower upside down. It happens to the best of us.
 
Appears, with further investigation.. as mentioned the inletting. Maybe. Thier is a Hairline fracture in the magazine box. Which now I don't know if it was there and I didn't notice or I caused it somehow. But I see it's slightly canted in there. Which I think is putting excessive pressure from on top of the plate.. Which in turn seems to make it tough going back in as well. The gun other than a few scratches and dings, is in remarkable condition. Original barrel and guessing many other parts. Some well are definitely Eddystone. The bolt is made up of all manufacturers, Winchester firing pin, spring idk how one could tell(probably can't) Eddystone bolt body, Remington lock&release. Local gunshop thinks it may have came that way. Two locations say it's amazing condition. Thinking a new magazine spring may be in orde though. To help with feeding. I scrubbed in and out. Tore it down, and waxed it as well. Been hunting for bayonet and Era appropriate cleaning kit. Needs a sling to. Again thank you guys for the insight. I have a few different types of ammo to run thru it. Hopefully next week. Can't wait for magazine spring. I ll be back at work too soon.
 
Remington1911 said:
I think it is a "better" rifle over our home grown 1903. I think they are stronger, and I like the sights better.
Click to expand...
You are not alone in that, Remington1911. From a military point of view it WAS superior in many ways. In addition to the better sights, the sighting radius is almost twice that of an 03 Springfield. This makes it easier to shoot accurately. Sighting errors are less serious the further away from one another the front and rear sights are.

The 1917s never had the blowup problems the 03s did. Yes, they were rare but there they were. The 1917 is more rugged. The front and rear sights were well protected against damage. The 03s sights were completely unprotected. It didn't take much of a blow to bend of break the front sight on an 03. Don't think front sight hoods were general issue during WWI . The 17 was simply a better military rifle.
 
OP
You have a very interesting piece of history on your hands. If you ever get a chance to check out the book written by Frank de Hass called bolt action rifles. Better yet buy it!!! It can be had on eBay or Amazon. I also recommend that you acquire yourself a copy of the NRA guide to rifles and shotguns at the very least.
Rifles and Shotguns The Official NRA Guide to Firearms …
Bolt action rifles: Frank De Haas, John T Amber: …

I'm sure that others will chime in with their own opinions and other sources of information for you. Good luck I hope that you have resolved the issues you have had.
 
I traded my last M1917 for a Springfield 03-A3 (both of 'em hopelessly sporterized/Bubba'ed).

I've still got an early (four digit serial #) Remington Pattern 14 that's in "as issued condition" except for removal of the volley sights and a little honest wear. It's never gone through the "Weedon Repair Standard" and still has the original bolt/lugs*.

It shoots well with jacketed handloads or HXP ball, but I've never been able to get better than minute of Stetson with any of the cast bullets I've tried.

I like shooting it at the range, but the knowledge that the action is strong enough to safely chamber a .577 Tyrannosaur isn't much consolation when you're trying to lug a super heavy .303 British through a swamp after pigs.

*Does anyone know why the Brits thought that they needed to beef up the P14 when it was already much stronger than the Lee Enfield No.I MkIII SMLE* or the No IV?
 
Swampman said:
I traded my last M1917 for a Springfield 03-A3 (both of 'em hopelessly sporterized/Bubba'ed).

I've still got an early (four digit serial #) Remington Pattern 14 that's in "as issued condition" except for removal of the volley sights and a little honest wear. It's never gone through the "Weedon Repair Standard" and still has the original bolt/lugs*.

It shoots well with jacketed handloads or HXP ball, but I've never been able to get better than minute of Stetson with any of the cast bullets I've tried.

I like shooting it at the range, but the knowledge that the action is strong enough to safely chamber a .577 Tyrannosaur isn't much consolation when you're trying to lug a super heavy .303 British through a swamp after pigs.

*Does anyone know why the Brits thought that they needed to beef up the P14 when it was already much stronger than the Lee Enfield No.I MkIII SMLE* or the No IV?
Click to expand...

They were originally intended for the .276 Enfield cartridge, a high pressure, high velocity cartridge similar to the .270 Win. The pressures of wartime production cancelled the idea of a cartridge conversion so the P14 was produced in .303. A stroke of serendipity for the US, as we were short on service rifles entering WWI, but the P14 already in production was readily adapted to the .30-06 cartridge as it was already designed for a similar round.
 
By not very easily, I assume you mean it takes extra effort to close the bolt?
Since the 1917 is a controlled-feed rifle, if the follower isnt lifting the rounds properly, the rim wont be captured behind the extractor as it should be before the bolt goes forward. Thus, the extractor will flex and snap over the rim as the bolt handle is cammed down. It is designed to do this in a pinch when a single round is placed in the chamber, though its probably not good for the extractor in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Yes. It takes considerable effort to close thr bolt on a round. Alot more it would seem then expected. Having watched videos of others running the rifle, shooting nice groups. Going to have to order a spring and some other things I suppose for it. Numrich here I come! Be sweet to find thr few missing Winchester parts for it.
 
When I was younger I had a 1917 that had been brutalized by some goofball. I was poor, saved my money until I could afford all the replacement parts. Luckily the major metal parts, bolt, receiver, barrel, bottom metal had not been messed with. When I had it just the way I wanted (looking all stock), wouldn't you know it, I had to sell it and my HK93 to help make ends meet. Fast forward to 2019 and I was able to purchase one for $1100. And it is special. Remington with a nice finish and stock. Its sit on the rack right next to the 1903A3. I do believe although heavier that it shoots better. I always think when possible, great rifles should be restored as much as possible from grievous injuries sustained by those who don't know better.
 
lysanderxiii said:
The M1917 is a full pound heavier and three inches longer.
Click to expand...
I had one and never could figure the love that some guys have for it. it felt as long as a civil war musket heavy awkward cocked on closing sluggish action. I sold it without shooting it. The 03 was lighter shorter cocked on opening and a lot more accurate. sights on the 03 were a problem but I saw 100's and never saw a front site bent maybe caused they were replaced I dont know
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
Model 1903 Model 1917/Stats
Replies
2
Views
351
Vern Humphrey
V
Ohio Gun Guy
  • Locked
Mosin Experts Needed. M91 Remington 1917
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
GhostlyKarliion
G
Phaetos
  • Locked
Marlin Model 60
Replies
16
Views
956
mainmech48
M
B
  • Locked
Is Model 1917 action stronger than '03 Springfield?
Replies
9
Views
462
CapnMac
CapnMac
M
  • Locked
1917 Enfield
Replies
11
Views
803
Cosmoline
C
Back
Top