Rifles > Historical

The Model 1917 U.S. Enfield (Page 2)

With millions of “Doughboys” heading for France during World War I, the United States needed rifles. Thankfully the Enfield was ready for mass production.

Another distinctive feature of the design was a “crooked” bolt handle intended to bring the shooter’s finger in close proximity to the trigger. Although clearly a bit hyperbolic, a post-World War I War Department report stated, “… by bending back the bolt handle we had placed two men on the firing line where there was only one before.”

The receiver ring of the rifle was stamped “U.S./Model of 1917”/(name of maker)/serial number. The barrel was stamped on top (behind the front sight) with the initials of the maker (“W,” “R,” or “E”), a “flaming bomb” insignia and the month and year of production. The receiver rings of very early Winchesters were simply marked “W”—as was the case with the British Pattern 1914 rifles—in addition to the serial number and “U.S.” Only the first few thousand Winchester M1917s were marked in this manner and the vast majority had “Winchester” stamped on the receiver ring. Serial numbers were sequentially applied beginning with “1.” A number of other parts were also marked with the initial of the manufacturer. The M1917 bayonet was adopted concurrently with the M1917 rifle, and it was a copy of the British Pattern 1914 bayonet. In fact, some bayonets made for the Pattern 1914 had the British property stamps obliterated and over-stamped with U.S. military markings.

Given a choice, the average Doughboy would have probably preferred an M1903 Springfield to an M1917 due to the former’s lighter weight and better handling characteristics. There were also several features of the British rifle that some American soldiers found, at least initially, to be somewhat objectionable. For example, the M1917 has a cock-on-closing action, while the ’03 cocked on opening. This resulted in many complaints against the M1917’s operation, primarily due to lack of familiarity. Also, the M1917 did not have a magazine cut-off, which meant that the follower blocked the closing of the bolt when the magazine was empty. This often caused some consternation and awkwardness during close order drill. Some soldiers reportedly inserted a dime to keep the follower from blocking the bolt but this was hardly a suitable fix. Eventually, a stamped sheet metal “magazine platform depressor” was issued.

Nevertheless, the M1917 eventually won over many of its former critics as it proved itself to be a sturdy and reliable infantry rifle with an excellent battle sight. The rifle acquitted itself very well on the battlefields of France and, as they gained experience with M1917s, fewer soldiers complained about having to use an “American Enfield” rather than a Springfield. There were many reports regarding the efficacy of the new rifle, and relatively few detailed any significant problems.

By the time of the Armistice, some 1,123,259 M1917s had been shipped to France; 800,967 issued to troops and 322,292 “ … floated in bulk” (unissued in reserve). Of this figure, 61,000 were reportedly issued to the U.S. Marine Corps and 604 to the U.S. Navy. In addition, 127,000 M1917 rifles had been issued to U.S. military personnel still in the United States and another 70,940 were on hand at various ordnance facilities and military installations. These figures represent substantially fewer than the more than 2 million M1917s eventually manufactured, as manufacture continued after the Armistice but prior to cancellation of the production contracts. By the time of the Armistice, an estimated 75 percent of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was armed with the “American Enfield.”

After World War I, the ’03 Springfield remained the standardized U.S. military service rifle, even though there were larger numbers of Model 1917 in inventory. Some Model 1917s were called back into service during World War II as training and supplemental service rifles, but the “American Enfield’s” glory days were all too brief, and they ended with the Armistice.

<< PREV   1   2  

Share |

Comments

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Enter your comments below, they will appear within 24 hours


Your Name


Your Email


Your Comment

13 Responses to The Model 1917 U.S. Enfield (Page 2)

tom price wrote:
November 18, 2013

I have a 1917 Enfield which came from the U.S. Marine corp arsnal. It has a star stamped on the receiver. Was this rifle a setaside for snipers or target shooing?

Harvey wrote:
August 18, 2013

I have a Model 1917 that I inherited from my grandfather. I believe that he bought it surplus after WWI. Unfortunately, it was 'sporterized' at some point. In any case, the identity of the manufacturer was obliterated when a scope mount was added. The serial number is still visible. Is there a way to track the original manufacturer from that?

chuck wrote:
July 07, 2013

need a stock set with every thing. have all of the metal.

Dan wrote:
April 15, 2013

I am wondering if anyone has any info about an Eddystone marked "rifle" with full stock and fittings, but no barrel. There is a pin mechanism that shoots out about an inch when the trigger is pulled. The story I heard was that it was a training rifle that used a scaled down target set at the end of the stock. Simulated a 100 yard target. Punched a hole in the paper where you "aimed" it.

Rick Watts wrote:
April 03, 2013

I have one of these American Enfields that is missing the bolt. Please contact me at RICKWATTS@JUNO.COM if you have a spare bolt you would part with. Thanks for you attention.

Garth Dial wrote:
April 03, 2013

I am not aware of any battle rifle of WWI that had windage adjustment other than the 1903 Springfield. And, oh, what a complicated monstrosity that sight was! A mediocre target sight at best, as it had too many bells and whistles for the average doughboy to comprehend and was too far from the eye. The main reason the 1903 was preferred by the grunts and leathernecks was a slightly lighter weight. The short sight radius did not contribute to accuracy as the longer sight radius of the Model 1917 could. Once a 1917 is sighted in by choosing the correct height of front sight and drifting it to the correct windage, those hell-for-stout sights will remain dead-on to 600 yards or so, which was about as far as direct fire was conducted in WWI. Looking at the rear sight on my Model 1917 in the raised position, I can also detect an ever-do-slight lean to the left, indicating a built-in drift compensation. The Enfield #4 of WWII copied this arrangement and was a total success for the Brits. The Remington/Smith Corona 1903A3 with windage adjustment would also have been successful if not overshadowed by the M1 Garand. 'The Germans made a great hunting rifle. The Americans made a great target rifle. The British made a great battle rifle. The Japanese, Russians, French and Italians made great canoe paddles!'

Jeff Aguilar wrote:
May 11, 2012

Bruce, did the early US Enfields suffer the same heat treating problems in the receivers that the early Springfields had? If they did, what were the serial number ranges for the three manufactures of US Enfields?

Mike Holifield wrote:
May 06, 2012

In the late 1970's and early '80s I participated in NRA sanctioned service rifle matches using a 1917. I had no problems with rate of fire during rapid fire stages or with accuracy. Any low scores can be attributed to the shooter and not to the rifle. I have long wondered about the lack of respect given the 1917.

Rod wrote:
April 28, 2012

I have had one for years and didn't know it. Because of the way the scope was mounted I could not see any markings. Not that I know I have begun tracking down all the military parts to return it to it's former glory!

Bob Kluckhohn wrote:
April 24, 2012

This article is too dismissive of the M1917's WWII deployment. It was the basic arm of the 161st Infantry Rgt., Guadalcanal, Dec. 1942 to conclusion of that campaign. My father went into Guadalcanal as weapons platoon leader and was I Company Commander before being medevacced. Dad was leading a patrol along the beach. They were fording a stream. Guadalcanal has salt-water crocs. One of the soldiers thought he saw a croc, swung around and fired from the hip, under water. If there was a croc, it left. Dad said he was mighty surprised on inspecting the weapon to find it undamaged, a finding NRA later replicated and published in AR (decades ago.) He also commented that the weight and limited sustained rate of fire of both the M1917 and the BAR led the 161st to liberating all the Nambu LMGs they could and putting them to use.

Alf wrote:
April 24, 2012

My scant knowledge of details be forgiven but I understand the first 'contact' the Americans had with the german forces was at a place in France called 'Bellieu Wood'. The records will most likely show the accompanying troops as 'British" well we were all British in tjhose days but to be exact those allies were Australians. These WWI diggers were the guys who were partners in that battle. and today is ANZAC day our national day of memoriem for our war dead.

William wrote:
April 22, 2012

Throughout my career in the US Army I heard the "Old Guys" remark at what a waste of taxpayers money the 1917 was. Now I associated with "Marksmen" who refused the use of inferior weapons. Who were the "Leaders" of our Nation that pushed such a rifle into service in the time of war? (And again in 1963 with the ArmaLite) NO WINDAGE ADJUSTMENT? Is it coincidence that Hollywood portayed WWI soldiers with the 1903? American Soldiers have always made the best with the worst. I have purchased one as a historical comparison. Now I have a Mosin Nagant made by Remington for our Expeditionary Force to support the Czar. Beautiful marble stock. I always suspected the munitions folks for keeping the "06" on top. For those of you who aren't that familiar with that time in America's history I recommend the study. We were trully "Global". God Bless America.

Garrett Henderson wrote:
April 20, 2012

I just got one for my birthday