I recently saw a cable show on U.S. Military small arms in the 20th Century. In the WW I segment, all they talked about was the 1903 Springfield. Nary a word was mentioned about the 1917 Enfield, which is, if what I read is correct, the rifle 75 percent of U.S. front line troops carried into battle in that conflict.

I've never understood the reluctance of historians to recognize, what I believe, is one of the best battle implements of the early part of the century.

Is it because the design is of British origin? If that's true, it seems like the role of the Krag rifle would be passed over, too.

The U.S. Rifle Model of 1917 is a fine rifle. Calling it the 1917 Enfield is an incorrect description. I have one + by each of the three U.S. makers in my US martial arms collection.

The rear sight of the M1917 was a great improvement over the forward mounted ladder sight on the M1903 rifle, although it had no windage adjustment, only elevation. It was also a bit heavy for my taste.

While the M1917 was issued to Army troops in France, the U.S. Marine Corps refused to give up their M1903 Springfield rifles. The Marines made effective and consistent fire on German advancing troops and machine gun emplacements at ranges of 100 to 1000 yards at Belleau Wood. A feat the Germans thought impossible and that helped earn the Marines the nick name Teufel Hunden - Devil Dogs.

Following the war the U.S. Army determined that the M1903 would continue as the main battle rifle for U.S. forces and that the M1917 would be placed into war reserve. Politics were involved in the decision making process.

Both rifles saw active service with both U.S. troops and allies during the Second World War. The M1903A3, an improved version of the M1903 having a rear receiver mounted peep sight adjustable for both windage and elevation, began production in 1942. The M1903A3 is my favorite U.S. military long arm.

I have never seen the point of a windage adjustable sight on a rifle to be used in MODERM battle as in WWI and after...

It should be sufficient that the rifle is properly zeroed when first issued to the soldier. British rifles having the front sight issued in several heights for this to give correct elevation.

And once that correct elevation is discovered for the unit armourer with a cramp to then adjust the frontsight to give a correct dead centre hold.

The soldier should then, in battle, aim off to give correct windage if required in those few circumstances where it might actually be of any relevance at all.

Of the two I think that the Springfiled for all its supposed faults is the "handier" rifle and in battle "handier" is better. Now against an SMLE or a No4 the Springfield '03 is an also ran for being "handier" but it beats any Model of 1917!

I had a 1917 made by Winchester in December of 1917 it was a 300 win mag , aftermarket barrel not a rebore . I really loved the cock on closing made the gun feel more alive in my hands to me . though me being left handed that dog log shaped bolt handle liked my knuckles haha . paid 370$ for it wish I still had it now , sold it 2 years ago .

quote:

Nary a word was mentioned about the 1917 Enfield, which is, if what I read is correct, the rifle 75 percent of U.S. front line troops carried into battle in that conflict

I am of the opinion that the percentage was much higher. American units had their 03’s taken away from them and given M1917’s.

The M1917 was an embarrassment and a risk to the US Army. It was a better battle rifle than the M1903. It was cheaper to build. It was rugged, mine have broken far less parts than my 03’s. The sights are better battle sights. And it was not made in Government Arsenals.

In my opinion, the last one is really the primary reason the Army muffled discussion or stifled advocacy for the M1917. The Army had bought about 2,500,000 of the things by 1918, about double the number of 03’s. In 1917 they found they had a process control problem with the “low number” M1903 receivers, that is receiver billets were being burnt in the forge shop, which caused a total shut down of 03 production, and it turns out, there were about 1 million defective or suspect low number 03’s in existence. The Army covered this up and not a peep is to be found in period documentation. If an adult had been in charge, and had known what was going on, the proper decision would have been to stop production of 03’s, shut down the production lines at Springfield Armory and Rock Island, and just keep on using the M1917. Instead the Army used the time period to buy new production equipment and facilitize their Arsenals.

After WW1 the Rock Island production lines were shut down, Springfield barely limped along. An adoption of an outsourced rifle would have been catastrophic for these facilities. Incidentally, the problems with the low number rifles does not bubble up outside of the Ordnance Department until the late 20’s. I believe Springfield Armory was in great danger of being shut down, the “new” semi automatic rifles were well off into the future, there were almost 1,500,000 03’s made to date, I am not going to look up Army strength at the time, but by 1921 the Army was authorized 12,000 Officers and 175,000 Enlisted, what are these guys going to do with even more rifles? I think the SA lines were in threat of being totally shutdown for lack of need for new rifles. I think around 1927 SA came out showing just how unsafe as a class those low number receivers were, in an attempt to acquire funding for replacement. They were unsuccessful in convincing the decision authorities to scrape all the low number 03’s, but they must have gotten funding to make replacement receivers.

But by this time, all the M1917 factories had been shut down, the M1917 was something you buy as a NRA member, but otherwise, M1917’s were basically out of sight and out of mind.

There was another consideration, even though the M1917 was a better combat rifle, it was not a better target rifle, though that could have been fixed with windage adjustable and MOA click adjustable rear sights. The Army heavily promoted the KD range target game and the 03 was developed around that game. Those who confused target games with combat shooting worked in tandem with the Arsenals to make a case to retain the 03.

The information you read or hear is all based on the writers of the period. The Army was the big player in the shooting sports, all the way up to the 60’s, and the writers of the period had a real incentive to “play ball” and not antagonize either the Army, or the shooting public. Up until the 80’s you could get into some real arguments with older shooters who thought the M1903 was the end of history. They had lived their entire lives in an Army created propaganda culture which extolled Army products and design.

quote:

I've never understood the reluctance of historians to recognize, what I believe, is one of the best battle implements of the early part of the century

To ask such questions would lead to more uncomfortable questions, all would have been considered subversive.

I love mine. It is highly accurate and I like the rear peep, although I too wish it had windage adjustments for target work. My favorite feature is old Elmer Keith's initials stamped on the left side when he was inspector.

My first centerfire was a 1917 Eddystone that I convinced my dad to buy for me from Sears, for just under $30. The bore was pretty rough, but this 13-year-old did not mind!
First thing I did was kitchen-table Bubba the poor old rifle, removing handguards and shortening the forend. I had sent for one of the Williams sporterizing pamphlets (oh, the fine rifles ruined following their instructions!) but the idea of cutting, welding and filing the trigger guard to remove the belly was only a dream for a kid how could scarcely wield a handsaw properly. Shot a lot of surplus blacktip FMJ through the thing.

Yea back when I was young and single, a roommate pawned his VG condition M1917; I could have had it for a hundred bucks. But I didn't get it.