1917 Winchester,what;s it worth ?
- Thread starter 88 man
- Start date
You mean an M1917? Like the P14, but in 30'06? I'd like to know myself. I've seen P14s go for $150-250 sporterized. I traded away a Mosin for a sporterized P14. But from what I understand, a full wood one would be worth more in the $800-1000 range.
Looks something like this? (My sporterized Winchester Pattern 1914)
Looks something like this? (My sporterized Winchester Pattern 1914)
Okay. I'll start. About a little more than a "sportered" Lee Enfield.
Seeing as it is a Winchester I say realistically it is worth $200.
I was given a U.S. Model of 1917 Eddystone for free. And that was sportered by BSA and drilled and tapped for a scope.
Seeing as it is a Winchester I say realistically it is worth $200.
I was given a U.S. Model of 1917 Eddystone for free. And that was sportered by BSA and drilled and tapped for a scope.
Because the Americans have started on the path that'll eventually lead them to revere the 1917 "American Enfield" as much as their 1903 Springfields 
("even" G&A has started to notice this trend, so there ! ), the price has been jumping over recent years....
...while we have full-wood P-14's floating around here (b/c of our love of the .303 ) as well as a fair amount of "sportered" P-14's 
, there's a bit of a price-premium on the .30-06 P-17's (sporters as well as full-wood) simply due to scarcer supply up here....
It's not uncommon for a full-wood .30-06 P-17 to go for at least $500, and sporters at $200-$250 (consider it a shade above No.4 sporters at their current price)...
("even" G&A has started to notice this trend, so there ! ), the price has been jumping over recent years.......while we have full-wood P-14's floating around here (b/c of our love of the .303 ) as well as a fair amount of "sportered" P-14's , there's a bit of a price-premium on the .30-06 P-17's (sporters as well as full-wood) simply due to scarcer supply up here....It's not uncommon for a full-wood .30-06 P-17 to go for at least $500, and sporters at $200-$250 (consider it a shade above No.4 sporters at their current price)...
Well I consider the M1917 to be superior to the 1903 which is the most overated rifle in history. Then again I like shooting my MAS 36 so I am a known heretic in my part of Texas. For what is is worth Generals Pershing and Hatcher wanted to replace the 1903 with the M1917 as the U.S. Standard rifle after WWI but politics intervened.
Personally
, I think that certain "powers that be" just disliked cocked-on-closing rifles..........The 1917 is a nice, hefty, rugged and solid "piece of kit"
- with one shot more than the 1903's magazine capacity !.....Like I said, it's only recently been recognized by many in the U.S. as a great WWI milsurp.....
I agree, $200 or so, realistically. I drilled and tapped an Eddystone once, WOW, I know where they got the reputation for being too hard.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Charlie Askins hated the M-17, although he didn't provide much detail in "Unrepentant Sinner" as to why. #### on closing? Too long? Or maybe he just preferred gas guns for fighting. Who knows.
I loved mine, a Century Arms monstrosity made by Remington, dropped into a clunky B&C stock, and the rear sight ears were ground off. When they drilled the holes for the scope base, to say they didn't line up with the barrel is an understatement, so I slotted the rear screw hole in the base so I could get it pointed in the right direction. Once it was trued up, I epoxied it in place, then it never moved. But that rifle was accurate enough to make long range shooting a rewarding experience, it never gave me a single hiccup regardless what kind of bullet I decided to stick on the end of a .30/06 case, and it survived a massive overload when I inadvertently double charged a load of SR-4759 under a 210 gr cast bullet, driving it over 1000 fps faster than I intended it to go. I would still have that rifle today if it hadn't been lost in a house fire. Do I want another? Not particularly, my ZG-47 is way ###ier.
I loved mine, a Century Arms monstrosity made by Remington, dropped into a clunky B&C stock, and the rear sight ears were ground off. When they drilled the holes for the scope base, to say they didn't line up with the barrel is an understatement, so I slotted the rear screw hole in the base so I could get it pointed in the right direction. Once it was trued up, I epoxied it in place, then it never moved. But that rifle was accurate enough to make long range shooting a rewarding experience, it never gave me a single hiccup regardless what kind of bullet I decided to stick on the end of a .30/06 case, and it survived a massive overload when I inadvertently double charged a load of SR-4759 under a 210 gr cast bullet, driving it over 1000 fps faster than I intended it to go. I would still have that rifle today if it hadn't been lost in a house fire. Do I want another? Not particularly, my ZG-47 is way ###ier.
There were huge amounts of national pride mixed up with the arms business for many years. Still would be, but for the huge alliance systems which have been built up, all using compatible (generally identical) equipment.
It was a HUGE p*ssing contest: "My rifle is better than yours, my ammo is better than yours, so THERE, you disgusting little puke!"
Look at what REALLY went on. Sure, half of the whole world used Mausers but nearly all of them were in one of THREE calibres: 7x57, 7.65x54, 7.9x57. Of these, the 7.9x57 variety was used by the Cherman Empire alone, leaving TWO calibres to be shared by Argentina, Chile, Turkey, Austria, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Belgium, China, Serbia, Colombia, Peru and likely others. They all used either 7x57 or 7.65x54..... but most of them had DIFFERENT LOADS so they could say that theirs were better than the other guys'....... even though the ammo all came out of Karlsruhe and it all had "DM-K" stamped on the heads!
Really, when you look at it, once the Waffenprufskommission had designed the 7.9x57 and Major Rubin had come up with the .303 and the 7.5x55 which bears his name, there was no real REASON for further cartridge development, with the possible exception of the 7x57. Everything since then has been superfluous and all of those national calibres, each and every one vastly superior to ALL of the others, either were from an isolated idea of what was better.... or strictly for show. Just look at the family of 6.5mm rounds: Japan had the smallest (6.5x50SR) and it was the best. Italy went one better with the 6.5x52MC and it was the best. Greece beat this with the BIGGER 6.5x54MS and IT was the best, even though it packed 100 ft/sec LESS MV than the Italian. Sweden and Norway shared the 6.5x55 and likely it WAS the best (certainly looks that way on most targets, anyway). But PORTUGAL beat them with a 6.5x58 AND their own RIFLE!!!!!
Same thing in rifles. Half the world used Mausers, but all under different names or designations. Italy had the Carcano: a modified Mauser. Japan had the Arisaka: a modified Mauser. Portugal had their own ammunition and their own rifle, the Vergueiro, thus proving once and for all that they were in the big leagues, too.... but better than half of the parts in their Vergueiro were standard Mauser parts.
Just before the turn of the Century, both Britain and the USA had had their butts handed to them on silver platters, each one by Mauser rifles in 7x57, the Yanks by the Spanish, the Brits by the Boers. BOTH COUNTRIES IMMEDIATELY BEGAN DESIGNING A MODERN RIFLE, BASED ON THE MAUSER DESIGN, TO BEAT THE MAUSERS WHICH THEY HAD FOUGHT AGAINST.
The British designed the Pattern 1913 rifle, a tremendously beefed-up Mauser to use a high-intensity cartridge inspired by the Canadian .280 Ross. It was a BETTER MAUSER with which to BEAT MAUSERS. While still in its Trial stages, the Great War broke out and this fine new rifle was modified to handle existing .303" ammunition and a couple of million were manufactured in the USA.
The USA essentially STOLE the very latest Mauser design, the 1898 model, modified it in rather silly ways to make it THEIRS (moving the Third Lug to the side of the bolt and making it 6 times as big as necessary and weakening the rear receiver ring) and then sighted the thing for a point-blank range of 547 yards. And they stretched the German 57mm case another quarter-inch and necked it to their beloved .30" calibre and ran it at 10,000 pounds higher pressure.... even though its actual performance was LESS than that of the German 1904 loading. Paul Mauser became rather incensed at this atrocity, sued for patent infringement and took home a hundredweight or so of gold coin.
THEN came the Great War. The US manufactured the British "Enfield" rifle on contract for Great Britain, then modified the design when the USA entered the War. Two thirds of all American troops to serve overseas during the Great War carried the US version of the BRITISH Mauser clone, which was called the ENFIELD rifle.
The OTHER third of American troops carried the AMERICAN Mauser clone, which was called the SPRINGFIELD rifle.
And just EVERYBODY KNOWS that a product of the US National Armory at Springfield absolutely MUST be the Finest Rifle That It Is Possible To Build.
Pure unreasoning, unthinking nationalism.
And THAT is why Askins and so many others HATED the P-17: it wasn't AMERICAN enough, even though it quite likely was the single best rifle of the Great War. IF it had been called a SPRINGFIELD. it WOULD have been "the best rifle ever constructed, anywhere, any time"! And you can bet your bottom dollar on that.
But no dyed-in-the-wool American of that time could possibly tolerate the idea of AMERICA adopting a BRITISH design over a native AMERICAN design ....... even if both designs were stolen from Paul Mauser.
Canadians have never had that trouble. We have used Rosses and we have happily used Lee-Enfields for over a century. But then (insert drum roll and trumpet fanfare here) JAMES PARIS LEE was raised CANADIAN!
And everybody remembers that part.... except us.
.
It was a HUGE p*ssing contest: "My rifle is better than yours, my ammo is better than yours, so THERE, you disgusting little puke!"
Look at what REALLY went on. Sure, half of the whole world used Mausers but nearly all of them were in one of THREE calibres: 7x57, 7.65x54, 7.9x57. Of these, the 7.9x57 variety was used by the Cherman Empire alone, leaving TWO calibres to be shared by Argentina, Chile, Turkey, Austria, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico, Costa Rica, Spain, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Belgium, China, Serbia, Colombia, Peru and likely others. They all used either 7x57 or 7.65x54..... but most of them had DIFFERENT LOADS so they could say that theirs were better than the other guys'....... even though the ammo all came out of Karlsruhe and it all had "DM-K" stamped on the heads!
Really, when you look at it, once the Waffenprufskommission had designed the 7.9x57 and Major Rubin had come up with the .303 and the 7.5x55 which bears his name, there was no real REASON for further cartridge development, with the possible exception of the 7x57. Everything since then has been superfluous and all of those national calibres, each and every one vastly superior to ALL of the others, either were from an isolated idea of what was better.... or strictly for show. Just look at the family of 6.5mm rounds: Japan had the smallest (6.5x50SR) and it was the best. Italy went one better with the 6.5x52MC and it was the best. Greece beat this with the BIGGER 6.5x54MS and IT was the best, even though it packed 100 ft/sec LESS MV than the Italian. Sweden and Norway shared the 6.5x55 and likely it WAS the best (certainly looks that way on most targets, anyway). But PORTUGAL beat them with a 6.5x58 AND their own RIFLE!!!!!
Same thing in rifles. Half the world used Mausers, but all under different names or designations. Italy had the Carcano: a modified Mauser. Japan had the Arisaka: a modified Mauser. Portugal had their own ammunition and their own rifle, the Vergueiro, thus proving once and for all that they were in the big leagues, too.... but better than half of the parts in their Vergueiro were standard Mauser parts.
Just before the turn of the Century, both Britain and the USA had had their butts handed to them on silver platters, each one by Mauser rifles in 7x57, the Yanks by the Spanish, the Brits by the Boers. BOTH COUNTRIES IMMEDIATELY BEGAN DESIGNING A MODERN RIFLE, BASED ON THE MAUSER DESIGN, TO BEAT THE MAUSERS WHICH THEY HAD FOUGHT AGAINST.
The British designed the Pattern 1913 rifle, a tremendously beefed-up Mauser to use a high-intensity cartridge inspired by the Canadian .280 Ross. It was a BETTER MAUSER with which to BEAT MAUSERS. While still in its Trial stages, the Great War broke out and this fine new rifle was modified to handle existing .303" ammunition and a couple of million were manufactured in the USA.
The USA essentially STOLE the very latest Mauser design, the 1898 model, modified it in rather silly ways to make it THEIRS (moving the Third Lug to the side of the bolt and making it 6 times as big as necessary and weakening the rear receiver ring) and then sighted the thing for a point-blank range of 547 yards. And they stretched the German 57mm case another quarter-inch and necked it to their beloved .30" calibre and ran it at 10,000 pounds higher pressure.... even though its actual performance was LESS than that of the German 1904 loading. Paul Mauser became rather incensed at this atrocity, sued for patent infringement and took home a hundredweight or so of gold coin.
THEN came the Great War. The US manufactured the British "Enfield" rifle on contract for Great Britain, then modified the design when the USA entered the War. Two thirds of all American troops to serve overseas during the Great War carried the US version of the BRITISH Mauser clone, which was called the ENFIELD rifle.
The OTHER third of American troops carried the AMERICAN Mauser clone, which was called the SPRINGFIELD rifle.
And just EVERYBODY KNOWS that a product of the US National Armory at Springfield absolutely MUST be the Finest Rifle That It Is Possible To Build.
Pure unreasoning, unthinking nationalism.
And THAT is why Askins and so many others HATED the P-17: it wasn't AMERICAN enough, even though it quite likely was the single best rifle of the Great War. IF it had been called a SPRINGFIELD. it WOULD have been "the best rifle ever constructed, anywhere, any time"! And you can bet your bottom dollar on that.
But no dyed-in-the-wool American of that time could possibly tolerate the idea of AMERICA adopting a BRITISH design over a native AMERICAN design ....... even if both designs were stolen from Paul Mauser.
Canadians have never had that trouble. We have used Rosses and we have happily used Lee-Enfields for over a century. But then (insert drum roll and trumpet fanfare here) JAMES PARIS LEE was raised CANADIAN!
And everybody remembers that part.... except us.
.
Love your posts as usual. I was thinking about the 'American' view of all things British in the early days. People often don't realize that even if the Americans did like something British, they very often changed its name. One example of this is 'American Cheese'. In the old days, before processed cheeses existed, the term 'American Cheese' was applied to cheddar cheese made in the US. By the British because they considered it inferior, and by the Americans because post revolution they wanted to get away from any trace of a reminder of their former colonial existence.
Good post. Smellie. The Springfield was a direct Mauser 98 rip-off with a few changes to avoid patent infringement(all of them stupid) and they still were sued successully by Mauser. I can't remember the American rifle authority(Springfield booster) who commenting on a Mauser actioned sporter called it, " Another damned squarehead gun". The 1903 Springfield was NEVER as good a design as the Mauser and everyone knows that even though they won't acknowledge it.
When you have to pay royalties into the country of your military foes
, you've gone and done something truly odd....The Springfield was developed in the period 1900 through 1903. There was NO major war imminent anywhere at that time.
However, British artillery fuses up into 1916 were marked KpZ: Krupp patent Zunder. Big lawsuit after the war resulted in the British paying Krupp a handsome chunk of money for the use of their fuse patents during the Great War. The actual amount paid was about 10% of the regular licence, but that was okay: DWM shafted Vickers, Maxim and Sons on the full royalty for roughly 90% of the Maxim Guns they built.
.
However, British artillery fuses up into 1916 were marked KpZ: Krupp patent Zunder. Big lawsuit after the war resulted in the British paying Krupp a handsome chunk of money for the use of their fuse patents during the Great War. The actual amount paid was about 10% of the regular licence, but that was okay: DWM shafted Vickers, Maxim and Sons on the full royalty for roughly 90% of the Maxim Guns they built.
.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Great post Smellie! I wonder if ole Charlie knew the M-1 Garand was designed by a Canadian!
The Americans also put a stop to NATO adopting the British .280 or 7mm., a intermediate cartridge, that showed good performance,..not powerful enough they said, ..they had NATO adapt 7.62 mm., then after everybody got on board,with the 7.62mm...no we gotta have the 5.56mm..a gopher cartridge..LOL .
Controversy continues with the 5.56mm,..
