M 1917 US 30-06 Rifle

As to the strength of the P14/P17 actions, according to PO Ackley's tests, they weren't any stronger than a 98 Mauser or double heat treated Springfield 1903.

Not my words or findings, PO Ackley's. Give his books a read, very informative. He did a lot of experiments to determine velocities of same bullets and same load in different length barrels. He also found that the Arisaka actions were the toughest actions of all of the military actions. He also found the the Carcano, reputed to be weak, was just as strong as the 98 Mauser and Springfields.

If you don't want to buy the books, Google the tests by PO Acklyey. He destroyed a lot of rifles doing the tests.

I talked to him over the phone one time. He was a walking, talking encyclopedia. A few years later, I visited his shop in Trinidad Colorado. He was there and came over to shake my hand as soon as he heard my name. Even though it had been a couple of years and he was getting on in years, he remembered our phone conversation.
 
I just got a M1917 bayonet made my Remington, US scabbard, US frog and British P.1908 web belt off a buddy.

Now all I need is the M1917 to go along with it. Kinda backwards, buying the rifle to go with the bayonet instead of the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Since the Springfield 30-06 came so long before the P17, and the US had to pay Germany for stealing the patent of the Mauser with it, I would say the Springfield was the ancestor of all the bolt actions mentioned, includinng the P17.
Also, the Winchester Model 54 had a two piece firing pin, like the Springfield. The Model 70 was more of a remodeled 54.
With the milions of US Springfields out there, it seems to me the comparably small number of P14 and P17s, made them sort of a fill in, to get enough rifles in the field.
 
Canada purchased approx 80,000 of these rifles for use by domestic para-military forces during WW2. Excellent rifles, they share the same front sight as the P-14 and #4 Mk1, which can be found in 12 different sizes.
 
H4831 said:
Since the Springfield 30-06 came so long before the P17, and the US had to pay Germany for stealing the patent of the Mauser with it, I would say the Springfield was the ancestor of all the bolt actions mentioned, includinng the P17.
Also, the Winchester Model 54 had a two piece firing pin, like the Springfield. The Model 70 was more of a remodeled 54.
With the milions of US Springfields out there, it seems to me the comparably small number of P14 and P17s, made them sort of a fill in, to get enough rifles in the field.
Click to expand...

Less than 900,000 M1903s were made in the years leading up to US entry into the war in 1917. Rock Island Arsenal actually suspended production in 1914. The combined output of M1903s at both Springfield Armory and Rock Island would have been too few to meet wartime requirements. This led to expedient of modifying the P14 to .30-06 and commencing production of the M1917 at the 3 commercial plants which were already tooled up for the P14. M1917 production at these plants was some 2,202,429 rifles which led to the M1917 being the predominant weapon for US troops in WW1.
 
H4831 said:
Since the Springfield 30-06 came so long before the P17, and the US had to pay Germany for stealing the patent of the Mauser with it, I would say the Springfield was the ancestor of all the bolt actions mentioned, includinng the P17.
...
Click to expand...

The M1917 was simply a change of calibre from the Enfield P14, and since the P14 was a British design incorporating elements of Mauser design, I would think those elements were copied directly from Mausers rather than from the Springfield copy of the Mausers.
 
TheTooner said:
The M1917 was simply a change of calibre from the Enfield P14, and since the P14 was a British design incorporating elements of Mauser design, I would think those elements were copied directly from Mausers rather than from the Springfield copy of the Mausers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree to that. After I posted mine I rethought it and would say the same thing, the daddy Mauser was pretty prominent in the P14 design.
Actually, Britain started designing the P14 in 1910 as a replacement for the 303. By the time WW1 started they had a pretty nifty .276 calibre cartridge designed for the P14. With the war, they had to go back to the 303, then later, of course, the US adapted it to their 1906 Springfield calibre.
 
Alfonso said:
What is your opinion on the M1917 US rifle? Does it shoot well? Was it well made? Is it fun to shoot? Should I include one in my WWII surplus collection? How much should I pay for one?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Anyone care to share the coles notes on the main parts of this firearms history?

I'll be the first to admit in the years i've shot, one has never caught my eye. Im curious.
 
The Remington Model 30 was 100% pure M-1917; all mechanical parts interchanged fully. The only difference was in the sights (commercial sights on the Model 30) and the inside of the Model 30 factory barrel had standard Remington Mauser-style rifling. If the bore got weak, you could swtch over to a 1917 barrel (with Enfield rifling) and you were good to go a few thousand more.

Up to the mid-World War I crisis at the two American plants (Springfield and Rock Island), Springfield had built 800,000 rifles, Rock Island another 285,000 rifles. That is just over a million rifles and included much of the US war production. These million rifles were downgraded immediately following the war and later were ordered destroyed because of the uncertain receiver heat-treatment. Nothing of the sort ever occurred with the poor-cousin substitute, the M-1917.

The First World War has been over now for 92 years. Perhaps it is about time that we got rid of some of the war-time and pre-war jingoistic propaganda. Remember, many American attitudes were formed in the era of Manifest Destiny; they came into WW1 to help set the world right for Democracy. They had the best and finest of everything, even when it was demonstrably inferior. They were the best soldiers and didn't need to listen to anyone; the casualties at Belleau Wood might argue the point. They built MORE of everything than the mere British or French.... even though the Thomas Morse Scout was a vastly inferior airplane when compared to a Camel or a late Fokker. If it was AMERICAN, it was automatically the BEST. This is proaganda.

The TRUTH is that the Thomas Morse was a beautiful little airplane but it wasn't up to snuff when it finally got overseas. The Springfield rifle was a good design but was flawed in manufacture. In actual combat duty, the M-1917 pulled the load and did the job well. It was the BEST rifle of the Great War..... but it was a "British" design.

Our American friends are a great people. They make good neighbours and they can make FINE friends. Instinctively, they are the kindest, most open and most generous people ever to grace the face of this planet. But they are the victims of their own propaganda; they believe too much of it. Some day, they will sit back and actually admit that someone ELSE can do something right, once in a while.... and the world will be a better place for it. In the meantime, though, we are still stuck with the myth that the Springfield M-1903 was THE rifle that won the First World War.... and that the M-1917 was a poor-cousin substitute. In actual FACT, the roles are reversed.

The M-1917 is a heavy, chunky rifle. It is a very fast bolt-action and it can handle .30-'06 ammunition with a round up the pipe and 6 in the mag. It has excellent sights which are well protected. It has only ONE weak part in its design. Likely it would "tie" with the SMLE if there were a competition for 'finest combat rifle of the War'. As an issue rifle, it is not hard to make shoot about 1 MOA. The sporters made from these fine rifles often can be made to better that by a considerable margin; there are very few which cannot be made to shoot under 1 MOA, given that you know what you are doing. And they prefer flat-based bullets if you are to get the BEST out of them.
.

BTW, dont bother looking for spare ejectors. The whole WW1 supply was used up in WW2, another batch was made and they were used up in the 1950s and 1960s. When your ejector breaks, just solder or epoxy a bit of coil-spring in the right spot and the job is done. I have a couple like this that I fixed this way in 1977.... and they are still working fine.
.
 
There is an EXCELLENT history, with production figures and design notes, of the US Rifle, caliber .30, M-1917, to be found in "Hatcher's Notebook". Julian S. Hatcher was a Major-General in the US Army, he was a FINE historian, lecturer, teacher and scientist. He was the man who actually discovered the problem with the Springfield and he personally supervised the investgation of EVERY incident of a blown Springfield from 1917 through to 1929. He was an inveterate tinkerer, investigator, designer with a truly holy curiosity. He numbered John Garand among his closest friends and was in on the entire experimental program which led to the Garand Rifle. He HAD the qualifications. To this he adds a writing style which is plain and simple and VERY precise. His works are absolutely ESSENTIAL to any understanding of basic firearms knowledge in the English language.

The original 1947 edition of this seminal work on firearms design and firearms problems may be downloaded as a pdf file from the Military Knowledge Library, either from the sticky at the top of this forum, or by going directly to milsurps.com and taking out a membership. They have literally hundreds of items on firearms history which you can download for free. Our friend Badger operates this site for serious students who want the best information. As with our dear CGN, membership is free. See you there!
.
 
M1917

svt1940 said:
I have 1, a Winchester made, in original configuration,shoot well and very elegant rifle. make me cry when i see thoses being sporterized:mad:
Click to expand...

I completely respect your position and will not dispute it, however, to each his own; there's no accounting for taste (ask my wife):D

I have seen some gorgeous sport/civilian versions of the M1917, do a search and I think you will find a couple. My understanding is that calibers up to and including .416 have been done on this platform. The only issues that I was given a heads-up on was the brittleness of the Eddystone receivers. I am no expert so I cannot comment one way or the other except to say that my source knows what he is talking about when it comes to gunsmithing.
I am in the process of building a 6.5x284 with a target stock. I will use the Parker Hale sights that came with the rifle just because. When I'm done I will sell off all the military wood and the barrel to a good home.
 
A quote by Smellie,
"The Remington Model 30 was 100% pure M-1917; all mechanical parts interchanged fully. The only difference was in the sights (commercial sights on the Model 30) and the inside of the Model 30 factory barrel had standard Remington Mauser-style rifling."

Well, not quite 100%. The Model 30 Express cocked on lifting the bolt handle.
 
True enough, H4831. My bad.

But you gotta admit, it was a damned SHORT cocking stroke! Just deepened the firing-pin withdrawal stroke, essentially. Very first Model 30 rifles were absolutely pure M-1917, had a hole over top of the action where the military sight should have gone: pure parts clean-up. It didn`t take long to turn it into a BEAUTIFUL rifle. I have had the pleasure of shooting one, many times, am going to try to purchase it from the estate.

I have a BSA conversion of one of these M-1917 rifles to a sporter and it shoots just scary. First time I shot it, it made a 3-shot group under a threepenny bit at 50 yards, then went shot-for-shot on the 275-metre falling plates. I don`t shoot it much because it is a better RIFLE than I am a SHOT, even with its 1960 K-4 mounted. It still has the October, 1917 barrel installed, so I KNOW how good they can be.

H4831, wish we were a thousand miles or so closer. We could have a great time swapping lies and slopping coffee!
.
 
smellie said:
True enough, H4831. My bad.

But you gotta admit, it was a damned SHORT cocking stroke! Just deepened the firing-pin withdrawal stroke, essentially. Very first Model 30 rifles were absolutely pure M-1917, had a hole over top of the action where the military sight should have gone: pure parts clean-up. It didn`t take long to turn it into a BEAUTIFUL rifle. I have had the pleasure of shooting one, many times, am going to try to purchase it from the estate.

I have a BSA conversion of one of these M-1917 rifles to a sporter and it shoots just scary. First time I shot it, it made a 3-shot group under a threepenny bit at 50 yards, then went shot-for-shot on the 275-metre falling plates. I don`t shoot it much because it is a better RIFLE than I am a SHOT, even with its 1960 K-4 mounted. It still has the October, 1917 barrel installed, so I KNOW how good they can be.

H4831, wish we were a thousand miles or so closer. We could have a great time swapping lies and slopping coffee!
.
Click to expand...

I remember the Movie Sgt York with Gary Cooper in which he writes a letter home I believe complaining that the Army took away his beloved Springfield and replaced it with some British Rifle. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom