View Full Version : Did the Marines Have M1917's in WWI?
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-06-2014, 08:41
Three things happened June 1 of 1918:
1. The Marine Commandant announced that thereafter all Marines would train with M1917's and be issued M1903's after boot camp to preserve the M1903's for use in France.
2. The Ordnance Department announced that all US Army soldiers would subsequently train and be armed with a new M1917 upon deployment.
3. The National Board announced that the National Matches would be held in September and the M1917 with service ammunition would be used.
Does this mean that there were NM M1917's?
jt:1948:
Cosine26
02-06-2014, 09:13
It is my understamnding that there were NO NM M1917, they were standard isssue M1917's and the matches were fired with standard M1903 Ball ammo.
IMHO
John Beard
02-06-2014, 09:57
Three things happened June 1 of 1918:
1. The Marine Commandant announced that thereafter all Marines would train with M1917's and be issued M1903's after boot camp to preserve the M1903's for use in France.
2. The Ordnance Department announced that all US Army soldiers would subsequently train and be armed with a new M1917 upon deployment.
3. The National Board announced that the National Matches would be held in September and the M1917 with service ammunition would be used.
Does this mean that there were NM M1917's?
jt:1948:
Yes. And the rifles were supplied by Remington. But it is unknown if the rifles included any special features such as polished bolts. etc.
J.B.
Parashooter
02-06-2014, 10:15
. . .they were standard isssue M1917's and the matches were fired with standard M1903 Ball ammo.
IMHO
I don't think you can stuff a 1903 Ball round (.30/03) into a M1917 - which has a .30/06 chamber (for M1906 Ball). :icon_scratch:
Rick the Librarian
02-07-2014, 08:01
I was always told that you could load a 30-06 into a 30-03 rifle, but not vice-versa.
I think he meant ball ammo for the 1903 RIFLE. By 1917 the 30-03 was long out of use. Give him a break. hehehe
Cosine26
02-07-2014, 09:59
You are correct. I meant 30-06 round.
It's fun to be in at the start of something new. I'm sure that, as a result of this thread, NM M1917s will begin showing up at gunshows in a week or so!
Crashyoung
02-07-2014, 06:26
With a polished bolt sized for 1903 ball ammo... ;D
Yes. And the rifles were supplied by Remington. But it is unknown if the rifles included any special features such as polished bolts. etc.
J.B.
I wonder if that near new looking Remington of mine, that you have seen, could have been one. It came out of a collection that contained several target rifles including MII Springfields and 03's with target sights. It certainly is in extremely nice condition for it's age.
John Beard
02-08-2014, 07:44
I wonder if that near new looking Remington of mine, that you have seen, could have been one. It came out of a collection that contained several target rifles including MII Springfields and 03's with target sights. It certainly is in extremely nice condition for it's age.
I have no idea. One can only speculate. I would assume that a Remington M1917 rifle used in the 1918 National Matches would exhibit a modest amount of wear, but nothing excessive.
I once saw a Remington M1917 rifle at the CMP that exhibited unusual characteristics suggestive of possible National Match issuance. But we could not quite convince ourselves that the rifle was indeed one of the National Match rifles. So we inspected it and passed it on for sale to some CMP patron.
Hope this helps.
J.B.
I wonder now about such a rifle that I saw sell on Gunbroker. A Krag from the same owner was also being sold. The Krag was cartouched 1902 and it was absolutely the Mintyest Krag I'd ever seen. I mean as if it'd been assembled, proofed, inspected and transported by time machine to the rack of the seller. The Enfield was unworn on finish, stock, metal, edges etc. and it had highly figured Walnut.
The owners and sellers description (assuming they were two seperate people) never used the word Krag or Enfield. I think maybe a guy died and his widow got rid of them.
slamfire
02-09-2014, 01:01
Reviewing what was in the popular press at the time, I have not found any reference to special M1917 National Match rifles. What I have found is a surprising acceptance that the M1917 was a good rifle. You can read in the Arms and the Man of the period the belief that the M1903 was the best service rifle in the world and everything else were just different levels of horrible. When the “British Enfield†was adopted all sorts of letters were sent, and published, in the Arms and the Man protesting the terrible mistake, the “British Enfield†would surely blow up as it was a weaker mechanism, it was unthinkable that we should be issuing a foreign rifle to our troops, etc, etc. But, as you read on, the M1917 gains a fan base. It is an excellent rifle, it was more advanced than the 03, probably had less part breakage, even though it was a “war baby†it was a very well thought out design.
This all feeds into the cover up of the defects of the low number Springfields. There is not a peep about the 1 million defectively made low number Springfields in the public domain . I think this information was close hold within all levels of the military. Only about 200,000 double heat treat rifles were made before the end of the war but they had over 2 million M1917’s. If there had been a serious and open debate about what rifle to retain, the fact that the majority of 03’s were defectively manufactured, and the fact that the M1917 had proven to be an excellent combat rifle, the rifle production lines at Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory might have been closed.
As it was, it was not until decades after the war ends is there any idea that there was a problem with low number 03's, and by then, all of the M1917 manufacturers were shut down, the production equipment scrapped, and the threat to SA and RIA long gone.
Reviewing what was in the popular press at the time, I have not found any reference to special M1917 National Match rifles. What I have found is a surprising acceptance that the M1917 was a good rifle. You can read in the Arms and the Man of the period the belief that the M1903 was the best service rifle in the world and everything else were just different levels of horrible. When the “British Enfield” was adopted all sorts of letters were sent, and published, in the Arms and the Man protesting the terrible mistake, the “British Enfield” would surely blow up as it was a weaker mechanism, it was unthinkable that we should be issuing a foreign rifle to our troops, etc, etc. But, as you read on, the M1917 gains a fan base. It is an excellent rifle, it was more advanced than the 03, probably had less part breakage, even though it was a “war baby” it was a very well thought out design.
This all feeds into the cover up of the defects of the low number Springfields. There is not a peep about the 1 million defectively made low number Springfields in the public domain . I think this information was close hold within all levels of the military. Only about 200,000 double heat treat rifles were made before the end of the war but they had over 2 million M1917’s. If there had been a serious and open debate about what rifle to retain, the fact that the majority of 03’s were defectively manufactured, and the fact that the M1917 had proven to be an excellent combat rifle, the rifle production lines at Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory might have been closed.
As it was, it was not until decades after the war ends is there any idea that there was a problem with low number 03's, and by then, all of the M1917 manufacturers were shut down, the production equipment scrapped, and the threat to SA and RIA long gone.
It does not matter at this point if there was a conspiracy surrounding the low number 1903s. Personally, I doubt it, but just like everybody else who weighs in on the subject, I only have an opinion. However, at this late date when all we are doing is collecting them and shooting them under tame circumstances, the 1903 gets this vote. I have a very good 1917 in original condition...probably never got to France...sold by DCM (I have the papers) to a friend's father in 1936. From a point of view of looks, it is never going to compete with the 1903. Gun enthusiasts and non-gun people looking at my collection always prefer my worn WW1 low number. It is lighter and handier, and has an aesthetic "cool" that the 1917 never had. I shoot my 1933 built high number with a "C" stock at the range, but for the WW1 collector, the old low number 03 has it. Besides, if the design of the 1917 was so great, why did the British not use the million or so 1914 rifles that Remington, Winchester and Eddystone sold them? I have never seen a picture of a WW1 British soldier holding one, much less evidence of their general use in the trenches.
I know our soldiers used the 1917 in greater numbers than the 03 in WW1. They did not have a choice, I imagine.
firstflabn
02-09-2014, 05:18
In Fantasyland, logic is no hurdle and nobody gets the least bit dizzy from applying circular reasoning. In that zip code, any assertion instantly becomes fact, the better to feed the next 'what if' scenario. Just around the corner from there, the absence of evidence just establishes that the conspiracy is even larger than the most fevered brow ever suspected.
In Fantasyland, ordnance procurement decisions get made by public opinion. In that neighborhood, all that messy logistics nonsense - spare parts, training, training the trainers, shipping and unloading time - counts for nothing. Merely click the heels of your ruby slippers together and that M1917 accepted on November 10, 1918 instantly appears in the hands of a GI in France - just in time to win the war!
In Fantasyland, it's perfectly OK that our boys used automatic rifles, machine guns, mortars, artillery, and planes made by furriners, (what happended to sidearms??), but by God! we shan't have them even glance at that icky 1917.
In those precincts, the conspiracy (secret handshakes anyone?) had to continue postwar so that Springfield could remain open - never mind the inconvenient fact (there's that word) that somehow they figured out a way to translate all those facilities with its equipment and experienced staff to the manufacture of the Garand.
When I think of the 1917, I can't help but recall the story of a Brit home guard carrying one while patrolling a restricted coastal zone in 1941. After seeing how deserted the area was, he decided to bring his girlfriend along one night for some real hand-to-hand combat.
In the midst of said action, another home guard arrested them and insisted on taking them before the local magistrate. The judge said, "Sir, you were in a prohibited area." The girlfriend immediately said, "Oh no he wasn't."
Case closed. The 1917 also prevented the invasion of Britain.
slamfire
02-09-2014, 05:42
Besides, if the design of the 1917 was so great, why did the British not use the million or so 1914 rifles that Remington, Winchester and Eddystone sold them? I have never seen a picture of a WW1 British soldier holding one, much less evidence of their general use in the trenches.
This came from the 17 August 1935 London Economist: “Bull’s-Eyes: A War Time Tragedyâ€.
In the winter of 1914-15 the British War Office was hard put to it to find rifles for the newly recruited armies, and under pressure from certain members of the Cabinet order for British caliber rifles were placed with the Winchester and Remington firms of America, which were ultimately increased to no less than 3.5 million rifles. In their enthusiasm, the contractors promised that deliveries would commence in the autumn of 1915, and set to work to build factories and housing accommodation for the large staff needed to cope with the colossal orders. But, alas, like so many other contractors, they failed in their promises, and deliveries in bulk did not start until the winter of 1916. Fortunately for the British troops, the wastage of rifles in trench warfare proved negligible, and the Kitchener armies were finally equipped, after some delay from the output of two British factories. By Christmas, 1916, however the American rifles were arriving in large numbers, and in February, 1917, the American factories were probably producing more rifles per week than any factories had ever turned out in the world’s history. As, however, the rifles were slightly different in type, though of the same bore as the British Service rifle, they were not sent to France, but were issued by our War Office to home defense troops, stations overseas, etc.
The British signed contracts, for what ever reasons, did not cancel them, by the time sufficient P14’s came out, they had enough Lee Enfields. Unlike the American Army, they decided not to have two service rifles with two logistic trains in their primary theater of operations, and used the P14 in a secondary role.
Shooter5
02-09-2014, 07:17
Am not a Brit rifle/history expert, however, it is possible many of their P14s went to overseas troops. Recall the global empire of the UK and the requirement for huge amounts of rifles. Anecdotally, the past decade saw many P14s have turned up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Am not a Brit rifle/history expert, however, it is possible many of their P14s went to overseas troops. Recall the global empire of the UK and the requirement for huge amounts of rifles. Anecdotally, the past decade saw many P14s have turned up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You may be on to something there regarding post WW1 use. However, if logistics issues prevented WW1 issuance of the 1914 rifle on the western front, then why did they not simply assign them to a theater of operations like Palestine or the middle east, which was was separate and distinct. I understand that they could not stop the war and call in the SMLE rifles in an area, but one would have to think that there was a lot of wasted expense concerning the 1914 rifles which had already been purchased. They did not know in 1916 that they were going to have to arm a home guard in 1940-45. The allies thought also that the war might last to 1920. Apparently, they were going to have to store them someplace in the interim....for the next war?
I also have to doubt that the wastage, to cite the 1935 article above, was negligible in the trenches.
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-10-2014, 07:46
They should have used them to replace the Ross rifles, which were infamous for seizing up in combat, forcing the shooter to stand up to use his foot to open the bolt. Got many of them killed (CEF).
jt
kragluver
02-11-2014, 12:14
I have read that the Brit's primarily used the P14 as a sniper rifle during WW1 (which of course probably only accounts for a couple thousand rifles or so). More were used in combat during WW2. Many were indeed shipped to outlying colonies for the reasons posted by Slamfire, above. As a combat rifle, the P14/M1917 was very likely a better, more durable rifle than the M1903 (certainly the sights were better!). On the target range, I prefer my 03. If I was going to war and had to choose between the two, I'd probably take the '17 (after cutting about 4" off the barrel to make it handier!).
Ejector spring breakage was the one problem with the design but that was easily remidied with a coil spring from a ball point pen:)
I can remember that many, many heavy bore dangerous game rifles were made on both the 1917 & 1914 actions................ Which actions good gunsmiths would re-barrel to long cartridges like the .375H&H & into .458's as the action could stand any reasonable loading...........
Yup 1903's were the basis for many fine sporters in a wide variety of calibres, MichaelP has posted some flat out beauties , but I never heard of one being in .375H&H or .458Win..........
I have read that the Brit's primarily used the P14 as a sniper rifle during WW1 (which of course probably only accounts for a couple thousand rifles or so). More were used in combat during WW2. Many were indeed shipped to outlying colonies for the reasons posted by Slamfire, above. As a combat rifle, the P14/M1917 was very likely a better, more durable rifle than the M1903 (certainly the sights were better!). On the target range, I prefer my 03. If I was going to war and had to choose between the two, I'd probably take the '17 (after cutting about 4" off the barrel to make it handier!).
Ejector spring breakage was the one problem with the design but that was easily remidied with a coil spring from a ball point pen:)
Sure. The British eventually found some things to do with their 1914 rifles. It was the fact that they could not find a use for them in WW1, after they had spent a lot on them, that mystifies me.
fkienast
02-12-2014, 07:21
Can we get back to Marine use of the 1917? I'd like to hear some proof.
jaie5070
02-12-2014, 05:52
I wonder if the british, at the time of placing the orders, planned on changing the p-14s to the p-13 cartridge after the war.
john
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-13-2014, 10:19
Can we get back to Marine use of the 1917? I'd like to hear some proof.
What "proof" do you wish? A Commandant's announcement that they be will used in training isn't sufficient? Photos (posted in previous threads) of Marines using M1917's in training isn't sufficient? They used the M1917 in training in WWI during the latter stages of 1918 - period. To my knowledge, they did not use them in combat.
jt
fkienast
02-13-2014, 12:17
What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.
What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.
Maybe nor your standard of proof but In Chapter 5 of Campbells "The '03 Springfield Era" (2003) p 59 . Mr Campbell states that 3/4 of US troops carried the M1917 into combat and the the USMC had received 61,000 of them. I suppose it is still open as to whether or not any marines atually used an M1917 in combat in WW1.
The most important thing about the M1917 is that we had it to begin with. Through a lack of foresight on the part of our political leaders we came upon ww1 with one national arsenal shut down and the other producing at a snails pace. Having the 03 produced by private industry was considered but quickly rejected as it would have taken much to long to assemble the necessary tools and gauges not to mention the people needed to make them.
regards,
Jim
fkienast
02-13-2014, 01:12
Thanks!
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-13-2014, 06:30
What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.
To exactly what "hearsay" do you refer?
The Commandant's proclamation is posted in the June 1918 issue of Arms and the Man, the picture showing Marines training with the M1917 has been posted on this forum several times in the past (it is a WWI picture of a Marine instructor pointing at a M1903 and a M1917 hung on the wall), and if one considers that the Marines had 50,000, or so, M1903's in 1918 and only the 5th and 6th Regiments in combat, why would they need to ship M1917's to France?
Have you ever considered doing your own research?
jt
John Beard
02-14-2014, 03:22
To exactly what "hearsay" do you refer? Have you ever considered doing your own research?
jt
Amen! Good information ain't free!!!
J.B.
fkienast
02-14-2014, 07:07
Have I done my on research?
Yeah.
In fact I have a decent quantity of original USMC paper work on-hand covering the period 1898 till 1933.
However, nothing on the 1917 rifle is referenced.
Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-14-2014, 07:53
Have I done my on research? Yeah. In fact I have a decent quantity of original USMC paper work on-hand covering the period 1898 till 1933. However, nothing on the 1917 rifle is referenced.
That is admirable. I have stacks of references on WWI Marine usage of the M1903, particularly in the sniper category. I am often amazed what is not in my files. You then must understand JB's reference to cost in terms of money and time invested, which many might not understand. When others were going out on the town, I was home reading regimental histories, old obscure documents, and ordering materials I only hoped would help my search. I can only imagine the time and money JB has invested in his quest.
I wasn't trying to ridicule you in any way, and knowing JB, neither was he. It was your reference to hearsay that I didn't understand, and was wondering to what you referenced as hearsay.
You are right in that next to nothing seems to be present in the official USMC files concerning the M1917. Knowing that many of the early Marine commanders were prominent in the operations of Arms and the Man, I acquired a copy of every issue and read them cover to cover. That was how I discovered the annoucement I referenced. I did not find what I was looking for, unfortunately. I found more information on WWI Marine Corps sniping in CEF documents than the Corps' (after many, many long hours at Quantico).
Glad to meet you. If I can be of help, just let me know. I am an old Jarhead.
jt
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.