Official Use of the Term "Enfield" for the M1917

[dalbert]

I just want to clarify something that has been published about the M1917 Rifle, and that I have also heard while discussing the rifle at gun shows. This "something" is that the M1917 was never officially referred to as the "Enfield." This is incorrect. The term "Enfield" was a term often used by soldiers to describe the M1917 Rifle, and the August 3, 1942 edition of FM 23-6 for the M1917 Rifle is titled, "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1917 (Enfield)." I believe the ubiquitous nickname drove it to become referenced as such in one of the official WWII era War Department Field Manuals for the rifle.

In my opinion, this is one of the many reasons that period paper items, such as FM's and TM's are such an important resource for any firearm. They demonstrate many facts from a moment in time that sometimes become blurred with age.

Here is a photo of the manual, along with the later version that does not include the "Enfield" name.

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/FM_23-6-11.jpg

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/FM_23-6-4.jpg

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[older than dirt]

I have always referd it as a 1917 Enfield ever since I first heard of one 60 some odd years ago because that`s what it was called.

[Col. Colt]

It would be odder still if it was NOT referred to as an "Enfield". Except for being rechambered to .30-06, it's the same rifle, built in the same plants on the same machines!

I've always found it odd that people would correct others insisting on using the rifle's formal title "M1917". The people that built it called it an Enfield, and I bet the troops did, too.

Nice to see an original US Govt. Manual that calls it what it was and is..... End of controversy - either term will serve.

Besides that, although it is considered an "English" design - it's a Mauser at heart, just like our '03! CC

Much ado about nothing! CC

[PhillipM]

Enfield doesn't bother me but P1917 and P17 do.

[kcw]

It would be odder still if it was NOT referred to as an "Enfield". Except for being rechambered to .30-06, it's the same rifle, built in the same plants on the same machines!

I've always found it odd that people would correct others insisting on using the rifle's formal title "M1917". The people that built it called it an Enfield, and I bet the troops did, too.

Nice to see an original US Govt. Manual that calls it what it was and is..... End of controversy - either term will serve.

Besides that, although it is considered an "English" design - it's a Mauser at heart, just like our '03! CC

Much ado about nothing! CC

My fraternal grandfather and a maternal great uncle, both WWI soldiers, referred to the M1917 as an "Eddystone". My 1st acquisition in that design of rifles was a P14. One of my family traditions was the all male summer picnic held ever other year, during which there was always a target shooting session held down by the creek. The two previously mentioned gentlemen were present when I appeared with my recently purchased 303. Upon 1st seeing it, each referred to as an Eddystone, the rifle that they each were issued during the Great War. It was only after closer inspection, and my telling of the history of the design, that they understood what it was. Of course none of them knew any of that in 1917-18. The one that got overseas said that it was the British that carried the "Enfield", a snub nosed rifle, the 303 ammo for which he knew was not interchangeable with the U.S. Springfields or "Eddystones". I suppose that for purposes of U.S. solider, that was all the information he needed to know about British rifles when he was there.

[twh]

Still a US Model 1917 and not an Enfield and the reason is because of what the previous poster stated about them being built in the same plant as the Pattern 14 which were designed at Enfield and thus might appropriately be called Enfields although that also bleeds into the No I Mk III's as well. Can't have two different model and caliber rifles being called the same generic name and so to differentiate between the two the Model 1917 is not an Enfield. Even the military eventually saw the error of their ways as you can see the later FM fixed the error perpetrated on the cover of the first. I have actually never cared what it was referred to as I have always just said Model of 1917 but it does annoy me as well when some one says Pattern 1917 or P-17.

[5MadFarmers]

the later FM fixed the error

When faced with facts one should always change their opinion to match the facts and not vice versa. There is no error.

An error is when something is done inadvertently.
Incorrect is when something is factually inaccurate.

"Enfield" on that manual is neither. Assertions that it is are uninformed opinion; you are incorrect.

The military has three types of "nomenclature" in common use:
1) Formal and official. Formally and officially that's the "Model of 1917" rifle. Which is itself an abbreviated version as it's a "Magazine rifle." Thus "United States Magazine rifle, Model of 1917."
2) Informal but official. The P-51 is the "Mustang." The M1 tank is the "Abrams." The United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1903, is the "Springfield."
3) Informal and unofficial. The B-52 is the "Stratofortress" but informally it's the "BUFF." Similarly the A-10 is the Warthog and the M60 machinegun was "the pig."

It's #2 and #3 that's really being quibbled here. So, with respect to rifles, what is typically used for the informal designation? Weapons designer. "Allin conversion" is informal but official. "Trapdoor" is unofficial. "Garand" is informal. "Browning" is informal. When a weapon is designed by a government facility they normally use the facility name instead. Thus it's the M-1903 "Springfield" instead of the "Phipps." This is why they had some issue with "Garand." It was a "Springfield."

The United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1917, was designed where? Enfield. Thus it was so designated on the cover.

http://www.merriam-press.com/images/products/detail/L0249_fc.jpg

Browning.

Were they inconsistent in this? Certainly. "Krag" was never accepted as it was a foreign designation. "Garand" wasn't popular as it was Springfield.

Enfield is correct. That's where it was designed.
"Eddystone" is #3 above.

It wasn't just WW2. In most references during WW1 the M-1917 was referred to as the "American Enfield."

If you're going to be pedantic go full boat for gob's sake.

[5MadFarmers]

Time to throw some real gasoline on this fire....

"Pattern of 1917," while never used officially, is not inaccurate per their nomenclature rules.
When somebody is told "they never called it the Pattern 1917" they are correct.
When somebody is told "it's not the Pattern 1917" that's incorrect.

When I push my Krag book out the door it'll make sense. I cover that in detail. It was important in the 1800s.

[Hal O'Peridol]

My Father-in Law carried a M1917 up and down the Bataan peninsula. When I asked him what rifle he used, he said "We used the Enfield rifle. Very powerful. Killed lots of Japanese."

So the troops in the Philippines that carried them called them Enfields.

To throw more gas on the fire, at the beginning of WWII, before we got involved, the US government gave the Canadians a bunch of M1917s. The Canadians called the rifles the P17 and many still do.

[browningautorifle]

When I push my Krag book out the door it'll make sense. I cover that in detail. It was important in the 1800s.


I'll be watching for that one...

[twh]

I am neither uninformed nor incorrect. The Pattern 1914 was a follow on of the Pattern 13 designed at Enfield modified to fire the standard British .303 round by Enfield. The Pattern 1914 design was modified by Springfield Armory to fire the 30-06 round so while the basic design was a product of Enfield the Model 1917 technically is not. The official designation is actually United States Rifle, Calibre .30, Model of 1917. Of course as pointed out we are quibbling about mere semantics in reality. Good news about the book as I love collecting books almost as much as rifles.

[dalbert]

Can't have two different model and caliber rifles being called the same generic name and so to differentiate between the two the Model 1917 is not an Enfield. Even the military eventually saw the error of their ways as you can see the later FM fixed the error perpetrated on the cover of the first.

I disagree completely. The military acknowledged it's an "Enfield" by calling it such on the cover of the first edition of FM 23-6. This was not a mistake, but a very deliberate act.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[5MadFarmers]

The Pattern 1914 design was modified by Springfield Armory

Springfield never made 1917s. The design was altered in the factories making it.


to fire the 30-06 round so while the basic design was a product of Enfield the Model 1917 technically is not.

So you're claiming the caliber change is what made it not an Enfield? If we accept that logic the following is also true:
1) The "L" in SMLE cannot stand for "Lee" as he developed his rifle in .45-70. I know this as I have two. (Notice that designer thing again?).
2) The Krag isn't the Krag as it was developed in some European caliber.
3) The Garand isn't the Garand as it was developed in .276.
4) My second favorite, the Mauser was developed by Mauser in 10.9mm. Then adapted to 7mm smokeless. The Prussian Rifle Commission developed the 7.92mm cartridge for the Commission Rifle. Thus any German rifle using the 7.92mm, including those made by Mauser, are not Mausers.
5) The favorite. What is probably the longest running small arm in use, the M2 Browning, is not a Browning. Frankford Arsenal is the one that chambered that in .50 as Browning developed it in .30-06.

I think you see where that logic is flawed....


The official designation is actually United States Rifle, Calibre .30, Model of 1917.

Aw, a Canadian. "Calibre." It's "Caliber" in 1917. I mention that as they switched between "calibre" and "caliber" during the 1800s. Mainly "calibre" at first, then "caliber" for a bit, then back to "calibre" for a bit, then "caliber" for good. That last about 1880.


Of course as pointed out we are quibbling about mere semantics in reality. Good news about the book as I love collecting books almost as much as rifles.

Of course we're quibbling nonsense. That's the point of message boards. :icon_lol:

How many would you like? Here's the first:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/enfield.png

I can supply an endless stream of those if desired. It was called the "American Enfield."

Now let's wind back a bit. Back to 1861. Another Enfield product was imported. There were:
"Springfield muskets" and "Enfield muskets." The "Enfield muskets" included those made in Birmingham. Why? "Development arsenal." The "Springfield muskets" included all of those made under contracts with private makers. Why "Springfield?"

Wait for it.

Because they were developed at Harper's Ferry, via a French musket, but Harper's Ferry was in the South for goodness sake.

Arsenal of development. Pattern held true for at least two centuries. "Charleville muskets?"

====

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/enfield2.png

Pick a number. How many? That's 1917.

Any number will do.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/enfield3.png

American Enfield. At the time. Again two decades later. It was the Enfield.

[twh]

The designation I quoted comes form Skennerton's reprinting of "Description and Rules for the Management of the United States Rifle, Calibre.30, Model of 1917". Never said Springfield made a Model 1917. My understanding is that the manufacturers each supplied a modified rifle to Springfield to prove the concept of the modification and that Springfield then approved and prepared the final drawings and then let contracts for the gauges. I wonder if Senatorial testimony and or published investigative reports were as accurate in the first part of the last century as they are now. If you want to accept those as facts I could probably dig you up some dooseys regarding modern firearms topics having little basis in fact. Accepting the premise behind your analogies related to the designation of the cited firearms does that make the 1903 Springfield a Springfield-Mauser? Regardless I have enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your point.

[5MadFarmers]

The designation I quoted comes form Skennerton's reprinting of "Description and Rules for the Management of the United States Rifle, Calibre.30, Model of 1917".

"Appeal to authority" misfire. I own the originals of that tome. Three editions with the first in both pasteboard and paper covers. There is also an addendum. None of which addresses the fact that the contemporary Description and Rules for the Management of the Magazine Rifle, Model of 1903, also omits "Springfield." 1904, 1906, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1914, 1915 (1914 reprint), 1917, and 1918 editions. Doesn't exist on any of those off the top of my head. Checked one and it was absent.

They didn't put the informal name on those. It's also absent from FM23-10 (WW2 FM for the '03). That they included it on the first edition of the M-1917 FM is likely due to the rifle being somewhat uncommon at that point (out of primary service for two decades).


Never said Springfield made a Model 1917. My understanding is that the manufacturers each supplied a modified rifle to Springfield to prove the concept of the modification and that Springfield then approved and prepared the final drawings and then let contracts for the gauges.

Wouldn't it be a little odd to have three do the changes and then do drawings? They'd vary. Which of the three to take? Why have SA do the engineering drawings when they were already overloaded with the stuff they made? Winchester and Remington had engineering staff, and draughtsmen for that matter, with more experience in chambering various rifles in various calibers than SA ever had or would have. So why would they? They had Remington do the engineering drawings for the M-1911s so it seems illogical to do the engineering at SA.

To the best of my knowledge Winchester did that work. Congress called the O.D., WRA, and Remington to testify about it as it unfolded. Under oath. While it wasn't clearly stated, and thus I may be wrong, I gathered that Winchester took lead in partnership with Remington (also representing Eddystone of course).

That the DRM doesn't have it is thus a non sequitur as the '03 DRM doesn't either. That the WW2 FM has it is all the offical notification that is needed.


I wonder if Senatorial testimony and or published investigative reports were as accurate in the first part of the last century as they are now.

They weren't as skilled at lying as they are today. Different times. They were very forthright at that time. When discussing the move from the Krag to the M-1903 they stated that they "threw the old gun out." That made me laugh. Today that takes a paragraph. "We declared the older model as superflous to needs based on a thorough study of mission requirements with the result that the new model meets them whereas the previous model is less than optimum in that use case. The old model will enter normal salvage channels for potential auxiliary usage to ensure the taxpayers receive full value for their tax money. An independent audit was performed which concurs with our findings." I.e, it's old and garbage and we threw it away.

The O.D., WRA, RA, and others were called in. They know what it was. If they didn't who did?


If you want to accept those as facts I could probably dig you up some dooseys regarding modern firearms topics having little basis in fact.

Non sequitur. Find WW1 era testimony that is flawed and you'd at least be in the same arena. Even then it's not a given as this isn't that.


Accepting the premise behind your analogies related to the designation of the cited firearms does that make the 1903 Springfield a Springfield-Mauser? Regardless I have enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your point.

That one bugs me too. Phipps rammed a Krag into a Mauser at high speed and the result was the M-1903. "Mauser" it kind of is and kind of isn't. "Krag" it kind of is and kind of isn't. "Krauser?" "Mausag?" When a design reaches the ubiquity of the Mauser it presents problems. The Pattern 14 is a Mauser and also suffers from that right? "Enauser?" "Maufield?"

Thus what they did. They went three ways:
1) Mauser
2) Armory or designer which altered it. Enfield. Arisaka. Springfield.
3) Country + #1. "Spanish Mauser." "Swedish Mauser."

The M2 one made me think. While Browning designed the base action the cartridge was developed at Frankford Arsenal. The gun itself at Rock Island Arsenal. So if we skip Browning what do we have? I'll have to check the original files: aw, here it is. "The Rockford Files." They should have made a TV show. James Garner toiling away on making that action work with that scaled up cartridge. Phony suspense moments tossed in like they do today: "Jim has hit a snag. The cartridge won't extract. If he can't get this fixed within a week the entire program is in jeopardy." It would have been a gas.

Peabody's original design had an internal hammer. The U.S. O.D. had him do it as an external. Martini then moved it back. Thus "Martini-Henry" is in fact a Peabody. Calling it "Peabody" is pointless though. It's Martini-Henry. I don't have to like it - just the way it is.

Think Rock Island would let me film there? Garner is dead but I'll get somebody else. Maybe he can design interwar tanks also.

[dalbert]

I don't recall another recent thread where a counter-argument was so soundly defeated...

In regards to Skennerton's use of "Calibre" vs. "Caliber," it may have been because he's Australian, and uses that spelling himself.

I will make one small caveat to 5MadFarmers assertion that the U.S. use of the term "Calibre" died around 1880. The 15,000 original Colt Thompson Submachine Guns, manufactured in 1921-22 are marked "Calibre," and were adopted by 3 branches of the U.S. Military. That being said, they used the "Caliber" spelling in reference to the caliber of the TSMG.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[5MadFarmers]

I will make one small caveat to 5MadFarmers assertion that the U.S. use of the term "Calibre" died around 1880. The 15,000 original Colt Thompson Submachine Guns, manufactured in 1921-22 are marked "Calibre," and were adopted by 3 branches of the U.S. Military.

Interesting. I was unaware of that one. Thus incorrect but no error.....

Languages change over time. I suspect it has to do with how common the word is and the age of the user. When the trapdoor manual changed back and forth I figured it was two generations. Caliber is pretty common relatively speaking and thus changed faster than some other words. That somebody was using it in 1921 would bespeak of a foreigner or somebody old. John Thompson perhaps? During his youth calibre was still in common usage. I have no idea which it was obviously.

Caliber, center, pitcher. "er" is American usage. "re" is Brit.

It started as "re" in the US also.

Common words change faster. Uncommon ones much slower if at all. Musical term: "timbre" is still common usage. Uncommon word.

Enfield. Set up due to a visit to the US gun factories. The Whitworth Commission's visit to the US resulted in the establishment of Enfield using American machinery. Ames sent much machinery and a master armorer to Enfield as part of that. The master armorer? James Butler. Formerly of Harper's Ferry.

It always circles around.

[5MadFarmers]

Aw, that other bit.


I don't recall another recent thread where a counter-argument was so soundly defeated...

It's a message board. No different than sitting around the cracker barrel in an old general store. It doesn't matter. Life matters. What they called that rifle a century ago is pointless trivia.

Two WW2 manuals. The first had "Enfield" on the cover. It's been a while and I may be misremembering but I recall one of the changes between the two was destruction of the rifle. How to make it useless. '17s were in large use in the P.i.. When it fell the Japanese ended up with them. The two would be related. I may be misremembering.

[usmc69]

The first 1917 manual:http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/usmc690303/1917Handbook.jpg Printed 1918.

[Dan Shapiro]

Someone likes playing "Devils Advocate". :icon_salut: I don't mind. The arcane trivia alone is worth the admission price of "free".

When dealing with the Ordnance people, it's surprising that only the State Dept is called "Foggy Bottom". :icon_lol:

[emmagee1917]

Dang it , you all caused me to run out of popcorn again.
Chris

[Shooter5]

...from the CMP website - http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1917.htm

The M1917 Enfield, "P17 Enfield", "American Enfield", formally named "United States Rifle, cal .30, Model of 1917" was an American modification and production of the British .303 caliber P14 rifle developed and manufactured during the period 1917-1918.

[dalbert]

The first 1917 manual:http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n1/usmc690303/1917Handbook.jpg Printed 1918.

USMC69,

This could be a subject for debate. The green colored manual examples in my photo below pre-date the manual in your photo for their listed origin date. Their origin date is October 8, 1917. It was subsequently revised twice, on January 16, 1918, and May 7, 1918. The examples I have are all the same, and their publication date of May 7, 1918 does follow the brown manual publication date of November 13, 1917 in your photo. However, that manual was actually printed after May 1, 1918, based on the dates listed on the cover.

I need to see if I can find a photo of an earlier edition of the green manual. It may be in one of the 3 published books on the M1917 subject.

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/M1917_Manuals.JPG

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[PhillipM]

In my book 'Winchester- The Gun that Won the West' the rifle is described as the modified Enfield.

[RC20]

I understand and appreciate both sides of the discussion. I work in a number of very technical fields. Calling something other than what it is not only can cause confusion, it can cause serious problems.

On the other hand there is the real world where many do not live and breathe technical, a common understood description works just fine. Most people are in that arena, even if their job is a very technical one, the live and breather technical at work and the rest of the world is different. It human and nothing we can do about that.

For the Model of 1917 rifle, you could not have come up with a more twisted pedigree if you tried. Designed in England in one caliber, converted to another, then shipped overseas to be produced in the US and then converted a second time to another caliber. Sheese.

You can imagine that in the Philippines calling the Model of 1917 (Rifle) an Enfield was good shorthand to quickly covey and understand what was being discussed. In context there was no confusion as there were no SMLEs about. Not so good in WWI where there would be at least confusion in cross British and US discussions. Huh, what, are you sure you are talking 30-06, I don't need nor can use 303. Probably not as bad since the Brit forces used SMLE, but training appears to have used P1914s.

I can also see a group of WWI troops talking about the M1917, one is infantry, one is machine gun, one is MP. You have a rifle and a bayonet both called M1917, a machine gun and a pistol, sheese, what's a guy to do?

Local slang and shorthand come to predominate, you sure don't want to say (nor care that’s technically what it is) United State Rifle Model of 1917 30 Caliber.

People in general ID with stories, stores have names not numbers. Mustang, Sherman, Panther (sometimes a number sticks out like an 88 but in general an identify name resonates better with most people other than the ones that are really "in to it"

What it really amounts to is there is no right way or wrong way. There is technically incorrect, but if my brother and I are talking 1917s, we both know it’s the rifles, if it’s the bayonet, then it’s the 1917 bayonet or the pistol (i.e. its never come up with it would be phrased as 1917 revolver. We don't have to worry about the machine gun!

In WWI they had a pamphlet describing the gun and its history and origination. Good move and it put it in context with what they would see overseas. Looks a lot alike, but it ain't the same caliber.

And someone asks me "what is that rifle you are shooting" I tell them it’s a Model of 1917 30-06. If I said 30 caliber they would go huh? Nope, it’s a 30-06 and they know what cartridge it uses. I try to keep it on track as to the most used WWI rifle and a bit of that background.

So, no right or wrong, just do the best you can with the people you are dealing with.

[PhillipM]

In WWI it was Model of 1917. No soldiers were calling anything an M1917, the nomenclature hadn't been invented.

[5MadFarmers]

Calling something other than what it is not only can cause confusion, it can cause serious problems.

Particularly where the item isn't common. Thus the "Standard Nomenclature Lists" which resulted from WW1.


I can also see a group of WWI troops talking about the M1917, one is infantry, one is machine gun, one is MP. You have a rifle and a bayonet both called M1917, a machine gun and a pistol, sheese, what's a guy to do?

Stay away from Artillery where the gun, mount, sight, etc., all had a model number. "Model 15 gun on Model 3A mount sporting the Model 13 sight."

Makes the head spin.

[RC20]

In WWI it was Model of 1917. No soldiers were calling anything an M1917, the nomenclature hadn't been invented.

The point is not to contend specifically what anyone called it (we know the range of that) its to discuss how to deal with it and the terms. Its an example of what they could have called it, the confusion and the fact that as noted there is a plethora of 1917 designated equipment.

I of course was no where in the vicinity of the soldiers who served so its a guess as to what terms they used. I seriously doubt they used the full Model of 1917 designation.

I suspect they referred to it in all sorts of ways.

We do know that Sgt York referred to it as "that British rifle". Probably a lot of servicemen who trained in England also referred to it Enfield, P17 etc.

Casual phrasesology if you will supersedes official designation in casual conversation unless its a very formal and technical conversions and even then within the discussion it will get shorted for ease of conversation once everyone is on the same pate. I.e. This is a Meeting of the Model of 1917 standards group.

Often probably simply referred to as my rifle.

[RC20]

Particularly where the item isn't common. Thus the "Standard Nomenclature Lists" which resulted from WW1.



Stay away from Artillery where the gun, mount, sight, etc., all had a model number. "Model 15 gun on Model 3A mount sporting the Model 13 sight."

Makes the head spin.

Yep!

[5MadFarmers]

We do know that Sgt York referred to it as "that British rifle".

He referred to the SMLE thusly. His division was due to serve with the Brits. They were issued Brit kit. Orders were changed and they turned it in.

[5MadFarmers]

I need to see if I can find a photo of an earlier edition of the green manual. It may be in one of the 3 published books on the M1917 subject.


Save you the effort.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/1917-1.png

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/1917-2.png

That brown scorebook came in blue for the '03.

[Shooter5]

I know UK troops still (occasionally) refer to the M4/M16 as an "Armalite". Nowadays, some US troops bandy the term "Stoner" here and there but they are usually referring the to early Knights Armament SR-25s.

[RC20]

He referred to the SMLE thusly. His division was due to serve with the Brits. They were issued Brit kit. Orders were changed and they turned it in.


LeHavre, France: So we got to France at Le Havre. There we turned in our guns and got British guns. Well, we went out from Le Havre to a little inland camp. I had taken a liking to my gun by this time. I had taken it apart and cleaned it enough to learn every piece and I could almost put it back together with my eyes shut. The Greeks and Italians were improving. They had stayed continuously on the rifle range for a month or two and got so they could shoot well. They were fairly good pals, too. But I missed the Tennesseans. I was the only mountaineer in the platoon. I didn't like the British guns so well. I don't think they were as accurate as our American rifles. Ho ho.

The troops turned in their 1903s when they reached France and were issued 1917s, i.e. the British rifle, not SMLE. Sgt York may very well have re-acquired a 1903 as there is a significant amount of evidence that was what he was carrying when he won the Medal of Honor.



Also note there is no further comment on rifle swaps. It is a case where using the right designation rather than slang would have made it clearer but you can pick it out of the context and happenings.

However, the procedure was to de-issue US troops the 1903s as the 1917 was the standardized rifle. Due to its history and its commonality in looks with the Pattern 13 (and the pamphlet that specifically did refer to its inherent from Enfield) it would easily have been referred to "as that British Rifle" in somewhat dismisely terms for someone who was not reared on peep sights.


Montsec Sector, France-- And we relieved the 26th Div. boys at night in the Montsec Sector at Rambucourt and we stayed there until the 4th of July.

It was a quiet sector, where they put new troops to train them before sending them out into no man's land. The Greeks and Italians did fairly well. I was out in no man's land. I did a right smart piece of patrolling, handling an automatic squad.

We had a lot of big stuff from the artillery coming over, and now and then a gas shell. The only firing we had then was from the snipers. We were new troops and we were nervous and jumpy at first. And when those pesky bullets came humming and buzzing a round our ears, just like a lot of mad hornets or bumblebees when you rob their nests at home in Tennessee, we used to do a powerful lot of ducking.

But soon we realized it was no use. You never hear the one that gets you.

[5MadFarmers]

The troops turned in their 1903s when they reached France and were issued 1917s, i.e. the British rifle, not SMLE. Sgt York may very well have re-acquired a 1903 as there is a significant amount of evidence that was what he was carrying when he won the Medal of Honor.

The troops never had 1903s. I have the shipment records for the M-1917 rifles being sent to their cantonment. None of the National Army divisions had M-1903s. There is a picture of his division parading in Paris - they have their M-1917s. There is a picture of the division parading in their cantonment - they have their M-1917s. At no time were they issued M-1903s. That was a National Army division.

Repeat, no National Army divisions had M-1903s.

So tell me what this "evidence" you have is.


Also note there is no further comment on rifle swaps. It is a case where using the right designation rather than slang would have made it clearer but you can pick it out of the context and happenings.

What slang is that? His "Springfield rifle?" The one he cleaned the cosmoline from? I have the shipment record for the Krags sent to his cantonment. They trained on Krags until the M-1917s arrived.


However, the procedure was to de-issue US troops the 1903s as the 1917 was the standardized rifle.

Why do you make sh!t up? What procedures are these? Citation please. Find me a single record for any M-1903s shipped to the National Army cantonments. I have the records for the Krags, M-1917s and the M-1917 bayonets shipped to them. Show me any for M-1903s.


Due to its history and its commonality in looks with the Pattern 13 (and the pamphlet that specifically did refer to its inherent from Enfield) it would easily have been referred to "as that British Rifle" in somewhat dismisely terms for someone who was not reared on peep sights.

The unit was issued SMLEs in France. They turned in their M-1917s for that. When orders were changed they retreived their M-1917s.

Find me a single record for any M-1903s shipped to National Army units.
Find me a single picture of anyone from that division with an M-1903.

Your evidence is sadly lacking. Mine I have in spades.

Please don't waste our time with assertions sans evidence. A single picture of that division with M-1903s, a single document of them having them, anything specifically mentioning his division and the M-1903.

It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the only rifles they were ever issued were Krags, M-1917s, and SMLEs. The documents are very clear.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm going to pile on that one a bit. Far too many people tend to make stuff up and then it gets repeated until it becomes "the truth." Even Canfield fell for that "British Rifle" thing.

The story of the M-1917 is a long and involved one. I gave it serious research. Primary sources. Lots of them. I know when somebody really did research on them as they'll have those records. I do. If they don't have those records they didn't bother looking. Something as basic has reading the official Division history. The "British rifle" account was easy to find and very clear. If people won't even take the time to read that how much work have they done to back up their opinions with fact? None.

The Krag book is almost done. As part of that I covered the Krag usage in depth. To include the usage in the cantonments during WW1. That lead me down some other paths. The "Lewis gun" controversy. The "great rifle shortage." Researched it all to get a context for the issue and usage of those Krags. You can't study that without taking a good hard look at the M-1917s and the Nagants. The deeper you dig the more obvious what occurred. The Ordnance Department really effed up. Badly. Bad enough where when the war was over Congress helpfully offered to abolish them. They were counterproductive.

The entire story of the M-1917 is facinating. No, I'm not going to do a book on it though. I have other stuff I'm after.

That said collectors of the M-1917 rifle should bear in mind that the M-1917 was there when the M-1903 failed the nation. The "cult" of the M-1903 has tried to get around that. Julian Hatcher lied by ommission on how bad the M-1903 situation was. I cover it in my book. Using ordnance department documents.

The M-1917 rifle essentially replaced the M-1903 for good reason. The regular army and the national guard had M-1903s. The national army divisions were without rifles. The "broomstick apologists," to use Teddy Roosevelt's term, in the Ordnance Department were screwed. They lied to congress repeatedly. The Chief of Ordnance was removed from his job. With the dam that was the Ordnance Department removed the M-1917 production commenced in a volume that was staggering. The national guard units were partially equiped with M-1917s when the war ended. All the national army divisions had them throughout. Given a bit more time and all the troops in France, perhaps excepting the USMC, would have had them.

The cult of the M-1903 and the cult of Alvin York is interesting. So far from reality. They just can't get over it. 100 years later and that cult is still in place. That's simply astonishing.

[CJCulpeper]

The cult of the M-1903 and the cult of Alvin York is interesting. So far from reality. They just can't get over it. 100 years later and that cult is still in place. That's simply astonishing.

This is from the 328th's history written some time in 1919

https://archive.org/details/historyofthreehu00slsn

Page 7

The original line officers of the regiment were chosen from officers commissioned
in the Fourth and Eighth Companies, First Officers Training Camp, Fort McPherson,
Georgia. Each companv was assigned two or three men from Regular Army outfits
to assist in training the men. The officers assigned to each company together with
these Regulars constituted the companies until September 5th, 1917, on which date
the first five per cent, of the Selective Draft for Camp Gordon began to arrive. These
men were from the States of Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. Work now began in
earnest along the lines of training and building up a smooth running organization
and getting the Regimental area into a fit training ground. New men were arriving
daily so that by the middle of October each company had approximately fifty per
cent, of its authorized full strength. It is impossible to enumerate the many difficulties
which were encountered and overcome during this period due to lack of experience
on the part of the officers and men and also lack of equipment; nevertheless,
each day showed progress and the transition from civilian to soldier was progressing
rapidly. Regimental, Battalion and Company organizations were perfected,
schools for N. C. O.'s and also Bakers and Cooks were inaugurated and the "Camp
Gordon 1917 Model"' rifle in the shape of a five-foot pole was very much in evidence.

Page 9

Clothing and equipment was being received and issued daily and soon the
percentage of straw hats and tennis shoes at dress parades was on the decline. Saw
mills of the camp were rapidly turning out the "new model" Camp Gordon rifle and
soon each man was busily occupied in mastering the intricacies of the manual of
arms with this bed slat variety of fire arm. Work continued with this makeshift
equipment till about the first of February, 1918. Then we were fully equipped with
the United States Model 1917 Rifle and Bayonet.

Pages 11 & 13

Parades and reviews were held weekly, culminating in the Division being reviewed
on April 4th, 1918, by Mrs. John B. Gordon, wife of Gen. John B. Gordon,
C. S. A., for whom the camp was named. The officer personnel while at Camp Gordon
had undergone many changes—some of the original officers being transferred
to other branches of the Service and others lost by promotion, while new officers
from the Second Training Camp were assigned to the Regiment. Rumors had been
rampant for weeks, gradually assuming a more official tone till the middle of April,
when the Regimental advance party was ordered to a port of embarkation and then
we knew that our time of departure was close at hand.
All drills had been suspended and everything was orderly confusion during the
last two weeks of our stay at Gordon. Property was boxed and marked, as per regulations,
clothing and equipment issued and stenciled, passenger and baggage lists
typed and show down inspections held at all hours of the day and night to determine
any shortages. Entraining orders were received and on April 19th, 1918, Headquarters,
Machine Gun and Supply Companies left for Camp Upton, followed shortly thereafter
by the balance of the Regiment.

Page 308

Alvin C. York, Joined Company February 9. 1918. Appointed Sergeant
Pall Mall, Tenn. November 1, 1918. Awarded D. S. C. for meritorious action
West of Chatel Chehery, on October 8, 1918.


-------------------------------------------------------

This tells me the 328th crated up their 1917s and hauled them to Europe. So some where along the line York and possibly a couple of his buddies picked up some 1903s and were ordered turn in the '03s and draw the rifle type they were issued. Can't prove it though.

[free1954]

interesting sir. thanks for posting

[fjruple]

CJCulpeper--

Thanks for posting references to the 328th's. It helps clear up a lot of the Sgt York myth about his rifle. I believe a lot the myth stems from the Sgt York movie inwhich Cary Cooper played Sgt York. In the movie he uses a captured German Luger and a Springfield rifle while in reality he probably used a Model of 1911, Colt .45 ACP and a Model of 1917, .30-06 Rifle.

Just as side note, as a general rule, I believe in most troop movements in a wartime, the individual soldier would have kept his rifle, field gear (pup tent, mess kit, etc.) and personal hygiene items with them. Even in recent "wartime" deployments, we always took our individual weapons with us. That's not to say that changes could happen once you are physically in the war zone. I was upgraded from my M9 to a M16A2 once I hit the war zone in Iraq in the 2nd Gulf war.

--fjruple

[CJCulpeper]

I miswrote when I put down York and the 1903. The Historical Commitee goes on:

Page 19

On May 20th Col. Lindsey received his promotion to Brigadier General and was
assigned to command of the 164th Brigade, Major Jewett being placed in command
of the Regiment. On this date the last of our regiment embarked for France and
the next morning found us winding our weary way up the hill to rest camps Nos.
1 and 2, about five miles from Le Havre. Here we learned that our division was to
be brigaded with the British and our baggage in the future would be confined to
what we carried on our backs. The time was spent in turning in American rifles and
bayonets and drawing British equipment and salvaging a large majority of the
equipment issued us at Camp Upton. Barrack bags most of which have never been
seen since, were left for storage, and shortly thereafter the officers learned that of
the 250 pounds of overseas equipment required to be brought by them they could
retain 50 pounds, including bedding rolls. At this place we were issued gas masks
and steel helmets and passed through a gas chamber where each man thoroughly
tested the efficiency of his mask, realizing fully that his life might depend upon it
in the future.

page 25

During our stay here officers and men from each Battalion and Company were
sent to the front line trenches to get first hand information as to the work done there.
After three weeks training with the British, evidently with the view of taking over a
sector here, orders were changed, and we turned in all our British equipment, again
drew American arms in their place, and on June 16th the Regiment entrained for an
American sector.

--------------------------------------------------------

So if they traveled with all of their gear from Gordon then they would have been carrying the Model of 1917. The record is silent on what was the British rifle. And it is silent on what they drew when they turned in the British stuff.


Culpeper

[RC20]

[QUOTE=5MadFarmers;389807]The troops never had 1903s. I have the shipment records for the M-1917 rifles being sent to their cantonment. None of the National Army divisions had M-1903s. There is a picture of his division parading in Paris - they have their M-1917s. There is a picture of the division parading in their cantonment - they have their M-1917s. At no time were they issued M-1903s. That was a National Army division.

Repeat, no National Army . had M-1903s.

So tell me what this "evidence" you have is.

Plain and simple I was wrong and divisions I apologize and salute the people who know far more than I do I got an in depth history of the 82nd in WWI and per your citation, they were issued Lee Enfield.

If you make assumption you get egg on your face and I have a whole carton full.

I missed the piece about the 1917s being the original standard issue. that puts a twist on the discussion of what he carried.

What's also confusing is the subsequent evidence that Sgt York insisted the 1903 was the right rifle for movie depiction. It has me scratching my head. I don't have the quotes but his son insisted and supposedly he did as well.

With all due respect and my appologies

[RC20]

This is a further quote of the 82nd history. Very accurate per the previous documentation though it specifically states their original 1917s being re-issued (and the Chauchot and Hotchkiss were issued). What machine gun were they equiped with before?


Early in June, details of officers and non-commissioned
officers were guests of British front-line units in the new
trenches before Albert and Amiens, where the lines were
becoming newly stabilized after the upheaval which fol-
lowed the successful enemy offensive of March 21, 1918.
It v\^as during one of these tours of duty that Captain
Jewett Williams, 326th Infantry, was killed, June 9, 1918,
the first casualty in action from the 82nd Division. It
was generally assumed by both British and American of-
ficers that the American battalions were to be attached
immediately to British brigades and share the honors and
burdens of redeeming the lost battlefields of Picardy. This
assumption was suddenly overturned by an order entrain-
ing the Division for destination near Toul. The Lee-En-
field rifles, to which the troops had just become accustomed,
and the Lewis automatic rifles and Vickers machine guns
were turned back to the British, and the U. S. 1917 Rifle
(Eddystone) was reissued. The train movement began
June 16, 1918, and lasted two full days. The Division
occupied towns and villages north of Toul, and once again
addressed itself to the task of obtaining and mastering
new weapons.


The Infantry received Chauchot automatic rifles, and
machine gun companies were equipped with the French
8-mm. Hotchkiss machine guns. At this time all units
of the Division, except the 157th Field Artillery Brigade,
joined the Command. The artillery, however, remained in
training at La Courtine, France

[RC20]

None of the National Army divisions had M-1903s. There is a picture of his division parading in Paris - they have their M-1917s. There is a picture of the division parading in their cantonment - they have their M-1917s. At no time were they issued M-1903s. That was a National Army division.

Difference between National Guard and National Army division?

And who got the 1903s?

My personal feeling on the 1903 vs the 1917 is if I was an average grunt, I would have preferred the 1903. It handles better and the bolts operations a lot better (and the original 1903s are better than the 1903A3s (and yes I have an early 1903 and handled several other of the WWI era 1903s)

However, as a shooter I like the 1917. That would be my preference, I always have been a slower shooter and prefer the accuracy you get from that as I can’t shoot fast and accurate.

The 1917 peep setup and long sight distance and good square front post are a delight let alone for my now older yes.

[5MadFarmers]

I assume the following was a typo?

What part would be a typo? The Army of WW1 was comprised of three segments: Regular Army (Divs 1-25), National Guard (26-74), and National Army (75+). So what part is a typo?


This is a further quote of the 82nd history. Very accurate per the previous documentation

Congrats - you found it. I mentioned it before:


The story of the M-1917 is a long and involved one. I gave it serious research. Primary sources. Lots of them. I know when somebody really did research on them as they'll have those records. I do. If they don't have those records they didn't bother looking. Something as basic has reading the official Division history. The "British rifle" account was easy to find and very clear. If people won't even take the time to read that how much work have they done to back up their opinions with fact? None.

That makes you one of the very few who take the time to poke at it. Travel back a few pages and you'll find they were Eddystones. There is a caveat to that but you'll not find it in that tome - you have to find the shipping records.

If you're real interested there is a picture of Company G taken in 1917 at Camp Gordon. York is in the photo. Clearly in evidence are the M-1917 rifles.....

Do you know why I do the research I do? I don't like being a parrot. When I first started with this stuff I by default believed the "facts" bandied about. A number of them made no sense logically. So I started digging. I don't like being a parrot. The M-1903 cult will have people being a parrot in no time. They've built years building a story to support the M-1903. None of it is real.

Don't sweat it. It's hard to erase all of that supposed knowledge. You took the time to find the division history. That's a positive.

Best wishes.

[RC20]

Unlike my boss I think details matter and facts should to (grin)

I appreciate your courtesy, while not intentional I certainly put my foot into it. Obviously shipping records I would not have a clue where to look. I did read Sgt Yorks diary for clarification but that also obviously has to be taken in context of the other facts.

Have you published this under on article write-up? It would be a great reference and a convincing counter. I am verging on definitive. Great work.

Certainly I can use the discussion here and the 82nd history, Prior to this discussion I had not read the details that have been brought out.

Who did get the 1903s? Regular Army?

I was not familiar with the three terms of service units in WWI. National Army got translated as National Guard. A bit of searching and I see the confusing mix that developed.

I have been back and forth on the Sgt York 1917 issue, if anything weighed me in the direction of the 1903 it was the reported family insistence (at least reported) that it was a 1903. If you have any clarification on that it would be appreciate. Not that it changes anything, I like to understand how things got where they did.

I also did not want to attribute an event to the 1917 that belonged to the 1903 just because I am enamored with the 1917 (which I did not know existed two years ago let alone its history). I have a small collection now.

I like the 1903, my dads re-barreled 1903 Sporter is one hell of a shooter (scoped). Occasionally I can get 5/8 to 3/4 MOA with it.

I have to get my non intrusive mount back on my 1917s and see how I do now I have a good load sorted out for them.

[CJCulpeper]

Difference between National Guard and National Army division?

And who got the 1903s?

My personal feeling on the 1903 vs the 1917 is if I was an average grunt, I would have preferred the 1903. It handles better and the bolts operations a lot better (and the original 1903s are better than the 1903A3s (and yes I have an early 1903 and handled several other of the WWI era 1903s)

However, as a shooter I like the 1917. That would be my preference, I always have been a slower shooter and prefer the accuracy you get from that as I can’t shoot fast and accurate.

The 1917 peep setup and long sight distance and good square front post are a delight let alone for my now older yes.


The National Army were all of the Draftees or volunteers not serving in the Regular Army or a National Guard unit. The Regular Army and the National Guard are the same as we know them today

[Shooter5]

Perhaps way off topic but given the range of these fascinating discussions…something that's that been nagging: what are the USG official/formal/informal terms for the US issued Mosin-Nagants (Remington, Westinghouse)!

[PhillipM]

Perhaps way off topic but given the range of these fascinating discussions…something that's that been nagging: what are the USG official/formal/informal terms for the US issued Mosin-Nagants (Remington, Westinghouse)!


the “Russian Three-line Rifle, Caliber 7.62 mm

http://www.mosinnagant.net/ussr/US-Mosin-Nagants.asp

[Shooter5]

Good to know, but what was actually stamped on the rifle? Part of this issue regarding the 1917 sometimes forgets to mention what was actually stamped on the US issued rifles, which was actually what again, I don't recall just offhand?

[PhillipM]

Good to know, but what was actually stamped on the rifle? Part of this issue regarding the 1917 sometimes forgets to mention what was actually stamped on the US issued rifles, which was actually what again, I don't recall just offhand?

Nothing but the Springfield Armory inspection stamp and flaming bomhttp://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/EagleX2.JPGb.

[5MadFarmers]

the “Russian Three-line Rifle, Caliber 7.62 mm

http://www.mosinnagant.net/ussr/US-Mosin-Nagants.asp

Ordnance Department Manual (http://usahec.polarislibrary.com/polaris/search/title.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.1&pos=1)

I'd love to bump into one. Paper one. Electronic is here:

PDF (http://home.earthlink.net/~mosinnagantshooter/WarDeptManual/Manual.pdf)

[Cosine26]

In the "For What it's worth" category, let me submit the following information.
There was a book entitled HISTORY OF THE WORLD WAR, authored by Francis A. March PHD, with an introduction by General Peyton C. March (Chief of staff U. S. Army) and published by The United Publishers of the United States and Canada in 1919.
General Peyton C. March in the introduction dated November 14, 1918, identifies himself as the Chief of Staff, United States Army. He also contributes a chapter(LVII entitled, Behind America's Battle Line) and I cite the following quote from that chapter:
"Shortly after my installation as Chief of Staff I adopted the principle of interchanged of the personnel of the various staff corps of the War Department with men who had training in France, and in the application of this principle place as heads of the various bureaus officers selected on account of their ability and experience in the system of warfare as conducted in France.
At this time, also, I found that the divisions organized in our armies were still regarded as separate units, designated by different titles in accordance with their origins. This made three kinds of divisions, in the United states Army - the Regular army, the National Guard, and the National army divisions. All these distinctions were abolished and the entire army consolidated into the United States army, without regard to the source from which drawn. The source of supply....."
My father enlisted in the National Guard March 23, 1917 and the guard was mustered into federal service on June 28, 1917. He was discharged from the National Guard in 1917 and commissioned as a 2nd Lt in the National Guard while in Camp Beauregard, LA in September 1917. I remember him telling me that upon their deployment to France with the AEF, they turned in their "Springfields" and being issued "Enfields". He served with the 114th Engineers until transferred to the 26th Engineers November 8, 1918. He served in the St. Mihiel offensive, the Toul Sector and the Meuse Argonne . He was discharged from the ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES at Camp Meade Maryland April 1919.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the U.S. Army purchased and used in training M1905 Mk II 3* Ross rifles.

[Shooter5]

That is some neat family history. What Division was the 114th Engr attached to?

[RC20]

And interesting comment on the guns they had originally (1903s) as well as what they got then issued which (1917s or SMLE?)

And yes all the other training rifles that were used, most interesing

[5MadFarmers]

At this time, also, I found that the divisions organized in our armies were still regarded as separate units, designated by different titles in accordance with their origins. This made three kinds of divisions, in the United states Army - the Regular army, the National Guard, and the National army divisions. All these distinctions were abolished and the entire army consolidated into the United States army, without regard to the source from which drawn. The source of supply....."

Read Emory Upton's book for the motivation. While we call them the "National Guard" during WW1 that's a legal fiction - the first thing they did was activate the National Guard, discharge them, then draft them. Dirty pool.


My father enlisted in the National Guard March 23, 1917 and the guard was mustered into federal service on June 28, 1917. He was discharged from the National Guard in 1917 and commissioned as a 2nd Lt in the National Guard while in Camp Beauregard, LA in September 1917.

39th Division.


I remember him telling me that upon their deployment to France with the AEF, they turned in their "Springfields" and being issued "Enfields". He served with the 114th Engineers until transferred to the 26th Engineers November 8, 1918. He served in the St. Mihiel offensive, the Toul Sector and the Meuse Argonne . He was discharged from the ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES at Camp Meade Maryland April 1919.

The 114th Engineers were part of the 39th. The 39th shipped over in July of 1918 and was designated as a "Depot" Division upon arrival. Casualties that summer were higher than expected with a number of divisions either turned into "depot" divisions or broken up outright for the manpower. 31, 34, 38, 41, 83, 84, 86 were all broken up. 39,40,71,85 were used as depot divisions.

The Regular Army regiments were smashed together to form Divisions with the USMC also smashed into that mix. The Regular Army and National Guard divisions were sent to "new" bases in the South while their home bases were used to assemble and train the National Army divisions. Once the National Army divisions began shipping they formed 13 more divisions with "Regular Army" numbers (8-13). The 8th and 10th were far enough along to begin shipping in November but I don't show the rest shipping.


I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the U.S. Army purchased and used in training M1905 Mk II 3* Ross rifles.

Long story.

[Shooter5]

Oh, please do tell! We all got popcorn and this has been so enlightening to say the least. What I know of the Ross indicates it didn't do well and Canada dropped it.
As long as we're at it; what were all the makes/models of rifles used by Uncle Sam during WW1? It sounds like at least 4 with the Model 1903 and Model 1917 topping the list with lesser participation by the Mosin-Nagant and Ross. At this point, it appears the US was in a pickle regarding small arms and even the sidearm matter was compromised with the military forced to adopt the Colt and S&W M1917 revolvers to make up for shortfalls; if I am getting this all correct?

[Cosine26]

For 5MadFarmers
This thread has strayed far afield from the original subject. How about one final FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
The 114th Engineers was organized in August 1917 as the Sapper Regiment of the 39th "Dixie" division and was comprised of National Guard units from Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The strength was bolstered by officers from the Officers Reserve Corps . The nucleus of the organization came from the NG Infantry units The organization was bolstered by draftees mobilized first at Camp Pike
Arkansas and It trained at Camp Beauregard, Louisiana . It sailed to France on the USS WILHEIMINA landing at Brest France. From Brest they went to training camp at Cherost Cher after a 72 hour train ride on the 40 & 8 French rail cars. It was here that the lost 22 men to Spanish Influenza. The 39 Division was redesignated as the 5th Depot Replacement Division. The Engineer regiment was reassigned to the First Army, First Corps and "entered the trenches" on 1 October 1918. My father served with the regiment until 8 November 1918 when he was transferred to 26 Division First Army. He always told me that they were transferred to become infantry replacements for that "meat grinder-the Argonne. The Armistice saved them from that.
This information was extracted from the History and Roster of the 114th Engineers 1918:1919. The history indicates that FOUR officers from the NG were transferred to the unit, but upon reviewing the roster I find many more than four-many of whom I knew personally. My father remained active in the NG and the American Legion after WWI.
I knew personally many of the 114th veterans. I served with at least two of them in the State Guard prior to my enlistment in the USN in WWII with the son of a 114th vet.

[Cosine26]

Hi Shooter5
5MadFarmers is correct.
The Ross Rifle story is long and tenuous. The U.S. Army did buy ~ 20,000 Mk II Ross rifles for training in the US. I believe that most of them were MK II 3*. On these an ordnance mark was added and I believe that the U.S. did add its own serial number. They were sold through the DCM in the 1920's and 1930's until someone objected to the enlarged chamber. (Long Story) I believe they were sold for $5.00 each with a case of 1000-1500 rounds of .303 ammo for an additional $5.00. I do not believe that any of these were ever used except for training and none, to the best of my knowledge, ever went to France with the U.S. Forces.
Incidentally it was the MK III Ross with the interrupted screw thread locking lugs that gave the Canadian Forces problems in France. I do not believe that any of the MK II's made it to France with the Canadian Forces though they were used at the training camp in England. They might have been better served if they had used the MK II in lieu of the MK III
I at one time had a MII 5* which I later donated to the Fort Garry Horse Museum because they had used that particular rifle in training in Canada. I do not know of any serial number on a Ross on the medal except for the commercial versions. I have disassembled mine many times and found only the S/N on the butt.
You are quite correct-the national armories were never able to adequately supply the WWI American army with rifles. Most of the US troops were issued the M1917. Even through the post war period the number of "Springfields" (M1903's)produced never equaled the production numbers of the "Enfields" (M1917's).
I do not believe that any SMLE (English Enfields) were ever used for training in the US. I do believe that some American troops that served with the British forces were issued SMLE's, Lewis LMG, and Vickers HMG's. When they returned to US control for service with the French, they turned them in and were equipped with M1917's(Enfields) , Chauchats LMG, and Hotchkiss HMG's.
I believe that the only other use of foreign rifles by American forces overseas was the ill fated expedition to Siberia when the army used Mosin-Nagants (Sp?), the Russian rifle.
FWIW

[PhillipM]

The Dixie division was the 31'st, not the 39'th.

[Cosine26]

Hi 5MadFarmer
I do have pictures of the 114th in training at Camp Beauregard but personal photography was not what it is today. Some of the pictures are only about 1"x2" and the resolution is not good. I have one picture of my father holding a rifle with an attached bayonet that looks like a M1903. I have several pictures of troops assembled with rifles but the pictures are the miniatures and resolution is very poor. The rifles almost look like M1917's.

[Cosine26]

Hi PhillipM
My Error. I was not sure.

[5MadFarmers]

He always told me that they were transferred to become infantry replacements for that "meat grinder-the Argonne.

It's nothing less than head shaking that, after seeing British, French, and German casualty figures for three years, anyone thought it'd be different for us.



My father remained active in the NG and the American Legion after WWI.
I knew personally many of the 114th veterans. I served with at least two of them in the State Guard prior to my enlistment in the USN in WWII with the son of a 114th vet.

They had to reconstitute the NG after the war. By activating them, discharging them, then drafting them they removed their NG committment.

You've kind of figured out you're now old right? :eusa_shhh:

Son of a WW1 vet. WW2 service. You've seen much. The first real memories I have of my grandfather was about when he turned 84. He boarded the boat for France in August of 1918. I suspect the members of his unit considered him old as he was 31. He was ancient whereas I was very young. I found his stories fascinating. Somebody stole his campaign hat while he was in training. A meeting with the Regimental Commander ensued. In no uncertain terms he was told he'd buy a replacement. Yet we're to believe that Corporal York somehow acquired an M-1903 instead of his issue M-1917? Left out is the fate of the M-1917. In the story it doesn't matter. In real life, in that era, he'd have been behind bars on bread and water. They were forthright and very stern in that era. Took balls the size of automobiles to charge into machine guns en masse. They did it. Repeatedly. They prided themselves on it. One division was the "tough hombres." Another was the "rock of the Marne." Tough SOBs they were.

Made of steel.

WW2 vets faced a different world. Machine war. It wasn't a sure bet we'd win. You'd know that - you lived it. The war mattered so you won it. Today we mull around and lose instead but the wars are brushfires and don't matter much. So I never saw the WW2 generation as the tough SOBs the WW1 generation was. My grandfather versus my uncles. He was tougher. Not that your generation wasn't tough. The Uncle serviced through Sicily on up. He was a tough dude.

Men of wood.

Today? I think we're men of paper mache.

Makes me wonder if the 1861-1865 vets were made of pure solid granite. Except I know better. It was the WW1 vets. Those were the tough SOBs. Then again maybe that was just my grandfather.

I did some "shows" at the NG base here for some years. Streams of vets from various eras came through. One was an Army engineer in WW2. He picked up the M-1917 I had and mentioned he'd trained on them early in WW2.

[Cosine26]

5MadFarmers
Yeah, I'm old. I flew fifty missions low level night in B-26's during the Korean War, flew B-29's and B47's with SAC during the Cold War. It's for certain that I have more years behind me than ahead of me.
I became a Sgt. in the State Guard at 16 because I was the only one who could disassemble and reassemble a M1917.
Look at www.bombgroup17.com
Regards.

[5MadFarmers]

5MadFarmers
Yeah, I'm old. I flew fifty missions low level night in B-26's during the Korean War, flew B-29's and B47's with SAC during the Cold War. It's for certain that I have more years behind me than ahead of me.
I became a Sgt. in the State Guard at 16 because I was the only one who could disassemble and reassemble a M1917.
Look at www.bombgroup17.com
Regards.

That entire B-26/B-26 thing confuses people. The A-26 should have been renumbered when the role changed. A-65 or something. The A-36 Apache became the P-51 Mustang when the role changed so the A-26 Invader should have been renumbered when the role changed. No confusion with the Martin. As in Martin B-26 of course. "One a day in Tampa Bay." MacDill AFB. Later an Air Division with two? wings of B-47s. The hotline was still there when I arrived. B-47. Forgotten bomber. I served with a guy who was a Navigator on B-36s. Another was an EB-66 pilot. I thought they were old then... :) No, I'm not going to stop that. You're obviously sharp as a tack and don't need people pretending otherwise. Down that path are people wanting to chew your food for you.



I became a Sgt. in the State Guard at 16 because I was the only one who could disassemble and reassemble a M1917.

Therein lies the true story of the Ross rifles. It's hidden in that statement. Two pieces in fact. Also those "British Rifles" that everyone goes on about when mentioning York.

At the start of WW1 it became obvious that there was a rifle shortage. Everywhere. The British contracted for rifles in the US. Pattern 13 rifles.
Pattern 13 rifles were the British response to the Ross.
The Ross was a response to the Mausers used in the Boer War. In the open spaces of South Africa distance shooting was a factor. Mausers were superior in that regard. Thus the Ross. Thus the Pattern 13.
In the trenches of WW1 it was discovered that a new game was on. Distance shooting wasn't so important. Thus the alteration of the Pattern 13 to .303. Why? Commonality with the rest of the arms. Hang on to this piece.
When the US entered the war it was obvious the armory/arsenal wouldn't be able to keep up. Their gun was questionable and their manufacturing methods wrong. At the same time there were three factories churning out rifles for the British and one for the Russians.
The Pattern 14 was foisted on the Ordnance Bureau. They balked. They didn't want them. They put up as many objections as they could dream up. One of which was "commonality of caliber." With what? We had no machine guns. In any event they won that round. Production of the Enfields for the US was long delayed as a result.
Krags and M-1903s were recalled from whereever they could get them. This sucked military grade rifles right out of the system. To include those in the Philippines.
Thus the Nagants and Ross rifles. M-1903s were being used by the Regulars and National Guard. Attrition was high with production low. Based on the RiA marked M-1917 barrels I suspect they gave consideration of converting the arsenal and armory to making them. For all kinds of reasons that wouldn't work. So M-1903s were being burned up with M-1917s coming online. Ross and Nagants were needed for "home defense" type stuff. Guarding shipyards, trains, etc. Remember there was a very large German/American population. Spies and sabatouers around every corner. During WW2 my grandfather was a guard in a shipyard. Right about in the middle of the country. Protecting against whom? Japanese spies apparently. Air raid wardens in Kansas? Yup. People panic.
When the US troops arrived in France they were due to serve in one of three areas: with the Brits, French, or Pershing. Those going to the Brits or French received gear from them. "Commonality of supply." With me so far?

Why did the Canadians drop the Ross? "It was a bad gun." Not really. "Commonality of supply." That.

In 1936 they went to Mac with the request to adopt the new M1 in .276. He said "no." No doubt in very strong terms. Why? "Commonality." .30-06 was the caliber of the M-1903s. That didn't matter. It was also the caliber of the entire stock of machine guns. That did. Thing aircraft armament. Changing the caliber in the rifle would result in it changing everywhere. In 1936? Who would pay for it?

Still following?

In 1917, April, we had 3 plants turning out Pattern 14 rifles at a rate better than 3X what the Armory could do under full wartime augmentation. We also had plants turning out Vickers and Lewis machine guns. The US army had a couple of useless machine guns and maybe some old Gatlings. The cartridge plants were churning out .303 for the Brits. So we had the plant making rifles, machine guns, and cartridges in huge volume in .303. That was stopped. Why? "Theoretically the .30-06 is superior to the .303."

Talk about the cart dragging the horse around.

Again, that caused a trainwreck in rifle supply. Which drained the Krags and '03s from everywhere. Ross and Nagants backfilled where possible. "The Spruce Army!" Yup. In Washington they were cutting down Spruce for aircraft. The guns issued to the guys there? Winchesters. Why? "No more military grade guns available."

That is the story of the "British gun" in the York story, the Ross story, and the trainwreck that was the Ordnance Bureau all at once.

The Ordnance Bureau had egg on their face. Big time. What did they do? Paid Browning 1.5 million to develop a squad automatic. Until that went online they badmouthed the Chauchat. Was the Chauchat the disaster that the O.D. press had left us the impression of? Well, the AEF decided to pretty much finish up the war with that instead of fielding the BAR. Kind of points to an answer doesn't it?

Cosine flew B-26 in Korea. 50 missions at night. That too must have taken balls the size of automobiles.

State Guard. Created when the government activated the National Guard. Wonder what they were armed with in 1918? Ross? Nagants? Winchesters?

[Cosine26]

Our State Guard Company was issued 50 like new M1917's and two 1928A1 Thompsons. My TO&E weapon was the 28A1 but we only broke them out at the range for familiarization firing. My rifle was an Eddystone S/N 160086. We had two weeks of modified infantry training at Comp Shelby, Miss. Shot those M1917,s across the NM course sans the 1000 yard stage using obsolete M1 ball. Those Enfield's kicked a 140 pound teenager around until I discovered that a canteen cover could be slipped over the butt as a recoil pad. Learned to shoot craps on an army blanket and drink 3.2 beer. Real adventure for a teenager. My 'First Shirt' and Captain were 114th WWI vets who served in the AEF with my father. A real education!
I do not know what happened to the rifles. I made a deal with my father- if I finished my Junior high school year he would sign for me to enter the USN. I did and he did so I enlisted at 17 and entered the maelstrom of WWII. Served 13 months sea duty with nine months in the ETO.

[PhillipM]

Mississippi got rid of 3.2 beer just a few years ago. You should write a book, Cosine26, it would be a good read.

My maternal grandfather was drafted for the great war. When they asked him what he did as a civilian, he replied, "butcher". Based on his profession, the army decided he would best serve the nation as a cook, which may very well have saved his life. He made it to France and in his papers where it lists rifle qualification is written N/A. He had a heart attack and died feeding his chickens in 1970 when I was two years old.

[RC20]

For some perspective, I found this manual.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/docrepository/M1917_rifle.pdf

[free1954]

great link sir. thanks for posting. and thanks to all who contributed to this very interesting thread.

[RC20]

You are welecome, I thought it was a pretty interesting find per the topic.

And I agree, its been a great thread, off track into interesting areas and I learned a lot. You got to like that!

[AlanD]

When the Model 1917 was issued to the British Home Guard in WW2 it was often referred to (incorrectly) colloquially as the "Springfield". Some modern day reseachers have put two and two together and come up with five, thinking that Model 1903 rifles were issued to the British Home Guard, which is not the case.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

[RC20]

When I was a kid, my dad built up a Sportorized 1903, I don't know what form it was in (maybe bare action) and he put it in a Stock (we have the gun today sans the original barrel)

We always called it the Springfield or the 06. Not a clue correct was 1903.

Frankly I was not into them until the last 4 years and got to understand what was correct and what was not. However, inside the family we all knew what we were talking about.

[dalbert]

Here's another item to document common use of the term "Enfield" for the M1917 Rifle during WWII. I had forgotten about it, and ran across it today while going through some of my Thompson paper items.

It's from a stack of personal effects from a WWII soldier that I purchased long ago. This was a quiz that covered the Thompson, the M1917 "Enfield" Rifle, and the Ithaca Model 37 Shotgun. Incidentally, we printed out about 75 of the Thompson quizzes, and had a quiz session for our members during one of our annual meetings of The American Thompson Association a few years ago.

29700

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[RC20]

Nice addition to the discussion. Well done