View Full Version : M1917 extractor question
My early (s/n 65030) Winchester M1917 came with a slightly worn but functioning Eddystone bolt and an extractor that is only stamped "CV" for chromium vanadium steel. I recently purchased a W stamped bolt and later found a W stamped extractor that is identical to the CV stamped extractor except it has a gas hole drilled near the claw. The W extractor is unworn and works perfectly. When or where was a W stamped gas vented extractor used? On early M1917s or P14s?
Merc-
I believe the gas vented extractor hole is post WWI mod. I believe its called the Hatcher's mod. I at this moment do not have access to my reference material.
--fjruple
PS-- Please post some pics of your rifle!!
4167541676416774167841679
Here are a few.
4168041681416824168341684
A few more. Does anyone know what the "1" stamped on the upper side of the bolt handle in photo #2 stands for? I'm guessing an inspector mark. I'm used to seeing an inspector's initial further down the bolt handle closer to the flaming bomb, but there's nothing stamped there.
4168541686416874168841689
A few more.
41691
Photo of the M1917 extractor with a gas vent hole.
So, all M1917s and P14s were originally equipped with an extractor that didn't have the gas vent (Hatcher) hole drilled near the claw and the vented extractors came later as a safety upgrade. Were they provided during WW1? It would be interesting to know when. I remember reading somewhere that the CV stamped extractor (that was provided minus the gas vent hole) was a WW1 replacement part for Remington M1917 rifles. They were supposedly having problems with their extractors breaking and went with the CVs.
Update:
Now that the Hatcher hole has my attention, I found some interesting things out about venting gas that would occur from a ruptured brass cartridge case or primer. The gas vent hole in the upgraded M1917 extractor claw lines up with the gas vent hole that's drilled in the side of the receiver. The gas vent holes in the bolt body face downward when the bolt is closed so gas is discharged down into the magazine. Wearing good safety glasses when shooting is a must since some gas might also discharge around the bolt and exit the rifle rearward at eye level.
I haven't experienced any brass cartridge case rupturing in either my M1917 or my 03-A3 which both shoot 30-06, but I did have a head that became separated from the brass cartridge case in my .303 cal. Enfield No. 4 Mk1* last year. I didn't experience any high pressure gas blow back that I can remember.
Merc--
After WWI just about all of the M1917s were inspected and placed into storage. The only active duty folks who actively used the M1917 rifle after WWI was the Chemical Mortar Sections of the Artillery in the US Army. I could not find out why. But its an interesting note. During the storage and inspection process many M1917 had their barrels replaced due the corrosive ammunition that was used. If the barrel was OK in the inspection standard it was not replaced. If the headspacing was off on the original bolt a new replacement bolt and new extractor which was upgraded with the Hatcher hole was fitted to the rifle. The major problem for the .30-06 rifle in WWI was the ammunition especially on the early Springfield and Rock Island Arsenal 03s was the catastrophic failure of the ammunition case which ruptured and blow up mainly due to the poorly heat treated M1903 receivers like a handgrenade. The problem still existed for the M1917 as hot gases would be directed back into the shooters face.
--fjruple
PS-- Thanks for posting the pics of your rifle it is very nice!!
Thanks. It is a nice rifle. I'm impressed by its size and strength. Looks great, shoots accurately and easy to work on. It was made in 11/17 (100th b-day this Nov. 15th) which was before parts became standardized, so it carries the circle star stamp on the receiver. Even so, it came with a surprising variety of Eddystone and Remington parts. They didn't all fit exactly the way they should, but the rifle still functioned. So, for the past few years, I've been watching eBay, Springfield Sporters, etc. for Wincherster parts, preferably NOS. I slowly replaced everything but the barrel, receiver, rear sight and stock/handguards. The muzzle has only slight erosion, the throat has no measurable erosion and the new bolt head spaces well. I saw how poorly a few of the parts made by E and R fit the rifle vs. the original Winchester parts. It's probably the most accurate shooter I own although a lot might have to do with the rear sight. It's perfect at 100 yards at the lowest possible sight setting which makes it easy to aim and the new trigger is smooth. It's as close to being a new rifle as I can get it.
Merc--
I personally could never understand why the P14 and M1917 were the military's red-headed step-child especially the M1917. I believe if the US Army Ordnance invested a little time and effort into the M1917 they could have an excellent rifle. I personally think its biggest draw backs weres the lack of a windage adjustment on the rear sight, a six-round stripper clip and sniper version of the M1917. I have three of the M1917s, two Eddystones and a Winchester and three P14s, one from each of the three manufacturers. They are great shooting firearms withe proper rear sights and a good barrel.
--fjruple
From what I've read, the main reason the M1917 was not chosen to be the standard US rifle after WW1 was pure economics. The war (to end all wars) was over and the Springfield Armory was already set up to produce the M1903. They would have had to completely re-tool the factory to produce the M1917 and scrap warehouses full of M1903 spare parts. Without a war to fight, many felt a change was unnecessary.
It was generally acknowledged that the M1917 lacked the balance of a M1903 because of its longer barrel, but it was more robust, had a 6 round mag and was accurate even without a windage adjustment because the sight was closer to the shooters eye. This was noted as an improvement that was reflected in the placement of the rear sight of the 03-A3.
The three factories that produced the M1917 didn't do it any favors. The parts interchangeability issues and various work stoppages were more reasons to keep producing the M1903 in a factory that the govt. could control and mothballing the M1917.
Comparing the accuracy of my restored Winchester M1917 to my minty Remington 03-A3 (I don't own a M1903 - yet) both are excellent shooters although I had to tinker a lot with the windage adjustment on the 03-A3 to finally match the 100 yard grouping ability of the M1917. The 03-A3's front sight blade seemed too narrow and took some getting used to as well. The condition of both rifles is similar. Both have minimal throat erosion and adequate headspace although the muzzle of my M1917 might be a few ten thousands looser than the 03-A3. The condition of both rifles would seem to indicate that they didn't see active Army service.
I have three of the M1917s, two Eddystones and a Winchester and three P14s, one from each of the three manufacturers. They are great shooting firearms with the proper rear sights and a good barrel.
--fjruple
How about some photos.
How about some photos.
Merc--
Give me several days to get them together. I will try to post by next week.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.