Did the Marines Have M1917's in WWI?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

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

[Cosine26]

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]

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

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]

. . .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).

[Rick the Librarian]

I was always told that you could load a 30-06 into a 30-03 rifle, but not vice-versa.

[dave]

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]

You are correct. I meant 30-06 round.

[ClaudeH]

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]

With a polished bolt sized for 1903 ball ammo... ;D

[Emri]

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]

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.

[Fred]

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]

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.

[11mm]

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]

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.