Posted on 11/18/2018 5:34:43 PM PST by Rummyfan
As firearms go, the M1917 Enfield was not the handsomest ever issued to a U.S. Soldier. It’s true that no one ever guaranteed our guys were going to get good-looking guns, but that is exactly what happened at several points in history. The M1 Carbine—World War II’s “War Baby”—was a gun that just about everyone felt was a good one. The Colt Peacemaker of 1873 had a wonderful set of contours that evolved into the classic cowboy six-shooter. But the gun at hand was a military service rifle that wasn’t just good, but rather very good. Against its contemporaries—Mauser, Lee-Enfield, Arisaka, Ross, Mannlicher, Springfield—the M1917 Enfield rifle compared quite favorably. Although this lanky veteran had a distinguished service record, it was never regarded with the affection shown its service rifle brother, the beloved ’03 Springfield. And yes, I am looking back to days past and the bolt-action service rifles of the early 20th century.
This whole idea of building a firearm that looks good falls apart when it is military issue. Cosmetics have absolutely nothing to do with actual downrange performance and handling utility. If it works under adverse circumstances, what difference does the appearance make? Everything is relative to the circumstances of the arm’s use. It’s sort of like the ignoble Jeep. There’s no grace or style to this old World War II innovation—it’s plain ugly. That is, until you find yourself afoot in the Sahara, at which point it becomes a Ferrari Dino. It was thus with the M1917 Enfield, a rifle right on the cusp of modernity when developed in the United Kingdom just before the Great War. It also armed more U.S. doughboys than the American-built ’03 Springfield. It’s time we took a look.
(Excerpt) Read more at shootingillustrated.com ...
I used to own one of these before that tragic boating accident.
Hickock’s review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM9LRs31JYU
Rule 303
I had one made by Winchester. It was beautifully made even tho not a particularly attractive design. Mine had a shot out barrel, actually probably shot out and rusted out.
I had a gunsmith install a new barrel. When I picked it up, he apologized, saying it was not accurate. I am not sure what he was using but when I got home, it immediately shot tight, under 2 inch groups with iron sights.
Eventually traded it off, but always liked it.
This was my piece in Navy boot camp 1960.
Sergeant Alvin York had a field day with a 1917 Enfield one morning against a bunch of German soldiers.
The M1917 Enfield was a 30-06 adaptation of the British M1914 Enfield, which British soldiers disliked compared to the SMLE Enfield of 1907. For one thing the SMLE held 10 rounds to the M1914’s five.
American soldiers disliked the M1917’s cock on closing action compared to the Springfield’s cock on opening. It was adopted because of a production shortage of 1903 Springfields.
However, many M1917’s were converted to sporting use by grinding off the rear sight “ears”, and later a cock on opening firing pin assembly became popular which also decreased the long lock time of the original.
FWIW I own several SMLE Enfields. Wouldn’t trade them for a U.S. Enfield. The SMLE is a classic battle rifle; look up “Enfield mad minute” on youtube.
Bought one at a big sporting goods store out of a huge barrel for $15 in 1966. Had it sporterized at The local Indian reservation by a coworker who did nice work. Sold it a year later. Had I known what it’s value would eventually be I’d never have had it cut. And I would still have it as a collectable.
I have never understood the advantage of cock on opening design. The pre-98 Mausers and the 1917 and 1914 Enfields were just as fast and I like the fact that there is more leverage to remove sticky rounds by not having to cam the shell out plus cam the cocking piece at the same time.
When the small but very highly-trained BEF (British Expeditionary Force) deployed on the Western Front in 1914, they had been trained doing the “mad minute” drill where they were expected to get dozens of hits at ranges of 300 yards in just one minute. Germans who attacked their position thought they were under machine gun fire. Enfield was a pretty good rifle.
The Brits used to say that the Germans brought a hunting rifle to war (the Gewehr 98), the Americans brought a target rifle to war (the .03 Springfield) but the Brits brought a battle rifle to war (the .303 Enfield). Except the Americans brought more M1917 Enfields than they did .03 Springfields because the Springfields were too fiddle to manufacture fast enough.
In about 1950 or so our local department store sold these for $17.50 each and it included a box of ammo!
I sold in 1967 for $35.00. Oh for the good old daze!
USCG Boot camp 1971 - M1 Garand
Always remember a poem by John Betjeman using the time honoured British army commands. "Ease springs" was one of them. Using the bolt action to absolutely clear the magazine of any live bullet.
It was American made machine guns ie: The Maxim, the Gardiner and another one used at Omdurman 1898. 20,000 crazed Dervish horsemen (Islam) against the British lines. Would not take prisoners. They withdrew after 11,000 were cut down within 100 feet of the British line. African soldiers and Egyptians were there in support of the British.
The other machine gun made in the USA was the Gatling gun. The spiritual leader called the Kalifa fell in this battle. Lord Kitchener commanded the British force.
<<< To our surprise some of the rifles were marked “made in the USA”. The stocks were of a lighter colour. Every one wanted a “yank rifle” (laughs). >>>
Probably No. 4 rifles made during WW2 by Savage Arms. They were marked with a boxy-looking “S” on the side of the receiver and, because they were made under Lend-Lease, “U.S. PROPERTY” on the top of the side rail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.