Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Got My CMP 1917 Enfield

Super nice rifle, well done!

Back in the early 1950's my Dad got the exact same rifle through his local Legion hall, his was even Winchester made like yours. I can still remember him scraping all the storage gunk off of it. I was new, never issued or used. It has hung downstairs on a wall ever since. Money was pretty tight then, I think he got it for nothing or a very nominal amount.

That will provide some fun.

You have done quite well. Congrats. Many of those were made near my boyhood home in eastern PA. They are strong and durable, and shoot very well.

Managed to get one much like yours in the early 1970s and had a lot of fun learning some smith skills with it. Some lathe work - ground off those ears and radiused the rear to match the front, slightly shortened and then skim trimmed the barrel (that finish was uneven), cut/welded the bottom to flat, drilled/tapped for scope bases and installed an aftermarket trigger. Left the bolt handle as is. Then - the hard part - started with a blank and made my first stock - nice walnut - seemed to take forever.

It turned out to be a really fine rifle and was first in line for elk hunts for quite a while. Years later I needed to sell a rifle so I could build something for an Alaskan brown bear trip and one of our gunsmithing instructors talked me out of it. It afforded me great experience and some good shooting. You have a fine rifle there.

I personally prefer the M-1917 U.S. Enfield to the M-1903 Springfield. I do like them both, but the Enfield is more robust and in my opinion, the better combat rifle. I have the M-1917, M-1903, and M-1903A3, all from the CMP. I was also fortunate to get a Winchester M-1917, but mine is not quite as nice as yours.

I hope she shoots even better than she looks.

Prime candidate for a life of cast projies.

Made me go look!
Mine is it's older brother - 24XXX range.
Not quite as pristine, but definitely quite nice.
A couple of small dents in the stock, and some more finish wear on the metal is the only difference.
Nice rifle you got, sir! Go have fun!

I had a winchester 1917 and it also was in very good condition and shot well. I read in Gen Hatchers notebook the military considered them " substitute Standard" to the Springfield and held most of them in ready reserve. When they started to sell them to the public (1948) it came down from the top all of them had to be inspected for safety and being in tolerance of specs. Any that exhibited any excess headspace were to be rebarreled and put back into spec before being sold. So if your barrel looks like a new one it probably because it is. This probably one of the finest examples of your tax dollars being properly used.. Mil trigger and all they are a great shooter enjoy the hell out of it. Mb

That is a nice one. I wasn't willing to pay what the CMP was asking for one sight unseen, but you did very well. Mine's an Eddystone in similar condition but I'd prefer the Winchester.

Agree on all points.

I’d love to have a M-30, wouldn’t mess with this Winchester 1917. Leave it as is. They not making any more. It’s a classic. Enjoy it.

DF

Would love to have one in original condition. Original sights, magazine all original, barrel could be severely pitted. Would have JES rebore to a larger caliber. Have a Belgian Mauser made for the Swedes in 8x57. It is almost too nice to rebore but it has no aperture sights. The the '17 has the protected aperture rear sight I desire. Notice I called it a SIGHT! RZ.

Nice score, and of course it's got the safety preferred by 9 out of 10 who obsess about safeties.

Iirc…my local Cabelas has a Remington model 30 in the library. I don’t recall the price exactly but it was around $500-600.

Beautiful old gal considering her age.
Congrats.

My grandpa was part of the Punitive Expedition chasing Pancho Villa around the EL Paso area in 1916.
Was issued a 17 Enfield.

When they ended up in France in 1917 he said he took an 03 off a dead guy and tossed the Enfield in the mud cause the 03 was lighter.

beauty

Yeah, the 03 was and is lighter. I have a couple of 03's, no Enfield.

Those big action are nice to convert to .404J and such.

But it's never cheap. This is just a picture I have, don't have that gun.

Forgot the details on the build; seems like it was a big name. Looks like it, anyway.

DF

Good find. I have a remington 30 express in 3006. Pawn shop find. My old pard and grandsons other grandpa had a monkey ward built on the 17. I wanted it for the 2 grandsons. I figured the rem and the monkey ward would be similar enough to leave to them. But the idiot pawned it. I did talk him into selling a colt challenger I figure to leave to one of them just gave to find a comparable gun for the other.

I am seriously reluctant to say this, but the story is not quite accurate. I assure you no disrespect intended toward your grandfather nor his service. Having said that, I have no doubt at all about the later part of his claim in France. The U.S. Army simply did not have any M-1917 rifles during the time of Pancho Villa's pre-U.S. WW I dust up. The rifles did not exist until after the U.S. entered WW I. How this came to be was that Winchester had a contract with the British to manufacture the British Enfield Pattern 14, caliber .303 British rifle. The contract had just expired when the U.S. entered the war. The U.S. quickly discovered they were woefully short of suitable rifles and it would not be possible to adequately increase the production of the M-1903 rifle to meet the needs. Winchester proposed to the U.S. Army Ordnance Department to retool their already in place production equipment to manufacture the rifle in .30-06 caliber for the U.S. Army. Hence, the U.S. M-1917 rifle was born. Shortly thereafter, Remington also began production and Remington opened an additional plant at Eddystone, Pennsylvania to also make the M-1917. The U.S. Springfield M-1903 is certainly lighter, shorter, and handier, which made it popular with the troops. Some claim the Springfield is more accurate due to it's more intricate sight as opposed to the Enfield's which had no windage adjustment. Windage was initially adjustable by ordnance personnel staking the dovetailed front sight in place, but not by individual soldiers. Frankly, in my opinion - and in the opinion of the British army, that was all the practical windage adjustment needed on a combat iron sighted rifle. JMHO,YMMV. Additionally, the front sight on the M-1903 is a lot thinner as opposed to the M-1917. This is fine on the shooting range or if one is sniping at 400+ yards, but not so desirable at closer ranges. Again, my opinion. One feature of the M-1917 over the M-1903 that many do not realize is that they both used the same 5 - round stripper clips, however the M-1917 magazine actually holds 6 .30-06 cartridges, due to it's original design in .303 British caliber. Those rimmed .303 cartridges took up a little more room than the rimless .30-06 cartridges. When the P-1914 rifle was redesigned into the M-1917, only the parts that were needed to be modified to accept the different cartridge, were. While today many have forgotten the M-1917, they actually accounted for roughly 2/3 of the American rifles used in WW I Europe.

After the war, there was some debate as to which of the two would become the official post WW I U.S. rifle. Obviously, the Springfield won out for several reasons. One, it was a better target rifle due to it's sights. However, the sights were much more delicate. The Springfield is lighter and handier, making it easier to carry. Additionally, the U.S. government owned the only two plants making the Springfield rifles, being Springfield and Rock Island Arsenals. The three plants available to make M-1917 rifles were civilian owned by Remington and Winchester. Since the war was over and the military services were dramatically scaled back, there were an abundance of M-1903 rifles to meet the peacetime needs. In later years the entire Philippine Islands Army was equipped with surplus M-1917s and thousands were supplied to the Chinese as well. Additionally, in WW II, some were given to the British Home Guard units under "Lend-Lease". After the U.S. got involved in WW II, some M-1917s were issued to U.S. artillery and MP units. It is my belief that no M-1917 rifles were ever issued to USMC, Naval, or Coast Guard units, hence it was an exclusive army rifle.

And, it's not a mauser copy!
Nice rifle. makes me want one.

Very interesting.......