Yeah one of my buddies won his in a poker game. Not much more at stake than $180.00. The op's rifle is nice and fairly clean looking. Is the barrel the correct length? Hard to tell in the pics. Pics would be a lot better if the OP used Imgur or postimage. Just sayin. Also, what is always suggested is look on completed sales on gunbroker and see what similar ones have sold for. That will give you a good indication of value.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
I don't keep up with values and too wouldn't try to value without more info. (But congrats on a decent set of pix considering the Forum limitation!
Winchester have the brand aura, but factually Winchester had production problems and parts interchangeability difficulties. "Allegedly" a considerably greater number of parts Govt Inspection-rejected. It is the Winchester which has the 'sink hole' under the aft sight and that feature made it less desirable for sporterization! I've always preferred the Remington brand or the Eddystone, but more a personal thing than objective! They also seem ever most prevalent. One heck of a lot of Enfield sporters of all flavors out there from expert era express rifles to clunkers.
Jim, your specimen appears a nice looking rifle! Re-arsenaled and hazard of non-matching Rem or Eddy parts crept in, which can depreciate collector value a bit, but nothing I can see to be ashamed of there! Congrats! Best! John
Haphazard purchase in a pawn shop about 45 years ago for $100, Remington made 1917 Enfield 30-06 just for the action sat unused until a few years ago when i was doing some 30-06 stuff & thought about that old rifle. It cleaned up pretty well and the bore was decent. I took it and my DCM Springfield to the range and had some fun. These old eyes don't do irons well anymore but they did about 3-4" @ 100. I passed these rifles along to my two Marine nephews a couple of months ago. They were very happy and so am i. It cleared out a little space.
Haphazard purchase in a pawn shop about 45 years ago for $100, Remington made 1917 Enfield 30-06 just for the action sat unused until a few years ago when i was doing some 30-06 stuff & thought about that old rifle. It cleaned up pretty well and the bore was decent. I took it and my DCM Springfield to the range and had some fun. These old eyes don't do irons well anymore but they did about 3-4" @ 100. I passed these rifles along to my two Marine nephews a couple of months ago. They were very happy and so am i. It cleared out a little space.
Back in the day when there were a lot of all of the 17`s available some of the gun nuts thought the Remington was better.
But that was only who I was talking to. Someone else would have had a different opinion.
However the ones with the hollow under the rear site were the least favored.
I have shot all three with the peep site on steel at 400 yards and all worked fine.
It might be that I read that the Winchesters were worth more, rather than being the best.
I’d like to find one in the guise of a Remington 30s, but not to the extent I’m actively searching for one. Those have always seemed like sleepers from the Golden Age…
Winchester's weren't the best, but probably are worth more. Think they were the lowest produced. Early ones weren't built to spec and parts didn't interchange. Those weren't sent overseas. The ones with a star stamped I think on the receiver were within spec and could be sent over there.
Winchester's weren't the best, but probably are worth more. Think they were the lowest produced. Early ones weren't built to spec and parts didn't interchange. Those weren't sent overseas. The ones with a star stamped I think on the receiver were within spec and could be sent over there.
I've got an 1917 Enfield, in "30 Government"... the Action was made in 1917, but the barrel is a 1918 Remington made barrel. Open sights, I'll do a 2 inch group at 200 yds, with 168 and 175 grain Match Kings, with a 30 grain charge of IMR 4198 or RL 7. It was " sporterized" back in the 50s, but all they really did was take off the part of the 'furniture' covering the upper side of the barrel.
My wife who could care less about firearms, did see it more than once, and commented that the stock was an awful pretty piece of wood...its a regular military stock...
An Enfield is my favorite military action, because of what I describe it as, is being built like a 53 Buick... SOLID.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Of the three manufacturers, Eddystone (owned by Remington) made the most, followed by Remington, and lastly by Winchester. Winchester was the original manufacturer. Winchester had just finished a contract run for the British for their Pattern 14 rifle in .303 British caliber. The U.S. suddenly entered the war and had a severe shortage of rifles. The M-1903 Springfield was made by both Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal, but both facilities combined were not able to produce anywhere near the amount of rifles needed. Winchester offered to modify the P-14 rifle they already had machinery and experienced workers in place to produce, to the U.S. standard caliber of .30-06 Springfield. This proposal was readily accepted and the U.S. M-1917 rifle was born. By the end of WW I, while all U.S. Marines were armed with the M-1903, the great majority of U.S. Army troops were armed with the M-1917 rifle. In fact, about 2/3 of all U.S. rifles used in Europe by all U.S. troops, Army and USMC combined, were M-1917s. After WW I ended there was quite a debate as to which rifle, the Springfield or the Enfield, was to be the official U.S. rifle. This resulted in the M-1917 being declared as a substitute standard and placed into storage. After all, the only two U.S. government production facilities only produced M-1903s and all M-1917s were civilian contractor made. Quite a few M-1917s were supplied to the Philipines and to the Chinese before the U.S. got involved in WW II. During WW II, some M-1917s saw service with Army artillery units and some Free French units. Additionally, some were supplied to the British Home Guard units under the Lend-Lease program. I am fortunate to own both a M-1917 and a M-1903 rifle and in my opinion, the M-1917 is the better combat rifle as it is more robust. The M-1903 is more "handy" as it is lighter and shorter, but the sights are too fragile for a combat weapon, in my opinion. While the Springfield is easier to carry and potentially a better target rifle, the Enfield is better for a bayonet fight. Incidentally, while both rifles use the same 5 round stripper clip, the M-1917, due to it's original design for .303 British cartridge, will hold 6 .30-06 cartridges in the magazine.
"...why, land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for,... because it is the only thing that lasts."
Of the three manufacturers, Eddystone (owned by Remington) made the most, followed by Remington, and lastly by Winchester. Winchester was the original manufacturer. Winchester had just finished a contract run for the British for their Pattern 14 rifle in .303 British caliber. The U.S. suddenly entered the war and had a severe shortage of rifles. The M-1903 Springfield was made by both Springfield Armory and Rock Island Arsenal, but both facilities combined were not able to produce anywhere near the amount of rifles needed. Winchester offered to modify the P-14 rifle they already had machinery and experienced workers in place to produce, to the U.S. standard caliber of .30-06 Springfield. This proposal was readily accepted and the U.S. M-1917 rifle was born. By the end of WW I, while all U.S. Marines were armed with the M-1903, the great majority of U.S. Army troops were armed with the M-1917 rifle. In fact, about 2/3 of all U.S. rifles used in Europe by all U.S. troops, Army and USMC combined, were M-1917s. After WW I ended there was quite a debate as to which rifle, the Springfield or the Enfield, was to be the official U.S. rifle. This resulted in the M-1917 being declared as a substitute standard and placed into storage. After all, the only two U.S. government production facilities only produced M-1903s and all M-1917s were civilian contractor made. Quite a few M-1917s were supplied to the Philipines and to the Chinese before the U.S. got involved in WW II. During WW II, some M-1917s saw service with Army artillery units and some Free French units. Additionally, some were supplied to the British Home Guard units under the Lend-Lease program. I am fortunate to own both a M-1917 and a M-1903 rifle and in my opinion, the M-1917 is the better combat rifle as it is more robust. The M-1903 is more "handy" as it is lighter and shorter, but the sights are too fragile for a combat weapon, in my opinion. While the Springfield is easier to carry and potentially a better target rifle, the Enfield is better for a bayonet fight. Incidentally, while both rifles use the same 5 round stripper clip, the M-1917, due to it's original design for .303 British cartridge, will hold 6 .30-06 cartridges in the magazine.
The m1917 was not designed for the 303 B cartridge. The P14 was. There are many differences between the P14 and M1917.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
Back in the day when there were a lot of all of the 17`s available some of the gun nuts thought the Remington was better.
But that was only who I was talking to. Someone else would have had a different opinion.
However the ones with the hollow under the rear site were the least favored.
I have shot all three with the peep site on steel at 400 yards and all worked fine.
It might be that I read that the Winchesters were worth more, rather than being the best.
I’d like to find one in the guise of a Remington 30s, but not to the extent I’m actively searching for one. Those have always seemed like sleepers from the Golden Age…
The BSA's are better.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
The m1917 was not designed for the 303 B cartridge. The P14 was. There are many differences between the P14 and M1917.[/quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, that is correct. If you would read my post, you would see that what I said was the design of the British Pattern 14 rifle was modified from .303 British to .30-06 Springfield and was designated as the U.S. M-1917 rifle. No already existing rifles were converted as such, the manufacturing machinery was so modified to the then standard U.S. cartridge to produce the U.S. M-1917 rifle. The original machinery that was modified was at the Winchester plant, who had recently finished a British contract for the P-14 .303 British rifle. They sold the U.S. on the idea of producing a modified version of the P-14 in .30-06 Springfield inwhich the U.S. Ordnance Department designated it as the U.S. M-1917 rifle. The Ordnance Department then also contracted with Remington and Eddystone, a Remington subsidiary, to produce M-1917 rifles. As a result of this original design to use the .303 British cartridge, the M-1917 rifle's magazine will hold 6 rounds of .30-06 Springfield ammo. Just a little bit of trivia. Some, but certainly not all, P-14 parts will interchange with M-1917 parts.
"...why, land is the only thing in the world worth working for, worth fighting for, worth dying for,... because it is the only thing that lasts."
If you would read my post, you would see that what I said was the design of the British Pattern 14 rifle was modified from .303 British to .30-06 Springfield and was designated as the U.S. M-1917 rifle.
Reading can be such a bother.
"Live like you'll die tomorrow, but manage your grass like you'll live forever." -S. M. Stirling
Mine is also a Winchester. As I recall Dad bought it for me for my 12th birthday in 1964. I saw it in the Sears catalog. I believe the price was $30. With the help of one of Dad’s machinest friends and a $12 walnut drop in stock (also from Sears), we sporterized it over the next couple of years. I wish I had it back in its original condition, but at least I still have it.
Incidentally, while both rifles use the same 5 round stripper clip, the M-1917, due to it's original design for .303 British cartridge, will hold 6 .30-06 cartridges in the magazine.
Originally Posted by Theo Gallus
Originally Posted by Henryseale
If you would read my post, you would see that what I said was the design of the British Pattern 14 rifle was modified from .303 British to .30-06 Springfield and was designated as the U.S. M-1917 rifle.
Reading can be such a bother.
Yes, it sure can be:
Originally Posted by Henryseale
Incidentally, while both rifles use the same 5 round stripper clip, the M-1917, due to it's original design for .303 British cartridge, will hold 6 .30-06 cartridges in the magazine.
Again, like I said before. The M1917 was not designed for the 303 British cartridge. Learn how to write.
Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.
Winchester's weren't the best, but probably are worth more. Think they were the lowest produced. Early ones weren't built to spec and parts didn't interchange. Those weren't sent overseas. The ones with a star stamped I think on the receiver were within spec and could be sent over there.
I was told that as well..As a high school kid majoring in welding and machine shop (yes, schools actually taught kids stuff back then), I pushed a broom at Saturn Rifles in Reno NV in the early '60's, maybe some of you have heard of Vern Juenke, anyway Saturn besides building their rifles (on FN actions) also took what came in the door, the floor machinists had to set up 1917 Winchesters individually...whereas with Remingtons one jig fit all. As a footnote, they refused Eddystones as having heat treatment variations and overly tightened barrels.
Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
under the aft sight and that feature made it less desirable for sporterization! I've always preferred the Remington brand or the Eddystone, but more a personal thing than objective! They also seem ever most prevalent. One heck of a lot of Enfield sporters of all flavors out there from expert era express rifles to clunkers. 