The U.S. Service Rifle, Caliber .30 Model 1917 is one of the more interesting rifles used by the U.S. Military. It’s service is often eclipsed by the 1903 Springfield even though more U.S. Soldiers carried the M1917 into battle than they did 1903’s during the First World War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1Zhe17CX4
Questions and comments are welcome.
Love the P14, and the Model 1917…
Great video, both guns are gorgeous.
All the guys that I know that own a 1917 love them.
I thought the Mauser and Enfield designs were two completely different designs?
They are. To my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge, the P14/M1917 rifle is built like a Mauser (front locking lugs, controlled-feed claw extractor, fixed internal magazine) but functions a bit like an Enfield (cock-on-closing, simple switch safety).
The M1917 rifle is called an Enfield in the US (again, to my incomplete and possibly flawed understanding) at least in part because its parent, the P14, was a British design, from RSAF Enfield. And because it was originally seen (in the US) in .303 British chambering…like Short Magazine Lee-Enfields were known to be.
Again, I could well be wrong about this, especially the second half, but this is what I’m given to understand.
Enfield is a suburb of London (the Borough of Enfield) and together with Birmingham were the centre of the firearms industry here in the UK. The Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield and Birmingham Small Arms.
The Pattern 14 (P14) was originally the P13 chambered in .276. Just prior to WWI some questions were raised about the performance of the SMLE and a number of ‘experts’ were asked to design a new rifle. The issues with the SMLE was that is didn’t use the Mauser action and wasn’t considered by certain ‘experts’ accurate enough… :suicide:
The .276 cartridge was abandoned and the P13 chambered in .303 as the P14. With the expansion of the British army at the start of WWI large number of rifles were required to equip the new volunteers (we even purchased Japanese Type 38 rifles which were used for training - but thats another story). Orders were therefore placed overseas as production of the SMLE was given priority at home.
In addition to equipping the new volunteer battalions the P14 was used as a sniper rifle as it did prove slightly more accurate than the SMLE.
Interestingly enough a local firearms dealer over here has a P14 for sale at £395 while an SMLE is going for £525. I’m quite tempted as I already have an SMLE but given our firearms licensing issues…
Nice but ugly rifles. They do however make a good platform for big bore stopping rifles.
Ugly? I think it’s one of the best looking military bolt action rifles ever built.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for sure.
Not a bad rifle. Some valuable info in that video on it. Where in Indiana are you?
I’m in NW Indiana, about 9 miles south of Lake Michigan.
Damn that is way up there. Just curious as my wife is from plainfield and we are moving up there as I am getting out of the army soon.
I had one, (Eddystone) it had been sporterized, but it still had the orginial barrel, It had the ears for the rear sights milled off and was drilled and tapped for a scope, But, It still shot very well, One thing I do remember reading about these is, that during WWII, many of these were re barreled, usually with a barrel marked “JA” for Johnson Automatics…Anyway, if you encounter one of these that’s been rebarrled, be careful…It’d be a good idea to pop the action out of the stock,and check the front receiver ring for cracks. These actions (Rem, Win, and Eddystone) were known to occasionaly crack upon being rebarreled,And it’s quite possible that during the rush to get rifles out in the early part of WWII, some of these slipped out… Just a heads up.
Yeah, the actions are very strong. They will hold the pressures of any cartridge that you can fit between the feed lips, which opens up many possibilities.
I restored this former “light” sporter rifle back to Military configuration. Ugly? Not hardly.
It shoots well and is built like a tank.
Gorgeous rifle. Really reminds me how much I want one of these…I’d settle for a P14, though, if I had to 
I have one that I have owned for better than 20 years. Nice looking gun for being made in 1918.
I want to like it a lot, but I just don’t.
I got to finally play with one today (sadly no shooting involved), and I have to say that this rifle is seriously awesome! I can’t wait until my buddy lets me shoot it!
I am convinced that it is the best rifle of the era. The only advantage the later Enfields (of WWII), the No.4s have is that they hold and additional four rounds.
The only thing I did not like about the example I played with was that the grooves on the trigger felt way too coarse. Not a big deal, but annoying.
Agreed with the bolded portion. IMO, the P14/M1917 action, plus the MLE/SMLE/No.4Mk.1 magazine (10 rounds, detachable), in an “intermediate” length (like the SMLE or M1903) package, would have been THE premier bolt-action military rifle (IMO)…if only it had been designed in about 1902. Even more so if it were scaled appropriately to a rimless .30 cartridge at the time, and not “oversized” or beefed-up for a magnum .276 that the Brits thought they needed for 1000yd battles.
As to the magazine comment, though: the Lee-Metford had the 10-round magazine in the late 1880s. Certainly the Magazine Lee-Enfield had the 10-round mag, and it entered service in about 1895, IIRC.
So, really, there’s not much excuse for the P13/P14/M1917 to not have had a better magazine, since the UK had better magazines in their service rifles for 30 years by that point.
And that would have made it a world-beater, in my opinion. But I’m no expert, just some guy on the Internet with an opinion. 
Ive always wondered about the grand ole WW2 bolt guns…
are the GTG with modern, more powerful ammo?
What about the heavier 200gr.-220gr. stuff?
P17s were commonly converted to various magnum calibers, they are more than strong enough.