Wra 1917

[kb1903]

I am looking at a Win. 1917 in the 125,000 serial number range. On the left outside of the receiver is the flaming bomb stamp, along with a star in a circle. I remember reading somewhere that that circled star was on earlier rifles that did not meet parts inter changability requirements. Is that correct? If not, what does it indicate? Thank you. kb

[Merc]

You are correct. The circled star appeared on early Winchester M1917 receivers until February, 1918 and disappeared between S/N 141563 and 145950. There’s a book available “United States Rifle Model of 1917” by C.S. Ferris that describes the M1917 in detail.

Edit - Most of the action parts in my early Winchester M1917 were replaced with a mixture of Remington and Eddystone parts but they all worked. The one “fit” difference I noticed was the Remington mag box was a bit larger than the Winchester mag box. Both worked but the Remington mag would be stuck inside the stock when the trigger guard was removed.

[fguffey]

I remember reading somewhere that that circled star was on earlier rifles that did not meet parts inter changability requirements. Is that correct? If not, what does it indicate? Thank you. kb

I do not disagree with the claim 'they said it'. I disagree with the claim the parts will not fit other M1917s like Remington's and Eddystones. I have 8 M1917/P14s. One of the P 14s is a 30/06, another is a 308 Norma mag. And then there are all of the left over barrels. I have cut the barrel off of a few Mausers thinking I could mount the 308 barrels on the Mauser cut offs.

And no I do not believe I am friends with anyone that considers it is possible.

F. Guffey

[Merc]

My Winchester, with s/n 65030, is living proof that Eddystone and Remington parts will work in Winchesters. However, I’ve not had any experience installing Winchester parts in Eddystones or Remingtons.

[fguffey]

However, I’ve not had any experience installing Winchester parts in Eddystones or Remingtons.

A smith/builder of rifles was swearing off of the P14 when building custom guns when I walked in. I had to calm him down, after that I asked him to explain to me the problem and or 'what it was that he did not understand? He had to retrieve his parts and then began to explain.

There was a magnificent Bridgeport Mill in his shop, I asked him if he was allowed to use it? In no uncertain words the mill belong to him and he was the only one that was allowed to use it. AND THEN I told him to chuck his P14 stock into his vise and make a cut or chuck up the receiver up and make a cut etc. and I told him if he did not believe me "Measure first".

F. Guffey

[RC20]

Guffey is his usual obscure self.

I am not a world expert of course, just a piss ant enthusiast. All the 1917s I have now and the ones gone through my hands (8 or so) all had mixed parts and they all worked fine.

My take was the Parts thing was stupid, better get the guns in the hands of the troops to train and worry about the fit stuff latter. You could even mark them at the Army level you wanted to. The Army does stupid stuff on a regular basis so nothing new. It has its bureaucracy and that gets in the way of stuff to the troops when needed.

So, having worked with tolerances, my guess is that they had the range of plus and minus that was allowed but hit it a lot closer most of the time. Ergo, the parts would work though you might have an occasional one that did not.

[lyman]

Guffey is his usual obscure self.

I am not a world expert of course, just a piss ant enthusiast. All the 1917s I have now and the ones gone through my hands (8 or so) all had mixed parts and they all worked fine.

My take was the Parts thing was stupid, better get the guns in the hands of the troops to train and worry about the fit stuff latter. You could even mark them at the Army level you wanted to. The Army does stupid stuff on a regular basis so nothing new. It has its bureaucracy and that gets in the way of stuff to the troops when needed.

So, having worked with tolerances, my guess is that they had the range of plus and minus that was allowed but hit it a lot closer most of the time. Ergo, the parts would work though you might have an occasional one that did not.

bingo,

the early ones were more not in tolerance than in tolerance, as in replacement parts may need to be fitted vs drop in

[fjruple]

Just a quick comment here. The Circle with the Star was a marking to indicate the Winchester rifle had been inspected and found it be within specification. The main problem was that Winchester jumped the gun (figure of speech) and started to produce the M1917 before the Ordnance drawings could be finalized. Both Eddystone and Remington waited. The AEF (General Pershing) wanted the rifles to be repaired at the lowest level, the company armorer with simple replaced of parts with little or no hand fitting. I believe the only part the needed hand fitting was the firing pin. General Pershing refusal to permit Winchester M1917 rifles in theater had a cascading effect on the issue of the Winchester M1917 serviacablity even to this day from the debates on the forum.

[fguffey]

General Pershing refusal to permit Winchester M1917 rifles in theater had a cascading effect on the issue of the Winchester M1917 serviacablity even to this day from the debates on the forum.

Long before all reloaders became experts there were experts, they all earned the title of expert and they had respect. Roy Dunlap in his book on gunsmithing claimed the M1917 was a good choice and then he graded them from best to worst. He started with the Winchester, he then moved to the Remington and finished with the Eddystone. He declared the Eddystone was anyone's guess meaning the builder never knew what he was getting until after he started.

F. Guffey

[lyman]

Just a quick comment here. The Circle with the Star was a marking to indicate the Winchester rifle had been inspected and found it be within specification. The main problem was that Winchester jumped the gun (figure of speech) and started to produce the M1917 before the Ordnance drawings could be finalized. Both Eddystone and Remington waited. The AEF (General Pershing) wanted the rifles to be repaired at the lowest level, the company armorer with simple replaced of parts with little or no hand fitting. I believe the only part the needed hand fitting was the firing pin. General Pershing refusal to permit Winchester M1917 rifles in theater had a cascading effect on the issue of the Winchester M1917 serviacablity even to this day from the debates on the forum.


Long before all reloaders became experts there were experts, they all earned the title of expert and they had respect. Roy Dunlap in his book on gunsmithing claimed the M1917 was a good choice and then he graded them from best to worst. He started with the Winchester, he then moved to the Remington and finished with the Eddystone. He declared the Eddystone was anyone's guess meaning the builder never knew what he was getting until after he started.

F. Guffey



IIRC, and I may not be Correct, weren't the Winchesters the favorite for conversions to Sniper's or marksmen of that era?




re the Armorer and repairs,
years ago I had the fortune to see and handle (we had it in the shop for about a week before sold) an Armorers set of chests for the 1903 and a few other firearms,

nice sturdy wood cabinet, with galvanized or tin cups on the inside (some were lined, some were just wood) for each part and tools,

very well made, very heavy, and I do wish I could have kept it, or at least taken some photos,

I do still have a 45 colt and 45-70 round somewhere that was in one of the bins, date 1889 IIRC

[RC20]

I don't think there was an Sniper preference. Have not read of it. Winchester has not struck me as better built that Eddy or Remington. They are more rare so get some attention from that standpoint as well as jumping the gun so to speak.

All the mfgs build the same gun to the same specifications.

Sometimes you get a bias based on the samples you have seen that really does not apply across the range of them.

I am attracted to Remington for some reason but see no difference between that and the Eddystone or Winchester. Only the stock were different between the thee and that all had to do with grip grove and bolt cutout, not the inners.

[Merc]

The following appears on page 16, of the Ferris’ book “United States Rifle Model of 1917:”

“The Winchester and Ilion rifles, until considered interchangeable under final degree, were marked with a ‘star’ on the left side of the receiver.”

The paragraph was quoting Col. Thompson, US Ordnance Dept. and goes on to say:

“Winchester and Ilion rifles assembled or manufactured since January 1st (1918) without the star, could be issued for overseas duty.”

Edit: The book goes on to say that the star has never been observed on Ilion (Remington) rifles.

The Winchester production tables that begin on page 79 shows that the first Winchester rifles were produced on May 21, 1917 and the star disappeared between serial number 141563 and 145950 which was late January, 1918. That was a lot of rifles that weren’t considered for overseas duty.

My early serial number 65030 ‘17 with the “star” was made on November 15, 1917 and, while the barrel and receiver are in great shape, all the rest of the parts were non-Winchester parts by Remington and Eddystone and the stock was made by an unknown company. Some external parts were missing altogether. It makes you wonder if the rifle was stripped for parts. Why would a ‘17 that never went to war even be required to undergo a rebuild that would usually mix in so many foreign parts? The rifle actually functioned with all those non-W parts but some fit poorly, especially the mag and several action parts were worn or were made or altered to fit, so I replaced almost everything but kept the Eddystone bolt and stock.

Edit: More information found in the book concerning parts stripping: The US Ordnance Dept. deemed the M1917 obsolete in October, 1945 and spare parts for M1917s still in use were to be taken from rifles that were still in storage once the supply of new parts was exhausted. There were other countries that continued to use their ‘17s for many years after WW2.

Edit: The ‘17’s weakest part that probably gave armorers the most trouble was the ejector with the leaf spring that would break. Someone did a field modification to the ejector on my ‘17 by drilling a hole and installing a small coil spring in place of the broken leaf spring. It was kinda crude but it worked fine and then I started seeing a more professionally executed (repro) version of the ejector with a coil spring offered for sale on the Numrich sight. Did the armorer figure that installing the coil spring on my ejector was a more permanent fix or was he unable to obtain an original replacement? I use the term “armorer” rather loosely since it could have been Bubba.

[JB White]

All the M1917s I have had contained a few different parts. All had been through either post service rebuild or foreign aid rework. They still do. For many folks (including myself) if a service rifle has all matching parts then its been monkeyed with in the private sector. Unless of course it happens to be one of those prized like-new specimens that for some reason missed all the excitement.
When I used to maintain the rifles at our post I ran into a few coil spring mods. So, either veteran rifles went out the door to the posts having been modified, or someone ahead of me at the post knew the coil spring fix? Its an old trick.

I'll add that I have a Winchester P14 which has an encircled star mark. That is said to be Winchesters marking indicating the rifle has the extended lug.

[Merc]

All the M1917s I have had contained a few different parts. All had been through either post service rebuild or foreign aid rework. They still do. For many folks (including myself) if a service rifle has all matching parts then its been monkeyed with in the private sector. Unless of course it happens to be one of those prized like-new specimens that for some reason missed all the excitement.
When I used to maintain the rifles at our post I ran into a few coil spring mods. So, either veteran rifles went out the door to the posts having been modified, or someone ahead of me at the post knew the coil spring fix? Its an old trick.

I'll add that I have a Winchester P14 which has an encircled star mark. That is said to be Winchesters marking indicating the rifle has the extended lug.

It wasn’t just replacing the non-W parts. I replaced the R and E parts that were badly worn or damaged. Some trigger parts were bent or left with chisel marks to take up space so they would work. While it probably wasn’t a safety issue, it had the potential to be a function issue. Plus several external items were missing that I persuaded the salesman to steal from one of the other rifles. The R mag was really the only misfit. This rifle probably was one of those that had been stripped. I had a choice of three ‘17s and picked the one with the best bore. It turned out to be an excellent shooter and I’m not concerned about keeping the original parts with the rifle. The parts I replaced weren’t worth keeping.

[Merc]

I'll add that I have a Winchester P14 which has an encircled star mark. That is said to be Winchesters marking indicating the rifle has the extended lug.

It’s surprising that Ferris’ book never mentioned the original purpose of the star. Did all P14s have the star?

[lyman]

It’s surprising that Ferris’ book never mentioned the original purpose of the star. Did all P14s have the star?

no,

but I need to revisit Skennerton's book to see what he says about it,

[JB White]

As far as I'm aware, only Winchester used the encircled five point star on the p14.

Now I'm wondering whether or not my 1917 has one? I'm certain I would have noticed.

*EDIT* Nope. SN is way too high

[Merc]

Which extended lug required the star? Bayonet lug? Bolt lug?

[lyman]

https://www.gunboards.com/threads/star-in-circle-marking-on-m1917-enfield.115369/


https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=11286#:~:text=The%20Star%2FCircle %20indicates%20the,the%20alleged%20'incompatibilit y'%20issue.

[RC20]

Which extended lug required the star? Bayonet lug? Bolt lug?

To the best of my knowledge neither .

[Merc]

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=11286&page=2

Here is something from the late John Sukey that refers to the P14. He says the bolt handle was marked with a star when the locking lug was lengthened.

[JB White]

Which extended lug required the star? Bayonet lug? Bolt lug?

Bolt lug making it a Patt14 Mk1*. Remington/Eddystone used the asterisk version as their star whereas Winchesters using the encircled 5 point star show no asterisk. Well, some do but those are armorer's marks and the locations denote different meanings.