Official Use of the Term "Enfield" for the M1917

[dalbert]

I just want to clarify something that has been published about the M1917 Rifle, and that I have also heard while discussing the rifle at gun shows. This "something" is that the M1917 was never officially referred to as the "Enfield." This is incorrect. The term "Enfield" was a term often used by soldiers to describe the M1917 Rifle, and the August 3, 1942 edition of FM 23-6 for the M1917 Rifle is titled, "U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1917 (Enfield)." I believe the ubiquitous nickname drove it to become referenced as such in one of the official WWII era War Department Field Manuals for the rifle.

In my opinion, this is one of the many reasons that period paper items, such as FM's and TM's are such an important resource for any firearm. They demonstrate many facts from a moment in time that sometimes become blurred with age.

Here is a photo of the manual, along with the later version that does not include the "Enfield" name.





David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[older than dirt]

I have always referd it as a 1917 Enfield ever since I first heard of one 60 some odd years ago because that`s what it was called.

[Col. Colt]

It would be odder still if it was NOT referred to as an "Enfield". Except for being rechambered to .30-06, it's the same rifle, built in the same plants on the same machines!

I've always found it odd that people would correct others insisting on using the rifle's formal title "M1917". The people that built it called it an Enfield, and I bet the troops did, too.

Nice to see an original US Govt. Manual that calls it what it was and is..... End of controversy - either term will serve.

Besides that, although it is considered an "English" design - it's a Mauser at heart, just like our '03! CC

Much ado about nothing! CC

[PhillipM]

Enfield doesn't bother me but P1917 and P17 do.

[kcw]

It would be odder still if it was NOT referred to as an "Enfield". Except for being rechambered to .30-06, it's the same rifle, built in the same plants on the same machines!

I've always found it odd that people would correct others insisting on using the rifle's formal title "M1917". The people that built it called it an Enfield, and I bet the troops did, too.

Nice to see an original US Govt. Manual that calls it what it was and is..... End of controversy - either term will serve.

Besides that, although it is considered an "English" design - it's a Mauser at heart, just like our '03! CC

Much ado about nothing! CC

My fraternal grandfather and a maternal great uncle, both WWI soldiers, referred to the M1917 as an "Eddystone". My 1st acquisition in that design of rifles was a P14. One of my family traditions was the all male summer picnic held ever other year, during which there was always a target shooting session held down by the creek. The two previously mentioned gentlemen were present when I appeared with my recently purchased 303. Upon 1st seeing it, each referred to as an Eddystone, the rifle that they each were issued during the Great War. It was only after closer inspection, and my telling of the history of the design, that they understood what it was. Of course none of them knew any of that in 1917-18. The one that got overseas said that it was the British that carried the "Enfield", a snub nosed rifle, the 303 ammo for which he knew was not interchangeable with the U.S. Springfields or "Eddystones". I suppose that for purposes of U.S. solider, that was all the information he needed to know about British rifles when he was there.

[twh]

Still a US Model 1917 and not an Enfield and the reason is because of what the previous poster stated about them being built in the same plant as the Pattern 14 which were designed at Enfield and thus might appropriately be called Enfields although that also bleeds into the No I Mk III's as well. Can't have two different model and caliber rifles being called the same generic name and so to differentiate between the two the Model 1917 is not an Enfield. Even the military eventually saw the error of their ways as you can see the later FM fixed the error perpetrated on the cover of the first. I have actually never cared what it was referred to as I have always just said Model of 1917 but it does annoy me as well when some one says Pattern 1917 or P-17.

[5MadFarmers]

the later FM fixed the error

When faced with facts one should always change their opinion to match the facts and not vice versa. There is no error.

An error is when something is done inadvertently.
Incorrect is when something is factually inaccurate.

"Enfield" on that manual is neither. Assertions that it is are uninformed opinion; you are incorrect.

The military has three types of "nomenclature" in common use:
1) Formal and official. Formally and officially that's the "Model of 1917" rifle. Which is itself an abbreviated version as it's a "Magazine rifle." Thus "United States Magazine rifle, Model of 1917."
2) Informal but official. The P-51 is the "Mustang." The M1 tank is the "Abrams." The United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1903, is the "Springfield."
3) Informal and unofficial. The B-52 is the "Stratofortress" but informally it's the "BUFF." Similarly the A-10 is the Warthog and the M60 machinegun was "the pig."

It's #2 and #3 that's really being quibbled here. So, with respect to rifles, what is typically used for the informal designation? Weapons designer. "Allin conversion" is informal but official. "Trapdoor" is unofficial. "Garand" is informal. "Browning" is informal. When a weapon is designed by a government facility they normally use the facility name instead. Thus it's the M-1903 "Springfield" instead of the "Phipps." This is why they had some issue with "Garand." It was a "Springfield."

The United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1917, was designed where? Enfield. Thus it was so designated on the cover.



Browning.

Were they inconsistent in this? Certainly. "Krag" was never accepted as it was a foreign designation. "Garand" wasn't popular as it was Springfield.

Enfield is correct. That's where it was designed.
"Eddystone" is #3 above.

It wasn't just WW2. In most references during WW1 the M-1917 was referred to as the "American Enfield."

If you're going to be pedantic go full boat for gob's sake.

[5MadFarmers]

Time to throw some real gasoline on this fire....

"Pattern of 1917," while never used officially, is not inaccurate per their nomenclature rules.
When somebody is told "they never called it the Pattern 1917" they are correct.
When somebody is told "it's not the Pattern 1917" that's incorrect.

When I push my Krag book out the door it'll make sense. I cover that in detail. It was important in the 1800s.

[Hal O'Peridol]

My Father-in Law carried a M1917 up and down the Bataan peninsula. When I asked him what rifle he used, he said "We used the Enfield rifle. Very powerful. Killed lots of Japanese."

So the troops in the Philippines that carried them called them Enfields.

To throw more gas on the fire, at the beginning of WWII, before we got involved, the US government gave the Canadians a bunch of M1917s. The Canadians called the rifles the P17 and many still do.

[browningautorifle]

When I push my Krag book out the door it'll make sense. I cover that in detail. It was important in the 1800s.

I'll be watching for that one...