Official Use of the Term "Enfield" for the M1917

[twh]

I am neither uninformed nor incorrect. The Pattern 1914 was a follow on of the Pattern 13 designed at Enfield modified to fire the standard British .303 round by Enfield. The Pattern 1914 design was modified by Springfield Armory to fire the 30-06 round so while the basic design was a product of Enfield the Model 1917 technically is not. The official designation is actually United States Rifle, Calibre .30, Model of 1917. Of course as pointed out we are quibbling about mere semantics in reality. Good news about the book as I love collecting books almost as much as rifles.

[dalbert]

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 disagree completely. The military acknowledged it's an "Enfield" by calling it such on the cover of the first edition of FM 23-6. This was not a mistake, but a very deliberate act.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[5MadFarmers]

The Pattern 1914 design was modified by Springfield Armory

Springfield never made 1917s. The design was altered in the factories making it.

to fire the 30-06 round so while the basic design was a product of Enfield the Model 1917 technically is not.

So you're claiming the caliber change is what made it not an Enfield? If we accept that logic the following is also true:
1) The "L" in SMLE cannot stand for "Lee" as he developed his rifle in .45-70. I know this as I have two. (Notice that designer thing again?).
2) The Krag isn't the Krag as it was developed in some European caliber.
3) The Garand isn't the Garand as it was developed in .276.
4) My second favorite, the Mauser was developed by Mauser in 10.9mm. Then adapted to 7mm smokeless. The Prussian Rifle Commission developed the 7.92mm cartridge for the Commission Rifle. Thus any German rifle using the 7.92mm, including those made by Mauser, are not Mausers.
5) The favorite. What is probably the longest running small arm in use, the M2 Browning, is not a Browning. Frankford Arsenal is the one that chambered that in .50 as Browning developed it in .30-06.

I think you see where that logic is flawed....

The official designation is actually United States Rifle, Calibre .30, Model of 1917.

Aw, a Canadian. "Calibre." It's "Caliber" in 1917. I mention that as they switched between "calibre" and "caliber" during the 1800s. Mainly "calibre" at first, then "caliber" for a bit, then back to "calibre" for a bit, then "caliber" for good. That last about 1880.

Of course as pointed out we are quibbling about mere semantics in reality. Good news about the book as I love collecting books almost as much as rifles.

Of course we're quibbling nonsense. That's the point of message boards.

How many would you like? Here's the first:



I can supply an endless stream of those if desired. It was called the "American Enfield."

Now let's wind back a bit. Back to 1861. Another Enfield product was imported. There were:
"Springfield muskets" and "Enfield muskets." The "Enfield muskets" included those made in Birmingham. Why? "Development arsenal." The "Springfield muskets" included all of those made under contracts with private makers. Why "Springfield?"

Wait for it.

Because they were developed at Harper's Ferry, via a French musket, but Harper's Ferry was in the South for goodness sake.

Arsenal of development. Pattern held true for at least two centuries. "Charleville muskets?"

====



Pick a number. How many? That's 1917.

Any number will do.



American Enfield. At the time. Again two decades later. It was the Enfield.

[twh]

The designation I quoted comes form Skennerton's reprinting of "Description and Rules for the Management of the United States Rifle, Calibre.30, Model of 1917". Never said Springfield made a Model 1917. My understanding is that the manufacturers each supplied a modified rifle to Springfield to prove the concept of the modification and that Springfield then approved and prepared the final drawings and then let contracts for the gauges. I wonder if Senatorial testimony and or published investigative reports were as accurate in the first part of the last century as they are now. If you want to accept those as facts I could probably dig you up some dooseys regarding modern firearms topics having little basis in fact. Accepting the premise behind your analogies related to the designation of the cited firearms does that make the 1903 Springfield a Springfield-Mauser? Regardless I have enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your point.

[5MadFarmers]

The designation I quoted comes form Skennerton's reprinting of "Description and Rules for the Management of the United States Rifle, Calibre.30, Model of 1917".

"Appeal to authority" misfire. I own the originals of that tome. Three editions with the first in both pasteboard and paper covers. There is also an addendum. None of which addresses the fact that the contemporary Description and Rules for the Management of the Magazine Rifle, Model of 1903, also omits "Springfield." 1904, 1906, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1914, 1915 (1914 reprint), 1917, and 1918 editions. Doesn't exist on any of those off the top of my head. Checked one and it was absent.

They didn't put the informal name on those. It's also absent from FM23-10 (WW2 FM for the '03). That they included it on the first edition of the M-1917 FM is likely due to the rifle being somewhat uncommon at that point (out of primary service for two decades).

Never said Springfield made a Model 1917. My understanding is that the manufacturers each supplied a modified rifle to Springfield to prove the concept of the modification and that Springfield then approved and prepared the final drawings and then let contracts for the gauges.

Wouldn't it be a little odd to have three do the changes and then do drawings? They'd vary. Which of the three to take? Why have SA do the engineering drawings when they were already overloaded with the stuff they made? Winchester and Remington had engineering staff, and draughtsmen for that matter, with more experience in chambering various rifles in various calibers than SA ever had or would have. So why would they? They had Remington do the engineering drawings for the M-1911s so it seems illogical to do the engineering at SA.

To the best of my knowledge Winchester did that work. Congress called the O.D., WRA, and Remington to testify about it as it unfolded. Under oath. While it wasn't clearly stated, and thus I may be wrong, I gathered that Winchester took lead in partnership with Remington (also representing Eddystone of course).

That the DRM doesn't have it is thus a non sequitur as the '03 DRM doesn't either. That the WW2 FM has it is all the offical notification that is needed.

I wonder if Senatorial testimony and or published investigative reports were as accurate in the first part of the last century as they are now.

They weren't as skilled at lying as they are today. Different times. They were very forthright at that time. When discussing the move from the Krag to the M-1903 they stated that they "threw the old gun out." That made me laugh. Today that takes a paragraph. "We declared the older model as superflous to needs based on a thorough study of mission requirements with the result that the new model meets them whereas the previous model is less than optimum in that use case. The old model will enter normal salvage channels for potential auxiliary usage to ensure the taxpayers receive full value for their tax money. An independent audit was performed which concurs with our findings." I.e, it's old and garbage and we threw it away.

The O.D., WRA, RA, and others were called in. They know what it was. If they didn't who did?

If you want to accept those as facts I could probably dig you up some dooseys regarding modern firearms topics having little basis in fact.

Non sequitur. Find WW1 era testimony that is flawed and you'd at least be in the same arena. Even then it's not a given as this isn't that.

Accepting the premise behind your analogies related to the designation of the cited firearms does that make the 1903 Springfield a Springfield-Mauser? Regardless I have enjoyed the discussion and I appreciate your point.

That one bugs me too. Phipps rammed a Krag into a Mauser at high speed and the result was the M-1903. "Mauser" it kind of is and kind of isn't. "Krag" it kind of is and kind of isn't. "Krauser?" "Mausag?" When a design reaches the ubiquity of the Mauser it presents problems. The Pattern 14 is a Mauser and also suffers from that right? "Enauser?" "Maufield?"

Thus what they did. They went three ways:
1) Mauser
2) Armory or designer which altered it. Enfield. Arisaka. Springfield.
3) Country + #1. "Spanish Mauser." "Swedish Mauser."

The M2 one made me think. While Browning designed the base action the cartridge was developed at Frankford Arsenal. The gun itself at Rock Island Arsenal. So if we skip Browning what do we have? I'll have to check the original files: aw, here it is. "The Rockford Files." They should have made a TV show. James Garner toiling away on making that action work with that scaled up cartridge. Phony suspense moments tossed in like they do today: "Jim has hit a snag. The cartridge won't extract. If he can't get this fixed within a week the entire program is in jeopardy." It would have been a gas.

Peabody's original design had an internal hammer. The U.S. O.D. had him do it as an external. Martini then moved it back. Thus "Martini-Henry" is in fact a Peabody. Calling it "Peabody" is pointless though. It's Martini-Henry. I don't have to like it - just the way it is.

Think Rock Island would let me film there? Garner is dead but I'll get somebody else. Maybe he can design interwar tanks also.

[dalbert]

I don't recall another recent thread where a counter-argument was so soundly defeated...

In regards to Skennerton's use of "Calibre" vs. "Caliber," it may have been because he's Australian, and uses that spelling himself.

I will make one small caveat to 5MadFarmers assertion that the U.S. use of the term "Calibre" died around 1880. The 15,000 original Colt Thompson Submachine Guns, manufactured in 1921-22 are marked "Calibre," and were adopted by 3 branches of the U.S. Military. That being said, they used the "Caliber" spelling in reference to the caliber of the TSMG.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[5MadFarmers]

I will make one small caveat to 5MadFarmers assertion that the U.S. use of the term "Calibre" died around 1880. The 15,000 original Colt Thompson Submachine Guns, manufactured in 1921-22 are marked "Calibre," and were adopted by 3 branches of the U.S. Military.

Interesting. I was unaware of that one. Thus incorrect but no error.....

Languages change over time. I suspect it has to do with how common the word is and the age of the user. When the trapdoor manual changed back and forth I figured it was two generations. Caliber is pretty common relatively speaking and thus changed faster than some other words. That somebody was using it in 1921 would bespeak of a foreigner or somebody old. John Thompson perhaps? During his youth calibre was still in common usage. I have no idea which it was obviously.

Caliber, center, pitcher. "er" is American usage. "re" is Brit.

It started as "re" in the US also.

Common words change faster. Uncommon ones much slower if at all. Musical term: "timbre" is still common usage. Uncommon word.

Enfield. Set up due to a visit to the US gun factories. The Whitworth Commission's visit to the US resulted in the establishment of Enfield using American machinery. Ames sent much machinery and a master armorer to Enfield as part of that. The master armorer? James Butler. Formerly of Harper's Ferry.

It always circles around.

[5MadFarmers]

Aw, that other bit.

I don't recall another recent thread where a counter-argument was so soundly defeated...

It's a message board. No different than sitting around the cracker barrel in an old general store. It doesn't matter. Life matters. What they called that rifle a century ago is pointless trivia.

Two WW2 manuals. The first had "Enfield" on the cover. It's been a while and I may be misremembering but I recall one of the changes between the two was destruction of the rifle. How to make it useless. '17s were in large use in the P.i.. When it fell the Japanese ended up with them. The two would be related. I may be misremembering.

[usmc69]

The first 1917 manual: Printed 1918.

[Dan Shapiro]

Someone likes playing "Devils Advocate". I don't mind. The arcane trivia alone is worth the admission price of "free".

When dealing with the Ordnance people, it's surprising that only the State Dept is called "Foggy Bottom".