New Winchester 1917- Jewel or Turd?

Well, in reality I suspect it is somewhere between a great find and a ripoff, but I'm curious to hear the thoughts of others who have more experience is this area. I have quite a few mil-surps, but this is the first one I have purchased, the others being inherited. There was some selective information by the seller on this rifle, and it's not quite as good as I thought it would be, but that's not to say that I'm disappointed by it either, though I probably paid too much. I certainly didn't get a good deal on it.

Bolt is Winchester, but parkerized. Floorplate and trigger guard are Parkerized Remington, follower and follower spring are Eddystone. The front sight post was bubbafied, so I replaced it with an Eddystone front sight post. All other parts are blued Winchester. Reciever is listed as June 1918 manufacture, barrel is dated Aug 1918. Stock has a rack number stamped into it, 246. Stock wood immediately under the rear handguard ferrule has been cut away; it appears this was done some time ago as the wood color in the cut out area matches the rest of the stock. The bore is bright, with what looks like some very minor powder fouling (looks like a normal barrel after a day at the range).
In any event, I offer these pictures, and am curious as to what you think of it. It came with a Remington 1913 bayonet, which I quickly augmented with a Winchester 1917 bayonet (can't have the wrong bayonet, now can we), and a Hoyt sling marked 1918 with I.J.M initials.

I am most curious about the markings on the fore end of the stock. It was advertised as being marked with a "W" which it is, but it isn't the typical Winchester "W" that I've seen. Does anybody know anything about this particular series of marks? It appears to be I W 45 but the I might be a worn out or extremely light Eddystone mark. Additionally, where you normally see the "P" proof mark aft of the trigger guard, this stock exhibits a "W" that is stamped over an eagle head and number X38 with "X" being an obscured number. Forward of the trigger guard is an eagle head with number 542. Stock has a Raritan Arsenal-Peterson stamp in the usual place.

In any event, I'm now working on locating blued Winchester parts to replace the incorrect parts on this rifle, as I believe the overall quality of the rifle is worth it.

Attachment 41283Attachment 41289Attachment 41288Attachment 41287Attachment 41286Attachment 41285Attachment 41284Attachment 41278Attachment 41279Attachment 41280Attachment 41281Attachment 41282Attachment 41290

Stock was a Drill Rifle stock. Looks Ok to me. See you on the range.

That's interesting. My grandfather trained with the 1917 in basic training during late 1943/ early 1944, and was issued the Garand shortly before sailing for the Philippines. Sadly enough, they never had the opportunity to zero their rifles before making the landing on Leyte. I doubt an American infantryman in this day and age could even fathom going to combat with a new rifle that hadn't been zeroed.

Is there anything about the stock that specifically points to it being used for drill purposes, or is it everything taken together that points to this? I appreciate you taking the time to help me learn more about the rifle.

I don't think the stock is from a drill rifle. I think that the missing wood under the handguard ring was actually caused by assembling the stock to the barreled action with the ring incorrectly clocked. This probably caused some interference which chipped that thin area of the stock. Just by coincidence a drill rifle has a hole or clearance very close to this same location and I can see how this stock might be easily be mistaken for a drill rifle stock. Salt Flat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtxc01

Forward of the trigger guard is an eagle head with number 542.

---

5xx marks all seem to be Winchester. Ferris has specifically 543 and 544 listed on P. 105. It looks like you have a new one for the list.
Ferris also notes on P. 90 that some Winchester stocks have a number "presumably designating the sub-inspector" on the fore-end.
Barrel and receiver dates are close enough to be the original pairing.

I think you have basically an original Winchester M1917 that has been through a military workshop at some time, where a lot of M1917s were being handled, and you know how it was - the troops needed functioning rifles, not matching makers' stamps, and the M1917 was one of the very first rifles to have achieved a high degree of interchangeability. So in the workshops they didn't give a hoot for the collector's "all-matching" mania nearly a century later.:eek:

They just reassembed the non-critical bits as they came to hand so that everything fitted and WORKED.

Terrible eh?:madsmile: - No, that was how it was supposed to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtxc01

In any event, I'm now working on locating blued Winchester parts to replace the incorrect parts on this rifle

---

From what I have just written, you will understand that I consider the use of the word "incorrect" to be incorrect. You have a rifle that is probably as it was re-assembled and checked by an armorer long, long ago. This supposition would be strengthened if the head clearance checks out to be OK. If you now swap parts to make it "all Winchester" and present it as being original, you are, in fact falsifying it to achieve an end that was officially not necessary in service. And even if this is not your intent, you can bet that one day, when it is no longer in your hands, someone else will present it thus.

How often has this happened? No-one knows, but I consider it to be not unlikely that the percentage of "correct" rifles is now higher than it was at the end of WW2.

It's your rifle, and you can paint it blue if you choose to, but personally, I would check the head clearance etc. and if it shoots well, leave it alone. Just my 5c of course, but I am a shooter, not a collector.

Patrick,

That's some great information, thank you. Ferris's book seems to be THE authority on the rifle, so I'll probably have to pick it up. It certainly seems to contain more detail on the various inspector stamps than the book I currently have (Stratton, I believe). I appreciate your thoughts on the rifle. I purchased it thinking that the receiver/barrel combination was close enough by date to be original, and that the stock might have been original to the rifle, or at lease could have been. Probably not likely given the description of the arsenal process some have given, but it is nice to know that the stock stamps indicate the stock is likely a Winchester stock. Some of the stamps seem atypical, so I was questioning the origins of the stock. My objective in acquiring the rifle was to get an example that was WWI representative. Thanks again.


Yes, I see that "incorrect" is itself an incorrect term. I was originially under the impression that a blued reciever/barrel combination with parkerized parts would have indicated a parts swap post DCM/CMP sale to the general public. I was under the (flawed, as I understand now) impression that re-arsenaled rifles would have been completely parkerized, an that accordingly the parkerized trigger guard/floorplate and bolt handle would have been "incorrect". The manufacturer codes weren't quite as important, but figured as long as I was getting blued parts I would try to get Winchester ones. Given the kind information I've recieved, I'm inclined to leave it as is. If this is how the government arsenal sent it out, it meets my desires for a "representative" rifle, even if some parts are more representative of WWII (it's the grayish parkerizing).

Thank you for your understanding of what can be a tricky point to get across. I am somewhat of an idealist in these matters, as I consider the swapping of good parts merely to achieve the "correct" configuration to be the first step on the slippery road to deliberate faking.

As I have also received private questions on this and related points, I am going to compose a (hopefully) carefully thought-through text on the subject, which I will post at a later dater - please don't hold your breath, it could take a while!

BTW, if you are serious about M1917s, Ferris is a must, not an option!

[QUOTEJust my 5c of course, but I am a shooter, not a collector. ][/QUOTE]

I hear you. I shoot most of my collection, and have recently been shooting a No4 Mk1 at 600 yards quite a bit. One of the advantages of getting stationed in the desert is that there are some nice long range shooting ranges with target carriages and pits so that you can get instant feedback. It's quite nice. I've been having decent results with the Enfield using a sling from the prone, with roughly half of any given string into the 6 inch 10 ring and half of that into the 3 inch X ring. 119-3X is the best 15 shot string I've gotten out of it yet. It's good for it since the rear sight has click elevation adjustments, but one click will often send you all the way from one side of the black out the other side.

Sorry, that should be 12 inch 10 ring and 6 inch X ring.....shucks, I'd be pretty proud of myself if I could get a No4 Mk1 to put 50% of its rounds in a sub MOA group.....

I took a second look at the stock. Probably not a Drill Rifle stock. Chipped out? Slight damage? GI toything. Any reason works, but rifle looks good to me.

Gents,

Thanks for all of the information and kind words. You've helped me feel good about my purchase and elightened me quite a bit. As mentioned in my first post, the front sight on the rifle was "bubbafied" in that it had been cut and had an extension with a large "bead" soldered on. The post and bead was so tall that I think it must have been designed for use with the rear battle sight (ladder flipped down) and zeroed for 100 yards. I acquired 4 "new" front sights and started out zeroing at 200 yards with a .075 front post. Rifle was hitting about 3 MOA low. Math said I needed to lower the front post by about .025 inches, so I next mounted a .045 front post. This one is still hitting a little low, at the bottom of the 10 ring on a SR-C target so I think a .030 front post ought to do the trick. I'll have to kee searching for one, as I haven't found anything shorter than the .045 for sale yet, but if I understand the book I do have, there should be a .030 size out there somewhere. I didn't care as much for windage adjustment, as crosswind gusts were about 15 mph. I'll wait for a calmer day to get that dialed in. Final 5 shot group came in at 2.25 inches center to center, but the interesting part was 3 of the five came in at 9/16ths center to center. I was shooting at 200 yards from the bench using a front and rear sandbag. Hornady M1 Garand Match 168gr. The majority of the pasters are from practicing offhand with N04 Mk1. Attachment 41492Attachment 41493

Damned good shooting with scope let alone iron (my eyes won't do it though I was good at one time with em)

I got a 6 shot group at 1 1/4 the other day with the Eddystoner (bad spelling cause I like it!) with an SK scope mount. Its that odd mix of it allows me to shoot, but it so high you don't have a cheek weld. Floating head hold or chin on stock and try to get stable. I did have one wild flyer form cold barrel so have to try a throw away in the future. Still it allows me to shoot at 100 or better if I ever get to the long range.

With the right trigger control they can be very accurate rifles. Maybe not quite 1903 (scope to scope) but iron sight to iron sight the peep should win.

I will add in that I hand-load and was using 168 gr Sierra Match with 52 gr of 4831. Satisfaction as the primers were 30 years old as was the primers. As long as kept cool and dry they last forever.

Deliberate on using lower velocity loads to be easy on the barrel as its a sub 1 for TE and MW and will be my main shooter until I can't anymore.

I would like to strongly second Pat's points and add a few of my own. The history of just about all battle rifles includes both expedient field repairs and arsenal reworks. Any battle rifle that has been there and done that (which are the ones with history....not the pristine rack queens so much sought after), reflects these replacement parts, and both wood and metal finish. To attempt to reverse or hide this evidence of use is just plain wrong and destructive to any history the rifle may have had before being "part corrected".

The only work I do on rifles beyond basic cleaning (and it amazing how many retain storage grease in barrel channels and such 50 or more years after entering civilian ownership), is to return them to safe "as issued" condition. The one exception I would see to this guideline is if damage was tied to a known historical event, where the piece has more merit as a relic of that event than as a generic working rifle.

In all but the most desperate of times Armies had standards for what was suitable for issue and what warranted rework/repair. Stocks that were partially rotted, oil soak or with splits would not have been issued, but repaired if possible and then given a new coat of whatever finish was used at the time (and no, not everyone used BLO). The odds of that repaired stock being returned to its original rifle was about zero. Stock repair takes time, reaching into a bin for new or already reworked wood doesn't. Considering the scarcity of replacement wood, owners today are to be forgiven if they repair beyond the point that would have been considered in the day. Matching wood color and grain or source of manufacture was certainly not an issue. Same for the metal, rusted and worn parts, along with accumulated filth would not have been tolerated. These would have been repaired/refinished (whole or in part) to meet minimum standards for being issued....source of parts or matching original finish be damned. To strip away this accumulated history of honest use in search of the pristine all matching rifle is a travesty against the history that people so often cite, but seem to be unable to honor.

Am I missing something in that you just can't file down the .045 to .030 in slow steps?

I know it messes up a .045, but if a .030 is hard to get and you can replace the.045 or the .075, making it shorter neatly should be easy and Marks-alot on the top and good (or so I think).

Quote:

---

Thanks for all of the information and kind words. You've helped me feel good about my purchase and elightened me quite a bit. As mentioned in my first post, the front sight on the rifle was "bubbafied" in that it had been cut and had an extension with a large "bead" soldered on. The post and bead was so tall that I think it must have been designed for use with the rear battle sight (ladder flipped down) and zeroed for 100 yards. I acquired 4 "new" front sights and started out zeroing at 200 yards with a .075 front post. Rifle was hitting about 3 MOA low. Math said I needed to lower the front post by about .025 inches, so I next mounted a .045 front post. This one is still hitting a little low, at the bottom of the 10 ring on a SR-C target so I think a .030 front post ought to do the trick. I'll have to kee searching for one, as I haven't found anything shorter than the .045 for sale yet, but if I understand the book I do have, there should be a .030 size out there somewhere. I didn't care as much for windage adjustment, as crosswind gusts were about 15 mph. I'll wait for a calmer day to get that dialed in. Final 5 shot group came in at 2.25 inches center to center, but the interesting part was 3 of the five came in at 9/16ths center to center. I was shooting at 200 yards from the bench using a front and rear sandbag. Hornady M1 Garand Match 168gr. The majority of the pasters are from practicing offhand with N04 Mk1.

---

"file down the .045 to .030 in slow steps"..........

The trick is that ALL of the blades are the same height, in order to maintain a similar sight picture, regardless of sight selection..

The difference between sizes is in the height of the block that sits between the blade and the mounting dovetail.

No1 Mk3 (*) (SMLE) front sights are another example of this practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richardwv

To strip away this accumulated history of honest use in search of the pristine all matching rifle is a travesty against the history that people so often cite, but seem to be unable to honor.

---

Thank you Richard for expressing my standpoint better than I could myself!

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

No1 Mk3 (*) (SMLE) front sights are another example of this practice.

---

No surprise - they are basically the same, even if maybe differently marked! The SMLE blade block design was adopted for the P14 and then "inherited" by the M1917.


But I would NOT use the battle sight for zeroing. If you ever want to participate in competitions, then I seriously recommend that you should zero it at 100 yards with the ladder sight set one notch above zero using a central (not 6 o'clock) hold on a standard 8" black. A "tin hat" target is ideal. With a blade foresight, this is more sensitive for height adjustment than a round white sticker in the center of the black.

This way, you still have some room for correction for different loads. Zero it at 200, and you may find that at 100 you need to file the blade back up again - notoriously difficult to do!

Thanks for the thoughts on zeroing. I hope to finish getting her dialed in this weekend if the winds are a bit calmer. I may look to see if I can get a "point of aim point of impact" zero with the front sight blade heights I have as opposed to going for the six o'clock hold zero. It's no joke about needing to "file up" the front sight at 100 yards. I shot the P14 at 100 yards the first time I shot it, and had to aim in on a target stapled below my intended target! It was hitting 18 inches high at that distance. Certainly explains the conventional wisdom from the Great War of aiming for the belt buckle.

My brother let me shoot his Eddystone with the ladder sight that had a smaller peep hole drilled in it (JB weld).

I usually cannot shoot iron sights (even peeps on the A3) worth a hoot due the older dyes.

I got a decent group at 50 and took it out to 100. Not a good target (the Leopold old 4 square) but got a decent group with the XTP (high but a decent group).

I then shifted to a large 3 inch orange ball (still too small at that distance) but got 4 shots into it at that distance before the sun played havoc with it and my eyes again. A few outside the ring so not bad as all. A decent size black ball would have worked well I think

Oddly the hand loads had quite a bit lower than the XTP and spot on using 52 gr of 4831 with the 168 gr match (same load as the 1 1/4 group with the scoped Eddystones).

Amazed at how good a picture I had and you can adjust the height with hand loads if you are running high with the normal velocity loads (these are down around 2400 fps I think)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RC20

Amazed at how good a picture I had and you can adjust the height with hand loads if you are running high with the normal velocity loads (these are down around 2400 fps I think)

---

This points out a basic rule: get the optimum load for the rifle established BEFORE filing around on the foresight blade. Fiddling the load to suit the blade is the wrong way round to do it!

The ideal powder charge/bullet weight combination should be one that is tolerant of a charge spread of 0.2 gn. Which is about the tightest you can get in practical reloading, unless you want to weigh each charge on a chemical balance. I spent a great deal of time optimizing the charge for my Eddystone, and found 2 optimum charges (48 and 50 gn with Swiss N140, 168gn HPBT Sierra or Lapua).

Changing that charge so much that the POI is noticeably affected would mean using a charge that is very sensitive to tiny load changes, and would produce poor groups! The difference between best and worst group size in my 30-06 testing was a factor of 3. A 1 MOA load is a potential competition winner. With 3 MOA you can stay at home.

Optimum load first, THEN sight correction!