"Parris Island, Inspection"

While visiting a local museum yesterday I acquired a large print of a photograph entitled "Parris Island, Inspection" showing a platoon of Marines under going an in-ranks inspection. The picture is credited as coming from the Parris Island Museum.

Upon close inspection I was surprised to see the entire platoon armed with rifles having unmistakeable M1917 traits; a "hooked beak" stock and rear sight "ears". I had read that the Marine Corps had received around 60,000 M1917 rifles but I had never seen a photograph of Marines armed with them. Until yesterday I had thought that it was the 2nd Divisions Marine Brigade that had received these rifles as part of General Pershings plan to rearm the entire AEF with the M1917.

Any additional information regarding the Marine Corps use of the M1917 rifle would be appreciated.

Thanks.

As I understand it, the Marines attached to the 2nd Div in WWI never accepted the M1917 rifle and kept their M1903 rifles throughout the war. I have also never heard of any Marines issued with the M1917 rifle, including boot camp. Any chance you could post the pic in this thread?

Semper Fi
OFC

The AEF 2nd Division 5th and 6th Marine Regiments were armed with 1903's. No M1917's. Both Regiments arrived in France before the M1917's were ready for issue anyway. Of the hundreds of WWI Marine photos I have in my collection, including photos taken at Port Royal (Parris Island), not one shows a M1917, nor have I ever seen a picture of a WWI era Marine with a M1917.

That is not to say that at some point in time the M1917 wasn't used at Parris Island for training purposes, but I doubt it. The Marines had about 54,000 1903's in 1918, and a total strength of 75,101 men, down to 17,165 by 1920 (17,400 men was peacetime strength). There were only 24,555 Marines in France at max strength, and that included the 11th and 13th Marine Regiments (armed with 1903's) late in 1918. Considering that only 50% of the Marines were armed with rifles, the Marines had no need for 60,000 M1917's.

All of Pershing's plans for the Marines went to hell in a handbasket. He never wanted them in combat, much less be the symbol of bravery in WWI.

That PI picture may date from just before WWII, when the Marines were scrambling for rifles. I would love to see it. I have some very nest pictures taken at PI during 1917. They trained barefooted.

I might point out that many of the Divisions were armed with 1903's, including the 42nd and others.

Jim

Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to reply to my question. Like you I had (have) never seen a photograph of Marines armed with the M1917 rifle. As I stated above the photo is credited to the Parris Island Museum. Unfortunately it is undated.

I will make every effort to have an enlargement made this week and post it on this great forum.

The photograph shows enlisted Marines wearing what I believe to the M1912 Field Service Dress unform. They have a dark long sleeve shirt, buttoned at the neck, but no tie. Their pants are significanty lighter and are secured into leggings. All personnel, officer and enlisted, are wearing the M1912 Service, or campaign, hat with EGA device. The inspecting officers are armed with the M1911 pistol carried in M1912 "Long Drop" cavalry style holsters.

Being the pround owner of more than one M1903 and M1917 rifles I have no doubt that the rifles carried by these men are not M1903s. Hopefully an enlarged photograph may shed more clues as to when it was made.

Thanks again for your help.

Your description is very lucid and gives one the impression this is going to be an interesting photo. I have found your impressions in the past to be pretty darned accurate. I look forward to seeing it. Maybe I will learn something new!

Never say never!

Semper Fi,
Jim

Can't wait to see the photo!

As the original photo of approximately 35 Marines in ranks exceeds the limits of this forum I will have to modify its size and hopefully post it tomorrow. Attached are closeups of two Marines in the formation. Unless my old eyes are playing tricks on me again I see the "ears" and "hooked" stock of a M1917 rifle. In recognition of his great contributions to my knowledge of the Marine Corps WWI service I have provided Jim Tarleton a copy of the original and enlargements for his collection. His knowledge of Marine uniforms and equipment is definitely superior to mine so hopefully he will give us his opinion as to the identity of the rifle.

Thanks for your patience in this matter.

Attached is a full copy of "Parris Island, Inspection". It has been reduced in size to the maximum allowed by this forum. The original photograph itself appears to be an enlarged copy. It measures approximately 28x15 inches. The pictures posted yesterday are of the second and third Marines from the left.

You really want to scan it on a decent resolution and stick it on one of the photo hosting sites and link it to here. We can see virtually nothing like this.

This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to offer my comments. I have examined a 28" x 16" print of the complete photo, which Bolo Badge kindly sent to me. My comments refer to the following photos:

Complete photo:
http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/o...-300dpi9x5.jpg

Detail of the first and second rifles from the left:
http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/o...0dpidetail.jpg

The source photo lacks sufficient resolution to make a definitive identification of the rifles, but the large size of the print from Bolo Badge enabled me to make measurements directly from the photo and perform some calculations.

My observations and findings:
1. Light reflections on the first three rifles (counting from the left of the front row) are consistent with the curvature of the M1917's scant stock.
2. The first two rifles display the outline of the "ears" of the M1917 rear sight. I see the same outline when looking at my own M1917 from this angle, i.e., the ears themselves and the gap between the underside of the ears and the stock, while the handle of the bolt is hidden by the silhouette of the stock. (The M1903 does not exhibit this profile at this angle.) The ears of the rear sight are also visibile on the third and fourth rifles, although not nearly as clearly.
3. Using the relative lengths of portions of the first two rifles and the corresponding distances measured with a tape, I calculated the overall length of each of the three rifles. The idea is that the calculated length should be approximately 46.25" if the rifles are M1917s or approximately 43.25" if they are M1903s. As shown in the following three sets of calculations, the calculated lengths are much closer to that of the M1917 than of the M1903 and, thus, is consistent with these rifles being M1917s and not M1903s.

First rifle from left
Actual distance = 14" buttplate to rear of sight assembly
Photo = measured 2.375"
Photo = measured 7.875" overall length of rifle
Calculated length of rifle = 46.4"

Actual distance = 31" lower band to butt
Photo = measured 5.25"
Photo = measured 7.875" overall length of rifle
Calculated length of rifle = 46.5"

Second rifle from left
Actual distance = 14" buttplate to rear of sight assembly
Photo = measured 2.125"
Photo = measured 7.125" overall length of rifle
Calculated length of rifle = 46.9"

Given my observations and findings from the photo, my conclusion is that the Marines are using M1917 rifles.

I too have seen the larger photo, and the rifles do appear to be M1917's. I didn't make any calculations, but the ears appear to be in place, which eliminates the 03.:runaway:

I also make the observation that Rollins74 must be a Petroleum Engineer.:super:

Jim Tarleton:cool:
Registered Professional Petroleum Engineer (Texas)

You are correct, sir. I am indeed a petroleum engineer. :beerchug:

John Rollins
Registered Professional Engineer (Texas)

Just happened to see this discussion and thought I would throw this into the mix. Photo is of my great-uncle, Private Peter George Green, USMC. He was at Parris Island in the summer of 1918, went overseas September 1918. He was in the Port Royal Band in July and August 1918 and this photo dates from then as he is wearing the band insignia under the EGA on his campaign hat. This is one of two photos showing him with the Model 1917, the other was taken at the same time. All other photos I have of him with a rifle shows the Model 1903 and his scorebook shows he qualified with the 1903.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9/PGG13b-1.jpg

If it's any help, I have records of M1917 manuals being shipped to the USMC. The numbers are significant. I suspect I'll come across shipments of the rifles and/or bayonets before the year is out (processing a lot of documents).

Kind of pointless to ship thousands of manuals if the rifles weren't intended to follow.

As a former Marine here, myself - I must say that I'm quite surprised no other Marines have noticed this before as much as we preach "attention to detail".

VERY informative. I'm new here, but I use Texas Gun Talk a bit, and the sites appear to be linked.
I like this forum too, so I think I'll stick around here as well.

I recently acquired this photo of a young Marine with his M1917 rifle. He is wearing his pack, with the bayonet handle visible over his shoulder. There is no identifying information written on the back of the photo, which was mounted in a photo album. It probably was taken during his training at Parris Island. Click here for a higher-resolution image:

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/o...fle-300dpi.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fle72dpi-1.jpg

An interesting thread on another forum sheds further light on the question of the Marines' usage of the M1917 rifle. Have a look at post #17 on the thread entitled "WWI Marine Weapons Questions."

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/foru...ic=111606&st=0

Per this post, Marine Corps Orders No. 20 (Series 1918) states that, due to the shortage of M1903 rifles, the Marine Corps procured M1917 rifles for use stateside. The intent was to equip all overseas troops with the M1903, necessitating the withdrawal of all M1903s from U.S. posts for issue to overseas-bound Marines and replacing those rifles with the M1917.

Great photo rollins74. I resized it to display larger on our screens so we can see the young marine's face

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...piLarge3-1.jpg

Hi,
Just as an item of curiosity, what is the stigma attached to a WWI Marine using a M1917 rifle? Does he have his sword broken and get drummed out of the Corps? I believe that the M1917 was used extensively by the US Army in WWI to include the St. Miheil and the Argonne offensives and served well.
As a 16 year old, I enlisted in the Mississippi State Guard (established during WWII to replace the National Guard who were called to active duty.) I served about 16 months, rising to the rank of SGT, until joining the USN at 17 in the USN. We were issued M1917’s and used them for drill and training. I spent two weeks of abbreviated, intensive, concentrated infantry training at Camp Shelby MS in early 1944. During this training we spent extensive, intensive training in drilling with, bayonet training (using the, I believe, 16” WWI bayonets) with and firing on the rifle ranges. My fellow guardsmen were either teenagers such as myself or WWI vets who signed up to serve. We even learned to perform the “Monkey Drills” with the M1917 (Queen Anne Salute, etc,) with these long M1917. On the firing range we fired at ranges not to exceed 600 yards (I believe that 1000 yard firing had been discontinued in Army training). We were issued, as I remember it, obsolete .30M1 ammunition ,which had quite a kick until I discovered that a canteen cover slipped over the butt of the rifle would act as a recoil pad. We had no shooting jackets, only khaki shirts. With a little practice we even became a fairly proficient with the dreadful ‘cock-on-closing’ in rapid fire, and holding off to compensate for the wind. I thought the M1917 to be a satisfactory combat rifle with the best sights issued on a service rifle in WWI.
Just curious!

Cosine26,


Can't give you an exact answer ( I'll let others try to do that), but the major problem with the '17 (to many people) was the lack of a windage adjustable sight and something about that making it a lesser rifle than the '03. I always thought a marksman should be able to hit with any rifle regardless of windage adjustable sights so I never really understood that aspect of it.

Other than that is was heavier, blockier and wasn't designed in the US. I suspect some or all the above were factors with some people not liking it. Although I have read of many who did like it.

Of course some people just don't like "peep" sights and others do, maybe a factor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-07ShortLee

Cosine26,

Other than that is was heavier, blockier and wasn't designed in the US. I suspect some or all the above were factors with some people not liking it.

---

I think you're correct with all, P-07ShortLee. Especially the latter. Soldiers at the time loved the 1903 because it was an 'American' rifle.

This is a quote attributed to Alvin York when he was issued a 1917. (The debate can go on and on what type rifle he actually used)

MAY 21, 1918 - LeHavre, France: So we got to France at Le Havre. There we turned in our guns and got British guns.

Quote:

---

MAY 21, 1918 - LeHavre, France: So we got to France at Le Havre. There we turned in our guns and got British guns.

---

The 82nd WAS issued "British guns" when they arrived in France - British SMLEs. The 82nd was initially put in the line with a British division for training. Hence the confusion about what rifle he really used in the MOH action (not saying it was or wasn't an '03:)).

That debate will probably go on forever and we'll probably never know for sure!

All we do know for sure is Sgt. York used a Luger because I have the DVD and I saw it with my own two eyes. ;)

Did not the USMC receive large quantities of M 1917's postwar ?? Was there an experimental rear sight that was modified for windage promoted or tested by the Marines ? I would not discount combat usage of M 1917;s in WW ! based on dearth of photographic evidence. But that's just me . :madsmile: