1917 Eddystone Advice

[Patrick Chadwick]

In response to the response:

... In response to Patrick.
In fact the parts interchange delayed production by a significant time when rifles were in extremely short supply (non existent in many cases of training) It was a negative. P14s did not have that interchange capability. The exchange ability while convenient latter on overall was probably a significant negative. More guns would have also meant more spare parts and far less need to fudge them back together rather than just issue a new gun and send the messed up one to a rear area where they could be torn down, spare parts created (or new spares installed)

Factories did not swap parts, period. They came out all OEM.

Yes they did get mixed up not only in the field (where the interchange did make it easier) but all the re-arsenal work they went through did that as well.

If you now read my post carefully - i.e. what I actually wrote, and do not read anything between the lines:

The major feature of M1917 production was that, as far as possible, all parts from 3 different manufacturers should be interchangeable. So no US armourer fixing up M1917s would have worried much about matching E's or R's or W's. Part interchangeablilty was intended to be used to produce as many rifles as possible as fast as possible in the factory, and to keep up the maximum availability of functioning rifles in the field. Especially for the M1917, the snooty collector's attitude of "it's not all matching therefore not original" is historically incorrect. See Ferris "United States Rifle Model of 1917".

As to "history", nobody can tell now whether the parts were used in the factory, because delivery shortages required taking parts from one of the other factories, or "officially" swapped by a US armorer at a later date, or even swapped by you or me five minutes ago.

So go all-Eddy if you like. It's irrelevant for shooting anyway."

I did not claim that parts were exchanged in the factory, as I have no knowledge of that, just that it could have happened, as a high degree of interchangeability was intended. This aim was indeed a cause of delay in running up to full series production, as (if I recall correctly, but see Ferris) Winchester had some difficulty in meeting the interchangeabilty requirements.

So if you take regard of my use of words such as "should" and "could", there is no difference between me and other contributors.

Now as to another tricky word: unissued. I too have an 11/18 Eddy, in what I call, for lack of a better expression, "Arsenal mint". Naughty of me to use the word mint, I know. Suggestions for improvement will be taken seriously.

I have a couple of other rifles in this condition, which is (as far as I can tell) never used by regular troops, i.e. never issued to an individual soldier to be kicked around and dropped in the mud etc, but with a perfect interior - bore and working surfaces effectively new and a lot of dings caused by being shunted around arsenals over many decades until being sold as surplus.

So "unissued" in the sense of never leaving the arsenal, but they did, of course, leave the factory, which otherwise would have not received payment from the accepting agencies!

Mediating between RC20 and Warpig, I offer the following thoughts for discussion:

- The M1917 was a mass-production item, produced in 3 factories simultaneously.
- In November 1918 the production was reaching its end.
- So there was no need for anyone to preserve a "sample" at the factory.
- 11-18 marked rifles probably did not actually reach army arsenals until the war was over.
- As a result, they were in some (many???) cases never issued to a fighting unit, but remained in store for decades.
- Most (just about all???) will have been "dinged" by being shunted around on pallets etc.
- With a rifle in perfect internal condition, such as my Eddy, it is tempting to "improve" the exterior to match the pristine interior.
- Especially when there are plenty of people with plenty of money to pay an enormous premium for a factor that is irrelevant for shooting.

So for end-of-war production I conclude:
- "Unissued" in the sense of never left the factory - extremely unlikely.
- "Unissued" in the sense of never reached an soldier on active service - quite possible for types viewed as non-standard for future requirements.
- "Unissued" in the sense of "perfect exterior condition with no handling/transport marks - very, very unlikely.


Readers will note my avoidance of absolute words such as "always" or "impossible", despite the temptation!

Any thoughts on this?