New Winchester 1917- Jewel or Turd?

[gtxc01]

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

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Calif-Steve]

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

[gtxc01]

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.

[Salt Flat]

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

[Patrick Chadwick]

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.

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

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

[Patrick Chadwick]

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.

[gtxc01]

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).

[Patrick Chadwick]

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!

[gtxc01]

[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.

[gtxc01]

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.....