This particular rifle was made by Remington at their Eddystone. Breech is marked U.S. / MODEL OF 1917 / EDDYSTONE over serial number 925693.

Thanks Guys, that's interesting, I presume the barrel will have a serial number on it, under the woodwork maybe? Thinking back I looked at an M1 carbine a while ago and the only serial number was on the receiver, so I guess the Americans aren't quite as thorough as the Brits. That's an a good point about manufacturer marks on the receiver, some of these guns I have come across seem to have mismatching parts, although I guess this is no surprise if they had a long service life and as it looks like the parts are interchangeable across the 3 makers.

I will check the links out. The serialed bolts were never done by US forces, if your gun has one it was done WW2 era or later, by a country that got lend lease guns. Parts interchangability between the three makers was a huge deal and major delay, but they eventually got it right. For more reading, I would suggest C S Ferris, US Rifle, Model of 1917, which is cheap, available, and very comprehensive. For a grander picture Allied Rifle Contracts by Luke Mercaldo details all Great War era rifle contracts in the US for Europe, and is to my mind one of the best books I have read on the subject. Both books are readily available, and unlike many, extraordinarily reasonable in price.

Thanks 4th Gordons, these rifles don't seem to have been as well documented as SMLE'S and not that many people know about them. I guess in Britain certainly the SMLE played a bigger part, and I suppose the m1917's were also useful in ww2 with the Home Guard (Although that is going off on a tangent) and as this is a WW1 forum. In the UK, the M1917 played NO part in the Great War at all. They were only used by the UK in WWII. The Stratton book on the P14/M1917. Although a little dated, is a very good start on that group of rifles. Jimmy I hope the following satisfies your curiousity.

No serial numbers anywhere except the receiver ring. As mentioned above, eagle stamps on small parts. All parts marked with R E or W.

Usually a mix, after all these years. Barrels marked with month-year date, and manufacturer letter. HS or JA with no date is WW2 replacement.

All this and more, including serial data can be found in the books I reccommended. They are excellent rifles, and a pleasure to shoot, but the complicated story behind their existence makes them even more appealing, and summaries do not do justice to the details. I actually recently lent my copy of Ferris to a coworker who picked up a 1917. Here are an extra 3000 words. The M1917 was produced in far larger numbers than the M1903 Springfield (during the Great War) and armed a larger number of the AEF by most accounts. They were indeed used for the whole period in which the AEF was in action.

Kazahskij driver dlya windows 7 64. On the WWII use, you should note that Britain also purchased a large number of M1917s prior to the the existence of the lend-lease program (so they were not all lend-lease by any means). As noted above the M1917 is interesting in lots of ways - and arguably it was one of the very few (I might argue ONLY) twentieth century designed rifle used in the war.

Most of the other rifles date to the late 19th. The 1903 Springfield and the 1907 SMLE MkIII but the development of these started earlier.

The P13/P14/M1917 was modern in a number of ways (the proposed calibre of the P13, the design that made mass production easier (certainly than the 1903 Springfield), the incorporation of a peep ('ring') battle sight zeroed at 300yds.all very modern in many respects. I must admit - not being large of stature I prefer the SMLE in terms of balance and handiness, but the P14/M1917 design was certainly a reliable, accurate rifle. I must admit - not being large of stature I prefer the SMLE in terms of balance and handiness, but the P14/M1917 design was certainly a reliable, accurate rifle. Chris Amusingly, I am on the exact opposite side of the coin. I love my Enfields for what they are, but at 6' 3', with even longer arms, the 1917 just fits better. The interesting thing is how both countries treated the 14/17 in the post war era, deciding to remain with the familiar (and as Chris pointed out, arguably more obsolescent) old standards, and relegating both variants to colonial, territorial and reserve uses.

In my opinion, they made the wrong choice for an overwhelming number of right reasons. Amusingly, I am on the exact opposite side of the coin. I love my Enfields for what they are, but at 6' 3', with even longer arms, the 1917 just fits better. The interesting thing is how both countries treated the 14/17 in the post war era, deciding to remain with the familiar (and as Chris pointed out, arguably more obsolescent) old standards, and relegating both variants to colonial, territorial and reserve uses. In my opinion, they made the wrong choice for an overwhelming number of right reasons. By the mid 30s the UK was developing the No4 rifle which, although based on the Enfield action (which of course had proven remarkably efficient, safe and strong) and the intermediate length (again clearly an advantage) but also incorporated several features that were in common with the P14 - the receiver mounted ladder rear sight and battle peep sight, heavier barrel and other modifications which assisted in mass production.