M1917 rifles at Pearl Harbor?

[Famas]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this. A few friends of mine and myself were discussing Pearl Harbor defenses at the time of the 1941 attack, and the question of m1917 rifles came up. We're uncertain if they were present. I had read somewhere that the US army, prior to 1941, had released a plan to reorganize rifle distribution with the introduction of the M-1 Garand, and part of this plan was to issue m1903s and Garands (where ever possible) to only infantry units and relegate the m1917s to artillery units until the Garand was in sufficient numbers to issue to them as well. I'm uncertain if this applied to units in Hawaii.

Can anyone confirm or deny if there were any units in Pearl Harbor with m1917 rifles? Thanks.

 

[Rob228]

I recall a few stories about having M-1's but only having the stripper clips for 03's so they were firing single shot at the attacking airplanes.

 

[tahunua001]

I believe that by 1941 1917s were largely done away with. they were a stopgap gun issued to national guard units and sent overseas to resistance movements, homefront security, and the like.

 

[10-96]

There were photos at the 25th Inf Div (L) Museum (and one at the Ft. Shafter Provost Marshall's Office) that showed a few 1917's in guy's hands during the time of the attack. I don't recall any unit designation attributed to them- so they could have been Infantry, Artillery, Cooks, Mechanics, Clerks- or even National Guardsmen with different jobs.

 

[SaxonPig]

1917s were surrendered at Manila. Marines and USA used them alongside 1903s well into 1942. I have absolutely no doubt there were some at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.

BTW- Here's a photo I took of a hangar at Wheeler (?) airfield with bullet holes from the 12/7/41 attack still present and visible.

 

[Paul B.]

I believe 1917's were still in use after 1943 as I have an Eddystone someone made into a sporter. It had to have been rebarreled in 1943 at the earliest as the barrel is a 26" two groove type as made by Remington for the 1903A3 Springfield. I'm thinking this one was probably used for some kind of guard duty prior to being converted into a sporter. The flaming bomb 43 stamp is all I can find on the rifle. Bore is in bad shape due to corrosion so one of these days I'll send it out to be rebored to .35 Whelen.
Paul B.

 

[gyvel]

I believe 1917's were still in use after 1943 as I have an Eddystone someone made into a sporter. It had to have been rebarreled in 1943 at the earliest as the barrel is a 26" two groove type as made by Remington for the 1903A3 Springfield.

Is it a "JA" (Johnson Automatics) marked barrel? I think they were the ones who made two groove 1917 barrels.

 

[Mobuck]

Dad was drafted in 1943 and training was done with 1917's. They still had some issued when he entered combat as a replacement with the Arkansas National Guard (artillery unit). There were at least some still on the front lines at the Anzio beachhead.
He had a nasty scar on his left palm(he was predominately left handed) from reaching over the "ear" of the rear sight to work the bolt. Apparently, that rifle had taken to pretty good lick leaving a burr on the sight ear. The only thing good he had to say about the 1917 was that it was more accurate(at longer ranges) than a 98 Mauser.

 

[kraigwy]

He had a nasty scar on his left palm(he was predominately left handed) from reaching over the "ear" of the rear sight to work the bolt. Apparently, that rifle had taken to pretty good lick leaving a burr on the sight ear. The only thing good he had to say about the 1917 was that it was more accurate(at longer ranges) than a 98 Mauser.

The M1917 sucks big time in rapid fire, I'm right handed and can't imagine how difficult it would be to shoot the M1917 left handed in rapid fire.

I agree its accurate in slow fire, deliberate fire but its a wrestling match to fire a rapid fire string.

 

[10-96]

Naw, Kraig- 1917's are fine in rapid fire... as long as the only other rifles on the line are muzzle stuffers.

 

[Tombstonejim]

Here you go. Taken from "The History of 25th Infantry Division World War II"

A book my father got after serving in the 25th for the entire war starting from Schofield barracks when the Japs attacked.

35th inf regt soldiers some where on Guadalcanal.

I can't tell if it is an 03 or 1917 looks like a 1917 to me.

 

[MoGas1341]

I know for a fact that the Marines used them at Guadalcanal in 1942, so I don't think it is at all unreasonable to presume that there were plenty of them at Pearl Harbor, same thing with the defense of Corregidor and Luzon in the Phillipines.

I would also like to point out that the Garand wasn't adopted until 1936, with production staring at the Springfield Arsenal in August of 1937. At the time, we weren't at war so they were in no hurry to crank them out at the alarming rate they did once we entered the war.

Also, we must take into account after the rifles (Garands) were manufactured, how long did it take the War Department to record them, and issue and swap them out?

To answer the OP's question, I would say as far as the Marines go, yes absolutely, mainly because their infantry units were using them for the first year and a half into the war. As far as the Army, I would say the same being that as I mentioned, the Phillipine garrison (both Army and Marine and Phillipine Nationals) used them against the Japanese invaders. My .02 cents.

 

[bumnote]

From what I read they were still being issued to (Army) troops in the rear areas as late as '44 and like you said artillery troops were still issued the rifle in North Africa. Pre-war the Marines tended to be a low priority when it came to being issued new weapons and they tended to get cast off and stop-gap weapons, the M50 Reising , and the M1941 Johnson(neither which the Army wanted), so I have no doubt the Marines still had many M1917's is service for some time. They ended up with the F4U Corsair before the Navy because the Navy couldn't figure out how to land them on carriers...at least until the Brits showed them.

Tombstonejim, looks like an '03 to me, I can't see the 'wings' on the rear sight.

 

[MoGas1341]

Tombstonejim; I would second the opinion that that is indeed a 1903 Springer in the picture (I pulled mine out of the safe for a hands on comparison while looking at your picture)

 

[10-96]

I thought it odd- yesterday I spent quite a while doing image searches of Army & Marine pics in the Pacific. I know there were cooks, clerks, and other non-combat arms folks over there- but for the life of me- all I could find in the way of bolt actions were 1903's, 1903A4's, one or two 1917's, and several hard-to-tell's. Were 1903A3's on the scarce side?

yeah, I'd call that photo a 1903 as well.

 

[MoGas1341]

Pure speculation on this one, but as I observed when on my first deployment to Iraq in early '07, most had M-16A2s but I had an A4 variant, by late '07/early '08 most of the Marines had A4s. By the time I got to Afghanistan in '09 I only saw very little (and by that scarce) A2 models. Mostly the Navy or Supply units in the Marine Corps. I would use this observation of the A2 as a comparison to the 1917...
The longer the war lasted, the less you saw of them.

 

[bamaranger]

'03

That's a Springfield in that "loudspeaker pic", no doubt.

 

[Raider2000]

Can't honestly say about the 1917's but my Grandfather was issued the 03A3 for a good portion of his time in Italy then was swapped out for the Garand in 43' I believe "don't quote me the year please it was a long time since he has been around & he rarely talked about his time there but I do remember that."

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That's a Springfield in that "loudspeaker pic", no doubt."

Yep, shape of the bolt handle is a dead giveaway, as is the lack of "ears" on the rear sight assembly.