Talk:M1917 Enfield

message: Need to do more work on this article but am time constrained right now.--TGC55 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The American colonial army, known as the Philippine Army, used the Enfield at the beginning of the Pacific War.  According to Philippine historian Ricardo Jose, colonial troops experienced weak extractors which tended to break.  Also, there was an attempt to use Philippine wood to manufacture replacement stocks for the Enfield.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.38.253 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enfield in colonial service 

message: The maximum range on this rifle should be fixed. The article claims over 5km range which is simply ridiculous, seeing as the longest range shot ever is 1.4km less than the claimed range, and was accomplished with far superior equipment.  The rifle never had any sights attached that would allow it to achieve such a range, and could only potentially hit a target at that range when used as part of a squad volley fire with no wind or other adverse conditions. Thus, this range is not a capability of the rifle, but of a bunch of rifles used together.
You can clearly see the range in the reference (page 31-33) is not for the rifle, but for the cartridge.  This claim of range should be moved to the .30-06 Springfield article and not be linked to a rifle that clearly couldn't make a shot at that range.
--142.167.27.183 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The maximum "Sight Range" is 1600 yards. The maximum range at a bore angle of about 45 degrees is ~5 km. -- hmaag (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum Range

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M1917 Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510182850/http://nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/america-ascending/case-57-world-war-i-allies-the-world-at-war%2C-1914-1918/us-winchester-model-1917-bolt-action-rifle.aspx to http://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/america-ascending/case-57-world-war-i-allies-the-world-at-war%2C-1914-1918/us-winchester-model-1917-bolt-action-rifle.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055456/http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html to http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on M1917 Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127225820/http://sgtyork.org/sgtyorkdiary.html to http://www.sgtyork.org/sgtyorkdiary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229070420/http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl19-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl19-e.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512200615/http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Bolt%20Action%20Rifles/U.S.%20MODEL%201917%20RIFLE/U.S.htm to http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Bolt%20Action%20Rifles/U.S.%20MODEL%201917%20RIFLE/U.S.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have a M 1917 rifle serial number 0606, was wondering where it was manufactured and approximate date.
64.246.109.253 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  M 1917 rifle 

message: This part of the article is particularly poorly written. As a "contemporary use" is obviously time dependent, a date should be specified for any such entry, as in "as of XXXX". A citation for such is also desirable, at the least, and worst of all,  there isn't even a country or service branch specified for "ceremonial and drill use".
I am not a small arms historian and don't have a particular interest in digging in on that, or would fill in those details, so that makes me just another critic, my apologies for that!Cykid (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  contemporary use