1903a3 vs 1917

[jcw1970]

I was wondering what the big deal is about the 1903a3? What makes it better than the 1917?

[13Echo]

The '03 and later '03A3 are trimmer, slimmer rifles with a slick working action that cocks on opening. The M1917 is, in comparison a rather clunky rifle with awkward lines and it cocks on closing. The sights on the M17 are better than the '03 but not as good as the '03A3. Finally and perhaps more importantly the '03 is more popular because it is THE American bolt action rifle. The rifles, otherwise, are both excellent military weapons with little to chose between them as a combat arm.

Jerry Liles

[roverboy]

Well said 13Echo. I kinda like the '03A3 better. Theres nothing really wrong with a 1917. I will admit I personally like cock on opening actions better. I love Mauser 98 style actions. I have 2 of them. I also own a 1916 Spanish(93action). Its cocks on closing. Bottom line, if you like something that's great.

[wiljen]

1917s are great donor actions for heavy calibers. That is one area where the 17 excels and the 03 cannot keep pace. The 17 is hell for stout and easily can handle anything you can fit in it. A-square used 1917s to make many a heavy stopper rifle before they started making their own actions.

[Uncle Grinch]

If I remember correctly the '17 Enfield was a retooled (by Remington) Pattern 14 Enfield rifle (303) that we made for England during the early days of WWI.

It was later modified and formed the basis of the Remington Model 30 commercial bolt action rifle.

This action also was used commercially by another arms manufacturer for their proprietary cartridges because of it's long action size. The name escapes me now. Maybe it'll come to me later.


.... Hannibel comes to my mind for some reason.

[Jim]

I had an '03 one time and kick myself regularly for letting it go. However(comma) I have a '17 right now and am very happy with it.

[Uncle Grinch]

1917s are great donor actions for heavy calibers. That is one area where the 17 excels and the 03 cannot keep pace. The 17 is hell for stout and easily can handle anything you can fit in it. A-square used 1917s to make many a heavy stopper rifle before they started making their own actions.

That's it... you and I were on the same thought there Wiljen.

[jcw1970]

Looking around my gun papers from my grandfathers and found the receipt from 1958 when you could still buy a gun through the NRA. 1903A3 $22.50 + 4.50 Shipping. When my grandfather passed, we had to split up all the guns between me and my cousin. Guess who got the 1903A3? Think he would sell it to me for $27?

[Multigunner]

The 03a3 benefitted from advances in metalurgy, making it much stronger than previous 03 actions, fully as strong as the M1917.
The 03a3 seldom had a top quality barrel due to wartime shortcuts, which gave a M1917 with good bore a bit of an edge.

Most 03a3 rifles had the mud fugly "scant grip" stock, servicable but inelegant, and the first thing to go when sporterizing. The type C grip stock is very nice.
Stamped floorplates where another comestic factor, servicable but cheap looking, because they were cheap.

By the time the 03a3 was manufactured the only new condition M1917 rifles around were those that had been in storage for a generation, over production from WW1.

Some M1917 action suffered microscopic cracks during manufacture when a pnuematic mechanism was used to crank on the barrels, no problem when left in original trim, but could present problems in rebarreling especially to magnum chamberings.

For most shooters the bolt knob of the 17 is too far back, and cracks the knuckle of the trigger finger in recoil.
Its size was a problem to shorter soldiers, the Chinese cut many down to a 22 inch barrel and set back the front sight and bayonet lug, for use by shorter troops.
The British also experimented with a similar shortened P-14.

[Three44s]

I like the stoutness of the action on my '17.

And the cock on closing is also growing on me.

Three 44s

[NickSS]

I have owned a bunch of 03s and 03A3s and have one now. I have also owned 1914 and 1917 enfields both full military and sporter versions. The are all good solid rifles that shoot well if you can see the sights. I started high power match shooting with a Smith Carona 03A3 with a scant stock and a 2 groove barrel. That rifle would shoot less than 2 moa all the way out to 1000 yards for a 10 shot group and it was a stock military rifle. I have also owned two brand new condition 03s that were made for the 1928 national matches. They shot well but I never could get the accuracy with the 03 sights like I could with the 03A3 sights. The 1917 sights were superior to either of the 03 sights as far as being useful to the military They are not as good as the 03A3 sight is for target shooting. After I shot out the barrel on my 03A3 rifle I used for match shooting I hade it rebuilt into a match rifle with a timney trigger and a heavy weight match grade barrel and a custom stock. I wore out three other barrels with that rifle until I sold it and got a Model 70 match rifle. I wore out six barrels on that rifle and finally sold it some 10 years after I quit shooting high power due to vision and having nowhere to go but down in scores.

[Multigunner]

I have owned a bunch of 03s and 03A3s and have one now. I have also owned 1914 and 1917 enfields both full military and sporter versions. The are all good solid rifles that shoot well if you can see the sights. I started high power match shooting with a Smith Carona 03A3 with a scant stock and a 2 groove barrel. That rifle would shoot less than 2 moa all the way out to 1000 yards for a 10 shot group and it was a stock military rifle.

According to Farrow's Manual of Military Training the acceptance standard for both the 03 and M1917 with new barrel was about two MOA. They sighted in on a cross with bands either four inches wide at two hundred yards or two inches wide at one hundred yards. Four of five shots had to stay in the center. This allowed for flyers due to ammo quality. The rifles were probably capable of better, this was the standard preliminary sighting in procedure before being issued.

I have also owned two brand new condition 03s that were made for the 1928 national matches. They shot well but I never could get the accuracy with the 03 sights like I could with the 03A3 sights. The 1917 sights were superior to either of the 03 sights as far as being useful to the military They are not as good as the 03A3 sight is for target shooting. After I shot out the barrel on my 03A3 rifle I used for match shooting I hade it rebuilt into a match rifle with a timney trigger and a heavy weight match grade barrel and a custom stock. I wore out three other barrels with that rifle until I sold it and got a Model 70 match rifle. I wore out six barrels on that rifle and finally sold it some 10 years after I quit shooting high power due to vision and having nowhere to go but down in scores.

The original 03 sights don't have a good rep, the Marines altered their battle sight blade for close in work.
A few fine adjustable rear sights were made for both the M1917 and P-14. The Winchester manufacture P-14 with fine adjustable sight was considered better than a scoped SMLE as a sniper rifle.
The M1917 target sights were result of attempts by some US ordnance officers to have the M1917 replace the 03 as our standard rifle after WW1. They wanted to use the rifle in post WW1 competition to prove its worth.The 17 peep sight is probably why the a3 got a receiver mounted peep.

A few US officers have given good reasons why an open sight would be better for closer range combat, its certainly better in low light or cloudy days unless opened to a ghost ring.
I reamed one leg of the L sight of my no.4 and threaded it for a small apeture insert. When light is low I remove the insert for better view.
When I modded this rifle's receiver with a scope base of my own design I left a single leg of the L sight as a fold down back up sight to use when I remove the scope for low light deep woods use. Its good to 300 yards, I just adjust for range by holding the front blade either at the center of the peep with center hold for 300 or below center with six o'clock hold for closer ranges.

I know how you feel about eye sight. I suffered a serious eye injury and quit shooting for many years. My vision has improved remarkably in recent years, thats why I got back into shooting. Now days I don't bother with a scope at anything less than 300 yards.
I also got a PH5A apeture sight for my old SMLE. Haven't mounted it yet though.
It has six dial in apetures and a sunshade for varying light conditions.

[WineMan]

I like my M1917, and it is very accurate, but as far as new ground or even evolutionary improvements there is nothing that it has as battle rifle over the LE Mk1's it was to replace. Against the Mk 4 there is even less to recommend it.

I have always found it interesting that the British would have Mauser envy and in some respects take a step backwards in the design of the P13/14. Blame it on Bisley?

Yes a new smaller caliber higher velocity rimless cartridge was in the works but the MkVIIZ .303 ball erased most of its potential superiority. They went from 10 rounds to five (although the M1917 holds six 30-06). Of bolt guns only the Swiss 1889 had more capacity at 12 and both the SMLE and SR 1889 had detachable magazines. Sure it was a stronger action but still cocked on closing. Sights are better as they became aperture and receiver mounted but no easy windage adjustment was provided. One piece stock against a two piece, still no quantum leap; there are Mk4 sniper rifles in 7.62 NATO that have just been retired from service so a one piece stock can not have been a great improvement. It was no lighter, shorter or more easily maintained. And it was no better in the looks department, if anything it is worse.

The 1903A3 and the SMLE Mk4 were evolutionary improvements on their predecessors, the M1 Garand was revolutionary as was the concept of smaller rifles with less powerful cartridges (Stg 44, SKS, AK, AR etc).

Wineman

[dk17hmr]

I prefer cocking on open much more than cocking on close. I have a 1903 and my dad has a 1917, they are both very accurate but Ill take my 1903 over that 1917 any day of the week, because of my first sentence.

[omgb]

I have both a P17 and an 03A3. The 03A3 is slimmer and sexier but the P17 is built like a Russian farm girl. The P17 is the more accurate of the two but both have the two groove barrel. The P17 sights are sturdier but windage adjustment is pretty rough. I don't have an issue with the bolt handle but, the P17 can bang my nose if I'm not careful with my hand placment. I'm interested in selling the 03A3 but i don't have a particular price in mind.

[Multigunner]

I like my M1917, and it is very accurate, but as far as new ground or even evolutionary improvements there is nothing that it has as battle rifle over the LE Mk1's it was to replace. Against the Mk 4 there is even less to recommend it.

I have always found it interesting that the British would have Mauser envy and in some respects take a step backwards in the design of the P13/14. Blame it on Bisley?

Yes a new smaller caliber higher velocity rimless cartridge was in the works but the MkVIIZ .303 ball erased most of its potential superiority. They went from 10 rounds to five (although the M1917 holds six 30-06). Of bolt guns only the Swiss 1889 had more capacity at 12 and both the SMLE and SR 1889 had detachable magazines. Sure it was a stronger action but still cocked on closing. Sights are better as they became aperture and receiver mounted but no easy windage adjustment was provided. One piece stock against a two piece, still no quantum leap; there are Mk4 sniper rifles in 7.62 NATO that have just been retired from service so a one piece stock can not have been a great improvement. It was no lighter, shorter or more easily maintained. And it was no better in the looks department, if anything it is worse.

The 1903A3 and the SMLE Mk4 were evolutionary improvements on their predecessors, the M1 Garand was revolutionary as was the concept of smaller rifles with less powerful cartridges (Stg 44, SKS, AK, AR etc).

Wineman

Good points, but there was reason at the time to look for a better cartridge than the .303. Early in WW1 the British found that the .303 MkVII bullet was the least effective of any military ball at the time against both the armored loop hole plates of trenches and the primitive body armor and sniper shields in use by the Germans. They had to use sporting rifles of heavy caliber to make up the difference till proper AP ammo became available, and some P13 rifles are said to have been used as well the .280 despite its drawbacks having great penetration power at long range.
According the Hesketh Pritchart , the major authority on WW1 sniping the two piece stock of the SMLE caused loss of accuracy after a couple of months of exposure to the conditions of the trenches. The L42 rifles worked fine in most evironments but had troubles of their own in wet weather despite the free floating heavy barrel and usually were restricted to the 144 grain projectiles, its a decent sniper rifle but limited in its choice of ammunition. The L8 apparently was even more ammo sensitive and displayed shifting zero with bullets of 155 grain.
Metro Politan police had been renting Army Sniper rifles but found that the L42 rifles they received were seriously degraded and many were condemened as unsafe to fire. They then contracted to have the Enforcer rifles purpose built. Only the best of No.4 receivers , selected and re proofed, can hold up to much use with 7.62 NATO without damage, and many long range 7.62 loads are too hot for it. According to Martin Peglers books on Snipers the L42 rifles began to show problems around the time of the Falklands campaign, which led to replacement.

As for the "blame it on Bisley" you can also credit Bisley with every improvement in the Lee Enfields and their .303 ammunition.

Before machineguns became commonplace in modern armies effective long range rifle fire was the queen of battle, so naturally every country wanted the most powerful rifle a soldier could carry and shoot accurately. A bolt action rifle with the limited range of a 7.62X39 would have been of little use at the ranges involved in WW1 except in close quarters after a direct infantry assault was pressed home.
The 5.56 and 7.62X39 using a lead core would have been nearly worthless against armored loopholes or the german steel assault vests or MG gunners armor at the ranges involved, usually over 400 yards, and of no use at all for long range indirect fire. Steel cores have improved penetration, but remaining energy after penetrating even light cover at more than spitting distance is slight in comparasion.

To make hits on individuals by individual marksmen a flattened trajectory and high velocity with a heavy enough bullet was called for.
I've heard of Chinese human wave attacks being defeated by our troops armed with the Garand and opening fire at 800+ yards, far beyond the range of the SKS and SMGs the Chinese relied on to give them the edge. The Chinese cut to ribbons before they could return fire effectively.

In the Musketry of 1915 book a captured German Officer is quoted as saying that though the Mauser had greater range than the Enfield pre WW1 training of German troops dictated holding fire until they closed to 300 yards, by which time the British troops who'd been trained to open fire at extreme range had already cut his troops down in droves. It was a matter of training rather than effectiveness of the rifles that made the difference.
In WW2 US Infantrymen were told to forget earlier training on only firing at targets they could see clearly and were sure to hit, instead they were told to lay in as much fire as possible on where the enemy might be even at great range. This tactic resulted in the Germans being driven from cover or killed before they could spring a trap relying on their LMGs to overwhelm infantry return fire.

Without selective fire the assault rifle type cartridges are at a severe disadvantage to the main battle cartridge. Even more so in the days before autoloading infantry rifles were perfected.

Also despite recent claims by some collectors there were many recorded instances of the Lee Enfield rifle actions failing while using only fresh military spec ammo even on rifle ranges under ideal conditions.
The action was adequate under normal circumstances but did not have the margin of safety of the front locking designs.

Any of the Mauser type actions could be fitted with an extended magazine, it was a feature some thought useful and others did not.
Without spare magazines the detachable box mag was only useful in allowing replacement of a damaged or mud filled mag, they still loaded by chargers five rounds at a time. This allowed a five round reserve which was a very useful feature, but the reloading times during periods of extended firing remained basically the same.
From Musketry again we find that troops were discouraged from keeping more than five rounds in the magazine until ready to go over the top. More than five left in for extended periods could weaken the spring.

Anyway the point is that these were weapons designed for entirely different tactics dictated by the times and level of technology. They were Pre War designs and did not reflect lessons learned during that war.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

I like them both but the Springfield is a better shooter of cast boolits. Mine is fitted with a new 4 groove surplus barrel and shoots 210gn 311294 boolits very accurately;

[NuJudge]

The 1903A3 rear sight is a little more crude than the 1917, but it is windage adjustable. The 1917 front sight can be adjusted for windage, but the front sights were heavily staked after sighting in at the factory. There is a very expensive aftermarket 1917 front sight adjuster available, and I have one.

Right after WW I, the 1917 was used as the designated National Match Service Rifle. Tables were worked up to show how much Kentucky Windage had to be used for a given distance and wind condition. The reaction of the participants was overwhelmingly negative, so despite the US having more 1917 rifles at the end of WW I, the US kept the 1903 as the Service Rifle.

The 1903 rear sight is capable of shooting as good a score for me as the 1903A3 and the 1917, but windage and elevation changes with the 1903 require thought and a special micrometer for elevation. My biggest problem with the 1917 is that it makes my face hurt.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

Notice two of my Enfields are fitted with Parker Hale 5B range sights. These are micro adjustable 1/4min clicks

[Shiloh]

If I remember correctly the '17 Enfield was a retooled (by Remington) Pattern 14 Enfield rifle (303) that we made for England during the early days of WWI.

They were already tooled up and making them for the British in .303. It was much easier and cost effective to convert to .30-06 than re-tool for making '03's

SHiloh