M1917 vs M1903

The M1903 had better sights for match use, especially when you add in a micrometer, and it also proabably didn't hurt that it was easier to fit with a receiver sight along the lines of the Lyman 48.

The cock on opening action was considered easier to use for slow fire marksmanship compared to the cock on close Enfield action.

Probably also didn't hurt that the M1903 was the issued rifle. If the military uses it, people will often follow suit.

That's as much as I know anyway.

Tagging in for interest. This sounds like it could turn into a fascinating read.

The 1903 became the main match rifle because it was the main service rifle at the time. It was just the tradition. The Krag was used as the match rifle until the M1903 took over about 1909. It was the same story when later the M1 Garand, M14, and M16 all became competition rifles. It was just because they were the current service rifle at the time.

The other fact you have to understand is the M1917 was never meant to be anything but a bandaid. It was never meant to replace the M1903. Everyone knew before, during, and after WWI that the M1903 would always be the main service rifle. The M1917 was just a temporary fix because of the shortage of M1903's duing WWI.

We didn't plan to get involved in WWI, so we were not prepared for it. So when we got sucked in, we had a shortage of M1903 rifles. RIA and SA did not have the capabilities to produce the M1903 in the numbers needed for the expanding Army. Ordnance tried to see if the commercial manufacturers could make the M1903 to supplement the Govt Armories, but the time needed to set up production on producing M1903's would have taken too long. But three US companies were already been set up to produce the 1914 Enfield rifle for our allies overseas. So Ordnance realized really quick it would take too long to make M1903's but these companies were already set up to make the Enfield rifle. All they had to do was convert the Enfield rifle to 30 CAL and they could produce large numbers of rifles really fast. So that is why the M1917 came into existence.

But before the M1917's even started production, it was known by everyone involved the M1917 was only for the duration of the war and then they would be done. So from the beginning everyone knew it would not last.

After WWI, the rifles were mostly put into long term storage for war reserves for a future war. A lot were also sold really cheap on the surplus market too. For instance a M1903 after WWI usually ran $50 to $60. But I've seen M1917's as cheap as $8 or $15. So some M1917's did end up being used in some in matches, but the M1903 was just seen as the cadillac of the day.

The M1917 was always favorably viewed by most who used it. The only negative thing you see on them over and over is the lack of adjustment of windage on the rear sight. You could adjust it with the front sight, but that was frowned upon. Several companies did make after market sights for them that had adjustable windage, and they really improved the shootability of the rifles.

The M1917 was a great rifle, but it was always sort of seen as a red head step child because even though made in America, it was always seen as a British rifle.

So everyone you see back then just called it the "Enfield" rifle. So it was just seen as something foreign.

Maybe a good analogy is how I look at foreign cars. I've been told Hondas are great cars and some models are more American than some of the cars made by Chevy or Ford, but I would never buy one. It's the same thing you see about the M1917 back in the day.

They were just always seen as a foreign rifle and the M1903 was seen as American.

The Eddeystone two grove barrels, clunky appearance did not help its popularity.

The stock on the P17 sucked. The C stock on the 03 match rifles was much better. Even with a cock on opening conversion the P17 action was clunky and not nearly as smooth as an 03 action. I built a hunting rifle on a Winchester P17 action in .308 Norma, with the cock on open conversion, custom stock and lots of polishing inside I still prefer the 03 action. I have a Remington 30 Express which is a commercial version of the P17 and it’s an okay rifle to hunt with but nothing special.

Before the days of mass media saturation most shooters got their information from the American Rifleman. The Springfield was raved upon monthly and the P17 was seldom mentioned in a positive light. AR at the time was very influential for most hunters and shooters.

Forgot to mention the cock on closing of the p17 was never popular though it could be changed. The extractor was weak. That rear sight and metal around it. It was just never seen as better than much of anything.

I think either was accurate enough for the iron sights. The P17 stock was not conducive to good accuracy.
Springfield trigger was better in the examples I shot.

Forgetful Coyote said:

Probably helped that the ‘03 was readily available in National Match configuration, not to mention 1903 “T” match rifles(ain’t that what they’re called @cplnorton ?)

Click to expand...

The name on them sort of changed over the years. You are absolutely correct that they used the T name. They also at times called them an international match, a Free High Pressure rifle, a nickname of the "Free" rifles, and even just the standard heavy barrel M1903. There were a couple other names in there as well.

They did the same thing on the National match's. That name evolved over time as well. Early on it was just a specially selected star-gauged M1903, then it became a M1903 made specifically for the National Matches, then it just got shortened to the National Match.

It sort of just depends on which era it's from. But no you are correct.

Forgetful Coyote said:

For those who’ve owned/shot both:
Would you say the ‘03 is a more inherently accurate rifle on average than the 17(with both in standard USGI configuration)?

Click to expand...

I've owned and fired both. The 1903 has better target sights. The 1917 is a bit clunkier for shooting offhand. I'd pick the 1903 for target shooting and the 1917 for fighting.

As far as windage adjustment goes, I centered the front sight in the dovetail, then removed material from the side of the rear sight where the pin that attaches the sight to the sight base passes through. I cut some spring stock to shim the rear sight once I had the windage zeroed for my match loads. Enfield front sights in varying heights are available for zeroing elevation.

The 1917 was a good shooter, but I posted higher offhand and slow fire scores with the 1903 Springfield.

I like both but for different reasons.

More 1917 Enfields where produced during the WW1 time frame than 03's. So more Enfields seen service in US troops hands than 03's. Yes the Enfield was a stop gap measure to supplement demand for WW1 rifles for our troops and Springfield and Rock Island couldn't produce the 03 fast enough. Remington in NY, the Remington Eddystone plant and Winchester all produced 1917 rifles. Originally for England as the Pattern 1914 in 303 Brit.

In the grand scheme of things... neither rifle is more accurate than the other. If you had to get nit picky... a 1903NM purpose built rifle (which would've had a star gauged barrel on it and the stock fitting got more attention to it as well along with a tuned trigger if I recall correctly... than the 1903 but I'm talking standard service issue made rifles... neither is more accurate. I've rebuilt 1917's with the original barrels on them and scoped them or shot them with iron sights and bedded the stocks. It would surprise you if you have one with a bore in good condition how accurate they are. I picked up a sporterized 1917 Remington for my brothers wife who wanted to get him a gun as a Christmas present for hunting as he only had a lever 30-30 and only had $200 to spend. So I bought one off of GB (this was about 10+ years ago). Yep for $200 including shipping. Crown wasn't the greatest so I touched up the crown on the shortened 22" barrel, bedded the stock because it was cracked, the receiver was already d&t for a scope base and I thru a old straight 4x scope I had laying around on the rifle. Think it was a old Bushnell I had laying in my box off extra stuff. That gun with box ammo shot consistent 3/4moa groups. Being as I know how much of a butt head my older brother is.... I honestly didn't feel he deserved the rifle. I should've kept it for myself and went and found another. Anyways I got it to his wife... she surprised him with it for a Christmas gift and he blew a gasket because she spent $200. Never got a thanks for all the work I did to it for her to give it to him...yep should've kept it for myself. LOL! Anyways....

Standard issued service spec rifles both had straight grip stocks. The later type C stock I agree is more comfortable for overall shooting.

The 2 groove barrels seen on 1917's are replacement barrels during a rebuild process. All standard/original 1917's should have a conventional 5 groove rifled barrel with a left hand twist rifling. If you would shoot both side by side... the guns will torque differently.

All 1903 barrels would be 4 groove right hand twist. Both guns are 1-10 twist barrels. It wasn't until the 1903A3 rifles did the Springfield's get 2 groove barrels or if a earlier gun went thru a rebuild process it might have had a 2 groove installed. All 2 groove barrels where cut rifled. Broach or button where not allowed on 2 groove barrels. All 1917's and 03's had cut rifled barrels.

Both receivers have a square thread 10tpi. The 1917 receivers have a 1.125" major diameter thread. 03's have a smaller major diameter thread about a .100" smaller. Does it effect anything accuracy wise? Nah.

1917's and early Remington 30 Express rifles are cock on closing when you rack the bolt. Later 30 Express rifles where done at Remington to cock on opening. Is one system better than the other? I'll say no. In terms of speed to manipulate the bolt... I'll say no. It's what your use to.

Here is a pic of my Rem. 30 Express that I've been working on a rebuild with a custom stock. This is a factory cock on opening gun. After putting a new barrel on it in 30-06 (22" finish length) I sent the barreled action out and had it re rust blued which is period correct for the gun. Not hot blued.




Ever seen a guy run the mad minute drill? Look up some videos on it. I think the record set with a Lee Enfield which is cock on closing... was just shy of 40 hits on target at 300 yards in one minute. Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not... that's frickin cruising with Enfield bolt gun. The average rifleman was in order to get his marksman badge... was suppose to get 15 rounds off in one minute and all rounds score on the target at 300 yards. Think it was a man size target. I've seen guys at hi power matches get around 15-20 rounds fired in 70 seconds prone with a Winchester Match rifle and doesn't matter how you cut it... that's running a bolt gun lightning fast.

Later, Frank

The stock and butt of the M1917 punishes me a lot less than the M1903, especially prone. I don't know what it is about the m1903 but it's brutal. Mausers, K31's, M1917's, M1's, etc.. all are fine, if not pleasurable to shoot, but the M1903 is just a bastard to my shoulder.

I really like the M1917, and for "practical application" the sights are fine, if not better than the M1903. Not having windage adjustment is a little bit of a downer but the aperture size and location is solid. I believe the front blade is a little thinner, too. However, for pure high contrast target shooting, the M1903 sights are better. Other than full-up diopter sight setups the best iron sight groups I've shot were with M1903's.

That is an interesting point, Frank, with the left hand twist. Unfortunately I sold off my US collection to buy German and Swiss stuff but it'd be a really interesting side by side test of LH and RH twists.

I've always wondered why the '03 seems to have been so much more popular for use as a match rifle than the 1917(during their heyday: 1910's - 1950's or thereabouts

Click to expand...

I think the answer to the question is simple:
M1917s rear sight lacked windage adjustments.
M1903s rear sight had windage adjustments.

If you want to actually win rifle matches with 10-ring scores, you need to be able to make precise windage adjustments - in real time - to accommodate changes in wind deflection. It’s really that simple. (The National Matches at Camp Perry can get windy too…)

(PS: the M1917 has a 26” barrel and a somewhat longer sight picture than a M1903 w/ its 24” barrel, so at least theoretically the M1917 would have some advantages in the accuracy department. However, in reality the complete lack of any precise windage adjustment w/ the rear sight seriously outweighs those other advantages and really negated its usefulness as a match rifle when compared to the M1903.)

I still like my M1917, but not as a match rifle.


(Years ago I had the chance to buy a Winchester M1917 with the rare prototype adjustable rear sight that I think was developed around 1918-19, but it got away….still have regrets not getting that rifle and its unique adjustable rear sight).

As for British rifle competitions, the commercial Parker Hale 5B match rear sight could turn an P-14 into a viable match rifle back in the day…

M1917 is arguably the best bolt gun the U.S. ever issued en masse. Much better battle sight zero, better sights, higher capacity, better bolt throw and more ergonomic and controllable. The only thing the Springfield does better IMO is in its length. It is a handier rifle. Both are excellent rifles though. I wouldnt have felt under gunned with either in their heyday.