M1903 vs M1917

[somd_mustangs]

Don't call the M1917 an Enfield!! Of the early U.S. bolt action general service rifles, the 1903A3 is hands down the best in my opinion. I've taken all three to the range. Of course, it depends on the condition of bores and muzzles, but I've found the sights in the M1903A3 to be superior. I do have a Pattern 1914 that's still in grease and that I haven't taken to the range. Like lots of things in the safes, I need to take it out and shoot it.

Hey, good to see you back!

 

[Ngrovcam]

Have ‘em both…love ‘em both.
I’m a little guy at 5’ 6”…the 03 fits and handles better down here…the Marines were loath to give up their 03’s early in WW 2…but how can you argue with the Garand?

 

[mawkie]

Cordite powder and erosion was probably the limiting factor for the .276.
And, tropical heat and cook off.
As was excessive muzzle blast and recoil.

As I remember the biggie was bore fouling (jacket and powder). The original .256 round was replaced by the .276 round due to inaccuracy issues. What surprised me was what happened after WWI. No effort to continue the work on the superior rimless .276 round. Would have made for a much better MG and rifle round.
Wish I had access to my copy of Skennerton's American Enfield. I'm certain the answer is in there. But of course it's consigned to auction along with a bunch of other books. A victim of my downsizing heading into retirement. Then again, I hadn't opened it in years, hence the move to find it a new home.

 

[mawkie]

As a .280 Ross owner I should take the time to look at specs for it and the British .276. Curious to see if they have much in common.

 

[tomcatfan]

Have ‘em both…love ‘em both.
I’m a little guy at 5’ 6”…the 03 fits and handles better down here…the Marines were loath to give up their 03’s early in WW 2…but how can you argue with the Garand?

The Garand is better than the original m1903 in every way. The improvements made to the m1903a3 closed the gap for sure. But if I had the choice, the m1903 is pretty low on my list for a combat rifle.

 

[Fushigi Ojisan]

"The Germans came to war with a hunting rifle, the Americans with a target rifle, and the British came with a battle rifle."



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

 

[Doco Overboard]

As I remember the biggie was bore fouling (jacket and powder). The original .256 round was replaced by the .276 round due to inaccuracy issues. What surprised me was what happened after WWI. No effort to continue the work on the superior rimless .276 round. Would have made for a much better MG and rifle round.
Wish I had access to my copy of Skennerton's American Enfield. I'm certain the answer is in there. But of course it's consigned to auction along with a bunch of other books. A victim of my downsizing heading into retirement. Then again, I hadn't opened it in years, hence the move to find it a new home.

I just went and looked at Reynolds and the first concern for the ammunition that was produced for the P-13 was as you stated metallic fouling due but due to pressure. Interesting enough, the ordnance board determined after a second means of munitions was developed was that the tests that were conducted concluded bore finish of all things subsequently was a significant factor and that highly polished bores were the culprit for more fouling! They had learned that metallic fouling occurred just by friction alone without the aid of combustion or other elements by firing a cartridge. By this time a lubricated steel coated bullet envelope had over come the problem with fouling in the first trials which were never finalized and then secondary problems began to emerge as was presented earlier at the time second trials that were conducted at 7 locations the last noted being the school of musketry at Hythe.
Interestingly enough, both the Japanese and Germans were using cupro nickle bullets at the same time and the latter at or equal to the velocity of the .276 cartridge. The Germans having already adopted a significantly longer leade in the design of their Mauser rifle.
Reynolds made no t mention of firing grenades with the .276 rifle however having ears to fasten a dis-charger were identified as a feature necessary for attachment on the initial design which did wind up on the pattern 14.

 

[Ngrovcam]

"The Germans came to war with a hunting rifle, the Americans with a target rifle, and the British came with a battle rifle."



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

The SMLE is a terrific weapon, with the exception of the clip and rimmed ammo.
As many here know, unless you load the rounds just right into the clips, you’re in for lots of frustration. That could portend bad things in a combat situation.

Still, its weight, balance, operation, and 10-round capacity are all winning factors.
I enjoy mine (a 1917 Enfield) a great deal.

You don’t see that clip issue in the ‘03/‘17 family…thanks to the 30-06 round [Insert genuflection here. Ed.]. Nor do we see that with Garands.

 

[Doco Overboard]

When a SMLe mag is loaded to capacity, the bottom rear of the box is lower than the front.
It’s designed like that to prevent rim stacking.
Cartridges loaded into the charger improperly, is where the problems stem from.
Most people never charger loaded a SMLe.

 

[Threeband]

...At least these rifles got to go to war, albeit just one, unlike the Springfield 1903. When you think about it this design was pretty flexible and successful after all.

1917 rifles served in WWII, not only as Lend Lease aid to China and others, but were issued to GIs.

I've heard, can't confirm, that some American troops went ashore in North Africa carrying 1917s.

As late as 1944, my uncle was issued a 1917 rifle in the ETO. He leaned it in the corner next to his typewriter, about 100 miles behind the lines.

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

There were units in Italy that were issued M1903 rifles and kept them throughout their service. The M1903 saw more service than normally realized...probably because most movies and shows about WWII showed M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, BARs and Thompsons. The 1903 was still carried by many for grenade launching as there wasn't a grenade launcher for the Garand yet.

My uncle carried a Carbine for a short time and dumped it for a 1903. He was fed up with the Carbine after using it..."I hit that sumbitch three times and I bet he's still running!" He carried the 1903 until he was hit outside of St. Lo.

 

[chooks9]

I’ve owned all three and I strongly prefer a 1917 over a 1903 or 03A3.

There is nothing wrong with the 1903 but I think the 1917 is a better battle rifle. The 1903 has awesome target sights and I am a fan of the overall design, but I would take the 1917 every time.

If you are talking untrained conscripts, the MAS-36 comes a close second and ahead of the 1903. There are like four moving parts.

 

[Threeband]

If the 101st hadn't held at Bastogne, my uncle would probably have ditched his 1917 for a Garand.

 

[lazarus]

Everything changes when its dusk and you have low lighting conditions.
I took a peep 1903A3 hunting with me one time and was PRAYING the deer did not show up till later as at dawn, I could not get a good view of my target I was looking at.
Prayed too hard and NO DEER showed up.

I did the same thing with a Garand.

I think the issue in general is that any kind of peep sight is going to be hard to read in low light.

That said, notch sights aren't all that much better. At least for me, in low light. Ghost ring and fiber work okay in low light.

Buttttt, a halfway decent scope, even without illumination, is just drastically better than all of the above in low light.

I'd agree on the comparison of the 1903 to 1917 to 1903A3 sights.

I love me the 1903a3 (and by extension, Garand, though the Garand is better than the 03A3) sights.