M1903 or M917 - send me to school

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    I have both an Eddystone 1917 and a 1924-vintage Springfield 1903. If you're already a Garand shooter, the battle sight on the 1917 will make you feel at home.

    If you find an military-condition 1917 with original barrel for a reasonable price, snap it up. A lot of them were sporterized and restoring one to military condition can get expensive, if that's what you're looking for. Unmodified 1903s are more common, and can often be found in good condition, albeit usually with replacement barrels. 1903A3s are very common, and often in very good condition because they were used mostly for training and by support troops in WWII and saw little wear.

    Neither 1917 nor 1903-series is better than the other. Both can be tack drivers, and are built to be rugged and reliable. The 1903's weakness is its ladder sight with short radius, the 1917's its ejector spring that breaks at inopportune moments.

    A consideration with the 1917 is it is almost 47" long and may have trouble fitting in safes with low shelves.
     

    rdc

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 3, 2010
    3,690
    Middlefingurton
    The obvious answer is get both.
    I prefer the sights on the 1903A3 over the regular 1903. The 1917 sights are pretty good also except for the lack of windage adjustment. I still prefer the Springfield action over the 1917.
    Either way you go it's a good rifle.
     

    Shooter88

    Active Member
    Aug 21, 2013
    104
    I own two 1917's, a 1903 and a 1903A3. I prefer shooting the 1917s over my '03's. The 1917 just feels sturdier and I like the sights better. However for collecting purposes, you need both. With all that said, I too am a Marine, and as such there is no excuse to not having an '03.
     

    Art3

    Eqinsu Ocha
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2015
    13,267
    Harford County
    I own two 1917's, a 1903 and a 1903A3. I prefer shooting the 1917s over my '03's. The 1917 just feels sturdier and I like the sights better. However for collecting purposes, you need both. With all that said, I too am a Marine, and as such there is no excuse to not having an '03.

    This about sums it up. Both (all three, eventually) :party29:

    Personally, the 1917 just fits me better. I feel "hunched up" on the '03. For USMC heritage, you can't beat the '03. I heard somewhere that in the Pacific, Marines were using low numbered '03's in WWII. I don't reccomend the low numbered part, but you can't go wrong with buying either first.

    As was mentioned though...1903 parts are more common. A great price on a 1917 with a bad stock...isn't that great of a bargain...I know:sad20:
     

    echo6mike

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 1, 2013
    1,794
    Close to DC
    Finding a good one is tough,there was or is a nice one on cmp auction now it was up to 1700 on a rebuild stock if i remember correctly. Old guns. Net has a few on there in the 750sh range and a beautiful period sporter for like 350!

    Hey, didn't know about oldguns.net before, thanks - good site. Not many '03s right now, but worth keeping an eye on.

    And lucky that 350ish piece is gone (I don't see it, anyway), or I'd be whipping out the C&R and a money order but fast!

    Off to learn some more...
     

    chooks9

    Bear with Arms
    Jan 3, 2013
    1,155
    Abingdon
    I paid $850 for a Remington M1903 Modified a few years ago that was still in cosmoline and sold it for about the same less than a year ago. Never shot it. I sort of miss it but I bought other rifles with the cash instead. You can get rebuilds that are good shooters for less than this if you look a bit, but I've seen good ones for $700 (albeit with scant stocks which I don't really like).

    I paid $600 for a rebuild Eddystone that now is retired because I think it's cracked and don't trust it. It's a shame because it's a beautiful rifle with a perfect bore and smooth action. I paid $700 for an all matching Remington that's not too pretty but in good shape mechanically.

    Best of all, I paid $250 for a Winchester Pattern 14 (that had undergone the Weedon Repair Standard) a few years ago at the Oaks Extravaganza. Probably my favorite milsurp to shoot save for my Remington M1917, Garand, and Persian 98/29.
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    I paid $850 for a Remington M1903 Modified a few years ago that was still in cosmoline and sold it for about the same less than a year ago. Never shot it. I sort of miss it but I bought other rifles with the cash instead. You can get rebuilds that are good shooters for less than this if you look a bit, but I've seen good ones for $700 (albeit with scant stocks which I don't really like).

    I paid $600 for a rebuild Eddystone that now is retired because I think it's cracked and don't trust it. It's a shame because it's a beautiful rifle with a perfect bore and smooth action. I paid $700 for an all matching Remington that's not too pretty but in good shape mechanically.

    Best of all, I paid $250 for a Winchester Pattern 14 (that had undergone the Weedon Repair Standard) a few years ago at the Oaks Extravaganza. Probably my favorite milsurp to shoot save for my Remington M1917, Garand, and Persian 98/29.
    Clean and degrease the reciever ring around the suspect area and drip petroleum like lighter fluid kerosene or gasoline on the crack and then wipe off quickly with a clean rag, you will be able to see the remnants of the fluid seep from the crack if its there, for quick and dirty. I would doubt its cracked if the original barrel is on it.
     

    Major03

    Ultimate Member
    The 17 is actually a Mauser varient. It has no relation to any Lee rifle.

    Some people say the 17 is a big fat clumsy ox.

    First I'd ever heard of that.

    I believe it was patterned after the P14 redesign of the British Lee Enfield. One of the redesigns was a Mauser type claw extractor, but it is a cock on close design (very different from a Mauser). I may be wrong here, so if I am please educate me.

    I do know that the M1903 was enough of a copy of Mauser's design that the US was supposed to pay royalties to Mauser. There is some debate as to whether they actually did or not, but I think the general consensus is that an initial payment was made and then the US stopped paying royalties.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    The P14 had no relationship to the Lee rifles. It is based on the Mausers used by the Boers.
    Even the cock on closing is shared with the Mauser.
    All the Mausers before the 98 model cocked on closing, including the Chilean/Boer Mausers copied by the British.
     

    Tebonski

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    630
    Harford County
    I like them both but the Springfield seems lighter and much easier to wield. The 1917 is bulky and heavier.

    My run of the mill Springfield is capable of great groups too.
     

    jimbobborg

    Oddball caliber fan
    Aug 2, 2010
    17,112
    Northern Virginia
    The P14 had no relationship to the Lee rifles. It is based on the Mausers used by the Boers.
    Even the cock on closing is shared with the Mauser.
    All the Mausers before the 98 model cocked on closing, including the Chilean/Boer Mausers copied by the British.

    All SMLE's cock on close, too. And the Pattern 14 was chambered in 303 British.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Yes, Lee rifles cock on closing, and the British used them in .303, but they are completely different from the P14.

    The Boers convinced the Brits that they had made a mistake adopting the Lee rifle, that the Mauser was far superior. So they set up a committee to design a British Mauser.
    The result was the P13, chambered in a new .276 cartridge. It was almost pure Mauser, with a Mauser bolt locking into a Mauser receiver with Mauser style twin front locking lugs. Extraction is by an exact copy of the huge Mauser extractor.
    About the only difference I can see is the safety, which is a bit more Lee - like, though moved to the other side.
    The cock on closing is also pure Mauser, retained from the Model 93 Mausers carried by the Boers.
    My Swedish M96 Mauser also cocks on closing, as do the earlier M91 Argentines.

    The Lee rifles are just entirely different. They have rear locking lugs and the bolt turns 60 degrees to unlock. The Mauser/P13/P14/Model 1917 have front lugs and a 90 degree bolt turn. The two designs, the Lee and the Mauser, are entirely different mechanically.
     

    echo6mike

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 1, 2013
    1,794
    Close to DC
    Back to my idea of a topic, this and my chat over on the CMP forums have got me doing research. And the result of that is making me want a 1903 or 03a1, as part of a slowly growing collection of "rifles of USMC history".

    So now off I go to find the best sources!

    WTB ad coming soon to a forum near you 8-)

    Thanks, all, I learn more from one day on here than from a week at the library! (those are still a "thing", right?)

    s/f
     

    Melnic

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    15,278
    HoCo
    I"m perusing this thread as I'm looking for a WWI rifle (1917 preferred or 1903)that I can shoot on occasion (1 or 2 times a year). I'd be happy even if its handloads specific to the rifle. If anyone has anything to add to this thread, please do so.
    Thx
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,318
    Threeband is right. The P13/P14/M1917 are Mauser 96 derivatives. The real upgrade is in the sights.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    I like them both but the Springfield seems lighter and much easier to wield. The 1917 is bulky and heavier.

    My run of the mill Springfield is capable of great groups too.

    Yes, the commitee designed P13/P14/M1917 is a clumsy ox of a rifle, compared to the graceful M1903.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,449
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom