oldsoldier
Member
Should put this in a poll, but I'll ask anyway. Which is better, a Springfield 1903 or a 1917 Enfield? Thanks in advance.
Springfield or Enfield
- Thread starter oldsoldier
- Start date
- Status
oneshooter
Member
Better for what? Each was and is a great rifle in thier own way.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
SigfanUSAF
Member
Better for what?
They are both great rifles.
The Enfield is heavier, cock on close, holds 6 in the mag, and has a 2" longer barrel.
The '03 is a beautifully made 24" barreled 30-06, and with the A3 version came an incredibly simple and cheap rifle to manufacture.
Both proved themselves many times over in two world wars, both are dependable and capable of outstanding accuracy from a MilSurp point of view.
Which is better?
I shoot mine equally, and would trust my life to both.
They are both great rifles.
The Enfield is heavier, cock on close, holds 6 in the mag, and has a 2" longer barrel.
The '03 is a beautifully made 24" barreled 30-06, and with the A3 version came an incredibly simple and cheap rifle to manufacture.
Both proved themselves many times over in two world wars, both are dependable and capable of outstanding accuracy from a MilSurp point of view.
Which is better?
I shoot mine equally, and would trust my life to both.
oneshooter
Member
The Enfield has a 10shot magazine, the Springfields capacity is 5.
U.S. Marines in BOTH wars swore by thier Springfields.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
U.S. Marines in BOTH wars swore by thier Springfields.
Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Ash
Member
More US soldiers carried the 1917 Enfield than the 1903 in combat, WWI and WWII combined. It had a much better combat sight over the 1903 and more rugged combat sight than the 03a3. As a combat rifle, the 1917 was superior. It was also evidence of the ability of private enterprise to out-produce the government every time.
Ash
Ash
Nolo
Member
M1917
Why? Because the M1917 wasn't bogged down by stupid requirements and other scheize. It was a better gun, not for any meteoric reason, but because it wasn't hampered by bureaucracy, just driven by demand.
Plus, York used it.
Why? Because the M1917 wasn't bogged down by stupid requirements and other scheize. It was a better gun, not for any meteoric reason, but because it wasn't hampered by bureaucracy, just driven by demand.
Plus, York used it.
DMK
Member
I agree with Ash. For combat use, the 1917 had better sights and they were protected by ears. The 1903 had a very complicated rear sight that was more appropriate for target shooting than combat shooting. This was corrected somewhat with the 1903A3 much later, but even that rifle had a vulnerable and relatively fragile front sight for a combat rifle.
It is said that Alvin York preferred the 1917 over the 1903 and that he used one in his famous heroic act.
Still, I sentimentally prefer the 1903 over the 1917 because it saw much action in both world wars and was more widely used in WWII.
It is said that Alvin York preferred the 1917 over the 1903 and that he used one in his famous heroic act.
Still, I sentimentally prefer the 1903 over the 1917 because it saw much action in both world wars and was more widely used in WWII.
SigfanUSAF
Member
US troops didn't use the 1917 in WWII except in training and home guard fronts. However, several hundred thousand were sent to England under the Lend-Lease act.
As far as the 1903, there are photos showing US Army troops carrying 1903 with finger groove stocks well into 1944.
As far as the 1903, there are photos showing US Army troops carrying 1903 with finger groove stocks well into 1944.
Ash
Member
You are right, but combine the use of the 1903 in WWI and WWII and it still does not reach the use of the 1917 in WWI alone.
Ash
Ash
mustanger98
Member
Regarding Alvin York, my understanding from reading his diary was that although he used the M1917 in his famous actions in France, he preferred the M1903's sights which he trained on prior to being re-issued and training with the M1917.
DMK
Member
Some early Springfield and Rock Island Armory 1903 rifles under a certain serial number (somewhere under 800,000 and 300,000 respectively I believe, search the forum for the exact S/Ns) had some heat treating issues. These are considered unsafe to shoot. Not all were bad, but it's impossible to determine which ones.
Now that you mention it, I do remember reading that somewhere. The soldiers were issued 1917s for deployment in Europe and he wished he'd had the 1903 instead.
As I recall, Alvin York went through Basic with an '03, and was issued a 1917 for deployment. In country, he had came into a 1903 which he preferred. Not sure if that telling is accurate, but that's the one I've heard.
To the guy who said a '17 enfield holds 10- their wrong. The 1917 holds 5. The SMLE, No. 4 and No. 5 hold 10. The 1917 uses a Mauser based action, not the common Lee Enfield action.
SigfanUSAF
Member
They hold 6 ,P14 held 5 .303. When converted to '06 with the 1917, 6 rounds fit comfortably in the magazine.
Low serial number Springfields:
Below 800,001 at Springfield Armory (Feb.1918)
Below 285,507 (May 1918) at Rock Island Arsenal
Dr. Dickie
Member
Personally, I like my M1917 better than my 03's, but not by much.
One of each would be the preferred way to go!
One of each would be the preferred way to go!
Bwana John
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,960
I vote M1917.
TEDDY
Member
I have a 03 in the 500,000 range.I shoot it but with lead 311291 and13 gr red dot.its a tack driver at 100yrds.bore is perfect.but I would prefer the 1917 for its sights.had two 17 and shot them in Reading Mass range.they had the two groove barrels which were great for lead bullets.
==
=
:banghead:
===:banghead:
Danny Creasy
Member
For all the logical reasons mentioned above, I want to vote for the 1917.
But, when I go to the range with the 1917, the 03, and the 03A3, I handle and shoot the 03s better. I think I would rather fight with it for this reason.
Didn't the 03 Springfield armed Marine and Army personel use them to deadly effect in the early Pacific theatre fighting of World War II?
strange though,
You hardly ever read of a US European theatre soldier having a good thing to say about the 03.
To me, the 03 handles like a hunting rifle and the 1917 Enfield handles like a tool.
But, when I go to the range with the 1917, the 03, and the 03A3, I handle and shoot the 03s better. I think I would rather fight with it for this reason.
Didn't the 03 Springfield armed Marine and Army personel use them to deadly effect in the early Pacific theatre fighting of World War II?
strange though,
You hardly ever read of a US European theatre soldier having a good thing to say about the 03.
To me, the 03 handles like a hunting rifle and the 1917 Enfield handles like a tool.
Hutch
Member
The 1917, in addition to cock-on-close, has a different locking lug, system, a true "interrupted thread", almost like a miniature artillery piece. That is to say, lowering the bolt handle cammed the bolt forward a last little bit. This could make the bolt go into battery, even if the cartridge were dirty or slightly dented. On the flip side, that little bit of mechanical advantage on opening could un-stick an otherwise sticky fired case.
In my limited experience, I have run into many more pitted inaccurate 1917's than 1903's. Rebarreling, even back to the original configuration, is the pits because the butt end of the barrel on the 1917 is bigger than that of the other turnbolts. Not many good barrels out there that will fit.
In my limited experience, I have run into many more pitted inaccurate 1917's than 1903's. Rebarreling, even back to the original configuration, is the pits because the butt end of the barrel on the 1917 is bigger than that of the other turnbolts. Not many good barrels out there that will fit.
"As I recall, Alvin York went through Basic with an '03, and was issued a 1917 for deployment. In country, he had came into a 1903 which he preferred. Not sure if that telling is accurate, but that's the one I've heard."
My grandfather was in the All American Division also. He was trained in the U.S. on the Springfield and issued an M1917 in Europe. Don't believe he ever got his hands on a Springfiled there. Read a couple of books on York - quite a guy - a "real" American hero.
My grandfather was in the All American Division also. He was trained in the U.S. on the Springfield and issued an M1917 in Europe. Don't believe he ever got his hands on a Springfiled there. Read a couple of books on York - quite a guy - a "real" American hero.
Rebarreled M1917
"In my limited experience, I have run into many more pitted inaccurate 1917's than 1903's. Rebarreling, even back to the original configuration, is the pits because the butt end of the barrel on the 1917 is bigger than that of the other turnbolts. Not many good barrels out there that will fit."
I have an origianal M1917 Eddystone version that was rebarrled with a Johnson Automatic barrel.
Is it safe to shoot modern commercial .30-06 ammo in it?
Anybody have any idea where to get a replacemetn clip for it?
"In my limited experience, I have run into many more pitted inaccurate 1917's than 1903's. Rebarreling, even back to the original configuration, is the pits because the butt end of the barrel on the 1917 is bigger than that of the other turnbolts. Not many good barrels out there that will fit."
I have an origianal M1917 Eddystone version that was rebarrled with a Johnson Automatic barrel.
Is it safe to shoot modern commercial .30-06 ammo in it?
Anybody have any idea where to get a replacemetn clip for it?
Ash
Member
Oh yeah, quite safe. There are folks who have built magnum-grade custom rifles based on the P14/1917 actions. As to clips, do you mean the chargers used? If I am right, any 1903 Springfield-style stripper clips/chargers will work.
Ash
Ash
- Status
