Model 1917 Rifle

tark said:

Which an 18-20 year old isn't going to notice, nor care about.

Click to expand...

He will. I noticed the difference between an M16A1 and M16A2 . . .

It is only three inches shorter than the Long Lee Enfield or Krag–Jørgensen and the same weight.

Then you throw on the 17 inch bayonet, the thing is a pike.

I like the old M1917 and Pattern '14s myself, but they aren't a pound and three inches better than the M1903 or SMLE.

Swampman said:

It shoots well with jacketed handloads or HXP ball, but I've never been able to get better than minute of Stetson with any of the cast bullets I've tried.

Click to expand...

These are sensitive to stocking up. They need a little pressure at the muzzle end of the stock.

I have known several people (including myself ) who have shot both rifles under formal range conditions an various ranges. No highly shilled marksmen here, just average guys not particularly experienced with either rifle. (Just like new recruits.) Some liked the 03s sights better, some preferred the aperture sights.

To a man they all shot better groups with the 1917s.

I think this has nothing to do with the 1917 being a more accurate rifle ( it isn't ) but instead has everything to do with the 17s much longer sighting radius. Small sighting errors are magnified more, the closer together the front and rear sights are. A very long sighting radius makes it easier for a beginner to hit the target. That extra pound of weight probably lessened the recoil a bit as well.

Of course, it should be admitted that many men who joined up were already excellent marksmen. I would guess the majority of them preferred the open sights of the Springfield. In their hands, the 03 was a more effective rifle.

What I have never understood is this: When the Ordinance Department converted the gun to .30-06 why didn't they modify it to take the standard Springfield bayonet? Perhaps they had large quantities of the English designed bayonet already in hand? Did I just answer my own question?

lysanderxiii said:

He will. I noticed the difference between an M16A1 and M16A2 . . .

Click to expand...

Of course you did, but you were already in service and I assume were issued the the lighter 16A1? Take that away and give you an A2 that is about a pound heavier and of course you would notice the difference. The different balance and feel would be off-putting as well. A raw recruit probably isn't going to care much that one is a bit longer and heavier than the other. It's not like he had a choice...

robin banks said:

I had one and never could figure the love that some guys have for it. it felt as long as a civil war musket heavy awkward cocked on closing sluggish action. I sold it without shooting it. The 03 was lighter shorter cocked on opening and a lot more accurate. sights on the 03 were a problem but I saw 100's and never saw a front site bent maybe caused they were replaced I dont know

Click to expand...

In slow fire, I can't discern a meaningful difference in accuracy between my M1917, M1903, or M1903a3- all 3 are extremely accurate guns.
Quick fire, though, such as in a Mad Minute drill, reveals a huge difference in speed of target acquisition with the front sight of the '17 over the '03s. Adding a front sight hood to either of the '03s helps, but I would still give the Eddystone a slight edge.
I actually prefer cock-on-closing, though I could never fathom why the '17 doesn't have a cocking knob so you can restrike a dud without opening the action and ejecting the round. If anything, the Springfield doesn't really need one, since just lifting the handle will recock the striker.

tark said:

Of course you did, but you were already in service and I assume were issued the the lighter 16A1? Take that away and give you an A2 that is about a pound heavier and of course you would notice the difference. The different balance and feel would be off-putting as well. A raw recruit probably isn't going to care much that one is a bit longer and heavier than the other. It's not like he had a choice...

Click to expand...

No, you don't get a choice, but ounces do matter- and I'll leave it at that.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

In slow fire, I can't discern a meaningful difference in accuracy between my M1917, M1903, or M1903a3- all 3 are extremely accurate guns.
Quick fire, though, such as in a Mad Minute drill, reveals a huge difference in speed of target acquisition with the front sight of the '17 over the '03s. Adding a front sight hood to either of the '03s helps, but I would still give the Eddystone a slight edge.
I actually prefer cock-on-closing, though I could never fathom why the '17 doesn't have a cocking knob so you can restrike a dud without opening the action and ejecting the round. If anything, the Springfield doesn't really need one, since just lifting the handle will recock the striker.

Click to expand...

as I remember the 03 had the knurled striker that can easily be pulled back to cock. out of all what I read about the 17 accuracy was not mentioned much

robin banks said:

as I remember the 03 had the knurled striker that can easily be pulled back to cock. out of all what I read about the 17 accuracy was not mentioned much

Click to expand...

Yes, both the M1903 and A3 have cocking knobs, and the M1917 doesn't. Ironically, the '98 Mauser, which the Springfield is based on, doesn't use a knob.

tark said:

I have known several people (including myself ) who have shot both rifles under formal range conditions an various ranges. No highly shilled marksmen here, just average guys not particularly experienced with either rifle. (Just like new recruits.) Some liked the 03s sights better, some preferred the aperture sights.

To a man they all shot better groups with the 1917s.

I think this has nothing to do with the 1917 being a more accurate rifle ( it isn't ) but instead has everything to do with the 17s much longer sighting radius. Small sighting errors are magnified more, the closer together the front and rear sights are. A very long sighting radius makes it easier for a beginner to hit the target. That extra pound of weight probably lessened the recoil a bit as well.

Click to expand...

I admitted the M1917's front sight protectors are a benefit and the peep sight is better than the "combat computer" sight to the M1903, I just said the minor gains weren't worth the extra weight and length. The Gew 98 and SMLE had battle sights similar to the M1903 and they managed just fine.

I also prefer the location of the safety on the M1917.

tark said:

What I have never understood is this: When the Ordinance Department converted the gun to .30-06 why didn't they modify it to take the standard Springfield bayonet? Perhaps they had large quantities of the English designed bayonet already in hand? Did I just answer my own question?

Click to expand...

They did not have extra British bayonets, but they had the tooling to make them. And, since one rifle => one bayonet, all your M1903 bayonets would be issued to men with M1903s and you would need new bayonets for all the new M1917s.

lysanderxiii said:

I admitted the M1917's front sight protectors are a benefit and the peep sight is better than the "combat computer" sight to the M1903, I just said the minor gains weren't worth the extra weight and length. The Gew 98 and SMLE had battle sights similar to the M1903 and they managed just fine.

I also prefer the location of the safety on the M1917.


They did not have extra British bayonets, but they had the tooling to make them. And, since one rifle => one bayonet, all your M1903 bayonets would be issued to men with M1903s and you would need new bayonets for all the new M1917s.

Click to expand...

That the trench guns used the M1917 bayonet and not the '03 also tends to indicate that they had extra production capacity for the one and not the other.

lysanderxiii said:

They did not have extra British bayonets, but they had the tooling to make them.

Click to expand...

There were quite a few of the Pattern 1913 bayonets in the production pipeline, at the time of the changeover to the M1917 rifle. Note that the British P13 bayonets and the American M1917 bayonets are absolutely identical, except for the markings. And yes, there were more P13 bayonets produced than P14 rifles. British-marked bayonets could have been issued with American M1917 rifles. By June of 1917, they were taking the extra step of crossing out the British Broad Arrow marking and stamping a "U.S." below it. (The "1913" designation on the reverse remained unchanged.) Eventually, they went to the M1917 American markings, but the changeover took time.

The scabbards had a similar transition. At first they used the British scabbards, but with frogs to adapt them to the American web gear. Then they experimented with various hangers built into the scabbard itself.

Here are two from my collection, showing the transition. The top one is dated 1-17, while the bottom one is dated 6-17. They are both of Remington manufacture.

I suppose extra British bayonets could be expected. They cancelled some of the P'14 contracts in 1917, and bayonets are shorter lead time items than rifles.

i carried one of those s.o.b. over my head in great lakes boot camp every time i lipped off. i was and still are a slow learner lol.