1917 Eddystone VS. 1903-A3
- Thread starter albanian
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Member
They're both based on the Mauser action.
The 1903 was developed in the United States, the rifle that would become the 1917 was originally developed in Britain as a possible replacement for the SMLE.
The 1903 is cock on opening, the 1917 cock on closing.
Generally, the 1917 feels and looks blockier and clunkier.
Both a good rifles, though.
The 1903 was developed in the United States, the rifle that would become the 1917 was originally developed in Britain as a possible replacement for the SMLE.
The 1903 is cock on opening, the 1917 cock on closing.
Generally, the 1917 feels and looks blockier and clunkier.
Both a good rifles, though.
ReadyontheRight
Member
The 1917 has the first US military peep site, but has no adjustment for windage.
The 1903 has Mauser-type open sights.
The 1903A3 has an improved peep sight that has windage adjustments.
The 1917 is bigger and heavier - soaks up more recoil.
1917 has a forward/rearward safety on the right of the receiver, 1903 has left/right safety on the back of the bolt.
1917 has "ears" on the front site.
Both are awesome shooters that will go up in value.
The 1903 was the standard US rifle, but when the US got into WW1 in 1917, it was faster to convert the Remington Eddystone plant producing the British Pattern 14 (P14) to 30-06, so they produced the US Model of 1917.
Alvin York preferred the 1903, but shot a lot of Germans with the 1917 on the day he earned the CMH. The 1917 was used by more troops than the 1903 in WW1.
The 1903 has Mauser-type open sights.
The 1903A3 has an improved peep sight that has windage adjustments.
The 1917 is bigger and heavier - soaks up more recoil.
1917 has a forward/rearward safety on the right of the receiver, 1903 has left/right safety on the back of the bolt.
1917 has "ears" on the front site.
Both are awesome shooters that will go up in value.
The 1903 was the standard US rifle, but when the US got into WW1 in 1917, it was faster to convert the Remington Eddystone plant producing the British Pattern 14 (P14) to 30-06, so they produced the US Model of 1917.
Alvin York preferred the 1903, but shot a lot of Germans with the 1917 on the day he earned the CMH. The 1917 was used by more troops than the 1903 in WW1.
The P17 is also referred to as "The American Enfield", which makes it even better because that makes it some relation to the best battle turn bolt ever, the No4mk1. 
P17 wins, so there.
(oh, and there were 7 & 8 shot versions of the M1917)
P17 wins, so there.
(oh, and there were 7 & 8 shot versions of the M1917)
The standard 1917 actually holds six shots. I've seen the higher-cap ones, but the standard model holds six. I've shot a friend's Eddystone and two others, they all held six. And that's what the reference book says too.
The 1917 equipped the large majority of troops in the American Expeditionary Force in WW1, Black Jack Pershing (the commanding general) actually tried to get ALL of his troops equipped with it as it was a more robust rifle and the sights (especially in WW1) were more suited to combat. The M1903 sights, the original M1905 model, are basically target sights with a tiny aperature made for shooting at long range. At the battlesight zero setting you'd have to aim about 10 feet UNDER your target to hit him at 100 yards. The Enfield's battle zero setting is like 150-200 yards, so point and shoot.
The Marines have good publicists, and their actions at Chateau Thierry and Belleau Wood (with M1903s) didn't exactly hurt their reputation or the rifle's. But as a combat weapon, the Enfield makes more sense. It's a bit more clunky but much more effective. And of course the Lee-Enfield is better than both, but I'm prejudiced......I've shot all the rifles (Springfield, Enfield, Lee-Enfield and Mauser Kar 98ka World War One issue) and I liked the L-E the best. But all are capable of long range accuracy, I shot the L-E and Mauser at 950 yards and was hitting the target (a truck sized boulder) with every shot.
The 1917 equipped the large majority of troops in the American Expeditionary Force in WW1, Black Jack Pershing (the commanding general) actually tried to get ALL of his troops equipped with it as it was a more robust rifle and the sights (especially in WW1) were more suited to combat. The M1903 sights, the original M1905 model, are basically target sights with a tiny aperature made for shooting at long range. At the battlesight zero setting you'd have to aim about 10 feet UNDER your target to hit him at 100 yards. The Enfield's battle zero setting is like 150-200 yards, so point and shoot.
The Marines have good publicists, and their actions at Chateau Thierry and Belleau Wood (with M1903s) didn't exactly hurt their reputation or the rifle's. But as a combat weapon, the Enfield makes more sense. It's a bit more clunky but much more effective. And of course the Lee-Enfield is better than both, but I'm prejudiced......I've shot all the rifles (Springfield, Enfield, Lee-Enfield and Mauser Kar 98ka World War One issue) and I liked the L-E the best. But all are capable of long range accuracy, I shot the L-E and Mauser at 950 yards and was hitting the target (a truck sized boulder) with every shot.
jrhead75
Member
Very good question! I'd love to know the answer to that one, although as a collector of Brit Enfields I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Mike Irwin
Member
The 1917 will hold 6 rounds in the magazine, a legacy of the Pattern 14 being designed for .303 British, which needed additional room in the magazine for the large rim.
Hutch
Member
The Enfield also had a camming action on the locking lugs, that moved the bolt forward on the "downstroke" and pulled it back on the "upstroke" of the bolt handle. This was thought to provide aid in chambering dirty or corroded ammo, and gave great leverage in extracting sticky cases.
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
M1917 is my fav of the bolt actions, edging out SMLE #4 slightly. Very accurate and reliable, with good sights and pointing. P1914 which I actully have is close but rimmed ammo can makes loading harder (it sticks more to the clips, and can cause rimlock in some instances, same as with SMLE). Pity I didn't get an M1917 when they were relatively cheap...but the P14 was a lot cheaper and, at the time, 303 was much less costly also...and I lacked side-by-side experience to know the extra $ were worth spending.
Anyone know of a source for Eddystone replacement stocks and stock hardware, either surpuls or reproduction?
I just inherited an Eddystone three weeks ago that was sporterized with a nice Fajen stock, probably back in the 50's or 60's when no one knew better. Fortunately, nothing appears to have been done to the sights, bolt or barrel, so a new stockset should do it.
Any ideas?
I just inherited an Eddystone three weeks ago that was sporterized with a nice Fajen stock, probably back in the 50's or 60's when no one knew better. Fortunately, nothing appears to have been done to the sights, bolt or barrel, so a new stockset should do it.
Any ideas?
Nightcrawler
Member
El Rojo
Member
The 1917 is the only .30-06 bolt gun I need to complete my old military gun collection. Someday....
Roadkill, that's the perfect answer!
Glad I'm not the only one who has that problem. Tomorrow, my 6.5x55 Swedish AG42B Ljungman won the coin toss for range time. But there have been days when we have John C. Garand matches, and I'm really torn as to who makes the truck ride to the range.
Glad I'm not the only one who has that problem. Tomorrow, my 6.5x55 Swedish AG42B Ljungman won the coin toss for range time. But there have been days when we have John C. Garand matches, and I'm really torn as to who makes the truck ride to the range.
Nightcrawler,
Thanks. That helps me out a great deal. I am new to the 1917 and it helps to see what has been changed on my rifle side by side an original. I see that mine looks like the original stock was cut down and soem of the stock hardware was removed as well as the ears on the front sight.
Does anyone know if my front sight looks like an orginal with the ears removed? I am hopeing that I can find a stock and hardware to make my gun look like an original again. I plan on de-sporterizing it if I can. It looks like I may be able to just get a stock and hardware and put it back on. Does that sound right or were some parts cut off and require more than just bolting on to make right?
How common is it to find the parts I need? Are they rare or does someone make aftermarket stock parts? I doubt it but who knows?
Thanks. That helps me out a great deal. I am new to the 1917 and it helps to see what has been changed on my rifle side by side an original. I see that mine looks like the original stock was cut down and soem of the stock hardware was removed as well as the ears on the front sight.
Does anyone know if my front sight looks like an orginal with the ears removed? I am hopeing that I can find a stock and hardware to make my gun look like an original again. I plan on de-sporterizing it if I can. It looks like I may be able to just get a stock and hardware and put it back on. Does that sound right or were some parts cut off and require more than just bolting on to make right?
How common is it to find the parts I need? Are they rare or does someone make aftermarket stock parts? I doubt it but who knows?
- Status
