The M1917 revolvers (Colt and Smith & Wesson) have terrible ergonomics, worse than standard double-action revolvers like the S & W Victory (just comparing military revolvers). I had both M1917 revolvers but sold them many years ago. There is just no hope for this design. Large clunkers, IMO. (I'm not a fan of double-action revolvers in general. Some are OK used in the single-action mode. The worst of all are DA-only revolvers.)
I have to disagree.
While the Colt Model 1917 is a huge, clunky revolver, the S&W Model 1917 is not nearly as big or awkward.
While not a Colt 1917, the revolver at the top of this photo is a Colt New Service. this is the same frame size Colt used for their version of the 1917 revolver. The lower revolver in the photo is a S&W Model 1917.
Clearly the Colt is considerably larger than the S&W. Notice how much more reach there is from the grip to the trigger with the Colt than with the S&W.
Clearly the Victory Model S&W is smaller than a 1917. That is because it was built on the S&W K frame, which was specifically designed for the 38 Special Cartridge. The S&W Model 1917 was built on the N frame. The N frame cylinder and frame are larger than a K frame because the N frame was originally designed for the 44 Special cartridge. One cannot fit six 44 caliber chambers into a K frame cylinder.
This photo is a comparison of S&W frame sizes. Top to bottom is an N frame 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model, K frame 38 Military and Police, and J frame Model 36 Chiefs Special.
My experience is the New Service, with it's huge frame is clunky and awkward to shoot, I have two of them.
N frame Smiths are large, but not clunky nor poorly designed. It is just big.