M1917 Enfield vs M1903 Springfield

[roo_ster]

Why did the USA stick with the Springfield after WWI, despite roughly 75% of our boys being armed with the Enfield during that war?

Pre-WWI and during-WWI production of the Springfield was something in excess of 1 million, while 2.5 million Enfields were produced by the end of WWI.

I have handled but shot neither rifle. Is one better than the other? At first glance, the Enfield looks to have a much better sighting system.

Anybody own or have experience using both?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It was a near thing -- just a historical note: In those days the Infantry insignia really was crossed rifles, and each time we changed rifles, the insignia changed to the new rifle. If you go to the Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning, GA, the Officer's Club has the crossed rifles in a mosaic in the floor -- and it's M1917s!

(Before anyone asks, the current "crossed rifles" are actually crossed muskets -- M1795 Whitneys to be exact.)

The US Army shrank rapidly after WWI and we had a surfeit of rifles on hand -- we could choose either one and have enough to arm the Army completely. But we had just been through a harrowing experience in WWI when we did not have enough of anything. The Army owned two production lines for the M1903 (Springfield and Rock Island), but didn't have any tooling for the M1917. If we should suddenly need rifles in the future, we didn't have any surge capacity for M1917s.

I have owned and shot both -- including killing deer with them. The M1917 is longer and heavier than the M1903, although I like its sights better (to be fair, Alvin York did not like the M1917, and its sights were one of the things he did not like.)

Given a choice, I would rather have the M1903.

 

[DMK]

Why did the USA stick with the Springfield after WWI, despite roughly 75% of our boys being armed with the Enfield during that war?

The Enfield was designed by the British, the Springfield was not only designed in America, but it was made "in house" by Springfield Armory (back in those days, the government made it's own guns).

It was partially political.

 

[Hoppy590]

the 1903 was chosen over the m1917 because though both were made in america, the M1917 would always be "that british rifle".

the fact the .gov still had the tooling for the 1903 at the Springfield Arsenal helps. but it would not have been dificult for them to produce m1917's there.

either way, both rifles are Mausers incognito. so i wouldnt hold much national pride in those

 

[Mk VII]

'Not Invented Here'

 

[Limeyfellow]

The US for the first 50-60 years of the twentith century do seem rather obsessed with the designed and built in america only.

It didn't help that they made the shooting teams used the M1917 so if they didn't do too well, its easy enough to blame that new british rifle for their bad scores. Could also be that those people who were doing the shooting didn't have the experience with peep sights they should have, but you make a big political stink and play the patriot card and so the 1903 gets picked. The M14 got picked by the "must be american designed by the ordinance department only or else!" sthick too.

 

[Cosmoline]

In my limited experience with these, the 1917 Enfield is stronger and heavier, with less recoil but greater fatigue. The WWII era Springfield I've shot was just like a lighter weight Mauser with some minor design differences. It's a matter of preference.

 

[Blackfork]

Brit Rifles.

You can see the British design in the 1917- and the Mauser influence in the action design of both.

The US Government lost an international patent case and was paying the Germans for patent infringement when the war broke out.

I wish they had designed a couple more. I'm planning on shooting deer with both of mine, plus a Krag I just bought this next season.

You just can't have too many rifles, though you can certainly have a LOT!

 

[Grunt]

One big factor in the choosing the 03 over the Enfield was the sights. Once upon a time, we actually gave a damn about marksmanship unlike today where only the Marines still fire a 500 meter KD course. The sights on the 03 were adjustable for both elevation and windage whereas the Enfield sights pretty much lacked the windage adjustments of the Springfield rifles.

 

[swingset]

One big factor in the choosing the 03 over the Enfield was the sights. Once upon a time, we actually gave a damn about marksmanship unlike today where only the Marines still fire a 500 meter KD course. The sights on the 03 were adjustable for both elevation and windage whereas the Enfield sights pretty much lacked the windage adjustments of the Springfield rifles.

The 1903 had tangeant sights, the Enfield had peep/flip sights. Some would argue, even without easy-windage, that the 17 had the better sights. It wasn't until the 03/A3 (long after replacing the 17) that the American rifle was issued with peep sights. If the Enfield's sights were inferior, odd that the 03A3 (and every service rifle since) included peep sights.

 

[Threeband]

If you handle them both, you'll find that the M1917 is just a heavier,"clunkier" rifle. It's longer, fatter, and somehow feels heavier that it actually is. Remember, it was designed by a commitee.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In 1913 the British adopted a new rifle, the P13. The cartridge for this new rifle was based on the .280 Ross, and was a true magnum cartridge.

With the outbreak of World War One, the British decided changing rifles and cartridges would be a mistake. They needed more rifles, though, and contracted with Winchester, Eddystone and Remington to make a .303 version of the P13, to be known as the P14.

The three arms manufacturers were just wrapping up the contract with the British when the US entered the war. The P14 was re-worked to handle the .30-06, and the rest is history.

The length, weight, and so on of the M1917 goes back to the .280 Ross, therefore. If you have an M1917, you can see that the magazine will easily take 6 .30-06 rounds -- because it was designed for a much fatter "magnum" round.

 

[buttrap]

The 1903 has a much better rear sight. It may be a tangent but it has a very precise target peep in the thing along with the battle V. There is also a large inverse V shape battle peep in there too. I would go so far to say the best precise target type sight on any US general issue rifle out of later traps and Krags that used the same style sights. The learning curve is a bit longer with a 1903 sight but once a person learns to work it just look out. Basic bang around in your face trench fighting the more sturdy 1917 sight is much better though.

 

[roo_ster]

Thanks, all.

I now know why the M1917 I examined a while back had the red paint stripe.

 

[Mk VII]

I would go so far to say the best precise target type sight on any US general issue rifle out of later traps and Krags that used the same style sights. The learning curve is a bit longer with a 1903 sight but once a person learns to work it just look out.

If we're trying to make high scores on nice black and white bullseye targets in bright sunlight. For actual battle (which ought to be the only test worth considering) it's a fragile, over-elaborate absurdity which (if you're using the aperture) is much too far from the eye for optical correctness. Most of the guys who joined the military a century ago weren't the sharpest tools in the box, especially if their training was of the sketchy wartime variety, and getting the most out of it must have been beyond many of them.