Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

Model 1917 Rifle

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Nipty, Sep 29, 2022.

  1. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
    GooseGestapo likes this.
  2. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    North Carolina
    These are sensitive to stocking up. They need a little pressure at the muzzle end of the stock.
     
  3. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,584
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    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?o_O
     
    GooseGestapo likes this.
  4. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,584
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    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...
     
  5. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,145
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    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.
     
    adcoch1 likes this.
  6. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,145
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    No, you don't get a choice, but ounces do matter- and I'll leave it at that.
     
  7. robin banks

    robin banks member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2022
    Messages:
    333
    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
     
  8. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,145
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2022
  9. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2022
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  10. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    10,145
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    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.
     
  11. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,416
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.

    IMG_0946a.jpg
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  12. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  13. dieselchief

    dieselchief Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2016
    Messages:
    304
    Location:
    midwest
    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.
     
    GooseGestapo and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice