Which one - 1903A3 or 1917 Enfield

[AK Gun Man 88]

So I've been bitten by the ol' Warhorse rifle bug (just ordered a M1 Garand). Now I've been looking at some old bolt guns. The two I am looking at are the 1903A3 and 1917 Enfield.

I already have read into the "low number" receiver discussions (from what I found the A3's are all considered "high number safe" (no gun is completely safe)

Now my question to all you fine people out there...Which one?

1903A3 or 1917 Enfield?

 

[Wildbillz]

Good 1917 seem to be harder to find. So If you have a line on one I would get it first. The A3s seem to be easyer to find in good condition.

WB

 

[wlewisiii]

The 1917 is a more interesting rifle, historically. The 03A3 is, ultimately, nothing but a cheap version of a bad mauser copy (every change they made away from the Mauser was a bad decision (IMO & all that)) .

 

[rondog]

If you're comparing the 1903A3 to the 1917 Enfield, I believe you're confusing the M1903A3 with the M1903, which are different versions of the rifles. The M1903 was used in WWI and WWII, whereas the M1903A3 was a WWII rifle only. Personally, I'd prefer the M1903A3 because of the improvements they made to it over the M1903, particularly the sights.

At least this is how I understand it all to be. Now, comparing the M1903 to the M1917 Enfield, can't help ya there. But hey, why not throw in the 1917 Eddystone too, just for grins?

 

[USSR]

Without a doubt, the 03-A3. Arguably, the best WW2 era boltgun. While it was made to supplement the Garand, enough Garands were eventually made such that many 03-A3's were kept in reserve and never even issued. I have an unissued (still in cosmoline) Smith-Corona that remains unfired (outside of proof firing) to this day. Just MHO.

Don

 

[velocette]

The comparison of an 03-A3 vs a 1917 Enfield (Eddystone or Remington) is interesting.
The '17 Enfield has a very strong, long action, suitable for just about any magnum cartridge you might choose to rechamber it in. It is a controlled feed action, like the Mauser, it is a bit heavier than an 03 and a bit clunkier, it's internal magazine holds 6 rds vs 5 of the 03. Accuracy is dependent upon the individual rifle. My '17 shoots with good ammo, right at 1 moa.
The 03 is lighter, trimmer, and arguably better looking. Not as strong with inferior sights. The 03s are also more popular.
There were more '17 rifles made than the 03s and they were used more than the 03s in WW I.
Overall, the Enfield was a better rifle, the 03 a (far) more popular rifle.
The '17 Enfield is the same rifle as the Remington model 30. Remington sporterized the rifle & sold it for many years. The Enfields were also commonly sporterized, rechambered in magnum and other high powered rounds due to their strength.

Roger

 

[ROGER4314]

Finding a decent 1917 is going to be a real problem. I had a mint condition rifle once but it's long gone.

I've owned both but far more 03A3's than 1917's. I compete with 1903A3 at 200 yards and can speak to their accuracy.

At 200 yards, I can't testify to ONE bit of accuracy difference between 2 groove and 4 groove barrels. In fact, my favorite 03A3 has a two groove barrel! The difference may be seen beyond 200 yards but I couldn't verify that.

The rear sight is a problem on the 03A3 rifles. The slider for elevation keeps slipping out of adjustment under recoil. You'll actually see guys with tape and gasket sealer securing their sights on the firing line! I modified my sights by drilling & tapping the slider for a small setscrew which held it into place. It's hardly noticeable and does wonders for keeping the sight from moving.

Having fired the 1903A3 in countless matches.......that's my vote.

Flash

 

[Art Eatman]

They're both good. Get one of each.

 

[1KPerDay]

Art wins.

 

[BrocLuno]

I have access to both. Art's right

My dad has the 03A3 and I have the 1917 in various builds and another on order from CMP. I just shot the 03A3 last week. Nice enough rifle and decent sights although I'm not a fan of the front blade. Have not shot one of my 1917's in a while (been playing with the Garands ), but there is a reason I own three or four 1917's. Stout rifle, decent sights and it fits me a bit better.

 

[ball3006]

The 1917 is a WW1 rifle. The 03A3 is a WW2 rifle. Both have apature sights so which one is more accurate depends on the individual rifle and shooter. There are plenty of each at the gun shows around here....chris3

 

[henschman]

The M1917 has dual aperture sights -- a larger, non-adjustable aperture for battle sight zero range, and a smaller aperture on a flip-up ladder for shooting at distance, which is finger adjustable. The 1903A3's rear sight, on the other hand, has an aperture on a ramp that is secured by 2 little screws. It is harder to adjust for elevation than the 1917 (though it is easier to adjust for windage since it has a finger-adjustable windage knob, whereas the 1917's rear sight adjusts windage with a screwdriver.

Like has been said, the 1917 is a good bit heavier, but it has a longer barrel and holds 1 more round. They are comparable when it comes to accuracy. I find the 1917's bolt to be a bit smoother to operate.

They are both awesome rifles and are a joy to shoot. As a battle rifle, I would probably pick the 03. I like how nice and light and short it is. For a target rifle, I'd probably prefer the 1917. But YMMV. Just buy the first one you see a good deal on. FYI the CMP is selling some 1917's for $500, but they are apparently not in the best shape.

 

[HKGuns]

Get one of each, but if you have to start with one I would and did go for the 1917. Well, I sort of cheated as I restored my late great Uncle's sporterized model back to original, Military goodness.

It was a fun project and makes you feel like you did something good for a piece of very old and important history. Buy yourself a sported 1917 and restore it would be my advice.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I join the choir ... one of each. I have a couple of 17's and a 03 and an A3 ... I can't name a favorite any more than you can do that with your kids or your pets. My Springfields have bolts like glass (I had forgotten how slick).

 

[P5 Guy]

I have a M1903A3 and have not seen an affordable to me VG or better 1917.
And I want at least on nice 1917.

 

[CapnMac]

And, if it matters at all, the bayonets for both are equally expensive.

'17 is one of those I wish I'd talked myself into buying, back when I had money and a job and all that.

One nice thing about the '17 is that there are no issues with different stocks, sights, front-sight hoods and the like. Also, there's not much need to pick through piles of parts looking for milled v. stamped, and for various makers. All of which become part and parcel of being a 1903 owner <G>.

Probably more American Legion & VFG Honor Guard equipped with '17's than any other arm. 1903 used to be de rigeur for rifle Drill Teams, the clean lines definitely allow for fancy drill.

Both will suit admirably for use in the Rifleman's Quarter-Mile.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have read that by the end of WW I we had more 1917s in inventory than 1903s, and three "modern" plants set up to build them. But NIH struck and we warehoused the 1917s and stayed with the 1903 until (and after) the M1 came along.

 

[VFR]

For sure get both. Also get a 98K Mauser. You need all three, a battle rifle, a target rifle and a hunting rifle as the old saying goes.

 

[AK Gun Man 88]

Which one would be a better one for hunting? Im assuming the 03A3 because it is lighter.

Also I just learned my pops has a low number 03 in pretty good condition...I am supposed to be the next owner of it...that one will def be a nonshooter...(it was his grandfather's rifle in the War)

 

[KDS]

I have a 1917 and love it. I can't wait to get the 03A3 to compare it to. My advice is to get both. If you can't do that, get the one in the best condition, and then find the other one later.

 

[henschman]

yeah if I were taking one into the woods to hunt with I would definitely prefer the lighter, shorter 1903.

 

[VFR]

As the old saying goes, the Gemans made hunting rifles, the Americans made target rifles and the British made battle rifles

 

[AK Gun Man 88]

Ok...been doing some more looking online...let's add 2 more (well 3 technically) to the list

1. Mosin Nagant (Can this be converted to 30-06?)

2. Model 98 Mauser

3. K98 Mauser

 

[henschman]

Mosin Nagant -- why not? They're cheap enough that everybody who is into shooting might as well buy one. It could not be converted to .30-06 without some serious work though, and DEFINITELY wouldn't be worth it. The Nagant shoots a rimmed cartridge, and teh '06 is rimless. It is usually more trouble than it's worth to convert calibers between rimmed and rimless, and vice versa. Plus 7.62x54R is several times cheaper than .30-06 and provides almost identical ballistic performance, so there is really no reason to switch.

The Nagant as well as the mausers have relatively poor and hard-to-adjust tangent sights. The sights on the 03a3 and 1917 are head-and-shoulders better, and though the rifles aren't themselves any more accurate, most people tend to do a lot better shooting with the aperture-sighted rifles. The SMLE No. 4 Mk.1 is another one you should consider if you are opening your choices up to other "warhorses."

 

[Jim Watson]

Bannerman once converted MNs to .30-06.
The design of the conversion was poor and the workmanship was worse, very likely dangerous to shoot. No doubt some people got away with it and the ones who didn't, didn't have the Internet to spread it around.