M1917 or Springfield 1903

D

downwindtracker2

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 94.4%
17   1   0
Location
B.C.
I don't dare post this on US site,for fear of flames.I had made a comment about steels used,and a quoted Hatcher as my source with a IIRMC.So I looked it up,I was right BTW,and read over his Notes on the M1917/P-14.He was in charge of the conversion. He had high praise for the Enfield,which was lacking in his discription of the Springfield. hmmm.. He considered the Enfield as the best military arm of the WWI!
 
Best WWI rifle.

Now everyone knows, the MKIII Ross was the best rifle in WWI. At least it was there from the start, not like those "Johnny come lately" U.S. clubs! If wasnt for that crappy Brit .303 ammo, Canada would still have Ross's. ar!ar!
Geoff
 
"...which was lacking in his..." That's because when he was writing, most U.S. shooters knew a lot about Springfields. It's not like that today. Some U.S. shooters have never seen one.
"...MKIII Ross was the best rifle in WWI..." Until you got it into a fight. Politicians were as corrupt then as they are now. Hughes was very blatant about it too.
 
zh29-1.jpg

Someone sell me one of these. One of the highest quality semi autos before WW2.

Suck on that MkIII Ross!
 
"Someone sell me one of these. One of the highest quality semi autos before WW2.",I think you are talking about the Garand.I suspect you would be disappointed with a Springfield as would I.On the other hand a Ross....
 
downwindtracker2 said:
"Someone sell me one of these. One of the highest quality semi autos before WW2.",I think you are talking about the Garand.I suspect you would be disappointed with a Springfield as would I.On the other hand a Ross....
Click to expand...


Actually, I wasn't talking about the Garand. I was talking about the ZH-29.
arm065.jpg


Probably EXTREMELY rare in Canada. Very finely made rifle, but not reliable in field conditions.
 
I think both are a must for any US collection. THe Model of 1917 is one of the only things I have yet to find, but I have always heard how really solid they were in comparison to the 1903.
 
I’ve read that some of the guerillas in the Philippines were armed with 1903’s and Model of 1917 rifles. In the two years between the American defenders surrendering in 1942, and McArthur returning in 1944, those rifles saw a lot of use and abuse. Apparently, when the Allies retook the Philippines; the 1903 Springfield’s were falling apart, while the Model of 1917 rifles were still going strong. They may not have a very effective gas shield, but they were built like tanks.
 
Last edited:
Without any doubt whatsoever, the Mark III Ross Rifle was the finest rifle used anywhere, anywhen.

Coming down from my ashram, I will state that in my opinion the SMLE was the best BATTLE rifle of the Great War..... and the P-'14/M-'17 likely the most solidly built rifle ever made, ideal for conversion to magnums, built like a tank, rugged, reliable, accurate.

But I only have 2 of these and a lot more Rosses, so a guy has to be biased, doesn't he? ;-)
 
The M1917 was FAR overbuilt for the .30-06 round as it was designed to fire the high velocity magnum round (the .276 Enfield). The M1917 was a more robust gun but was not windage adjustable like the M1903.

From a collector's standpoint the M1903 is a more intricate rifle with many more variations to collect and they are also woth a lot more on the milsurp market, despite their shortcomings.
 
I have both a 1903 and 1917 and realy love them both. Thr 1917 is indeed built like tank. The 1903 is however one hell of a sweet handling rifle with a butter smooth bolt action and trigger :D

old_war_buddies.jpg
 
1917 holds an extra round over the 1903 as well. 1917 is my go-to gun for our milshoots.
eohcmatch.jpg
 
Last edited:
i used to have an eddystone p17 in 30.06.
it had seen better days but was built like a brick s@ithouse and about as heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom