Buying a M1903

[IditarodJoe]

Merc,

It's more a case of sleek sports car vs. rugged 4WD truck. The 1903 is lighter in weight and more nimble to handle than the 1917, and it has finer rear sight adjustment capability. The 1917 has a stronger receiver, more rugged and better protected front and rear sights, a longer sight radius, and it holds six rounds instead of five. The 1903 was a great target rifle. The 1917 was a great battle rifle. By the end of WW1, three of every four rifles in the hands of American soldiers in Europe were Model of 1917s. The 1917 won WW1 for the US. The Garand won WW2. The 1903 won ... well, er, nothing actually, other than the hearts of American collectors. Although its significance in the military history of the US is rather limited, the 1903 is a beautiful rifle and a joy to shoot. You REALLY need to own one of each!

[Merc]

Joe,

That's a great comparison and a statement that critizes neither. They both have their advantages although I admit that I'm in awe of the size and strength of the '17. What a rifle!

Is there a book on the '03 similar to the book by Ferris on the '17s?

Merc

[Merc]

Some observations that seem obvious to me:

I think the engineers who designed the P-14 that eventually became the M1917 probably learned a lot from the M1903. The '17s more robust receiver and the size and strength of everything else that was built around it to prevent rupturing seems to be one of the more obvious lessons learned. Yet, wasn't the same added strength in the '17's design that added size and weight held against it later by the Ordinance Dept. that resulted in the '03 being chosen as the standard Army rifle over the '17 until the M1 Garand was developed?

The '17's rear sight was criticized because didn't include a windage adjustment. Why didn't they just incorporate or retrofit the '03's sight in the P-14 and '17's design since it was still available if they considered the original sight inferior?

Last, but not least, was there a degree of prejudice towards the Brits since the '17 was based on their original design? Both designs could have been rightly and accurately called a Mauser.

Merc

[IditarodJoe]

Is there a book on the '03 similar to the book by Ferris on the '17s?

No. While the Model of 1917 began as a relatively mature design and saw few changes during its short two years of production, the history of the development and production of the Model 1903 spans five decades and includes numerous design modifications. Taken together, the major works by Brophy, Campbell, and Canfield encompass much of what is known about the 1903, but there are a number of other good sources as well including an excellent book published by Nick Ferris and John Beard that focuses specifically on the early (1905-1910) 1903s and a book by Ferris dedicated solely to the 1903s made at the Rock Island Arsenal. Additional information on these rifles remains unpublished.

[Merc]

OK, so here's what I think I know about the M1903:

Avoid Springfields under Ser. No. 805000 and Rock Islands under Ser. No. 285507 due to bad receivers.

1941 and 1942 Remington's offer classic 1903 look at lower prices but sacrifice the WW1 connection.

1903A3 from Remington or Smith Corona are strong but saw little use and have different sights. Stamped parts make them less desireable if you want the classic look.

Things I still don't know:

The meaning of a "SRS Check."

Prices:

(Nice shooters will have good rifling, minimal TE and MW and will pass HS field gauge test.)

Nice shooter in average or less condition - $500

Nice shooter in good shape - $600 to $900

Nice shooter in minty condition - $1200 to $1500

Totally correct, never arsenal overhauled, late WW1 or 1920s - $ ???

Feel free to add to, or correct any of the above information.

Merc

[Griff Murphey]

Another factor you might look at particularly if you want to shoot CMP matches is how hard is the bolt lift. There are some 03s that have truly magic light bolt lifts that are a real blessing in rapid fire and then there are others not so butter smooth. I have seen bolts passed around at matches without checking headspace which is probably not a great idea but people do it.
I think as a rule 03's are better about this than A3s unless they are just worn in better.

Then there's your cock on closing 17 enfield - you better be a hard mo fo to slam that sucker in rapid fire.

[Merc]

Griff,

The three rifles I shoot most frequently are all cock on close so that's what I'm most familiar with. They include an early Winchester M1917, a 1944 Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 1* and a 1931 M1916 Spanish Mauser. I've had the No. 4 and the Mauser for a few years. The No. 4 is amazingly accurate firing flat based bullets. I'm still figuring out what ammo the Mauser likes.

The M1917 was acquired in January and has only been to the range once. It shoots a nice group through the original iron ladder sight in its lowest possible setting. It has a near minty Eddystone bolt that operates smoothly with medium main spring resistance on closing. I'd like to find a Winchester bolt to replace it but I doubt if I'll ever find one in the same condition. It never saw service in WW1 so the barrel and receiver are near minty.

Merc

[dave]

Dave,

WW1's 100th anniversary is probably going to make '03s and '17s even more expensive.

Merc

I would guess but I have 3 ea. and that's all I need! Not to mention three classic sporters and a put together target rifle in a .22 M2 stock.

[jgaynor]

After WW1 US Ordnance was focused on the development of a semiautomatic infantry rifle. Many inventions were considered and various prototypes developed. Ultimately the M1 rifle designed by Springfield arsenals John Garand would take the honors. The "03" was considered a "dead duck" by many Ordnance personnel (see Sharpe, The Rifle in America). The introduction of the 03-A3 and 03-A4 sniper's rifles were simply wartime expedients.

The British P14 (later designated Rifle No.3 Mk1) and the US Rifle M1917 had the benefit of another decade's development over the Mauser 98 platform which would have been its principal opponent. But most important had it not been for the so-called "American Enfield" US forces in WW! probably would have been armed with pointy sticks or maybe just stayed home. 03's could not be turned out quickly enough and in sufficient quantity to arm our infantry.

[Merc]

J,

Knowing the history behind our old guns makes owning them a lot more interesting.

What's really interesting to me was how the US entered WW1 in April, 1917 but the Ordinance Dept. withheld all of the M1917 production in 1917 from the war. This meant more than 400,000 M1917s stayed home because of parts interchangeability issues. They finally allowed M1917s to be sent to war in March, 1918 and only allowed those made after January, 1918 to go. The M1903 and was their only choice to arm the doughboys for the first 11 months of the war.

Merc