Accurate shooting M1917

[Merc]

Merc--

The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.

--fjruple

While I agree your explanation is valid and probably swayed enough politicians of the day to support standardizing the 03, there were other reasons.

The parts interchangeability problem was never fully resolved. From what I've learned, 90% compatability by the end of the war was the best they could do. Perhaps they could have achieved 100% if the war had gone on for a few years.

According to C.S. Ferris:

The government had financial issues after the war. Springfield Arsenal would have had to retool the factory and train their workforce to build the 17s. There was no immediate war to fight. It was much cheaper to just keep on building the 03s.

The government didn't want to run the risk of losing control of rifle manufacturing to strikes and bankruptcy if it allowed private companies such as E, R and W to continue to build the 17. Both occurred in the years following the war.

The 17 was a superior rifle in some respects. The strength of the 17's action was obvious. However, according to Ferris, the 03's rear sight configuration was identified during the war as a design deficiency that needed to be corrected. The 03-A3s that were built later had (guess what?) a re-designed rear sight that somewhat resembled the 17's rear sight. It was moved to the rear side of the action like the 17 and had protecting sides that were similar to the 17 although a bit smaller, and kept its windage adjustment.

I have an 03-A3 and the rear sight is fine however, the front sight takes some getting used to. The thin blade makes target acquisition difficult at times. Target acquisition has never been a problem when I shoot the 17.

[Merc]

i need to do more testing with mine yet... The barrel is a little pitted from about the muzzle down about 6"... She's still capable of holding 10 rounds in about 10"...
bombdog, out...

It doesn't sound like the pitting is having much of an effect on the accuracy. I wouldn't worry too much. Just take her to the range and have a blast (no pun intended). How about a pic?

[p246]

p246--
The magazine boxes are not changeable in the P14. The Winchester P14 is uniquely different. The other problem I have noted on the P14 is that there are two types of magazine boxes. These changes are unassociated with the upgrade of the bolt in the MKI*. I have only found two parts dealers in the US who knows about the compatability issues between the different P14 manufacturers. Unlike the P14, the M1917 has just about all of the parts are interchangeable except for the first 10,000 Winchesters M1917s. This really was a lifesaver with the M1917 rebuild programs in WWII. The guns in a lot of cases were stripped completely down to the last screw during the rebuilds. There was a major fubar after WWI when many M1917s were rebuilt with new barrels and stored as a limited standard. A lot of M1917s were stored without any cosmoline in the bores and they rusted and had to be replaced when they were pulled from storage at the beginning of WWII.

--fjruple

Yep I know the P14 and M1917 internal magazine box was not interchangeable. That comment was in response to Merc saying a Remington magazine box would not work in his M1917. I suspect because it might have been actually a Remington manufactured P14 internal magazine box. As you know that was one of the parts they had to change for the 30-06 round to work in that platform. I have the difference in measurements laying around her somewhere.

[p246]

Merc--

The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.

--fjruple

Its my understanding the M1917 did have it's followers that wanted to have it adopted over the 1903. Whomever they were they did not have the horsepower to get it done. Plus after WW1 the US was flush with rifles compared to pre WW1. I'm sure many bought the war to end all wars ideology and figured we had more than enough of both to last. Although I like my M1917 I like my 1903A3 better in many respects (Weight, Length, windage). The only reason frankly I like both for shooting purposes over the M1903 is I just like peep type sights better (Aging eyes play a role in this-Same reason I like to shoot L.E. No 4's over No. 1's)). For just looks nothing beats the lines of a nice Rock Island or Springfield 1903.

[PhillipM]

Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.

These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.

--fjruple

The problem was trying to make the action designed for 276 work with 303. No one ever got them to feed perfectly.

Winchester had a very valid reason for jumping the gun as you put it. They had a trained workforce IDLE. They had two choices, let them build rifles or lay them off and let this trained workforce scatter in the wind. What would you have done?

[PhillipM]

Good P14 video

https://youtu.be/rxPRFQCGSgM

Good M1917 video

https://youtu.be/jWrRowbvVio

[5MadFarmers]

Its my understanding the M1917 did have it's followers that wanted to have it adopted over the 1903. Whomever they were they did not have the horsepower to get it done. Plus after WW1 the US was flush with rifles compared to pre WW1. I'm sure many bought the war to end all wars ideology and figured we had more than enough of both to last. Although I like my M1917 I like my 1903A3 better in many respects (Weight, Length, windage). The only reason frankly I like both for shooting purposes over the M1903 is I just like peep type sights better (Aging eyes play a role in this-Same reason I like to shoot L.E. No 4's over No. 1's)). For just looks nothing beats the lines of a nice Rock Island or Springfield 1903.

Let's fix it with one bit ok?

The Army needs to get funding for whatever they do. At that time that meant operations at Springfield Armory. The money request for Springfield Armory was made in advance of the budget - sometimes pretty significantly. The request for money for post-war operations was requested before the war had stopped, greatly in advance of any post-war shooting match, and the operations at Springfield Armory were covered in the budget request. The decision to keep making M-1903s had already been made and that was covered in the request.

Appropriations requests, and the hearings on them, can be rather fascinating.

[p246]

Let's fix it with one bit ok?

The Army needs to get funding for whatever they do. At that time that meant operations at Springfield Armory. The money request for Springfield Armory was made in advance of the budget - sometimes pretty significantly. The request for money for post-war operations was requested before the war had stopped, greatly in advance of any post-war shooting match, and the operations at Springfield Armory were covered in the budget request. The decision to keep making M-1903s had already been made and that was covered in the request.

Appropriations requests, and the hearings on them, can be rather fascinating.

I'll consider it fixed thanks you, and to be clear I'm in the no change crowd. I've always wondered who wanted to make the switch. I've seen plenty written in general, but never any names. I'd also think the powers to be at Springfield would be reluctant to change unless there was a huge improvement. The M1917 is a stronger action but it also is longer and heavier. Gain something loose something isn't huge in my book. I own both and like both but if I was the guru at Sprinfield I don't think I'd be convinced to change over. I shoot my M1917 better than any of my 1903s, but I've never tried with 18 year old eyes so who knows what that might have changed.

I believe labor concerns also weighed in although McNamara changed that path about 50 years later.

This P14 with dummy rounds seems to be cycling. We will see what happens when I get it out for real. I'll post a range report in a new thread.

[p246]

The problem was trying to make the action designed for 276 work with 303. No one ever got them to feed perfectly.

Winchester had a very valid reason for jumping the gun as you put it. They had a trained workforce IDLE. They had two choices, let them build rifles or lay them off and let this trained workforce scatter in the wind. What would you have done?

I'd build build build. It was eventually worked out for the most part. Needs of war tend to push things along. The US was fortunate the P14 contract had ended and W,R, and E were there ready and waiting. I think Britain bought the three lines for 20 million and sold them back for 9 million.

[bombdog]

It doesn't sound like the pitting is having much of an effect on the accuracy. I wouldn't worry too much. Just take her to the range and have a blast (no pun intended). How about a pic?

Think i posted some on another thread, i'll see if i can find some more...
bombdog...
The little blurry white dot by the barrel is a SR replaceable center... 200 is a good shoot for her...