Reifference. Ah ... no. Pre-war 03's were of course produced slowly as there was not need to hurry. There was no urgent demand. Rifles produced during the war were fine rifles, but not artful. Comparing quality of fit/finish, consistency of bores, barrels, and comparing the actual practical usefulness of each in combat, there is no meaningful advantage to the 03 or disadvantage to the 17. For what it's worth, I've handled, fired and used both rifles over years since 1979. I've shot them with ball and handloads. I've found that a good 03 will as expected give good on target results. The exact same is true of a good 17. For shooting in a hurry, the 17 is superior given it's aperture rear sight. The 17 front sight is easier to acquire simply b/c of the way it is made. That single thin blade of the 03 is fine for targets. In the field it is not so good. If the rear sight of the 03 was more finely adjustable for windage, it would be more useful. But given its gross graduations of scale, it is questionable just how useful those adjustments might be in the field. Stocking on either rifle left a lot to be desired, both would have benefited from a higher comb. With the C stock, the 03 really came into its own. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
" Unlike most conservatives, libs have no problem exploiting dead children and dancing on their graves."