1903a3 vs 1917

[jcw1970]

I was wondering what the big deal is about the 1903a3? What makes it better than the 1917?

[13Echo]

The '03 and later '03A3 are trimmer, slimmer rifles with a slick working action that cocks on opening. The M1917 is, in comparison a rather clunky rifle with awkward lines and it cocks on closing. The sights on the M17 are better than the '03 but not as good as the '03A3. Finally and perhaps more importantly the '03 is more popular because it is THE American bolt action rifle. The rifles, otherwise, are both excellent military weapons with little to chose between them as a combat arm.

Jerry Liles

[roverboy]

Well said 13Echo. I kinda like the '03A3 better. Theres nothing really wrong with a 1917. I will admit I personally like cock on opening actions better. I love Mauser 98 style actions. I have 2 of them. I also own a 1916 Spanish(93action). Its cocks on closing. Bottom line, if you like something that's great.

[wiljen]

1917s are great donor actions for heavy calibers. That is one area where the 17 excels and the 03 cannot keep pace. The 17 is hell for stout and easily can handle anything you can fit in it. A-square used 1917s to make many a heavy stopper rifle before they started making their own actions.

[Uncle Grinch]

If I remember correctly the '17 Enfield was a retooled (by Remington) Pattern 14 Enfield rifle (303) that we made for England during the early days of WWI.

It was later modified and formed the basis of the Remington Model 30 commercial bolt action rifle.

This action also was used commercially by another arms manufacturer for their proprietary cartridges because of it's long action size. The name escapes me now. Maybe it'll come to me later.


.... Hannibel comes to my mind for some reason.

[Jim]

I had an '03 one time and kick myself regularly for letting it go. However(comma) I have a '17 right now and am very happy with it.

[Uncle Grinch]

1917s are great donor actions for heavy calibers. That is one area where the 17 excels and the 03 cannot keep pace. The 17 is hell for stout and easily can handle anything you can fit in it. A-square used 1917s to make many a heavy stopper rifle before they started making their own actions.


That's it... you and I were on the same thought there Wiljen.

[jcw1970]

Looking around my gun papers from my grandfathers and found the receipt from 1958 when you could still buy a gun through the NRA. 1903A3 $22.50 + 4.50 Shipping. When my grandfather passed, we had to split up all the guns between me and my cousin. Guess who got the 1903A3? Think he would sell it to me for $27?

[Multigunner]

The 03a3 benefitted from advances in metalurgy, making it much stronger than previous 03 actions, fully as strong as the M1917.
The 03a3 seldom had a top quality barrel due to wartime shortcuts, which gave a M1917 with good bore a bit of an edge.

Most 03a3 rifles had the mud fugly "scant grip" stock, servicable but inelegant, and the first thing to go when sporterizing. The type C grip stock is very nice.
Stamped floorplates where another comestic factor, servicable but cheap looking, because they were cheap.

By the time the 03a3 was manufactured the only new condition M1917 rifles around were those that had been in storage for a generation, over production from WW1.

Some M1917 action suffered microscopic cracks during manufacture when a pnuematic mechanism was used to crank on the barrels, no problem when left in original trim, but could present problems in rebarreling especially to magnum chamberings.

For most shooters the bolt knob of the 17 is too far back, and cracks the knuckle of the trigger finger in recoil.
Its size was a problem to shorter soldiers, the Chinese cut many down to a 22 inch barrel and set back the front sight and bayonet lug, for use by shorter troops.
The British also experimented with a similar shortened P-14.

[Three44s]

I like the stoutness of the action on my '17.

And the cock on closing is also growing on me.

Three 44s

[NickSS]

I have owned a bunch of 03s and 03A3s and have one now. I have also owned 1914 and 1917 enfields both full military and sporter versions. The are all good solid rifles that shoot well if you can see the sights. I started high power match shooting with a Smith Carona 03A3 with a scant stock and a 2 groove barrel. That rifle would shoot less than 2 moa all the way out to 1000 yards for a 10 shot group and it was a stock military rifle. I have also owned two brand new condition 03s that were made for the 1928 national matches. They shot well but I never could get the accuracy with the 03 sights like I could with the 03A3 sights. The 1917 sights were superior to either of the 03 sights as far as being useful to the military They are not as good as the 03A3 sight is for target shooting. After I shot out the barrel on my 03A3 rifle I used for match shooting I hade it rebuilt into a match rifle with a timney trigger and a heavy weight match grade barrel and a custom stock. I wore out three other barrels with that rifle until I sold it and got a Model 70 match rifle. I wore out six barrels on that rifle and finally sold it some 10 years after I quit shooting high power due to vision and having nowhere to go but down in scores.

[Multigunner]

I have owned a bunch of 03s and 03A3s and have one now. I have also owned 1914 and 1917 enfields both full military and sporter versions. The are all good solid rifles that shoot well if you can see the sights. I started high power match shooting with a Smith Carona 03A3 with a scant stock and a 2 groove barrel. That rifle would shoot less than 2 moa all the way out to 1000 yards for a 10 shot group and it was a stock military rifle.
According to Farrow's Manual of Military Training the acceptance standard for both the 03 and M1917 with new barrel was about two MOA. They sighted in on a cross with bands either four inches wide at two hundred yards or two inches wide at one hundred yards. Four of five shots had to stay in the center. This allowed for flyers due to ammo quality. The rifles were probably capable of better, this was the standard preliminary sighting in procedure before being issued.





I have also owned two brand new condition 03s that were made for the 1928 national matches. They shot well but I never could get the accuracy with the 03 sights like I could with the 03A3 sights. The 1917 sights were superior to either of the 03 sights as far as being useful to the military They are not as good as the 03A3 sight is for target shooting. After I shot out the barrel on my 03A3 rifle I used for match shooting I hade it rebuilt into a match rifle with a timney trigger and a heavy weight match grade barrel and a custom stock. I wore out three other barrels with that rifle until I sold it and got a Model 70 match rifle. I wore out six barrels on that rifle and finally sold it some 10 years after I quit shooting high power due to vision and having nowhere to go but down in scores.

The original 03 sights don't have a good rep, the Marines altered their battle sight blade for close in work.
A few fine adjustable rear sights were made for both the M1917 and P-14. The Winchester manufacture P-14 with fine adjustable sight was considered better than a scoped SMLE as a sniper rifle.
The M1917 target sights were result of attempts by some US ordnance officers to have the M1917 replace the 03 as our standard rifle after WW1. They wanted to use the rifle in post WW1 competition to prove its worth.The 17 peep sight is probably why the a3 got a receiver mounted peep.

A few US officers have given good reasons why an open sight would be better for closer range combat, its certainly better in low light or cloudy days unless opened to a ghost ring.
I reamed one leg of the L sight of my no.4 and threaded it for a small apeture insert. When light is low I remove the insert for better view.
When I modded this rifle's receiver with a scope base of my own design I left a single leg of the L sight as a fold down back up sight to use when I remove the scope for low light deep woods use. Its good to 300 yards, I just adjust for range by holding the front blade either at the center of the peep with center hold for 300 or below center with six o'clock hold for closer ranges.

I know how you feel about eye sight. I suffered a serious eye injury and quit shooting for many years. My vision has improved remarkably in recent years, thats why I got back into shooting. Now days I don't bother with a scope at anything less than 300 yards.
I also got a PH5A apeture sight for my old SMLE. Haven't mounted it yet though.
It has six dial in apetures and a sunshade for varying light conditions.

[WineMan]

I like my M1917, and it is very accurate, but as far as new ground or even evolutionary improvements there is nothing that it has as battle rifle over the LE Mk1's it was to replace. Against the Mk 4 there is even less to recommend it.

I have always found it interesting that the British would have Mauser envy and in some respects take a step backwards in the design of the P13/14. Blame it on Bisley?

Yes a new smaller caliber higher velocity rimless cartridge was in the works but the MkVIIZ .303 ball erased most of its potential superiority. They went from 10 rounds to five (although the M1917 holds six 30-06). Of bolt guns only the Swiss 1889 had more capacity at 12 and both the SMLE and SR 1889 had detachable magazines. Sure it was a stronger action but still cocked on closing. Sights are better as they became aperture and receiver mounted but no easy windage adjustment was provided. One piece stock against a two piece, still no quantum leap; there are Mk4 sniper rifles in 7.62 NATO that have just been retired from service so a one piece stock can not have been a great improvement. It was no lighter, shorter or more easily maintained. And it was no better in the looks department, if anything it is worse.

The 1903A3 and the SMLE Mk4 were evolutionary improvements on their predecessors, the M1 Garand was revolutionary as was the concept of smaller rifles with less powerful cartridges (Stg 44, SKS, AK, AR etc).

Wineman

[dk17hmr]

I prefer cocking on open much more than cocking on close. I have a 1903 and my dad has a 1917, they are both very accurate but Ill take my 1903 over that 1917 any day of the week, because of my first sentence.

[omgb]

I have both a P17 and an 03A3. The 03A3 is slimmer and sexier but the P17 is built like a Russian farm girl. The P17 is the more accurate of the two but both have the two groove barrel. The P17 sights are sturdier but windage adjustment is pretty rough. I don't have an issue with the bolt handle but, the P17 can bang my nose if I'm not careful with my hand placment. I'm interested in selling the 03A3 but i don't have a particular price in mind.

[Multigunner]

I like my M1917, and it is very accurate, but as far as new ground or even evolutionary improvements there is nothing that it has as battle rifle over the LE Mk1's it was to replace. Against the Mk 4 there is even less to recommend it.

I have always found it interesting that the British would have Mauser envy and in some respects take a step backwards in the design of the P13/14. Blame it on Bisley?

Yes a new smaller caliber higher velocity rimless cartridge was in the works but the MkVIIZ .303 ball erased most of its potential superiority. They went from 10 rounds to five (although the M1917 holds six 30-06). Of bolt guns only the Swiss 1889 had more capacity at 12 and both the SMLE and SR 1889 had detachable magazines. Sure it was a stronger action but still cocked on closing. Sights are better as they became aperture and receiver mounted but no easy windage adjustment was provided. One piece stock against a two piece, still no quantum leap; there are Mk4 sniper rifles in 7.62 NATO that have just been retired from service so a one piece stock can not have been a great improvement. It was no lighter, shorter or more easily maintained. And it was no better in the looks department, if anything it is worse.

The 1903A3 and the SMLE Mk4 were evolutionary improvements on their predecessors, the M1 Garand was revolutionary as was the concept of smaller rifles with less powerful cartridges (Stg 44, SKS, AK, AR etc).

Wineman

Good points, but there was reason at the time to look for a better cartridge than the .303. Early in WW1 the British found that the .303 MkVII bullet was the least effective of any military ball at the time against both the armored loop hole plates of trenches and the primitive body armor and sniper shields in use by the Germans. They had to use sporting rifles of heavy caliber to make up the difference till proper AP ammo became available, and some P13 rifles are said to have been used as well the .280 despite its drawbacks having great penetration power at long range.
According the Hesketh Pritchart , the major authority on WW1 sniping the two piece stock of the SMLE caused loss of accuracy after a couple of months of exposure to the conditions of the trenches. The L42 rifles worked fine in most evironments but had troubles of their own in wet weather despite the free floating heavy barrel and usually were restricted to the 144 grain projectiles, its a decent sniper rifle but limited in its choice of ammunition. The L8 apparently was even more ammo sensitive and displayed shifting zero with bullets of 155 grain.
Metro Politan police had been renting Army Sniper rifles but found that the L42 rifles they received were seriously degraded and many were condemened as unsafe to fire. They then contracted to have the Enforcer rifles purpose built. Only the best of No.4 receivers , selected and re proofed, can hold up to much use with 7.62 NATO without damage, and many long range 7.62 loads are too hot for it. According to Martin Peglers books on Snipers the L42 rifles began to show problems around the time of the Falklands campaign, which led to replacement.

As for the "blame it on Bisley" you can also credit Bisley with every improvement in the Lee Enfields and their .303 ammunition.

Before machineguns became commonplace in modern armies effective long range rifle fire was the queen of battle, so naturally every country wanted the most powerful rifle a soldier could carry and shoot accurately. A bolt action rifle with the limited range of a 7.62X39 would have been of little use at the ranges involved in WW1 except in close quarters after a direct infantry assault was pressed home.
The 5.56 and 7.62X39 using a lead core would have been nearly worthless against armored loopholes or the german steel assault vests or MG gunners armor at the ranges involved, usually over 400 yards, and of no use at all for long range indirect fire. Steel cores have improved penetration, but remaining energy after penetrating even light cover at more than spitting distance is slight in comparasion.

To make hits on individuals by individual marksmen a flattened trajectory and high velocity with a heavy enough bullet was called for.
I've heard of Chinese human wave attacks being defeated by our troops armed with the Garand and opening fire at 800+ yards, far beyond the range of the SKS and SMGs the Chinese relied on to give them the edge. The Chinese cut to ribbons before they could return fire effectively.

In the Musketry of 1915 book a captured German Officer is quoted as saying that though the Mauser had greater range than the Enfield pre WW1 training of German troops dictated holding fire until they closed to 300 yards, by which time the British troops who'd been trained to open fire at extreme range had already cut his troops down in droves. It was a matter of training rather than effectiveness of the rifles that made the difference.
In WW2 US Infantrymen were told to forget earlier training on only firing at targets they could see clearly and were sure to hit, instead they were told to lay in as much fire as possible on where the enemy might be even at great range. This tactic resulted in the Germans being driven from cover or killed before they could spring a trap relying on their LMGs to overwhelm infantry return fire.

Without selective fire the assault rifle type cartridges are at a severe disadvantage to the main battle cartridge. Even more so in the days before autoloading infantry rifles were perfected.

Also despite recent claims by some collectors there were many recorded instances of the Lee Enfield rifle actions failing while using only fresh military spec ammo even on rifle ranges under ideal conditions.
The action was adequate under normal circumstances but did not have the margin of safety of the front locking designs.

Any of the Mauser type actions could be fitted with an extended magazine, it was a feature some thought useful and others did not.
Without spare magazines the detachable box mag was only useful in allowing replacement of a damaged or mud filled mag, they still loaded by chargers five rounds at a time. This allowed a five round reserve which was a very useful feature, but the reloading times during periods of extended firing remained basically the same.
From Musketry again we find that troops were discouraged from keeping more than five rounds in the magazine until ready to go over the top. More than five left in for extended periods could weaken the spring.

Anyway the point is that these were weapons designed for entirely different tactics dictated by the times and level of technology. They were Pre War designs and did not reflect lessons learned during that war.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

I like them both but the Springfield is a better shooter of cast boolits. Mine is fitted with a new 4 groove surplus barrel and shoots 210gn 311294 boolits very accurately;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/Springfield_cast.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/Picture001-1.jpg

[NuJudge]

The 1903A3 rear sight is a little more crude than the 1917, but it is windage adjustable. The 1917 front sight can be adjusted for windage, but the front sights were heavily staked after sighting in at the factory. There is a very expensive aftermarket 1917 front sight adjuster available, and I have one.

Right after WW I, the 1917 was used as the designated National Match Service Rifle. Tables were worked up to show how much Kentucky Windage had to be used for a given distance and wind condition. The reaction of the participants was overwhelmingly negative, so despite the US having more 1917 rifles at the end of WW I, the US kept the 1903 as the Service Rifle.

The 1903 rear sight is capable of shooting as good a score for me as the 1903A3 and the 1917, but windage and elevation changes with the 1903 require thought and a special micrometer for elevation. My biggest problem with the 1917 is that it makes my face hurt.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

Notice two of my Enfields are fitted with Parker Hale 5B range sights. These are micro adjustable 1/4min clicks:D

[Shiloh]

If I remember correctly the '17 Enfield was a retooled (by Remington) Pattern 14 Enfield rifle (303) that we made for England during the early days of WWI.


They were already tooled up and making them for the British in .303. It was much easier and cost effective to convert to .30-06 than re-tool for making '03's

SHiloh

[frank505]

My safe has an 1903A3, two high number 1903's,one with an NBA stock and Lyman 48. The other has a"C" stock and Lyman 48 and has been cut to 20 inches and 1917 front sight instead of the razor blade 1903 sight. The barrel shows 4 on an erosion gauge but will shoot 150's at a minute or better. There is a 1922 that I shoot every Tuesday, 50 rounds offhand.
I love my Springfields, the short one shoots 240 grain Woodleighs very well for packing around the hills unless I am packing a lever gun.

[sheepdog]

I was wondering what the big deal is about the 1903a3? What makes it better than the 1917?

You're kidding right? The 03A3 is a target rifle quality on par with pre war civie mausers. The 1917 is a US build enfield, a decent enough rifle for its era but nothing on par with the 03A3. I'd rather have a nagant than an 1917 any day.

[atr]

I love my 1917 !!!!.....I would NOT trade it for a springfield...plus the action is a great one to build off of.....Remington made a beautiful (commercial) sporter based on the action...the action is stout !!,,,,,its my elk rifle ...and it IS accurate

[Storydude]

1903. a Mauser design so good the USA copied it...And had to pay royalties to the Germans for it...While shooting at them.

[sheepdog]

1903. a Mauser design so good the USA copied it...And had to pay royalties to the Germans for it...While shooting at them.

Lol only paid royalties til the war started. But good point.

[omgb]

Too bad so many P17s were chopped up for "Bubba sporters" Some of them were really bastardized. I've seen quite a few over the years and even the Bubba jobs tend to shoot well.

[sheepdog]

Still if you want a real sweet shooting nazibustin bolties can't over look the 6.5 swed. Ballistic coefficient for a war time rifle is incredible.

[KCSO]

Prior to WWI the 1914 pattern rifle in 276 caliber, Hey 6.8!, was meant to replace the SMLE. Then WWI came on and the whole idea was scrapped but the 1914 rifles were retooled for 303 and the 1917 was developed from the 1914's that were scheduled for production here in the States. Alvin York was real disappointed when they took his 1903 away from him when he got on the boat and gave him a 1917 when he got off. The M1917/14 was made as a bulletproof battle rifle and did not lend itself to making a sporter. The cock on closing was to make it familiar to the British troops. The M1917 is marginaly stornger than a 1903 and the longer magazine is easier to convert to magnum calibers but overall maybe not as nice a sporter, in some peoples opinion. There is nothing wrong with a M1917 and in a sporter I wouldn't care which one I was shooting.

[doubs43]

KCSO makes some good points. The P-13, or Pattern 1913, was designed for a high velocity .276" cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 2,785 FPS. There were 508 rifles made in the last months of 1912 and 743 completed in 1913 for a total trials production of 1,251.

The war prevented adoption of the rifle and cartridge as the #1 MK III rifle was available and in use. Thinking that production of the #1 rifle wouldn't keep up with demands, the P-13 was modified to use the standard .303 cartridge and a contract was made with Remington, Eddystone Arsenal (owned by Remington) and Winchester for production of the Pattern 14 rifle. Many thousands were made but few, if any, were used on the front lines as #1 rifles were being made in sufficient quantity to arm British troops. The contracts were thus canceled.

American entry into the war found the US Army short of everything including rifles. Not only were 1903 Springfield rifles in short supply but arsenal production could not hope to meet demands. The three factories set up to make the P-14 rifles were quickly converted to U.S. Rifle, Model of 1917 production. Modifications were necessary to allow use of the .30-06 cartridge but they were successfully made in short order. More Doughboys were armed with the 1917 than the '03 by a wide margin. The biggest single gripe against the rifle was the weight which was greater than the '03.

No less an authority than Julian Hatcher proclaimed that the BEST battle sights of the war on either side were the sights on the 1917. The 98 Mauser had barley corn front and V-notch rear sights that were relatively crude. The 1903 Springfield had sights more fitting on a target range in good light than on a dim or dark battlefield. The 1917, OTOH, had a large aperture rear sight and relatively wide front blade sight that was easier to see in dim light and the rifle was as accurate as any other rifle being used at combat distances. Sergeant York used his 1917 to good effect as most already know.

For those who complain about the cock-on-closing bolt, the rifle was built for the battlefield and the Brits had good reason for the design. The extraction of cases is aided by the pressure of the firing pin spring as the bolt handle is lifted and dirty or sticking cases are more easily pulled from the chamber. Cock-on-opening bolts are more difficult to raise after firing while cock-on-closing bolts are more difficult to close. Pick yer poison but both designs have advantages and disadvantages. It's easy to become accustomed to cock-on-closing bolts.... trust me.

When I was in England, I did some long distance shooting out to 600 yards. There were some excellent shooters among the crowd and many rifles were custom made for the events. A good friend once entered a match and used a bone stock P-14. He won the match handily and wiped the eyes of most of the other shooters. Anyone who thinks the P-14/1917 rifles won't shoot accurately at distance are only fooling themselves.

[Echo]

You're kidding right? The 03A3 is a target rifle quality on par with pre war civie mausers. The 1917 is a US build enfield, a decent enough rifle for its era but nothing on par with the 03A3. I'd rather have a nagant than an 1917 any day.

SD, I will trade you even-steven ANY NUMBER of M-N's for a like number of 1917'S! My 1917 makes cloverleafs @ 100 yds with 168 A-Max over 60 gr 4831. And the foofuraw over cock-on-closing is just that. Experiments showed that C-O-C was significantly faster in sustained fire than C-O-O. During the last Senior Olys I was throwing the empties vigorously toward my colleague to the right. Not hitting him, but piling up under & around his mat. And then, sitting ejection was, shall we say, competitive.

[omgb]

Did Sheepdog really say that? The MN is a pretty crude rifle compared with the P17. Just feeding a rimmed cartridge from a magazine is a trick in itself. I have a good condition MN and it will not shoot anywhere near as well as my P17. Somebody has been sniffing the Hoppes too much.

[Gerry N.]

A good friend was a Lt. in the Soviet Army in WWII. He said he ordered his men to find a fist sized rock and keep with them at all times when armed with a M-N. After a few rounds in battle conditions, it was a necessary accessory used to open the bolt. The M91-30, especially. is subject to jamming and is mostly useful as a pike. Not too important at a covered rifle range in good weather and with no battle hardened German troops doing their damndest to kill you, but rather high on the priority list when you're up to your waist in mud, blood and guts and your two week old rifle can't be operated without something to use as a hammer. I'd take a M1917 any day in the week.

Then there's the old WWI saw about the Germans having the best hunting rifle, the M98, the Americans having the best target rifle, the M1903 and the Brits having the best battle rifle, the SMLE.

Gerry N.

[NickSS]

When we got into WWI we were totally unprepared. Hatcher in his notebook states that we had less than a 1000 machine guns in the army and we had no where near enough 03s. In fact we had many troops armed totally with french and brittish weapons and some even used Moisin Nagants. As for machine guns the majority of those used were either french or british as was the artillery we used. So the 1917 enfield as it was already in production in 303 was a smart move to get something that would shoot into our soldiers hands. By the way many trapdoor springfields were used throughout the war for guard duty and training purposes as were all the Krags we had.

[herbert buckland]

Prior to WWI the 1914 pattern rifle in 276 caliber, Hey 6.8!, was meant to replace the SMLE. Then WWI came on and the whole idea was scrapped but the 1914 rifles were retooled for 303 and the 1917 was developed from the 1914's that were scheduled for production here in the States. Alvin York was real disappointed when they took his 1903 away from him when he got on the boat and gave him a 1917 when he got off. The M1917/14 was made as a bulletproof battle rifle and did not lend itself to making a sporter. The cock on closing was to make it familiar to the British troops. The M1917 is marginaly stornger than a 1903 and the longer magazine is easier to convert to magnum calibers but overall maybe not as nice a sporter, in some peoples opinion. There is nothing wrong with a M1917 and in a sporter I wouldn't care which one I was shooting.i find the cock on closing faster for rapid fier,probly too yous to the SMLE

[WineMan]

Multigunner,

Great information!

Including the tactics does make a difference. With the trench warfare, long range fire seems only to inflict minor but demoralizing causalities with the main battle rifles. When an attack got you into the other guy's trench then shorter controllable selective fire was the name of the game (Pederson device, Schmisser, Thompson, shotguns et al.). There are reports from Afghanistan of fire from 7.62x54r out ranging our 5.56 mm weapons (duh).

The trend to a one size fits all may be swinging back to more specialized equipment for different tactics. The M14 tried to replace SMG's, M1 Carbine, BAR and M1 and probably is good at two out of four (replacing the M1 and BAR). The M16/M4 has about the same batting average (in my mind a SMG and M1 Carbine replacement but much more accurate).

I am sure that nobody would have predicted that the SMLE would continue as a military weapon as long as it did. It must have had the right combination of attributes that it was too good to replace or at least be in a secondary role. Of course it does seem that logistics played a part in keeping it around too.

Thanks for all the great information!

Wineman

[KCSO]

It seems the military has always been more willing to spend lives than money. The Civil War (War of Northern Agression) was fought with obsolete weapons from the git go. The idea of a cartridge gun dated back to Pauly. The Indian Wars were fought with single shot converted muskets even thought the Mauser bolt gun was patented here. The Krag was adopted even thought the whole board knew the mauser system was a better gun and the single shot cut off was carried through WWI. We finally caught up with the Garand and then slipped back to Matty Mattell. Now we are looking to upgrade to the 6.8 that the Brit's wanted in 1913.

It's called military intelligence.

[herbert buckland]

It seems the military has always been more willing to spend lives than money. The Civil War (War of Northern Agression) was fought with obsolete weapons from the git go. The idea of a cartridge gun dated back to Pauly. The Indian Wars were fought with single shot converted muskets even thought the Mauser bolt gun was patented here. The Krag was adopted even thought the whole board knew the mauser system was a better gun and the single shot cut off was carried through WWI. We finally caught up with the Garand and then slipped back to Matty Mattell. Now we are looking to upgrade to the 6.8 that the Brit's wanted in 1913.

It's called military intelligence.this also aplys to the men on the ground yousing the rifles(i did not lick swaping my SLR for a F88) you get atached to your rifle,though acuracy levels jumped with the F88 i never had faith in the cartrige ,the 6.8 i have yoused hunting and is a big inprovment

[doubs43]

It seems the military has always been more willing to spend lives than money. The Civil War (War of Northern Agression) was fought with obsolete weapons from the git go. The idea of a cartridge gun dated back to Pauly. The Indian Wars were fought with single shot converted muskets even thought the Mauser bolt gun was patented here. The Krag was adopted even thought the whole board knew the mauser system was a better gun and the single shot cut off was carried through WWI. We finally caught up with the Garand and then slipped back to Matty Mattell. Now we are looking to upgrade to the 6.8 that the Brit's wanted in 1913.

It's called military intelligence.

Don't blame it all on the military. WBTS generals considered rapid fire weapons to consume too much ammunition and that the supply system wouldn't be able to keep up with demand. More importantly, the rifled musket extended the killing distance by a factor of at least three over the smoothbore muskets and did terrible damage. In 1861 the governments, North and South, needed arms quickly and lots of them. Politicians were also concerned with the costs of replacing the muskets with more modern arms using great quantities of ammunition.

Once the WBTS ended, Congress was less than willing to spend the money on an entirely new weapons system and conversion of existing stocks of muskets to trapdoor rifles was a matter of economical sense to a nation deeply in debt.

The Krag was the first US military small bore rifle and apparently passed the necessary tests - twice - before adoption. The side magazine was loaded with 5 rounds while a magazine cutoff permitted keeping them in reserve while the rifle was used as a single shot. When required, the cutoff was opened and the magazine cartridges used for rapid fire. Mauser was included in the tests and for whatever reason found wanting in comparison to the Krag.

Ironically, the 1903 was a Mauser ripoff that cost the government $1,000,000 in reparations to Paul Mauser. The 1917 Enfield was another Mauser ripoff.

Looking past the superb Garand and M-14 rifles, politics reared it's ugly head again when Robert MacNamara pretty much forced the US military to adopt the M-16 and the 5.56mm cartridge. It may be the longest serving rifle in US military history but IMO it was always a mistake in spite of elaborate attempts to improve it. If we eventually adopt a larger cartridge, it can only be an improvement.

[Multigunner]

A few notes here.
The British .276 is actually a 7mm-.283 , the British went by "minor" diameter when designating caliber back then, they also called the 7mm Mauser the .276 Rigby.
The 1903 used the same sort of dual opposed locking lugs as the Mauser but that dual opposed lugs were not a Mauser invention, Mauser copied it from the Spandau designed Gew 88 and Spandau had copied it from the French Lebel.
The royalties situation was due to the use of a Mauser patented stripper clip and stripper clip guide, the mag box and floorplate, and details of the extractor. The US Chief of Ordnance had dealt with the US representatives of Mauser on this and thought the deal settled, the Comptroller of the US Treasury felt our chief of ordnance had over paid and sought to squelch the deal by citing a legal president involving a previous lawsuit over an element of the Krag design. Later a US court awarded Mauser several hundred thousand on his claim plus punitive damages, but I'm not sure if he ever collected.
Many elements of the Mauser 1893 design had been lifted from previous outdated designs by other gunmakers and not protected by US patents.
You'll always see the twin opposed foreward lugs labeled a "Mauser Type" but they are so only in detail, not basic design.

The Lee Enfield design was an updated version of The Remington Lee rifles, designed by American James Paris Lee, and first in USN service in the 1870's in .45-70 and later in limited use by US National Guard into WW1 as the 1899 .30-40 chambered military version also sold as a sporter by Remington.
The 1899 used four lugs, two at the front and two at the rear.

As for the Mosin Nagant, only problems of stiff bolts I've encountered with these were due to poorly cut camming surfaces, once lapped the actions are slick and precise.

The Krag if ammo was carried in a canvas pouch rather than in looped cartridge belts could be reloaded as quickly as the Lee Enfield with chargers, and its action is every bit as fast and slick.
The Lee Enfields in use before the change to the Springfield 1903 did not have charger guides so they took longer to reload than the Krag.
Early Lee Metford and Lee Enfields used six shot mags, and the intention was to carry extra loaded mags, which the US users of the 1899 Remington Lee were issued in canvas belts with pouches for preloaded magazines.
Unfortunately due to metalurgy of the day the mags were prone to damage and spare mags were soon not available unless one took a mag from a rifle left damaged on the field. Feed lips were easily damaged unless the mag were left in the rifles and loaded in place. One reason spare Enfield mags in good condition are expensive and often out of stock. I have five spare mags I bought when they were still fairly cheap most of my mags required repairs due to bent or torn lips.

The late 19th century problems with mass producing magazines was why detachable high cap mags didn't catch on. Even during WW1 defective or easily damaged magazines were a constant problem, one that continued to plague users of the 1918 manufacture BAR magazines during WW2, and the British STEN gun.
Modern magazines benefit from advanced metalurgy and manufacturing techniques not available till after WW1.

Close quarter battle in the trenches often involved shotguns, handguns (often auto pistols with extended magazines or snail drums), cutdown rifles and carbines when available, hatchets, shovels , knives, etc. The Thompson was intended as a "Trench Broom" but came too late.
The Germans fielded a few SMGs using Luger snail drums.
The closest thing to an assault rifle was the 1905 and 1907 Winchester autoloading rifles, some fitted with extended magazines. The French had bought some for use by aircraft observers before machineguns were common on aircraft and a few made their way to the trenches, and some US officers brought their own to the party.


PS
Both the Krag and the Mosin Nagant magazines make for superior feeding systems when used for sporting rifles compared to the LE mags, especially for rimmed cartridges. They are unlikely to cause any surface damage to a cartridge case and seem to prevent feeding difficulties from bullet noses of a wide variety of shapes being forced into feed ramps not designed for them.
A bad lip on an LE mag can cut into the neck or body of a case.

[4570guy]

This topic has wandered around a bit from the original topic, but it is a fun discussion and many interesting points have been brought out.

I own two '17s and an 03A3. One of my 17s was sporterized and it is a very accurate rifle. The other 17 I bought three years ago and have had moderate success with it shooting cast. I still think I have some stock bedding issues with it that need to be worked out as the POI begins to wander as the rifle heats up. The 03A3 challenges my Krag for most accurate open-sighted rifle in the cabinet. If I had been a grunt that had to carry a rifle for a living, I'd like the 03A3 better as it is shorter, lighter and just all-round handier. It balances well. The '17 feels clunky.

Regarding the discussions on the Krag - I love the Krag for range work and it is the rifle I most often take out. When the Krag was adopted (1892), it was not yet apparent that the Mauser system was the best way to make a bolt action repeater. (Remember, it was not the 1898 Mauser that was competing against the Krag.) In the early 1890s, the Krag held its own ballistically against any other military rifle then in use. The .30-40 wasn't the best, but it was in the middle of the pack. The Krag beat the Mauser hands down in the various durability tests and US Ordnance put great significance on being able to top off the magazine with a round in the chamber. Reading between the lines of the old Ordnance reports, you'll see that the Enfield placed second in the magazine rifle tests. In Rose's book American Rifle, he says that US Ordnance would never build a rifle designed by James P. Lee as he had got cross-ways politically with US Army higher-ups.

I think what eventually became the end of the line for the Krag was cost of manufacturing. The often-quoted critisisms of the Krag regarding lack of a clip loading system and poor ballistic performance don't hold up all that well when looked at in detail.

The Parkhurst clip loading system developed in about 1900-1901 answered the need for a clip for the Krag (but by then, it was pre-ordained that a new Mauser-based rifle would be developed). Ballistic performance suffered from the out-dated requirement for the 220 gr bullet. Had Ordnance loaded a 150 gr spitzer in the Krag cartridge, they could have matched or exceeded the ballistics in the SMLE (which managed to hang around as a military rifle a lot longer than the Krag). Eventually, with more modern slow-burning powders, they could have come close to the ballistics of the Win .308. It is true that the Krag design did not have the growth potential for the high pressure cartridges that the Mauser-based design had. I don't think anyone thought of that in 1892 however.

I didn't mean to hijack this thread into a discussion about Krags:-?

[jcw1970]

another question to add to the mix. would it be better to buy one with the original sights or one that had been upgraded to lyman sights?

[frank505]

I forgot to add, if there was a 1917 Enfield available in 22 LR I would like the 1917 better. Of course my Dads rifle is a remodeled 1917 Winchester Enfield as is my 505 Gibbs. I do love the little 20 inch with an Enfield front sight and Lyman 48 rear. Elmer Keith, who shot at Camp Perry and National Guard matches in the west with the Springfield wanted an Enfield front sight.