I forgot

Varmintmist

to post about the new old cosmoline carrier I acquired.

M1917. 1918 at a quick look. The wood was cleaned but all of the cosmoline that could be left under it was left under it. I dont think it was fired a lot, but there was copper fouling in the bore so it wasnt unfired.

200 yard group. Didint have a lot of time to mess with it, but this is a bit over 5 in and I think there is more there. I did put two about a in apart prior to beating the front sight to get some right windage.

Zee

😳

Bigslug

Welcome to the land of "As Good As It Gets" 

Once you verify that you've got even bedding contact on the action, and maintain the same 3-5 pounds of upward pressure under the muzzle end of the barrel that is seen in the Lee-Enfield family, one tends to find out that they can shoot amazingly well.

I've been researching some family military history - Great Grandpa was an MG man with the 88th I.D., which carried the M1917 in WWI.  His son was a bomber pilot who wrote home about having done his early training drill routines with an Enfield.

After learning this, tracking down an as-issued one was pretty much inevitable. . I can't find its pic right now, but it looks an AWFUL LOT like my .303 P14. 



One thing I've been learning - Uncle Sam seems to have cut the M1917 chambers a little long on the headspace to deal with the muck of Northern France, so pick up a neck sizing die if you want to extend your brass life.

earlyagain

I like those better than the 1903's.  And more than 98ks or SMLEs too.

Big Al1

My 1917 my favorite milsurp. Great sights and very accurate, and heavy enough so it doesn't pound your filings out!

Varmintmist

I dunno. After living with 03's and a 03A3 the sights on this are OK.

The lack of windage save a hammer and punch adjustment goes against my grain. The battle sight beats the 03 simply because it is a peep. Even a rough peep wins IMHO over the open rear, the ladder leaves a lot to be desired. In the up position, a ant fart can push it forward and change your sight picture. Adjustments were positive on the ladder and after some experimenting I figured out what part of the sight to align with the 200 mark to make POA = POI Both have equally good and poor parts for me. The peep is great, but the windage tool of "handy rock" loses a lot of points and does the ladder sneaking forward under a hat brim. Currently leaning toward the M1917, but not by much.

The trigger pull is not terrible heavy (in milsurp terms), but bring your lunch. You pull for a while and the feel is mushy like there is a Rube Goldberd device you are actuating. 03 wins big time.

COC, well.... I dont see the speed advantage yet. Maybe after a few more rounds. The action is more Mauseresque than the 03 and more clunky. Can you cock faster? Maybe. Not sure if that would overtake the smoothness of the 03 though. Tie

Accuracy. So far I dont see it as less accurate then a 03 or A3. Better? Not yet

Oh, and elegant this thing isnt. The 03 kind of warms your hands like it is meant to be there like a good woman. This is more like taking the slightly heavy friend home.

Big Al1

I shoot the 1917 better because my eyes like the sights better. I had trouble with the "sights for twenty year old eyes" on the '03. But, I also concur with your other points!

Antonio

Very nice! It's said that if not for the weight, it would have been the best riffle issued by the allies in WWI.

Funny that you say that "The action is more Mauseresque than the 03" since the 1903 is a copy of the Mauser '98 action.

A link to its history in the Great War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWrRowbvVio

Varmintmist

Yep, the US paid Mauser for using the patent for the 03 about 200K. The 03 is NOT an exact copy of the Mauser action and having both I can tell you that the 03 is smoother.

Best rifle? Maybe equal. I will have to put a few hundred rounds through it before I let it change my mind.

For example, with a MILITARY Mauser action at the rear of the stroke the bolt feels a bit un-centered. The 03 feels like its ready to go back to battery without a argument. The M1917 that I have is more like the 98 actions I have and have had.

I can only speak from my experience.

Bigslug

Kinda funny how there were so many military good bolt guns that all missed perfection by one of two minor points:

1903 and 1903-A3 - - sights are bad. . .TRAGICALLY bad.

Mauser 98 - most of them have barleycorn sights that are even worse than the '03's

SMLE - REALLY good sights for open sights and they even had windage adjustment. . .up until 1916 when they decided it was too expensive.

No 4 - GREAT sight picture. . .with no windage

P14/M1917. . .same.  Now if you could have a 1917 with a No. 4's micrometer elevation knob, with something like the early SMLE's adjustment for windage. . .  I have heard that there were some clever folks who installed B.A.R. sight components on the back of their M1917 to solve this, but I've never taken the time to run the details of that to ground.

GunNut

Great score!  Looks like it’s in great shape!

Varmintmist

what do you find wrong with the 03A3 sight?? That thing is exceptional. Low mounted aperture with long sight radius, adjustable elevation without the use of a ladder of any sort, windage knob that is a little long between clicks, but you dont have to use a full click. Basically it is the same sight config that is on the Garand, M14 and M16A2 with the "not a full click wind" option.

The 03 sight when used by those under 45 y/o are very accurate and easy to adjust. A bit to fine for older folks, but I passed my Argonne Forest days a few years ago.

Bigslug

Varmintmist said:

what do you find wrong with the 03A3 sight?? 

Beer-can thin front blade on both versions - typically with nothing protecting or guiding the eye to it, and the commonly available clip on sight shade/protector that makes your sight picture WORSE.

Both suffer from having sunny day target sights, which if you're shooting targets on a sunny day is great, but they shouldn't be bolted onto a rifle intended for killing folks in dark, smoke, fog, or rain.  Tiny notch on the 03; too small an aperture on the A3.

Varmintmist

I will give you the thin blade. I shoot both with a front sight protector which takes glare off the sight, something you cannot do with a Garand or 17, and have shot both in the rain and foul weather. A Garand aperture will fill with water as fast as a 03A3 because they are the same size

FYI, USGI Garand aperture is .070, a USGI 1903A3 is .070

https://shootingsight.com/product/03a3-reduced-aperture/

https://www.fulton-armory.com/rearsightaperture.aspx

Now if you want to talk robust, I have never messed with my 03a3 sight. My Garand sight walked in elevation last time at Perry. 50.00 at Fulton Armory for a rear sight elevation knob and 15 min in the CMP armorers trailer fixed it, AFTER it mattered. So from personnel experience, the 03a3 wins