Maybe I can add some balance to the discussion. Keep in mind the average joe outnumber the super experts 10 to 1 or better no matter what era these were used in.
I am a Model of 1917 fan (owner of more than one - grin) and I have handled the SMLEs.
Frankly there is no comparisons between the two. As much as I love it the 1917 is a slow heavy clunker with stick metal (nickel which made them resilient but they do not slide nearly as well as a SMLE (or a 1903) If you handle a 1917 it’s a heavy cock on close (I still love it but I am not in combat either.
If I was a casual sniper (using iron sights) I would take the 1917 hands down over a 1903 (including A3) or the SMLE. The peep sight is better done than the rest and the front post is excellent. I suspect with good yes you could consistently kill people out to 600 yds or better with it. Still it’s a heavy rifle and less handy that either the SMLE or the 1903s.
If I was rapid firing I think the SMLE would have some advantage over the 1903 and vastly over the 1917.
The SMLE unless worked over a lot was not typical a tack driver, but it was effective for its intended job and the brits were fortunate the Pattern 13 (model 1917 in 276 caliber) was not adopted (the Patrne 14 in 303 was but not as a main front line rifle for good reasons though I should have been scoped as it would have made a terrific sniper rifle (some were I think, but not US )
However, the 1917 did have exceptional service in WWI equiping 75% of US forces and went onto serve in the Philippines in WWII (poor buggers) China and Free French forces as well as some others (and lend lease). It did have a very good combat peep as well as a very good ladder peep for longer range shooting.
My take on the SMLE rapid accurate firing though was those who did it were professional soldiers. Those would have been diluted by attrition and recruitment and would have been the exception not the rule.
Average recruit to average recruit an M1 would outshoot the SMLE simply due to less skill and training required.
However, they all served magnificently and they all had their issues (probably the 1917 the most of them but we also won WWI with it). People adapt to what they have. As much as I hate Rumsfeldt the reality is things are never perfect and that’s what humans do, make it work for what they are handed (good thing as it saves their politico butts)
Also keep in mind the Brits had a horribly unstaffed Machine Gun entity in WWI and the rapid fire SMLE made up for that to a degree until the command structure figured out once and for all what machine gun numbers and how to use them actually were required.
Probably the nicest are the 1903s that are awfully darned accurate and fast firing as well with their very slick actions. None of the rifles other than the 1917 had a decent sight until WWII (it was recognized the 1903 needed it, they would not implement it, good thing the M1 got it) 1903A3 was late to the game though it also saw more use than is recognized in combat.
The wonder is the SMLE served well in WWII as did the 1903 and 1917s in adjunct to the M1 but often front line service (we have one photo of a group of national guards in Italy all carrying 1903s,.
The 1917 had by far the best peep sight which is better than the 1903A3 and the M1 (have not had a latter model SMLE in hand let alone shot one)
Could an SMLE shoot a nats butt at 300 yards? No, but for fire suppression at 300, if you did not have an M1 then it was the next best thing (though a well manned 1903 would not be woefully behind).
Each side had different doctrine with what they were equipped with and whatever deficiencies they were forced to served under.
The Germans obviously had the best squad machine gun setup in WWII and a not too bad rifle to support it. Ergo, the machine gun was the center of assault and defense and the riflemen kept things off the flanks and carried ammo for the copious spewing of bullets.
US did not have a very good squad machine gun setup, but it did have very good distributed fire power with the M1 and the various sub machine guns (some companies at the end of WWII had half the crew with a sub machine gun (traded for obviously not issued).
The M1 had its own issues but were generally overcome with training and familiarization.
Brits had a better machine gun than the US in the Bren and a pretty good rapid fire and realistic range rifle in the SMLE.
so it goes, they used what they had trying to make the best of the strengths and avoid the weaknesses.
No one had it all covered. I admire all of them but most of all I admire the allies whose men made do with what they had and won the wars.
