The M1917 is a good accurate rifle, but it is not a M1903.
The '17 action isn't as smooth as the '03. The sights have no windage adjustments. This is not a huge problem in CMP Vintage rifle games because its only shot at 200 yards unless the wind is really rough.
But since the '73 Springfield Trap Door the American Military always put windage adjustments on our rifles. Except for the M1917 of course.
The "clock on closing" of the '17, makes it a real wrestling match in rapid fire.
I'm a firm believer in not taking the rifle stock out of the shoulder when working the bolt. Easy to do with the Springfield, near impossible with the M1917.
Another problem with the M1917 ( as well as other rifles with ladder sights) is the sight flipping forward during rapid fire. Not a problem with the 'A3.
You can say what you want, but none of the rifles, M1917 or other foreign military rifles are as accurate as the M1903s, and looking at the scores the peep sights of the A3 do make it easier to shoot then the Ladder sight of the M1903.
Granted the A3 sights limit your ability to shoot past 800 yards, but again so does the lack of windage adjustments on non-Springfield rifles. Also the peep does make it faster to gain proper sight alignment during rapid fire.
Maybe we have different rifles. My first real rifle was an all matching Eddystone M1917. I shot a lot of ammunition through the thing, used it in some of my first DCM matches and had a hoot shooting it. I consider the action smooth and slick. I never had any troubles rapid firing cases either in the M1917 or with any of the Lee Enfields, which are also cock on closing.
Windage is something I want on my rifles but I practice constantly and therefore can zero my weapons. I knew a number of WW2 veterans, and when the big war hits, the pre war guys who can aim and hit targets beyond 300 yards are all gone within 8 months. Gone as in dead, or missing arms and legs but alive in hospital. What comes next are recruits and in WW2, they did not have time to train these guys to any level of marksmanship. Sammy just died, but he had a total of 20 rounds of familiarization before he landed, first wave, on Iwo Jima. He told me if his Dad had not taught him how to shoot before the war, he would not have made it back. And he told me, he landed with a weapon that was handed to him just before embarkation, he sighted his M1 carbine in combat. Used a knife butt to knock the rear sight for windage. My Uncle, 101 Airborne, he had eight rounds of familiarization with his M1919 before dropping into France. Sammy called the young men he was with "cannon fodder". Both in WW1 books and WW2 books I found examples of American Soldiers who did not know how to load their weapons but were put into combat. They had been trained to salute, march up and down the square, and to arrange their kit per regulation. But they had not been trained to any level of weapon proficiency.
Most countries, recognizing that they will simply be shoveling raw recruits into combat decided that windage adjust sights were not needed. In fact, these weapons were adjusted at the factory and the owner was not expected to adjust either the elevation or windage. The Schmidt Rubin series of rifles are some of the best made and most accurate service rifles I have owned and yet, no windage gage. If any rifle was capable and needed it, the Schmidt Rubin is the one. So downgrading the M1917 because it followed British practice, instead of US target shooting practice, is just a matter of perspective. Both the battle sight zero's for the M1903 and the M1917 are unrealistic. The M1903 is 547 yards and I think the M1917 was 400 yards. Both the M1903 and the M1917 had flip up rear sights that would get knocked down. The M1917 protected the rear sight and front sight whereas the M1903 front sight is a thin blade that caught and got bent on everything and the rear sight also snagged on stuff.
I have a Trapdoor and the front sight is tiny. Maybe great for target shooting but the tiny peep, and the tiny front sight would be hard to use in any condition other than bright light. I don't consider the A3 rear sight a combat sight. The rear peep is too small for twilight and I have had the thing slide down during rapid fire. The M1903A3 was not a serious combat rifle, I don't know why they even made hundreds of thousands of the things when the Springfield was totally obsolete compared to the Garand. I have seen pictures of REMF's carrying the thing, probably a few made it into combat. As soon as a Garand or M1 Carbine became available I am sure the A3 was tossed in the ditch. That's what I would have done.
Target shooters harp on accuracy, and we begin to believe it, but I remember asking Command Sergeant Major Chuck Polk, USMC Korea and Vietnam veteran, about the value of the across the course game to combat. He said, "not much". MSgt Polk was with me, pulling targets, loved the game of XTC, but thought very little about it as training for combat. One time, pulling targets with Chuck, he showed me the little pocket knife he carried in Vietnam, and he still used the thing to dig out shrapnel from his body! He was assigned to an Army Unit, USMC MSgt Polk and his dog, and the Army unit commander walked into a booby trap with Chuck right behind. Chuck made it out alive, and was able to get his dog back to the world. Chuck carried a picture of him and his dog till the day he died.
