I am a history teacher and the WW1 guy in our history department. Most people find WW2 more interesting, but I'm one of the oddballs who always found WW1 to be more captivating. The gun I've always wanted is a Springfield M1903 that actually saw the field in WW1. While my LGS had one months ago I'm told they don't come through as frequently anymore. Well, today I stopped in and was shooting the breeze when I noticed an Enfield from 1916 for 600$ and the bolt was as smooth as the day it was made. While I am an American and thus value the American rifle of WW1 more it was hard to not be impressed with the Enfield in my hands. I turned it down today but I am tempted to go grab it sometime this week if it's still there due to the condition and year. The only thing is I worry about finding 303 British ammo and it was never my dream gun from the period.

Essentially the question is should I hold out to get what I want in an M1903 Springfield or should I jump at the opportunity to get this Enfield that was produced during the Great War and is in great shape?

I think most find the '03 more desirable, but they're both good rifles.

Wait for a '03. They are a very good rifle. If you must consider an Enfield, look for an American made 1917 Enfield in 30-06. The various member countries of the commonwealth used the Enfield SMLE versions for many many years and they are always around.

Personally, I have always felt the P 14/17 action was superior to the Springfield. The latter was derived from the Mauser 98 action, with a number of changes intended to circumvent the Mauser patent. Not only did this idea not work, but every change Springfield made was for the worse. It doesn't handle escaping gas all that well, and the two piece firing pin has caused a few freak, out of battery discharges. (Read Jack O'Connor's rifle book!)
Meanwhile, the Enfield action has been used for numerous custom rifles chambered for the largest dangerous game. As late as the 1990s A-Square built their "Hannibal" dangerous game rifle on the Enfield P14 action.

I'm guessing the one you saw is in 303 British?

Someone said, the Americans fielded the best target rifle, the Germans fielded the best hunting rifle and the English supplied their troops with the best battle rifle.

But you said, “…should I hold out to get what I want in an M1903 Springfield…”. Wait for your Springfield.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

It was 303 British which was one of my concerns but I found some ammo sources for it. I have to say the bolt action on this gun was the smoothest I've ever felt. I was instantly in love with that aspect of the Enfield.

Get the Enfield and enjoy it until you can afford/find/get a WW1 03'.
Then you can sell the Enfield or try to find a 1897 Winchester trenchgun and or a real Colt 1911.

This is sort of what I was leaning towards. Who knows I may just end up loving the Enfield. First impressions were incredible and it's in amazing shape for a gun made in 1916.

You probably will end up enjoying the Enfield. AND… after you enjoy it for a good while, there’s a good chance you’ll scrape up enough $$$ to get the ‘03. There are plenty of both out there. Put a “looking for” ad out there. All this being said, I lean towards the No4mk1, but that’s just me. You can find 303 ammo out there, too. Reload as needed - it isn’t nuclear-brain-surgery, after all.

The .303 you are looking at is American made for the British and is a Model P1914. The one you should get is a P1917 in 30/06 and was more common in WW1 than the Springfield M1903, (Also considered a better battle rifle than the 1903.)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Don't settle. Have patience and get what you really want. You'll be happier at the end of the day.

What ever rifle you get, you have to get the appropriate bayonet to go with it!

__________________
Thread Killer.

My first was a Mauser 98. Then, while waiting for a Springfield I found an Enfield. Finally, I found an 03.

I'm glad I have all 3. Would never sell any of them. After buying a couple boxes of ammo for each one, I now have sufficient brass. With molds for all 3 flavors I NEVER have to worry about boolits. $9.99 Lee Loaders and I'm set for life.

Mosins are klunky, Mausers are smooth, Springfields are on par, but Enfields are nothing to sneeze at.

I disagree. No collection id worthwhile unless you have them all. I agree about the bayonet.

I do not see where the OP has given any indication which Enfield he has seen. Did I miss something?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

3B70B74B-D383-4542-B159-9F0CDF22FDC7.jpg

56CB5CE7-ADA4-47EC-82E6-7A67AC8302D9.jpg

7E6C83E6-5D49-4961-AB43-053169D143FE.jpegDoughboys training with the Brits used English Enfields so you would be ok. Any WWI rifle is good condition is worth picking up under $1K. I also collected WWI and still have quite a bit of good paper goods. Gave weapons, gear and equipment to my son. We were serious collectors, very serious

This is what the OP said:
I'm saying if he always wanted an M1903, don't settle for the Enfield just because it's available. Wait until he finds what he really wants.

He didn't say anything about a collection.

__________________
Thread Killer.

I thought I was getting myself a nice WWI Winchester 1917 a few years back. After a little research, I found out it is most possibly a gun that was assembled from leftover new parts and freshly manufactured stocks and bolts at the very beginning of WWII. The bolt is marked USMC……. Not what you think. United Shoe Manufacturing Company, or something like that. They normally made equipment to make shoes. They got a contract to make Enfield bolts. Live and learn. I wanted something to go with my 1918 Colt. Contrary to what people think, there were way more 1917s than Springfield 03s in WWI

I would get the Enfield now and then later the 1903. If you are a WW1 buff you really need both of these and also a 1917.

303 British has one of the greatest legacies of all cartridges. It has its roots in the old Martini action single shots, seeing use in many 19th century colonial wars. In WWI and WWII it served admirably in not only infantry but in specially built sniper rifles. It even adapted well to machine gun use. In WWI, most if not all of the single and double seat biplanes were equipped with Lewis guns chambered for 303 British.
If you’re a history buff, you owe it to yourself to get the Enfield! The 303 is a plus!!

He said it was made in 1916. If correct, that rules out the 1917.

The .303 Pattern 14 Enfield, mfg’d in the US by Eddystone (Remington subsidiary), Remington and Winchester actually didn’t see a whole lot of use in WW1 as by the time factories actually worked the kinks out of P14 production (which wasn’t until 1916), SMLE production was full-speed in the UK. IMO the P14/1917 Enfield IS A BETTER rifle (best sights of any WW1 design), but in reality, the 03 is what you want. And if not an 03, then a 1917 30-06 Enfield (not a P14) would be second in line. Of the three, the 1917 saw the most service overall, but 03s just have that cool factor.

Buuuuuut, nearly any milsurp that’s in “great shape” is a pretty solid deal for $600 these days.

__________________
Some Might Say.

Were any Enfield made in 1916 made in England and if so how could I know? Would there be a mark or something.

No- they were contracted to Eddystone, Remington and Winchester here in the states. Marked ERA, RA, and W. Small arms production in the UK was geared towards SMLEs, Webley revolvers, Lewis guns and Vickers guns.

__________________
Some Might Say.

Cool to learn something new about WW1, thanks for all the info. So I'm guessing this one that is 550$ is such because it is doubtful it actually saw any action. I'll admit that's a bit of a bummer, is there any chance it did or is it virtually zero due to SMLE production taking off as you say? Because 1916 would leave two years for potential military duty for the gun and I'd guess they would use all the guns they could.

I think the post got confusing - the way I read his post was that the OP was looking at a British Enfield .303 not a 1917 but really wanted a 1903.
If it is a 1917, then I would get it and look for a 1903 down the road. He is interested in American WWI history so why not stick with American issued rifles, not a British one. And then he would have the two US Service rifles from WWI.
There …. Did I muddy the water further or clear it up ?

You are correct that I'm more interested in the M1903 because I am an American History teacher. The rifle I'm looking at is a Lee Enfield made in 1916 not 1917. In this thread people keep referring to it as a p14 but I saw no such markings on it and it's being sold as an Enfield in 303 British. I'll have to do more digging to find out if it's American or British made.

While no one can say with absolute certainty that P14s didn’t see any front line service during WW1, it appears that most saw second hand/home guard, rear echelon use as by 1916 SMLEs were in the hands of practically all British troops and were being distributed to Canadian forces (replacing the Ross Mk III) by early that summer. By that point in the war the British were doing away with the mag cut-off and volley sights on the SMLE (Mk III was becoming Mk III*). It took US factories over a year to tool up and get high enough QC for acceptance and by the time they finally did the all out need for rifles wasn’t what it had been in late 1914/early 1915.

It appears though that what you’re looking at is a SMLE No 1 Mk III* mfg’d in 1917. If so, it’s likely an Enfield, BSA, SSA or LSA production and that was the workhorse of the British army. Don’t believe it saw any real service with US forces.

__________________
Some Might Say.

What is the going price today for an original condition Springfield M1903 from the WWI period? I have one I am thinking about selling, haven't decided to yet. Dated mid-1917. .

Unless I’m wrong (I’m not an Enfield expert) any 1916 Lee Enfield would be British made. The Enfield people are referring to is a 1917 .30-06 bolt rifle that was manufactured by American Factories - Winchester, Eddystone Arsenal, Remington.

M1917 Enfield - Wikipedia

How high is the original condition? Original, non-rebuilt examples seem to bring $1200-2kish. Considerably more if in minty condition.

__________________
Some Might Say.

I agree completely. I've accumulate a lot more since this picture was taken and just about all have bayonets. Some of the bayonets cost more than the rifle they go on!

Attached Images

MilSurp Shoot 2015.jpg (143.6 KB, 412 views)

PM me, I would be interested in perhaps working out an arrangement for it.

I googled images of p14 vs SMLE and I'm pretty sure based on the image the one at my shope IS SMLE



Bc it has the magazine and the barrel doesn't stick out the front. It looks almost exactly like the top one in this image

While I really like both Enfields and 1903's, the No1MK3 Enfield is my favorite bolt action battle rifle. I still have two of them, as well as a Savage No4MK1*. You have a chance to get a nice Enfield at a decent price. Buy it and save up for when a 1903 shows up.

Enfield, Enfield, Enfield,,

The British SMLE (Short, Magazine Lee Enfield) was first produced in MkI form in England in 1904 . Cal 303
The MkI and MkI* were made into 1907 when the MkIII was introduced.

Still the 'SMLE', the MkIII was modified from the MkI rifles mainly in the way the charger bridge was made.
The MkI series used a separate right hand charger part attached to and sliding on the bolt head.
The MkIII dispensed with all that went to the very common rivited in place heavy, one piece over the top charger bridge.

Several Brit Arsenals made the Mk1 and the MkIII rifles including some like Sparkbrook that didn't survive the MkI era and others like the secretive Peddled Scheme rifles of WW1 wartime production.

The rifles were also made at the British Commonwealth Arsenals in India (Ishapor) and in Australia at Lithgow.
Lithgow rifles generally bring a premium. Condition of course is everything.
Lithgow never made the MkI series but instead started with the MkIII.

None of these rifles were ever called or marked as No1 MkIII until the mid 1920's.
That's when the British decided to number their battle rifles and No1 was attached to the SMLE
A 1916 dated SMLE should simply be marked on the socket MkIII or MkIII*(cut-off, volley sights, wind adj rear site elliminated on the latter).

(Rifles w/o the '*' (Star) marking bring more $$ as they have the goodies mentioned above, or at least are supposed to have them. Not uncommon for the Cut-off and Windage Adj rear site to be missing. The latter replaced with the later non adj site. Check ser# on the underside of the site tangent bar.

The No2 rifle was the .22rf conv of the SMLE
No3 was the Pattern 1914 .303
To come was the No4 Rifle in the late 30's along with the #5 (Jungle) Carbine version

The 1917 30-06 was the US Model 1917 Rifle cal 30.
Never was officially an Enfield but got the name from being a modification of the Pattern '14 British rifle.

SMLE's have gone up in price and value very quickly in the past few yrs.
Very good specimens are hard to find and like most US 1903's and 1917's, (and Garands and Carbines) most are now parts rifles.

That doesn't make SMLE's any less shootable. But for a collector, the mismatched parts (some ser#'d, many marked by Arsenal mfg and identifiable by era of mfg) very quickly lowers value.

SMLE's are usually covered in Proof, Inspector, Arsenal and Rework Marks & Dates.
Getting a good education on those is a good start to knowing what you have in hand and what it's worth.
You have to sort out the orig Arsenal rebuild part from the bubba/'smith/hobbyist replaced part.
.and like most of these Milsurps the parts are getting more expensive and harder to get. There's even some repro parts for them now they are so popular.

They are fun shooters, reloading for them is easy as any other CF cal.
They have a habit of generous headspace, but if you size & load your brass to your rifles chamber and then only neck size, you control the HS and have little issues..

You don't need a bunch of magazines though they are detachable. The mag was meant to be left in the rifle and reloaded from the open bolt with charger clips or single rounds.

None of these classic WW1 or WW2 rifles are getting any less expensive.
Passing on a good one for a decent price means paying a lot more for the same later on,,if you can find one.

If you're looking for a 1903 that actually saw field use, you're probably not looking for one in great condition. Military rifles are tools and are treated as such. The high condition ones are generally the ones that were not issued, were issued to rear areas or are arsenal rebuilds predominately with mismatched parts.

I guess my question is what do you consider field use and what condition are you looking for? As I said above, the ones with "history" generally are not the mint ones-unless a general owned it.

I have several civil war carbines that are in too good of condition to have seen much use.

The same with 1903's. I have one RIA manufactured rifle with numbers stamped in the stock (rack numbers?). It was made in 1908 and re-barrelled in 1917. Not mint condition but plenty of "history".

Sorry if me referring to them that way struck a nerve it's just easier to type it shorthand. Sort of like I would with most models. This one seems all original parts, though I admit I didn't give much of an inspection. My friend who was with me and is also a historian confirmed it appeared to be all original. It's 550 and while I wouldn't say the wood is mint (it looks like it saw field use" the bolt action and functional elements all seemed pristine.

None of those WW1-era Lee-Enfields are all original. Most have been rebuilt at least twice. All orig 1903s are uncommon, 100% all orig Enfield are practically unheard of.

__________________
Some Might Say.

Not at all!, Sorry if I came across like that.
I was just typing away as I seem to do and SMLE's and Long Lee Enfields are a favorite of mine so info came forth.

Sounds like a nice rifle. 550 in todays market is not at all bad for a nice condition Brit or Australian mfg WW1 dated SMLE IMO.
We could talk all day long about the $25 near mint rifles of years ago,,but that was ..years ago.
This is today.
Hope it works out for you!

Not rebuilt, it does have a replacement hand guard, but it is the correct type. I do have the original handguard which is split. Not perfect, does show some use wear, has the usual dings in the wood. VG bore. Unbent bolt handle. Overall, I'd say around 80%.

1918 was a good year. Many from this year, if shipped overseas, got there late enough to see little service. These are a Danzig KAR 98AZ, Winchester M1917, Springfield M1903 Mk 1, Colt 1911, S&W M1917 and DWM Luger. All are 1918 mfg.

Attached Images

1918 Guns.jpg (69.8 KB, 408 views)

$600 for a SMLE is a good price in todays market. I’d say buy it, but I’m a big Lee-Enfield fan. My SMLE is a 1916 production gun that was later transferred to the Irish Free State by the Brit’s during the Irish Civil War. The Irish connection makes it special to me. I also have a WWII vintage #4Mk1 and several post war #4Mk2’s. My favorite version to shoot is the #4Mk2.

I also have a .30’06 Model 1917 Enfield, which is also a great rifle. Mine is a 1918 Eddystone production example. I specifically wanted an Eddystone because one of my grandfathers helped build the plant, and both of my grandfathers worked in the plant during the Great War.

The standard issue rifle for the US Army in France was the Model 1917, not the 1903. The 1917 was produced in much greater numbers, since there were already several plants set up to build them. Only the USMC retained the 1903 for service in France. To have a complete set of American rifles of WWI you would also need a Moisin-Nagant, since the 339th Infantry carried them in Russia during the intervention in 1918/1919.

If you are looking for a M1903 the CMP auction site sometimes has them. They have had several recently, both Springfield and Rock Island examples. Remember that really low serial number 1903’s are not safe to shoot, due to less than ideal heat treatment. .

__________________
Wheel guns are real guns.

Keep in mind that just because a firearm may have been made in the war years, it may or may not have seen any action. All original WW1 firearms are rare and priced as such. Most went through referb at least once.

If you want a WW! era rifle that more than likely seen action get a Finnish capture American made Remington and/or New England Westinghouse M1891 Mosin Nagant. Those have an interesting history.

__________________
Thread Killer.

I'm Irish too so it would be epic if this one has a similar tale. For 550$ in good condition I might just get it. Worst case I can trade it later for a 1903. I'm going to get a closer look tomorrow and make a decision sometime this week.

I have two 1903s, ones a 1919 Mk1 Pederson, a No1 MkIII Enfield and a 1917. All were sporters that I put back military. I enjoyed the ‘03 builds better than the other two. Didn’t like the long Enfield and 1917 as they are very barrel heavy. Also found out that I prefer cock on opening bolts. The two ‘03s are my favorite milsurps after my Krags. Good luck on your hunt.

Attached Images

	IMG_6244.jpg (44.1 KB, 17 views)
	IMG_8562.jpg (101.0 KB, 12 views)

Springer. Easy.

There are many variations of the Enfield. The No4 Mk1 and No4 Mk II are often seen.

This is a cobbled together "sniper" version made back when the Irish guns were cheap.

IMG_0807.jpg

The No4s carry an aperture rear sight on the receiver rather than the ladder type on the barrel.

I got my second 1917 cal.30-06 almost 50 years ago. Still have it. I picked up a 1903 about 20 years ago from a guy that brought it back from the war. Frankly I like the 1917 better and I gave the 03 to #1son. Some people do not like the cocking on the downward stroke, but it is fine by me.

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

Once the magazine is set up correctly, the SMLE is about as slick as you can go with a bolt gun.

I suggest some of you brace yourselves now as I'm about to reduce some sacred milsurp cows to hamburger. When it comes to shooting milsurps, the biggest factor you will notice is the effectiveness (or not) sights. My observations.

Mauser 95s and 98s. I don't know who designed these sights, but I doubt he/she ever actually tried shooting them in realistic conditions. The barleycorn front sight combined with the very shallow notch in the rear, barrel mounted, sight are simply awful in tricky light. In certain light it's almost like the front sight moves. Maybe it's me, but look at the sight picture of a 98, then pick up a Swede 96. The Swede has vastly superior sights.

SMLE. The straight-sided front sight is great, but again the rear sight notch is very shallow and difficult to pick up quickly. Negates some of the advantage of the slick bolt, I reckon.

Springfield 1903. I only have an 03A3, not a WWI veteran. The receiver peep on 03A3 is great, but the very thin front sight is difficult to pick up when the background is cluttered (real world) but fine on the range. What is that thing about the Springfield being the best target rifle? The bolt on my 03A3 is very slick, almost as good as an SMLE.

Carcano. Yes, seriously. The front sight is almost straight-sided, and it has a deep and wide rear V notch for quick acquisition. It works well for me, but I've read grumbles that the sights limit ultimate accuracy. How much of that is truth, down to poor ammo, or a "not invented here" attitude to the sight picture I cannot say. The sticky action of the Mannlicher bolt spoils the Carcano somewhat. Even my almost unused M1941 requires a little wrestling compared to a Mauser.

Mosin Nagant. Problem here is "which model". Nearly all the M91 rifles we see here have a Mauserish front sight and a rear sight with a fairly sizeable V notch. Sight picture is so-so. The early 91/30 rifles have a front post and a rear sight with a reasonably sized U notch. They work well. Unfortunately, when WWII got going, the Soviets started using a Mausereque shallow rear V notch, probably because it was quicker to produce. It's hopeless in poor light. Mosin bolts vary greatly in smoothness. Mid WWII Soviet rifles can be as obstructive as a bad Carcano. A Finnish modified gun can be very slick.

Berthier. Huge, wide front sight. It should say "Oversize Load" on the back. The rear sight is set up to match. Camp Perry boys from the '20s would have a fit of the vapors at the sight of one. It's a combat sight, plain and simple. You put the target in the middle of the sight, a complete reversal to the US philosophy. THis guy explains it better than me. Perspectives on French Rifle Sight Design The Berthier bolt is a bit clunky. If you think it feels large, that's because it is. The French 8mm round has a bigger case head than 30-06 or 8mm Mauser, so the bolt is chunkier.

Enfield P14/US Model of 1917. Brilliant sights. Nothing to add on those. Biggest issue with the bolt is that people screw with them by fitting a kit that changes the operation to cock-on-opening from the original cock-on-closing. Vandals. Either way, they are nowhere near as slick as a SMLE. The Winchester P14s can be ammo finicky, as it seems that Winchester had their own ideas on the precise geometry of certain areas of the receiver. Many P14 parts are not interchangeable between the ERA and Remington rifles, and those made by Winchester. I think that issue was fixed on the M1917.

Enfield No.4 Mk1 and derivatives. The rifles with the vernier rear sights are great. The peep is a nice size, and the vertical adjustment fine enough for accurate fire. The two position 300/600 yard flip sight is OK for the intended purpose in wartime.

__________________
Release the Kraken

If you can see "1916" on the outside of the gun, it's an SMLE. Where it was built can only be determined byother marks. The date of a Pattern 14 (P14) can only be found by removing the handguard to read a date on the barrel.

__________________
Release the Kraken