Why are 03A3s worth more than M1917s?

[three0three]

Been looking at 1903A3s on various sites and have come to realize that 03A3s seem to have more value than M1917s why exactly?

I think the 17 is built better than the A3 and its older which in most cases secures value also but appearantly my way of thinking is backwards????

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Dan Wilson]

As to the value disparity that's an easy question to answer, however the rational behind that answer is not so easy to figure out.

Until just recently the M1917 was the bastard child of US military surplus arms, always has been for some reason. I have several and they have their great points, but also (for some people) there is the detractors too, they say they are too long and too heavy compared to either of the 03 type rifles.

Too bad that folks have been catching on to the M1917, and when they shoot one they find that they love it. As a result of more demand I cant score them on the cheap anymore - dang it.

Dan

[Emri]

Been looking at 1903A3s on various sites and have come to realize that 03A3s seem to have more value than M1917s why exactly?

I think the 17 is built better than the A3 and its older which in most cases secures value also but appearantly my way of thinking is backwards????

There are many factors that affect firearm values.

The number one is ... CONDITION..... just like a used car.

"ORIGINAL" condition, "as manufactured", firearms command a premium. That means "all original parts" and "original finish". Very few firearms, especially military ones, are in that condition.

To answer your question specifically, MOST of the M1917 rifles were "overhauled" since their manufacture. FEW of them exist is an original state. If you had one of them, the price would be greater than one re-built/overhauled post-WWI or in the early 40's.

A lot of M1903A3's still exist in "original as manufactured" condition. Many never saw extensive service, therefore are rather more "common". That stated, there are MANY of them that can be had in "original condition".

If you look at the actual prices paid (from whatever source) you will note that, "original condition" rifles, whether M1917's or M1903A3's are in about the same ball park range. About $1000 or more. An 03A3 that "appears original" might bring more than the average M1917 just because of current market trends, and because of the above stated "condition" factors.... A very nice looking M1917 might well have been overhauled 2 or more times... The average 03A3 , only once.

This is just an observation from my perspective after many years of looking at them and seeing what actually sells.


Hope This Helps,


Emri

[Jeff L]

I think it comes down to personal tastes. I prefer 03s over M1917s. They have a better design IMHO. Then again people collect Corvairs and Pacers. My 2 centavos.

-Jeff L

[Patrick Chadwick]

From the point of view of a competition shooter, I can tell you why...

For accuracy IN 100% ORIGINAL CONDITION i.e. no Parker-Hales or other aftermarket add-ons, the 03A3 beats the M1917 beats the Enfield No 4 Mk 2, and those three beat everything else. These are the 3 classic bolt-action military rifles issued with peep-sights, and that is the proven "pecking order" demonstrated over and over again at BDMP competitions. Maybe because we who shoot these old bangers tend to be of "mature age" and just can't get a good sight picture with open sights. A top Swede can sometimes beat all of them ,but not with the service sights.

It took me a couple of years to get a good competitive service rifle, and when I did it was an M1917. Cost twice as much as a No.4, but half as much as an '03. Not that you can find a good-shooting 03 on the open market anyway!

The thing that the non-shooting collector must realize, is that the proven good examples wind up in the hands of people like myself: if you want my competition rifle you will have to wait until I stop breathing or get a better one. I will not sell it for mere money, because I might be able to get the money elsewhere, but not the rifle.

The best I did up to now was 3rd in Hessen, at 100 meters with the M1917.
First was an 03A3, second was a Garand (used as a non-automatic). Fired by a German, a Belgian and an Englishman - so no question of national preference.
The prices of those rifles would typically be in the same order. And all 30-06 - does that suggest something about inherent accuracy of the 30-06 cartridge?

Patrick

[Stevo]

No one has touched on the most obvious difference (to me) between the two rifles; the 1917 is just not an attractive rifle.

I'm not a Springfield fan, nor do I own a 1917 or a P14, but from the time I was old enough to read through my Dad's worn copy of Small Arms of the World I always considered the P14/1917 to be ugly rifles.

IMO, that's enough to cause a price difference all on it's own.

[Dan Wilson]

Purely subjective.

I really like the way the M1917's look and feel.

Dan

[Stevo]

Purely subjective.

I really like the way the M1917's look and feel.

Dan

You're absolutely right, "attractiveness" is very subjective and personal.

[Sunray]

Demand is higher.
"...the bastard child of US military surplus arms..." Yep. Secondary standard rifles despite there being more of 'em used in W.W. I and promptly dropped at the end of the war too.