1903 vs. 1917 question

[IditarodJoe]

I seem to be coming face to face with my lack of knowledge at every turn today. :icon_redface:

I'm having difficulty with the follower in my 1903 Mk 1. When pressed down into an empty magazine it catches on the back of the magazine and doesn't return to the "fully up" position. So. . .

I've been swapping around some parts and found that the magazine functions perfectly when I replaced the milled follower with a stamped one for a 1903A3. So . . .

Upon studying the offending follower it occurred to me that, aside from the markings, I don't know the difference between a 1903 milled follower and a 1917 follower. Is there a difference? Also, is there a difference between the 1903 and 1917 magazine springs?

Some days it seems like life is just out to humble me! :o

[John Beard]

The M1903 and M1917 magazine followers are interchangeable. And as I recall, the magazine springs are also interchangeable.

M1917 magazine springs and followers are marked with an alphabetical letter indicating the manufacturer (E, R, W). Many followers are also marked with a small eagle head stamp. M1903 magazine springs and followers are either unmarked or marked with an Ordnance bomb.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[Fred]

Not having a 1917 around to look at for years now, I've wondered about that myself. Thanks John!

[John Sukey]

Just in passing, there is an addional piece that can be placed on top of the follower on both the P14 and the M1917 that allows you to close the bolt without depressing the follower. Have both of them

[IditarodJoe]

Aha! Thank you. My dim little light bulb begins to illuminate.:sign13: I'm wondering if they aren't more than just "interchangeable" but rather "identical".

Theory: Is it possible that in 1916-17, when the armory was designing the modifications to the British Pattern 1914 for the .30-06 chambering, they simply incorporated the then-current 1903's follower and spring into the new rifle? From the pictures I can find on the web, the P-14 has a very different looking follower.

Comparing the follower and spring from my 1917 to those from my 1903, aside from the eagles head and W marks they certainly "look" identical. And if that's the case, I wonder what other existing SA parts were incorporated.

This doesn't help me with the problem of the sticking follower in my 1903, but it would certainly explain a lot of "unmarked" followers found in 1917 rifles. :D

[musketshooter]

The follower springs as not the same. A '17 spring can be installed in an 03, but they usually cause feeding problems.

[IditarodJoe]

Excellent. Other than the W/R/E marking, do you know what the difference is? Are they dimensionally different?

[chuckindenver]

the 1917 spring is a bit longer, and a little stiffer, but will install in a 1903.
the follower will work, however.
early 1917s have a more square edge on the rear edge, during rebuild, most were rounded, to prevent miss feeding.
most 1903 miss feeds are from trigger guard, stock fitting issues. of a mix of incorrect parts.

[IditarodJoe]

Thanks Chuck. I think I'll remove and carefully reinstall the action and see if that helps. It's odd, because the rear of the follower doesn't seem to be hanging up on anything in particular. The right rear corner just gets a little angled against the back of the magazine box and sticks there.:icon_scratch:

If this doesn't work, I might just have to take a small file and soften that edge on the follower.

[Rick the Librarian]

I know several of us have seen a M1917 with the rear of the "rib" ground off so the manual of arms can be performed (open and closing the chamber).