Poor pitiful me.


Found a sporterized Winchester 1917 Enfield. Good bore, original sights and no scope for $200 OTD. No brainer right ?

Same shop Savage 110E 30.06. Good bore, dinged up stock, 4x Jap scope for $300 OTD. No brainer right.
Looking at resale value in the long run. I think the 1917 has the nod.

Can't afford both so what's an idiot supposed to do.


Brad

I'd go with the 1917 all day every day.

1917 Enfield. No brainer.

1917.

1917

Nineteen seventeen.

The Enfield hands down.

' 17,.....IMHO

GTC

The timeless classic for less money.

Neither.

You should buy both, send me the 1917 for a little more than what you got into it and we will both be happy. Win win.

A Krupp should be buying a Mauser.

Ein Mauser, mit Kruppstahl gemacht!

I have a couple of rifles made from 1917 actions. Both good shooters. One has a Buhmiller barrel.

Buy the one you can re-sell for a profit the quickest. Then go back and buy the other.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

only answer ya need to know right there!

1917

Wish you people would make up your minds!


THX one and all.

Brad

1917 in any case, especially if it hasn't been hacked to the point it can't be fully restored. Problem is when they did basterization they typically milled off the sight parts on the rear receiver ring.

That's what got me so excited about it to begin with. It's is not chopped or hacked in anyway other than the forearm being slimmed down. The bore is a little frosty but rifling is sharp. I might look for some military wood but from my observation the wood will cost ALOT more than the rifle itself.

Enfield.

No matter what, there is always room for a 1917 in my collection. Heavy as hell, but one of the best quality actions ever manufactured.

The original barrels were surprisingly accurate for a military rifle.

I personally wouldn't alter one, but if it's already been sporterized, you can build up any caliber on one.

The Savage will likely shoot well too. I bought one for use at the ranch for $200 a couple of years ago.

See if you can get them both for under $400.

^^^^^^^^^
What he said! Neither is too desirable, but either will kill a deer or elk.

Unfortunately, resale value (unless a real collector's rifle) is an iffy thing these days. The new breed of inexpensive (but good) value riles (e.g., Ruger American, etc.) are depressing the price of rifles in the used market.

Enfield
Savage won't gain value - just become an old, used, dime a dozen rifle.
Even a chopped Enfield won't lose any value. May not gain much since it's a sporter, but you won't lose to inflation either.

The thing about the 1917's I owned is that none of them would shoot 150 grain bullets for crap. They didn't seem to show until you got to 180's.

But I read somewhere that at Perry with the 173 grain ammo (I think) the Enfield use to kick azz on the Springfield.

If for hunting use and not resale, I'd go for the Savage.

I wouldn't be able to stand hauling around the weight of the 1917, and the extra expense of a drill and tap for scope mounting along with buying rings and bases would negate any savings of buying the less expensive rifle...not even considering the matter of a scope.

An older "Jap scope" - especially a 4x - would likely be quite serviceable, eliminating the need to buy a new one.

Accuracy of the 1917 would be a big question, while most Savage bolt actions are dependably accurate.

I would expect the trigger pull of the 1917 to be quite heavy, as it is for most WW2 military rifles. While the trigger on the Savage should be at least acceptable.

Overall, for a pure hunting gun, and for saving money, I'd definitely go for the Savage.

The ONLY dilemma I've ever had with a 30/06 is that I never complied a dozen at one time!!

Unless it's a finished out sporter or you are wanting the action for a project I'd have to say if you just want a rifle to shoot and hunt with go Savage. I came to the conclusion that sporterizing old military rifles was a expensive way to a half azzed rifle. . To get one really nice was way more than just expensive ,It's ultra expensive . Heck just drilling and tapping will run $100 these days plus hassling with shipping the gun around. Cut and crown the barrel remove the sight ears so that you can see the scope etc. etc. oh and do the last two and a blue job is in order. Oh and then a nicer stock is called for even a semi inleted job will cost $100+ now you might have it close to a savage 110e but certainly no where near a really nice custom sporter. So a hundred here a hundred there and you might as well buy a new Montana or a clean pre 64 model 70. Savages are not that pretty but they are good solid hunting rifle as is. Leave the military rifle to the military buffs.

1917

I too wouldn't spend much time looking at either one, but if you held a gun to my head I would go with the 1917, and grumble the whole way home.

you probably got close to a split decision, either or, but the enfield having the cutdown stock without the rear sight ears being cut is interesting. They don't make enfields anymore.
I personally think a better rifle than the springfield.
My cutdown was acquired i think in the 30's, fourth generation now. Did have a cutdown stock, rear ears done away with etc.
In the 70's i took it to dave wolfe who sent it to various people, rust pits removed new high gloss finish, drilled and tapped, and i put a bishop stock on it. First real hi power i ever had other than a winchester 94. Eventually son who at the time was poor like me started using it. Never saw a deer complain.
Still have it, and i am sure it still works. Yeah, it's heavy but so what?
I have some military correct enfields, and they are not cheap anymore. As to that weight it was kind of an atvantage when you are trying to beat somebody over the head with it.