Beautiful old gal considering her age.
Congrats.
My grandpa was part of the Punitive Expedition chasing Pancho Villa around the EL Paso area in 1916.
Was issued a 17 Enfield.
When they ended up in France in 1917 he said he took an 03 off a dead guy and tossed the Enfield in the mud cause the 03 was lighter.
I am seriously reluctant to say this, but the story is not quite accurate. I assure you no disrespect intended toward your grandfather nor his service. Having said that, I have no doubt at all about the later part of his claim in France. The U.S. Army simply did not have any M-1917 rifles during the time of Pancho Villa's pre-U.S. WW I dust up. The rifles did not exist until after the U.S. entered WW I. How this came to be was that Winchester had a contract with the British to manufacture the British Enfield Pattern 14, caliber .303 British rifle. The contract had just expired when the U.S. entered the war. The U.S. quickly discovered they were woefully short of suitable rifles and it would not be possible to adequately increase the production of the M-1903 rifle to meet the needs. Winchester proposed to the U.S. Army Ordnance Department to retool their already in place production equipment to manufacture the rifle in .30-06 caliber for the U.S. Army. Hence, the U.S. M-1917 rifle was born. Shortly thereafter, Remington also began production and Remington opened an additional plant at Eddystone, Pennsylvania to also make the M-1917. The U.S. Springfield M-1903 is certainly lighter, shorter, and handier, which made it popular with the troops. Some claim the Springfield is more accurate due to it's more intricate sight as opposed to the Enfield's which had no windage adjustment. Windage was initially adjustable by ordnance personnel staking the dovetailed front sight in place, but not by individual soldiers. Frankly, in my opinion - and in the opinion of the British army, that was all the practical windage adjustment needed on a combat iron sighted rifle. JMHO,YMMV. Additionally, the front sight on the M-1903 is a lot thinner as opposed to the M-1917. This is fine on the shooting range or if one is sniping at 400+ yards, but not so desirable at closer ranges. Again, my opinion. One feature of the M-1917 over the M-1903 that many do not realize is that they both used the same 5 - round stripper clips, however the M-1917 magazine actually holds 6 .30-06 cartridges, due to it's original design in .303 British caliber. Those rimmed .303 cartridges took up a little more room than the rimless .30-06 cartridges. When the P-1914 rifle was redesigned into the M-1917, only the parts that were needed to be modified to accept the different cartridge, were. While today many have forgotten the M-1917, they actually accounted for roughly 2/3 of the American rifles used in WW I Europe.
After the war, there was some debate as to which of the two would become the official post WW I U.S. rifle. Obviously, the Springfield won out for several reasons. One, it was a better target rifle due to it's sights. However, the sights were much more delicate. The Springfield is lighter and handier, making it easier to carry. Additionally, the U.S. government owned the only two plants making the Springfield rifles, being Springfield and Rock Island Arsenals. The three plants available to make M-1917 rifles were civilian owned by Remington and Winchester. Since the war was over and the military services were dramatically scaled back, there were an abundance of M-1903 rifles to meet the peacetime needs. In later years the entire Philippine Islands Army was equipped with surplus M-1917s and thousands were supplied to the Chinese as well. Additionally, in WW II, some were given to the British Home Guard units under "Lend-Lease". After the U.S. got involved in WW II, some M-1917s were issued to U.S. artillery and MP units. It is my belief that no M-1917 rifles were ever issued to USMC, Naval, or Coast Guard units, hence it was an exclusive army rifle.