jwrowland77
Member
Is it strictly .30-06? Tough to reload for? Stuff to look for, etc...value?
Have pics under weatherby thread.
Have pics under weatherby thread.
1917 Eddystone
- Thread starter jwrowland77
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Looking at the pics (you could link them in this thread to save folks some trouble...) the stock has been hacked and it's missing the upper hand guards and retainers. Those small parts are all available cheap. A new replacement stock will run you a couple hundred and the handguards an additional $30 or so each. The very good news is it looks like the sights are all present, so you can put this back in fighting trim pretty easily.
jwrowland77
Member
Is it shootable like it is?
desidog
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,595
The Model of 1917 was strictly 30-06; but the P14 rifle (made for England) was in .303 British. These are essentially the same rifle, with different names bestowed by different militaries, which used different calibers.
It should be stamped on the receiver and the barrel of the rifle in question.
It should be stamped on the receiver and the barrel of the rifle in question.
dprice3844444
member
some internal parts were different due to the rimmed/non rimmed cartridges
Tolkachi Robotnik
Member
OP likely yes, bear strong always in action.
P17 Enfield rifles are known for being extremely strong. There were some early ones, I do not know the numbers, but believe they were Remingtons, that had a heat treatment issue. Would be worth researching just to check. I believe it might have been due to rebarreling and the barrels failed, not the actions, but right in front of the receivers. Winchester made Enfield P17's as well, and those might be the best of all. I believe the total number that failed was small.
Bad things are they are about 9.5 pound rifles. The actions are often rebuilt into other barrels and the action will hold about any cartridge. It is a robust arrangment.
A lot of these have been 'sporterized', as they were formerly low expense and plentiful. The ones that are original are higher value now. Some of the worked up ones might be very nice rifles.
P17 Enfield rifles are known for being extremely strong. There were some early ones, I do not know the numbers, but believe they were Remingtons, that had a heat treatment issue. Would be worth researching just to check. I believe it might have been due to rebarreling and the barrels failed, not the actions, but right in front of the receivers. Winchester made Enfield P17's as well, and those might be the best of all. I believe the total number that failed was small.
Bad things are they are about 9.5 pound rifles. The actions are often rebuilt into other barrels and the action will hold about any cartridge. It is a robust arrangment.
A lot of these have been 'sporterized', as they were formerly low expense and plentiful. The ones that are original are higher value now. Some of the worked up ones might be very nice rifles.
Kp321
Member
The Eddystone rifles were the ones that experienced receiver cracking. The problem was having the replacement barrels over torqued during installation. No heat treatment problems like the early 03's had. They are excellent, very strong actions made from nickel steel. If your rifle has not been cut or modified except for the stock, it is a good candidate for restoration. Too many of these fine rifles have been made into sporters.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
+1
And I have read the early Winchesters had some out of spec parts because they started production before the Army Ordnance production spec's, drawings, and gages were finalized.
rc
And I have read the early Winchesters had some out of spec parts because they started production before the Army Ordnance production spec's, drawings, and gages were finalized.
rc
Jim Watson
Member
US1917s, mostly Eddystones, have a reputation for cracks in the receiver ring. No doubt the steel is a bit overhardened but the main cause is said to be the torque required to remove an overly tightened factory barrel. The usual procedure is to set it all up in a lathe and cut a groove in the barrel shoulder to relieve the stress before trying to unscrew it.
I have not heard of any 1917 (or 1914 or 1913) being so brittle as to break up like a burnt "low number" 1903. They are massive strong actions commonly used for magnum sporters.
Some of them have a "bathtub" recess in the receiver bridge under the receiver sight, which is unsightly in a sporterized rifle. Gunsmiths would look for the ones without to sporterize. I have read that it was done by one or another factory and that it was done on all early, few or none late. You just have to look.
Of course an unaltered GI model is now worth more than nearly any sporter you could build on it; but there are a lot of "pre-Bubbaed" military rifles of all sorts that can be reworked at no loss to posterity.
I have not heard of any 1917 (or 1914 or 1913) being so brittle as to break up like a burnt "low number" 1903. They are massive strong actions commonly used for magnum sporters.
Some of them have a "bathtub" recess in the receiver bridge under the receiver sight, which is unsightly in a sporterized rifle. Gunsmiths would look for the ones without to sporterize. I have read that it was done by one or another factory and that it was done on all early, few or none late. You just have to look.
Of course an unaltered GI model is now worth more than nearly any sporter you could build on it; but there are a lot of "pre-Bubbaed" military rifles of all sorts that can be reworked at no loss to posterity.
The overtightening of the Eddystone barrels was apparently due to that factory using a hydraulic machine to install barrels. No sweat to get a barrel to the draw line - the operator just tapped a foot pedal. If it was too tight, well, production, not finesse, was the name of the game. The result was seasoning cracks and cracking when gunsmiths tried to remove those barrels. Most gunsmiths simply make a relief cut unless it is really necessary to preserve the barrel.
That cracking had no connection with the brittle receivers of some early Model 1903 rifles.
Jim
That cracking had no connection with the brittle receivers of some early Model 1903 rifles.
Jim
backbencher
Member
1917s should be preserved in immaculate condition, and the superb action should not be used to build an excellent sporting rifle? You want us to hang on to original condition obsolete bolt action military rifles for what purpose? The Canadians might invade?
Last edited:
Because so many were converted to sporters there are so few in military condition. Preserving those old warriors is important to many.
"The Eddystone rifles were the ones that experienced receiver cracking. The problem was having the replacement barrels over torqued during installation"
Check my post from a couple of days ago on General Discussions "Blow up a gun.. Experiences?" thread. I don't mess with Enfields anymore-especially "sporterized ones".
Check my post from a couple of days ago on General Discussions "Blow up a gun.. Experiences?" thread. I don't mess with Enfields anymore-especially "sporterized ones".
I never saw an Eddystone receiver crack when installing a barrel; I do know of ones that cracked when gunsmiths removed the original barrel. As I said above, making a relief cut in front of the receiver was a routine practice for that reason.
Jim
Jim
- Status
