1917 Eddystone "headsup"?

[georgerkahn]

For good (I hope) and not "bad" -- I noted quite a post on the dangers of 1917s manufactured at the Eddystone plant. Something I'd never heard of, which now has me a tad "a-scared" re shooting mine. For whatever, specially with the many sporterized in magnum calibres, I reckoned the 1917 was a "worry-free" firearm to own and shoot...
Should mine be now regulated to be a wall-hanger? (Mine is S/n 1,286,xxx, made in 1918, with an October 1918 barrel.) barrel
Here's the link:
https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...68#post9823747
Your thoughts?
geo

Note: a thread on this site, I just located, re this is: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...eiver-problems
geo

[john.k]

Dont worry...........unless setting off powerful explosions inches from your head makes you nervous.......the cracks they speak of are IMHO ,hardening cracks........no one has ever had any issue with these cracks,and never will.........most arent even discovered unless someone looks for them........all these things were well known in the days of the big surplus sales and sporterizing era....The cracks are easily welded up,and never have any bearing on safety.

[Petrol & Powder]

If you read the discussion in the link (lengthy) you will see there is a considerable amount of disagreement. (disagreement on an internet forum ......shocking )

There appears to be a decent argument that the military was attempting to declare large numbers of 1917 rifles as obsolete so that they could justify listing them en-bloc as surplus. There is also a lot of discussion concerning which rifles they were speaking of, original rifles, re-barreled rifles, obsolete rifles, etc.
Like most internet discussions, there's some possibility for less than honest motives.

I don't think there's a need to throw away 1917 Eddystone rifles based on this information.

[T-Bird]

My Dad bought one of these from Sears still in cosmoline for around 20$ in the '60s- we still have it. Oh for the good old days.

[Texas by God]

I converted a P14 "Drill Purpose" rifle to .450 Marlin with no problems at all. I've never heard of a 1917 rifle blowing up except when someone did blow up tests.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[alamogunr]

I'll be watching this thread closely. I have an Eddystone 1917 and the S/N indicates 1918 manufacture. I don't plan to convert it to anything beyond .30-06 with cast.

Actually, that is a misleading statement. It will remain a .30-06.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I have heard that some Eddystone 1917s developed cracks in the receiver, but I have never seen it myself, have never talked to anyone who had seen it, have never seen a picture of one. For many years 1917s were a favorite for conversion to magnum cartridges, and Eddystones were converted right along with Remingtons and Winchesters. I'm not saying that it's not so, but if it is so it is relatively uncommon just like the Low Number Springfield problem. What number actually failed out of how many that were made?

DG

[TNsailorman]

This argument has been going on since I was a tadpole and it has not been settled yet. I have owned and shot several Eddystone's in the past and have never had day one problem with them. The 1917 are one of my 2 favorite military surplus rifle(the other being the 1903 Springfield). From what I have been able to read about their failures/or non failures was from gunsmith's who have re-barreled them. From what I understand, Eddystone(Remington owned) used barreling machines to tighten the barrels into the receiver and the machines were set up too tight until they learned better. I have never seen a study of magnifluxing where the process turned up cracks in the receiver. Nearly all the gunsmiths that I have talked to about this problem, and there were several, told me that the problem came when someone tried to take the barrel off improperly. The Eddysone receiver and barrel were so tight that it took a special method of relief cutting the barrel thread area from inside the chamber up close to where the threads were and then the barrel would come off easy. Some smiths would use a cheater bar or a barrel chucked up into a lath to forcefully remove it with brute force. This procedure usually ended up with a twisted/sprung action or a cracked receiver. I took my first 1917 Eddystone to my local smith who had re-barreled several of them to get him to check for cracks(which was a concern back then also). He said that he had re-barreled maybe a hundred or more and had never run into cracks because he did the relief cuts first and then the barrel would come right off. The relief cut's allowed the threaded area of the barrel to give/collapse enough to loosen the threads. He was the first to ever state that method to me. I once had a conversation with an old time gunsmith(now long dead) named Meredith who worked during WW II re-barreling 1917's and 1903's for a gun shop with a government contract to do so. He told me that they visually checked each 1917(Eddystone as well as Remington and Winchester) and he never saw one with cracks or was aware of any other gunsmiths having seen one. He stated that they used the relief cut method to re-barrel all of the 1917 rifles at that shop. I have never run into a well documented study that would prove or disprove this theory of cracks one way or the other. Our grandchildren may be debating this issue long after we are gone. my take anyway, james

[alamogunr]

I just checked my Eddystone for replacement barrel. The barrel has the JA stamp and the flaming bomb, which I gather indicates that it was rebuilt with the Johnson Automatic barrel. The receiver also has the flaming bomb on the left side.

I also noticed something that I have overlooked and may or may not have been noted when I bought the rifle. There is a large chip out of the stock on the right side of the action. Its shape is such that it is not that noticeable at just a glance but very noticeable at closer inspection. Probably degrades its value to a dyed-in-wool collector but doesn't affect me since it will be passed on to my Political Science/History professor son someday.

[Char-Gar]

The only Eddystone receiver cracking I know about it that which happens when removing a barrel. It seems that many of the barrels were way over torqued. The fix was to cut a groove in the barrel just forward of the receiver to relieve the stress before removing it.

Many 1917s were rebuilt during WWII with JA (Johnson Automatics) 2 groove barrels. I had one such rifle rebuilt at the San Antonio Arsenal. I gifted it to my SIL. It appeared to be unfired since the rebuilt. It had a Remington receiver and stock.

[Texas by God]

Before I removed the demilled barrel on mine; LUCKILY I sold the other ERA barreled action I had to a nice knowledgeable man at a gun show. I told him my plans and he told me to be SURE to cut that relief groove. I listened; did it, and the old barrel came out with a firm tug from water pump pliers! I'd like to have another .450M, .416 Taylor, or .458 on a 1917 using the issue rear sight and blade front- a cast boolit beast!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[TNsailorman]

Char-Char, I had a Eddystone that had been re-barreled with a Johnson Automatic 2 groove barrel. It was very accurate with jacketed bullets in the 150 to 173 grain range. I never tried anything heavier. I should have never sold the 1917's that I owned over the years. I paid $200.00 for a pristine Eddystone. It was blued and had a RA safety. It also had a Remington barrel(18 I think). Just one of the many rifles I should have kept and didn't. I never owned a 1917 Enfield that was not accurate. my experience anyway, james

[Ed in North Texas]

As far back as I can remember the M1917s were known for being a PITA to pull the barrel and the standard answer was to cut the groove just in front of the receiver and then the job is easy.

[KenT7021]

I built a number of rifles using DP P14's when they were readily available.I always made the relief cut in front of the receiver before removing the barrel.Most of the rifles were Eddystone.I never found a cracked receiver.I agree with CharGar's comments on how they are cracked.Most of the rifles I built were for high intensity cartridges and none of the actions caused any problems.Use the rifle you have without worries.

[john.k]

I have never heard of a P14 cracking,only the M17s.............P14s were made under strict inspection procedures ............I do know of cracked M17s ,and have watched them being welded up at Accurate Welding Works ,37 Cordelia St ,South Brisbane.......mid 1960s........These guns were being sporterized on a production line basis,and I imagine the barrels were removed in the quickest way possible......ie ..no relief cuts.....At this time I bought a Eddystone M17 packed in thick grease for $12 trade price.....No cracks.....My brother still has one from this era.....mint ,unmarked,as new......wish I had stacked a few away ,they fetch $2500+ here now.........but then Harley WLA headlights sell for $1000 now too......used to be $1.

[Walks]

I have two, an Eddystone I bought about 35yrs ago, Arsenal reworked & Parkerized. The inside of the bbl is very rough and the Headspace is a little more then I'd like it to be. I bought a new unfinished walnut G.I. stock and G.I. bbl from Numrich Arms, but it turned out to be a 24" sporter bbl and not the factory contour it was supposed to be.
Not the 1st time they sent me the wrong part. My Dad's GunSmith passed before I could afford to have Him rebarrel it. I bought the blank, and gave it to him. Never got the blank back. Never found a proper replacement bbl. Can't afford it now anyway. Cowboy Shooting got in the way for 25yrs.

The other one is Sporterized. It was rebarreled to .257Rob'ts and the boltstop moved forward and chamber cut with a short throat for Factory Ammo.
This is the Rifle My Grandfather passed down to My Dad. All his Boys took Their first deer with it.
It has had the Crest ground off so I don't know who made it.

I refinished that unissued stock, it looks beauiful. And it shoots pretty good. My Dad showed me a trick to handle the headspace problem. I "over-sized" once fired cases from my Rem 700. This consisted of screwing the Lyman 310 neck sizing die bit by bit into the handle until the shoulder bulged enough to make the case a bit hard to close the bolt on. Kinda cures the headspace and the rounds won't fit in any other Rifle. I have never had a case head separation. And with the issue sights it will shoot 5 rounds into 3" from the bench.
Can't shoot cast though, the bbl is just too rough. Even after all the lapping I've done.

[Hardcast416taylor]

Some years back when I was healthy I would look for `BUBBAED` P-14 and 1917 Enfields to make the proverbial `silk purse from a sow`s ear` rifles. My favorite rebarrel was to a .338/06 on the 1917 rifles and usually just left the P-14 rifles in .303. Removing the barrels on the 1917 rifles I did the relief cut and with a 2 foot pipe wrench removed the barrels, never had a crack problem. I also would straighten the floor plate to remove the `belly` bulge that was for the 6 th round.Robert

[Thumbcocker]

I have a P-14 that is marked DP and the stock looks like it was dragged home behind a troop ship. The bore is pristine and I have shot cast in it. Should I not do so?

[Der Gebirgsjager]

That just depends on your particular rifle. "DP" means Drill Purpose, or in other words the rifle was withdrawn from regular use as an issue weapon and thereafter designated for drills. Some were disabled so that they could not be fired by such ingenious methods as drilling a hole through the chamber and inserting a pin so that a round could not be chambered, etc. But many were just arbitrarily designated as drill rifles without any modification. It sounds like you have one of the latter, since you've been firing it. Therefore, it is most likely suitable for using regular ammo as well.

DG

[Tripplebeards]

I joined gunboards a few months ago to try and find parts for my M1917, 1907 BSA Shtle MK1***, and 1941 long branch. The comments I see in your post are very typical rude replies as I received on most of my posts as well. I think they are all a bunch of grumpy old farts that are not a lot of help imo. Most of them think they know everything and you can’t tell them they’re wrong. I got called out with a reply asking about a cracked casing until telling it could be a headspace issue or case loaded to long and sticking a bullet in the lands causing pressure spikes. I then posted a link to a video of a Brownells gunsmith doing a show and tell exactly what posted. lol, no replies after that. I’ve about given up over there. Most of them are ZERO help on anything I’ve learned in sort period of time...or it’s just a few old grumps that try and get a rise out of you because they have nothing else better in life to do. Kinda feel sorry for them in a way. There are opinions and then there is some just being rude. I’ve always said to belittle is to be little.


But at 10,000 plus rifles manufactured a day your gonna have a few duds just like we do now. Accidents happen.


I like this video of M1917 production...

https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...im-with-rifles