1917 Enfield Strength? Weakness? Rumors?? Fact??

[bamaranger]

I'll try and answer my own question since I've searched a bit.

If those P17/14 rifles in the film clip are being made at the Baldwin Locomotive works, that's near Philly. "Eddystone" was in Delaware Co Pa but I'm not sure where or what the difference would be between the two locations. I'm speculating that Eddystone PA was a suburb of Philly, much like Fairless Hills or Germantown, etc.

Could it be that the guy in the film clip cranking the barrels on the receivers is the source of all our discussion???

[Jim Watson]

Baldwin built Eddystone Arsenal to produce P13s for England, then 1917s for us.
I had thought that they moved rifle making equipment into a locomotive factory but it was the other way 'round, it was put to work on locomotives after the war.

There was also an Eddystone Ammunition Plant which blew up, killing 133 workers.
It was replaced by an Eddystone Munitions Plant, which was turned to locomotive work after the war.

When sporterizing Army surplus rifles was cheap and popular, the Remington made 1917 was preferred. Winchester and Eddystone actions have a recess under the rear sight, exposed when you take off the sight and cut off the "ears". A nice gunsmith job would weld in a plug and contour the bridge. Remington actions do not have the recess, one less job for the gunsmith. There were two contours that scope bases were made for, you could cut the bridge down to the same shape as a commercial Remington or you could turn it cylindrical the same diameter as the receiver ring.

[Blindstitch]

Not exactly the same but I have a Winchester M1917 and it's my go to deer rifle. It's like raid. Kills deer dead. And came with a grandfathers largest deer story dropped at 300 yards. I shot my most points 10 point with it after shooting my largest rack 8 point with my other grandfathers biggest buck gun (type 38 arisaka in 6.5 sporterised). But his had 16 points.

[bamaranger]

Guy of my acquaintance has won 3 P17 rifles in card games in years gone by, I think from the same sucker. One was in .300 Super (I think) , a few years later a pair of them in '06. Tried to buy one of the '06's, but like everything else he ever priced to me, too high.

[RC20]

It amazing how many myths surround the Model of 1917.

It was originally British designed for a .276 rimless cartridge, new and improved 303 eh what. What with the war, well they needed guns and lots of 303 and it got converted to that in the Pattern 14. Equally bizarre was the 303 went onto WWII and past. Phew. Kind of wonder about the new whiz bang 8mm Mauser and the 06?

Totally bizarre was the Brits using upwards of 8 x 303 in their fighters. They shifted over to 20mm part way through (or a combo and then full shift). Pretty much had to stick your nose into a German fighter or bomber, amazing they won the BofB.

Ok, back to Enefiled Model of 1917, it was designed for a modern high powered cartridge. Ergo, it was fine for 30-06.

Now, a bit more background. The Majority in numbers of Eddystone rifles outpaced Rem and Winnies combined.

They were all made to the same spec. That was a nickle steel, ergo, they stretch rather than shatter. As there were a lot more Eddystones, there were a lot more conversions. Now what a 300 WM has over a 30-06, well don't get me going on that.

I have had a half dozen pass through my hands. Eddystones, Wins, Rems. None of them has anything over any others. Myths? Yep. Desirable, Rem and Winns because they are rarer.

Winchester was actually forbidden from the War Zone as they did not comply with the compatibility of parts. They jumped the gun (pun) .

While they exist, a all Win, Rem or Eddy gun parts is almost unheard of. If they are out there its because someone replaced the parts deliberately. The all parts common ones are in a museum.

And, all of the ones through my hands as well as another 6 I know of shot just fine.

They all actually don't cycle nicely as the sticky nickle steel of the bolt and receiver/barrel don't play nice. Don't get me wrong, they work, but a 1903 is discernibly slicker.

And yea, I am fascinated by the Model of 1917. Why? It has the best sight system of any pre WWII mas produced gun. The 1903 is awful sight system wise.

A lot of them were taken apart and they did not use the right tools (jigs) so they cracked. More Eddy than the rest because there were more Eddys than the rest.

C.S. Ferris wrote a great well researched book on it. Only disagreement I had was the insistence of correct designation. Loose verbiage on the gun is not going to change.

[taylorce1]

@44 AMP, it's a little expensive but I found your buddy some .300 H&H brass. I can help put him in touch if interested.

[105kw]

Taylorce1,
He got brass, his stepfather gave him a reloading setup and a bunch of 375 H&H brass necked down to 300.
He's already shot his rifle, now he's talking about a 375 H&H.

[44 AMP]

Much as I love to discuss WWII fighters, its really off topic for this thread.

They all actually don't cycle nicely as the sticky nickle steel of the bolt and receiver/barrel don't play nice. Don't get me wrong, they work, but a 1903 is discernibly slicker.

"Nickel Steel" was an industry term used up through the 20s and covered several slightly different alloys.

I've never noticed any difference between 1917s and 1903s slickness, other than the difference between cock on opening and cock on closing, but then, I oil mine....

[5whiskey]

@44AMP that's just a great excuse for your buddy to reload honestly. He did get the rifle for an OK price, and LRPs can be found again. Win/win.

[44 AMP]

Update:

The friend has gotten the rifle, had the caliber verified (its .300 H&H), got some brass, was given a loading set by his Father in law, taught how to use it, has loaded and shot the rifle, and likes it a lot.

He's now talking about getting a .375 H&H.