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

[44 AMP]

A friend is waiting on delivery of a 1917 Enfield, which was sporterized to .300 Magnum.

Now, he's freaked out because someone texted him and told him that the Eddystone is "soft" and "brittle" and so dangerously blow up prone.

Personally I don't recall ever seeing or hearing that to have been an issue with 1917 Enfields, but I'm not an expert about them. Early 1903 Springfields have lots of talk about heat treating issues, but I haven't heard that about the 1917s.

SO, is the guy "warning" my friend out in left field, or is there something to it?

Opinions welcome, facts and sources preferred. Thanks.

[Recycled bullet]

Is he gonna fire it with a string?

[eastbank]

years ago i had a winchester 1917 enfield converted to 300 norma mag, if i remember rightly i ran 180 bullets at 3000 fps with no problems at all.

[ligonierbill]

The alarmist texter may be thinking of Eddystone, the arsenal from which a batch of improperly heat treated 1903s issued. But I've never heard anything negative about the Enfield 1917. Had one for a while, and it was hell for stout. I'm betting Mr. Killjoy is just jealous.

[jcj54]

Eddystone 1917 rifles are just as strong as Remington or Winchesters.

[Jim Watson]

Eddystone, the arsenal from which a batch of improperly heat treated 1903s issued.

Eddystone did not make 1903s. "Eddystone Arsenal" was the Baldwin Locomotive plant tooled up to make 1914 and 1917 rifles. Usually said to have been managed by Remington. They have been seen with cracked receiver rings. Was this due to poor heat treat or over-torqued barrels? It is often recommended to remove an Eddystone barrel by turning it in a lathe to remove the shoulder against the receiver, relaxing some of the stress.

[taylorce1]

Probably the most used action by the now defunct A-Square for building dangerous game rifles. I have one in .300 H&H, not much compared to the Win Mag but I wouldn't be afraid to shoot it.

[hammie]

In P. O. Ackley's Handbook, volume II, the Enfield is mentioned in the blow up tests. Ackley tested a Remington and Eddystone action to destruction. The Eddystone action eventually shattered, and the Remington action stretched until it was unserviceable. So, Ackley said that the Eddystone was brittle and the Remington was soft, which begs the question of how an action can both be brittle AND soft, as claimed by the friend. Of course, that is only one example from two different manufacturers, and they may or may not be representative. (Ackley said that himself.) In any case Ackley said that the Mauser 98, Arisaka, Enfield (not the SMLE), and the high numbered Springfields were all suitably strong for chambering to any modern cartridge.

Another source was "Bolt Action Rifles" by Frank de Haas. In his review of the Enfield, de Haas mentioned the same potential for receiver ring cracking that Jim Watson posted above. De Hass said that the cracking was prevalent in the Eddystone actions and not the Remington and Winchester actions. As Jim Watson surmised, de Haas attributed the cracking to over torquing the barrel into the action. De Haas believed that the cracking occurred when the original barrel was removed. He said that you would likely need a magnifying glass to see the hairline crack and a good way to detect it would be to apply gasoline to the front receiver ring. The gasoline would continue to seep after the outside gasoline evaporated. A cracked receiver ring is not serviceable or repairable. I would assume that a rebarreled action without cracks is good to go.

Decades ago, a fellow hunter in Arizona had a customized 1917 Enfield, chambered for .308 Norma Magnum. It had a flattened floorplate, re-contoured rear receiver, and then restocked. It was a beautiful rifle and a good shooter. I also have a pattern 14 Enfield in its original state, sort of. It has a Winchester receiver and a Remington bolt. I'm not sure exactly what that means.

[44caliberkid]

I had a really nice Eddystone 30-06, one of the most accurate iron sighted rifles I’ve ever owned. I have seen many 1917 conversions to 300 and 375 H&H. I wouldn’t worry at all.

[gwpercle]

Read the Blow Up Tests P.O. Ackley did on those bolt action rifles ...
and have some real factual information .
I seem to remember the 1917's as being rather well built and suited for 30-magnum conversions .
I think someone is running off at the keyboard and may not have his facts straight.
Look for P.O. Ackley - Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders , vol. II
You will find the test in there ... and the blow up test winner...
... is Surprising !
Gary

[Mike Irwin]

The 1917 is a very strong action, perfect fine for pressures up to .30-06 level with room to spare.

[Recycled bullet]

Has your friend fired the rifle yet?

[44 AMP]

Has your friend fired the rifle yet?

I do not think he has the rifle yet. Bought online and expected to arrive at his FFL by Monday but even if it gets there today (Friday) he won't have it until the week after next, thanks to our benevolent fuerher's (pardon me, our governor's) leadership requiring a 10 day wait, so the local police can check to see if it is stolen.

Likely he won't be able to shoot it and report his results until the middle of October, or so.

[Name of One Who Uses]

A friend is waiting on delivery of a 1917 Enfield, which was sporterized to .300 Magnum.

Now, he's freaked out because someone texted him and told him that the Eddystone is "soft" and "brittle" and so dangerously blow up prone.

Personally I don't recall ever seeing or hearing that to have been an issue with 1917 Enfields, but I'm not an expert about them. Early 1903 Springfields have lots of talk about heat treating issues, but I haven't heard that about the 1917s.

SO, is the guy "warning" my friend out in left field, or is there something to it?

Opinions welcome, facts and sources preferred. Thanks.

We shooters/hunters are an interesting lot. This guy, as many of us would be, is worried about the strength of a military action that's been barreled to a modern magnum cartridge. I wonder if his mind would be more at ease were it barreled to something such as a 22-250, or a 6mm Remington or a .270 Winchester? Probably. What's interesting is all these cartridges, as per SAAMI, have a higher maximum average chamber pressure than the .300 Winchester Magnum (65K psi vs. 64K psi)

[tangolima]

.300 WM is a big cartridge. Recutting the chamber to accommodate a bigger and longer round takes away steel, making the "containment wall" thinner. Rated pressure is 6% higher. There is valid reason for the concern.

1917 is chambered in .30-06. Not too much smaller than .300 WM. The conversion has been done on regular basis. Conversion to smaller rounds could be harder or even impossible without a new barrel.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

The rifle has been received, taken to a gunsmith and checked over, including having had a chamber cast done. The barrel is marked .300 Magnum with electro-pencil. The chamber cast says its a .300 H&H Magnum. Headspace checks good.

The gun was listed as a .300 Win Mag, and the new owner isn't very happy about that, and has been griping a bit, over that, and difficulty finding .300 H&H ammo, but considering he paid $450 for the gun and can, if he wishes have it recut to Win mag, or even Wby, I think he will get over it.

[Paul B.]

"The gun was listed as a .300 Win Mag, and the new owner isn't very happy about that, and has been griping a bit, over that, and difficulty finding .300 H&H ammo, but considering he paid $450 for the gun and can, if he wishes have it recut to Win mag, or even Wby, I think he will get over it."

Probably the easiest, IE simplest would be to rechamber to the .300 Wby. Going to the .300 Win. would require cutting off about a half inch or so off the rear of the barrel, rethreading and then a rechamber to the .300 Win.. The only other alternative I think would be to rebarrel the rifle to the wanted cartridge.

I think that if I were in that position, I would just rebarrel to the Weatherby round and check to insure the feed rails were ok or alter if needed.
Paul B.

[tangolima]

That's the rifle? I followed the other thread. Cutting it into .300 WM makes sense if I needed it for real use. Chasing down rare cartridge to load is fun too.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Ricklin]

I looked for years to complete my set. I have the Sears model 50 rifle in both .270 and 30.06.
Took me 20 years to find the .06 so what did I learn? Both are great rifles, however it is quite similar to having two flavors of vanilla ice cream.
Both of mine are early guns, the cut for the iron sights is directly over the chamber on both of mine, they changed and moved the sight forward sometime over the few years of production.
I am going to rebarrel the .06 to .300 Win mag. Shame, great chrome lined bore, I would cut a new chamber if not for that sight cut.

[GeauxTide]

I've had an Eddystone for more than 20 years. Have shot factory or factory equivalent handloads without issue. Going to give it to my youngest this year. A fine, rugged firearm.

[oldbear1950]

Years ago, when a company named DAKOTA started making high dollar really powerful rifles, they used Enfields for their conversions. I never heard of any with any problems.
I think Remington bought the company, and eventually if folded , because of price more than any thing else.

[bamaranger]

There is an interesting video running on YouTube, filmed during WWI, showing production of the Enfield. There's even a segment of the barrel being screwed into the receiver.

[Jim Watson]

This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39wM-lzDWE4&t=361s
Barrel installation at 5:30

[bamaranger]

That's it. Any ideas what arsenal or production facility that would be?

[davidsog]

IIRC, A-Square made .577 Tyrannosaur rifles out of MILSURP M1917 receivers.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/de...77-tyrannosaur