1917 Eddystone 30-06, $200

[nfl3k2]

My dad acquired this gun at a local estate sale for $200, here is the description from the ad:

Up for Auction is an Eddystone Model 1917 chambered in 30-06. The
Eddystone 1917 30-06 was built during World War I because the arsenals
could not keep up with the 1903 Springfields. They were built by
Remington amd at Remmingtons Eddystone plant. The rifle does have a
crack in the forward heat shield that appears to have had a
professional repair.





He is looking to resell but first asked if I was interested, he only wants what he paid for it. I'll be honest it would sit around a lot and probably only be used when I go to the range, possibly one day I'll go deer hunting. I just wanted to know what your thoughts are about this rifle, and in the future I decide I don't want it, will I be able to get my money back if I sell it?

Is there any way to verify this is actually chambered for the 30-06 (I don't see any markings).

Thanks.

 

[Slamfire]

If it has the original military barrel, the barrel should have an "E" and a 1917 or 1918 date underneath. It will be something like 11-17 for Nov 1917. If it is the military barrel on it is should be 30-06.

What you have looks to be an inexpensive sporterization of a M1917. A previous owner cut the muzzle down, cut the stock down. lost the upper band and lower band and the handguards.

Some consider this "the history of the rifle" and even make vague claims about increased value, but realistically, no one is going to pay for this rifle what a military buff would pay for the unaltered original.

In my opinion, this rifle is worth the value of the action, which is about $200.00. A lot of expensive parts are missing and the barrel has been cut down which ruins the value of the action for any military collector. Adding NOS parts back on is very expensive and restoration costs will exceed the value of an all original M1917.

The CMP was selling a few years ago all original M1917's for $500.00. I inspected a number on the rack at Camp Perry, barrels were sewer pipes and the rifles were well dinged up with finish wear. I guess a good military M1917 is above $600.00 in value.

If you want to drill and tap for a scope, (or mill the ears off) put on a better barrel, better stock, you are quickly looking at costs which exceed those of a good used M70 or M700.

 

[303tom]

That rifle only came in two chamberings, the .303 & the .30-06, drop a .30-06 in it, if it don`t fit it is a .303............

 

[velocette]

NFL3K2;
It's a '17 Enfield alright. It has the original stock that has been modified / sporterized. At $200.00 its a a steal. As it is it is a very strong, durable and (usually) accurate rifle well worth the $200.00 asking price.
Rifles like yours were common after WWII when folks couldn't afford new factory rifle, they bought GI surplus iron for $15.00 ~ $50.00, cut down the stock & went deer hunting on the cheap. The US rifles were chambered in 30-06, just fine for bagging Bambi's daddy.
Buy it, you will not lose money on the deal.

Roger

 

[Hacker15E]

I'd definitely pick it up.

As others have said, with the barrel and stock cut, it's not financially worth it to restore at current value, but the 1917 has always been known as a good action and if it has a good barrel it would be a great shooter.

 

[303tom]

Found this thought it was cool, don`t let that rifle get away from you, I would give you your money back + if you wish, just let me know..............

 

[Jim Watson]

The rifle does have a crack in the forward heat shield that appears to have had a professional repair.

What in the world are they talking about?
A 1917 doesn't HAVE a "heat shield." It has a handguard which has been discarded from this one, right before the stock was cut off and varnished.
Is the foreend cracked and glued? OK on a Sweatshop Special.
Is the receiver ring cracked from an attempt to unscrew the barrel? Not good.

 

[Slamfire]

Is the receiver ring cracked from an attempt to unscrew the barrel? Not good.

Good point. From posters on the web, Eddystone had the same problem Springfield Armory had: too hot of temperatures in the forge shop.

The end consequence is that many Eddystone receivers are too hard, and they have cracked in the receiver ring.

Not only have Eddystone's cracked, but here is a series of pictures I copied from a poster showing his cracked Winchester M1917 receiver.

I can only see what looks to be a crack in the middle picture, I assume each picture was supposed to show cracks, or the same crack.

If the rifle in question has a crack on the ring, it is only good as a paper weight.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Good point. From posters on the web, Eddystone had the same problem Springfield Armory had: too hot of temperatures in the forge shop.

The end consequence is that many Eddystone receivers are too hard, and they have cracked in the receiver ring.

Not only have Eddystone's cracked, but here is a series of pictures I copied from a poster showing his cracked Winchester M1917 receiver.

I can only see what looks to be a crack in the middle picture, I assume each picture was supposed to show cracks, or the same crack.

If the rifle in question has a crack on the ring, it is only good as a paper weight.

The M1917's did not have a heat treat temp problem that the early '03's did. The early '03 receivers were made using carbon steel and a single heat treat. Some of these were treated at too high a temp and became brittle and could have a catastrophic failure. The M1917 receiver is made with 3.5% nickle steel, it's very tough, but not as hard as carbon steel and much less likely to rupture. The M1917 has been used extensively by gunsmiths to build high pressure wildcat calibers.

There are very few documented receiver ring cracks. The extremely rare but well publicized receiver ring cracks were caused by the initial over torquing of the barrel on assembly.

The documented cases are normally Eddystone rifles that were rebarreled during war2 with Johnson Automatic barrels.

The M1917 is the strongest action of any US military bolt action rifle.

 

[Hacker15E]

Good point. From posters on the web, Eddystone had the same problem Springfield Armory had: too hot of temperatures in the forge shop.

The end consequence is that many Eddystone receivers are too hard, and they have cracked in the receiver ring.

Had nothing to do with heat treating.

The popular rumor goes that it was Eddystone's methodology of installing barrels (unknown if it was that Eddystone used some machine that Rem and Win did not use, or if Eddystone's machine was just set differently) meant that they were torqued on very tightly.

As the rumor goes, this meant that when removing the original very-tightly-installed barrel there was a potential for the receiver to crack.

There are reports of this happening during WWII when these rifles were being rearsenaled. I have never seen actual photos or other proof of this.

There are also scattered reports of owners on the internet who had this happen when their rifles were being rebarreled with local gunsmiths who did not make a relief cut in the barrel prior to attempting removal.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

That rifle only came in two chamberings, the .303 & the .30-06, drop a .30-06 in it, if it don`t fit it is a .303............

The US 1917 was only chambered for 30-06. The P14 was chambered for 303.
A 1917 or P14 with a cut down or spoter stock is only worth $100 to $225, and that is if the metal has not been altered. This is due to the cost to restor it to military dress.

 

[303tom]

The US 1917 was only chambered for 30-06. The P14 was chambered for 303.
A 1917 or P14 with a cut down or spoter stock is only worth $100 to $225, and that is if the metal has not been altered. This is due to the cost to restor it to military dress.

I think that is what I said, in 1914 it was a .303, in 1917 & when we joined the war we chambered it in .30-06..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1914_Enfield

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I'm restoring a P14 right now. The metal is in great shape other then the front sight, someone cut the ears off. I came out pretty good on a replacement stock. Got a D.P. stock with most of the metal parts for $60. Most often a stock in good shape will run you $100 and up. The only parts I need now a the front sight assembly.
Most often it will cost from $200 to $300 to restore one.

 

[Slamfire]

Good point. From posters on the web, Eddystone had the same problem Springfield Armory had: too hot of temperatures in the forge shop

.

The end consequence is that many Eddystone receivers are too hard, and they have cracked in the receiver ring.

Had nothing to do with heat treating.

The popular rumor goes that it was Eddystone's methodology of installing barrels (unknown if it was that Eddystone used some machine that Rem and Win did not use, or if Eddystone's machine was just set differently) meant that they were torqued on very tightly.

Gentlemen: This is my source of information on the over heating of receivers at Eddystone. Eddystone receivers are known to vary all over the place in hardness, and overheating in the forge shop would be consistent with that defect.

http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=364

Guys there is more to the cracked receiver problems than identified above. I used to work in the US Army Small Cal. Weapons Lab, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ and worked with a guy that used to rent a room from a guy that was third shift plant foreman at Eddystone. He related that there was no heat treating expertise for lack of a better description in those days. The guys in the forge room judged the correct heat by "looking" at the steel billets in the gas furnace.

That is the good news guys. Now here is some of the bad news. The guys in the forge room were paid piece rate, i.e. the more you do the more you make. Well they were supposed to heat the billets to between red and bright red and pull them out with the tongs and place them the trip hammers. Three hits first position, two hits the second position and one hit the third position.
Well the good ole boys in the forge room found that if they turned the furnace up a bit more and took the billets to white hot they could stamp the billet one time in the last position, turn out more forgings, make more money and ............... well you know the rest.

Only problem is when they went to white the steel was burned and the granular structure was not rearranged correctly to give it maximum strength. This supervisor was continually having to go in and turn the furnace down on the third shift so no telling how many thousand they made.

 

[Jim Watson]

This is pretty much as described for the "low number" 1903 Springfields.
And yet we do not hear of 1917s demolished in firing, or actions broken by a fall or a rap with a mallet as we do 1903s.
A cracked Eddystone is usually reported in conjunction with removing the unusually tight barrel without cutting a relief groove to reduce shoulder contact.
I have not heard of one blowing up, much less numerous failures such as you regale us with on the 1903. And there were more 1917s than 1903s and nearly half of them from Eddystone.

What's the theory? Eddystone not as badly burnt as Springfield? 1917 better design than 1903? Eddystone catastrophies not publicized like Springfield?

 

[Hacker15E]

Nothing like some single-source, 5th-hand info from events 90 years ago to shine light on the subject, hehe.

Forge room guy => Eddystone foreman => Guy who worked with SRF poster => SRF poster => SlamFire 1

Thanks for posting that. I recall reading that on SRF, and while it may be 100% true, IMHO the real-world evidence disagrees with (or at least does not support) the claim from that anecdotal evidence.

M1917 actions (even those of Eddystone manufacture) have been known as very, very strong and reliable. As was posted, they were the favorite postwar-era action to convert to high power wildcat cartridges. Even the "cracked receiver" story itself has been given larger stature than it probably deserves. As mentioned, there is a distinct lack of reports of the types of failures usually associated with the low number 1903s. Does that make it untrue? Not necessarily...but nor does the receiver crack story prove it true.

None the less, I don't think it's a significant enough issue even if completely true to cause anyone to have doubts about owning and shooting Eddystone rifles, with original or replacement barrels.

 

[Slamfire]

A cracked Eddystone is usually reported in conjunction with removing the unusually tight barrel without cutting a relief groove to reduce shoulder contact.

That is what I have heard, except PO Ackley’s blowup tests, where the Eddystone was hard and blew up “rather easily” and the Remington tested was “extremely soft”. I have talked to gunsmiths who have removed 1917 barrels and the barrels they removed were on extremely tight. But, I do not believe a properly made nickel steel receiver should crack on barrel removal.

Is this normal behavior, for a receiver to crack when a tight barrel is taken off?

My Anschutz 22’s have pressed in barrels, only held in by pins, and so is my PTR91, why have not those cracked?

I have not heard of one blowing up, much less numerous failures such as you regale us with on the 1903. And there were more 1917s than 1903s and nearly half of them from Eddystone.

What's the theory? Eddystone not as badly burnt as Springfield? 1917 better design than 1903? Eddystone catastrophies not publicized like Springfield?

We would not have known about the problem with single heat treat 03’s if it was not for Hatcher’s Notebook. He also included all 03 blowups to 1929. No such list has ever made it into the public domain for M1917’s. There is no reason one ever will as the Army does not release accident reports, and for accident reports from WW1 to WW2, I am confident they all went into the trash.

I do not believe as many M1917’s were as defective as single heat treat 03’s, but what tiny data is out shows process control problems. Typical of pre 1920's rifles made under primitive conditions.

Maybe the nickel steel and heavier receiver helped.

The M1917 is only "strong" in terms of material thickness. In terms of supporting the cartridge, gas handling, it is as weak as the 03 design. If a case head were to blow, I don't want to be behind either one of these actions. Gas and brass particles are going straight down that firing pin shaft in to your face, along with the stuff going down the left receiver rail. If the material is hard or brittle, don't know if the action would keep its receiver ring.

 

[Jim Watson]

Hard to tie it all to Hatcher, you seem to find enough fault with '03s since then.
Surely the broken 1917s would be showing up too. And we would quit getting recommendations to build all manner of magnums on the actions.

I've read Ackley, too; but I don't want an Arisaka... or a Krag, which he seemed to think better than its reputation.

 

[Art Eatman]

The 1917 receivers have long been known as the strongest, this side of the push-feeds. Hunt up the old torture test press release from when Remington introduced the 721.

 

[WardenWolf]

That's a nice-looking sporterization. Even with the modifications, it's still a nice rifle as it sits.

I've read Ackley, too; but I don't want an Arisaka... or a Krag, which he seemed to think better than its reputation.

The early-production Arisaka 99's are very good rifles. I've seen some impressive feats of accuracy shown on Youtube, and my own Type 99 is a very solid piece. Most people seem to judge them by the last-ditch rifles which were significantly cruder. The only "problem" with the Arisaka 99 is ammo availability, and the difficulty in modifying it to a more common cartridge. Its chamber is already too long to accept .308, and using .30-06 in it requires extending the magazine box. The 6.5mm Type 38's are reportedly much easier to deal with, though, easily being modified to use one of the more modern 6.5mm cartridges.

 

[Wildbillz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 303tom
That rifle only came in two chamberings, the .303 & the .30-06, drop a .30-06 in it, if it don`t fit it is a .303............

Originally posted by GunnyUSMC
The US 1917 was only chambered for 30-06. The P14 was chambered for 303.
A 1917 or P14 with a cut down or spoter stock is only worth $100 to $225, and that is if the metal has not been altered. This is due to the cost to restor it to military dress.

Not to throw gas on the fire so to speak. But a few years back I found a real nice looking 1917 in a shop. In talking with the owner I found out the gun was chambered in 308 Norma Mag (I think that was the caliber). Orignal barrel still on it. How does that work asks I? Apparently Norma in the 60s looking to make money on brass and ammo would lend or even send out to end users chamber reams to ream out 30-06Springfield barrels to 308 Norma Mag. Cheap and easy converson and could be done with only hand tools. So it might be in 30-06 or 308 Norma Mag. If it were me? I would think a chamber casting might be in order. You can get a do it at home kit and just mesure the casting out to find out what caliber the rifle is in.

If the muzzle has been cut its todad as with the orginal barrel in the orginal caliber it might have been worth putting back into military guise. Finding an orginal barrel is going to be hard and costly if you can find one. On the other hand as a leave it at the cabin shooter? Sounds like a screaming deal.

WB

 

[Slamfire]

The 1917 receivers have long been known as the strongest, this side of the push-feeds. Hunt up the old torture test press release from when Remington introduced the 721.

Art: Perhaps you confused the M720 with the M721? I would love to be able to handle a M720 as it was the last version of the M1917. It is a very rare rifle.

The M721 was designed by Mike Walker and put on sale post WW2.

The breeching of the M721 is outstanding, it is one of the strongest and safest rifles ever due to how it well it supports the case head and protects the shooter.

I have seen rounds, swollen so large vise grips had to be used to pull them from the bolt face of a M700.

Such mega loads, I have no idea what they would do in a M1917, but it would be messy.

 

[Mac Attack]

Slap a USGI stock on and you will have a nice rifle. For $200 you did well.

 

[henschman]

You could re-barrel it, get a GI front sight, and put a GI stock on it and it would be worth 6 or 700 bucks. The main thing is that it still has the GI rear sight. Most of the sporterizations of those had the rear sight milled off so they could drill and tap and mount a scope. Or just shoot it like it is and enjoy it. It's got everything you need... good sights and a GI shooting sling!