Bedding Options

[JDinFbg]

I have a 1917 Enfield with the original barrel (5-groove, left-hand twist) that has been sporterized and shortened to about 22" with the majority of the barrel floated (that is, it passes the dollar bill test for most of its length). I've tried several powder/bullet combinations in it, working up the loads in 0.5 grain increments. I haven't gotten much better than 2" groups at 100 yds. with any combination I've tried. That may be as good as that old dog can get. However, in doing a general cleaning, I took an air nozzle to the gun and blew out what looked like graphite between the receiver and the stock, so my suspicion is that the receiver is moving in the stock, even though it is not perceptibly lose. I've bedded several Remington 700 actions before using bedding compound only under the receiver and leaving the barrel completely floating. However, I've read several posts where folks have recommended also bedding the part of the barrel just in front of the receiver. The Enfield is somewhat unique from the other rifles I've bedded in that the barrel is the same diameter as the front receiver ring and is essentially perfectly cylindrical for about 1 1/4" in front of the receiver.

So my questions. Has anyone had experience bedding a 1917 Enfield? What technique did you use (just receiver or combination of receiver and first part of the barrel)? What type of groups have you been able to achieve? Is it wishful thinking to get this to a 1 MOA rifle?

 

[troy fairweather]

i bed the action and the chamber area. all the one's i had shot good sporter or not. even the 2 grove shoot. i use jb weld to bed, if i had the money id use devcon.

 

[JDinFbg]

Troy, thanks. I do use Devcon. It's great stuff.

 

[LoonWulf]

Troy, thanks. I do use Devcon. It's great stuff.

I do as well, and generally just bed actions. Thats mostly because im lazy to open up the barrel channel any more than necessary.

Speaking of, if your using a single dollar bill, thats not enough gap on a floated barrel. Ive opened up channels that would easily pass the bill test, and had accuracy improve. I believe the barrels were still contacting the chanel during the shot cycle.

One easy way to test that, is pressure bed the tip, and see if you get an improvement in group size.

 

[JDinFbg]

Speaking of, if your using a single dollar bill, thats not enough gap on a floated barrel.

LoonWulf: I have always left more than a dollar bill thickness when free-floating barrels before, and I've read multiple posts that indicate one needs to leave sufficient clearance between the barrel and fore end of the stock. However, I've never seen any information on how far (in thousandth's of an inch) a barrel could actually move during firing, and I've never seen anyone quantify the actual amount of clearance one should leave (i.e., 1/16", 1/10", 1/8", etc.). Do you have opinion on this? What kind of clearance do you typically leave?

 

[JDinFbg]

if i had the money id use devcon.

Troy, I bought a 1 lb. kit of Devcon Plastic Steel Putty (A) on Amazon for $40 with free shipping. Don't know if that's out of your price range, but a 1 lb. kit should be enough to bed 5-6 rifles so might not be that much more expensive than the JB Weld for what you get.

 

[LoonWulf]

LoonWulf: I have always left more than a dollar bill thickness when free-floating barrels before, and I've read multiple posts that indicate one needs to leave sufficient clearance between the barrel and fore end of the stock. However, I've never seen any information on how far (in thousandth's of an inch) a barrel could actually move during firing, and I've never seen anyone quantify the actual amount of clearance one should leave (i.e., 1/16", 1/10", 1/8", etc.). Do you have opinion on this? What kind of clearance do you typically leave?

I asked a while back and 1/16th was suggested as minimum

 

[doubleh]

I sporterized a '17 Enfield back in the day when glass bedding had just appeared and full length bedding of the action and barrel was the way to do things .I suppose no one had thought of free floating a barrel. I certainly hadn't. Any way it would do consistent 100 yard groups of 1" using Remington Core-Lokt ammo. If I remember right I used Devcon for a bedding compound. The gun will still do that today. It might do slightly better if I free floated the barrel but I'm not going to mess with it. If building it today I would free float and stick with devcon.

 

[243winxb]

I bedded a sportized 1917 that someone just dropped the barreled action in the unfitted stock. The guy said it didnt group. I test fired it, 8" @ 100 yds using a scope.

Some Brownells acraglas in the right places made it a 1 3/4" shooter.

 

[Varminterror]

A dollar bill test isn’t nearly enough. Proper clearance for free float is as thick as 15 $1 bills!

The “trick” is really simple. I tape the “free float” areas as thick as my desired clearance, then bed everything. This reseals the forend of the stock, and gives a nice, finished look to the barrel channel. I inlet the action area and bedding channel and use bedding black to ensure I have the clearances I want. I have even used bedding tape on the action to give me control over uniformity in the thickness of my action bedding when I’m not doing a skim bedding job - I use bedding black to give clearance around the tape, then remove the tape before bedding, which then leaves the bedding as thick as the tape had been.

But for your little project, tape the barrel in front of the receiver, inlet your channel to give clearance for skim bedding around the tape, then leave the tape in place when bedding. You’ll have a slick, clean looking pad under the barrel, with a sharp, clean transition to full free float for the barrel once the tape is removed. Easy peasy lizard squeezy - as my 5yr old has started saying...

 

[JDinFbg]

house stark: When bedding a rifle with Devcon steel putty, I screw guide pins into the action in place of the action screws, insert into the stock after filling the bedding areas with Devcon, then use vinyl electrical tape (it's somewhat elastic) pulled sufficiently tight to hold things until the Devcon is fully cured. I've also used surgical rubber tubing, but the tape seems easier to use. If done right, one should have a solid bed, and when finally assembled the action should have not perceptible movement as the action screws are tightened or loosened. If you are getting action movement, you either have some pressure point, the stock may have warped over time, or somehow things shifted during the bedding compound setup that did not form a level plane between the front and rear contact points of the action. Further, you need more than just a "skin" of bedding compound to have a solid bed.

 

[JDinFbg]

A dollar bill test isn’t nearly enough. Proper clearance for free float is as thick as 15 $1 bills!

Varminterror: Thanks. That works out to about 0.0645" or 1/16". That confirms what LoonWulf stated, so plan to use that as a minimum and might to to 0.100" just to make sure there is no chance of barrel-stock contact during firing. Having more air gap will probably help with barrel cooling also. I also tape the "free float" areas to establish the desired position of the action and barrel in the stock so the metal does not move relative to the stock during the bedding process.

 

[boom boom]

I have a 1917 Enfield with the original barrel (5-groove, left-hand twist) that has been sporterized and shortened to about 22" with the majority of the barrel floated (that is, it passes the dollar bill test for most of its length). I've tried several powder/bullet combinations in it, working up the loads in 0.5 grain increments. I haven't gotten much better than 2" groups at 100 yds. with any combination I've tried. That may be as good as that old dog can get. However, in doing a general cleaning, I took an air nozzle to the gun and blew out what looked like graphite between the receiver and the stock, so my suspicion is that the receiver is moving in the stock, even though it is not perceptibly lose. I've bedded several Remington 700 actions before using bedding compound only under the receiver and leaving the barrel completely floating. However, I've read several posts where folks have recommended also bedding the part of the barrel just in front of the receiver. The Enfield is somewhat unique from the other rifles I've bedded in that the barrel is the same diameter as the front receiver ring and is essentially perfectly cylindrical for about 1 1/4" in front of the receiver.

So my questions. Has anyone had experience bedding a 1917 Enfield? What technique did you use (just receiver or combination of receiver and first part of the barrel)? What type of groups have you been able to achieve? Is it wishful thinking to get this to a 1 MOA rifle?

Before you do much of anything, check the pillar bedding sleeves. These should not be touching the action when tightened down and if you are using an old military stock or even a civilian stock, these tend to dry out and shrink a bit and need shortening. It is usual on old milsurp rifles to have to shorten these pillars. I first learned this by reading posts by a gunsmith specializing in milsurps whose forum name is chuckindenver (Warpath Vintage in CO) when restoring a 1917. http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=92159

That being said, 2 MOA is very good given what you can expect from a military barrel of an old warhorse. The WWII era barrels appear to be a bit better than the WWI era ones on average. Course, now you can get a new Criterion barrel that probably shoots great if you want to keep the original profile.

On bedding the 1917 rifle, you might find this forum posting from Benchrest Central useful,
http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?49786-Bedding-Issues-1917-Enfield

 

[JDinFbg]

boom boom: Thanks for posting the links. Those were very informative. I've yet to disassemble the rifle, but now know some things to look out for. You may be right about the 2 MOA being the best one can expect, and my suspicions were leaning that way, but I'm going to run this experiment into the ground before I throw up the white flag. If I still end up with a 2 MOA rifle (plenty good for shooting wild hogs), at least I'll know I did everything possible short of replacing the military barrel with a new, custom one. As soon as my current rifle restoration project is complete, I will likely start on my Kaiser Killer.

 

[boom boom]

boom boom: Thanks for posting the links. Those were very informative. I've yet to disassemble the rifle, but now know some things to look out for. You may be right about the 2 MOA being the best one can expect, and my suspicions were leaning that way, but I'm going to run this experiment into the ground before I throw up the white flag. If I still end up with a 2 MOA rifle (plenty good for shooting wild hogs), at least I'll know I did everything possible short of replacing the military barrel with a new, custom one. As soon as my current rifle restoration project is complete, I will likely start on my Kaiser Killer.

If you tailor your handloads, you may be able to do better by mebbe .5-1 MOA from the usual 2-4 MOA as issued. On many of these old warhorses, they tend to do better with flat based bullets rather than boat tailed and some folks have gotten really good results from cast bullets, especially with WWII era two grooved replacement barrels (Johnson Automatics made these). A lot of the accurizing procedures (truing the action etc.) used with a Mauser 98 action will work but it can get expensive.

Some folks have also reported, albeit with military length barrels, that their 1917 can shoot a bit better with a pad under the front tip to give it some upward pressure. Sometimes a simple shim using a business card and firing a few rounds might tell you whether yours is one of those rifles.

The other thing that can sometimes negatively affect accuracy is the trigger guard and magazine fitting. Some of these trigger guards and magazines were altered to reduce the belly of the issued rifle (also reducing capacity) to a flush appearance when sporterized. Similarly, Winchester and Eddystone had a well underneath the original sights that has to be plugged in order to use it as a scope base which might cause some shifting of the scope base if loose. In my case, I am not a guy that sporterizes them but rather returns them to military trim or less but you learn a few things about the rifle when you have to refit one.

Sometimes there is a problem if you use a magazine from a different mfg with different tolerances than the original mfg. 1917 Rifles are mostly compatible between makers but there are some differences--even the magazine box itself has several iterations.

Last thing, that may be an urban myth, is that the original WWI barrels were slightly tapered to be tighter at the bore than the breech for accuracy. A few folks reported decreased accuracy after cutting the barrel length but that could also be from changing barrel harmonics.

 

[JDinFbg]

On many of these old warhorses, they tend to do better with flat based bullets . . .
Similarly, Winchester and Eddystone had a well underneath the original sights that has to be plugged in order to use it as a scope base . . .

boom boom: Since I have been focusing on loading with lighter bullets for large varmints, flat base is all I've tried, both in .308 and .311 diameter. I slugged the barrel (5-grove) and it looks to be closer to .311 diameter, but not easy to measure with a standard caliper. However, I got slightly better group sizes with the .308 bullet (a Berger target bullet).

Concerning scoping, my rifle still had the rear sight "ears", and I found a base from a Canadian company designed to attache to where the original rear sight attached: https://www.ebay.com/itm/P-14-P-17-M1917-Enfield-Smith-less-scope-mount-Picatinny-rail-/252343469620 I had to do some shimming with aluminum pop can metal to get it to fit snug, but it seems to be stable. The only drawback of this mount is that it makes for a fairly tall mounted scope.

 

[boom boom]

If you do have an WWI issue barrel, it will be LH 5 groove rifling which as you note makes it difficult to figure out the bore size with a caliper alone but there are some tricks noted below. The WWII replacement barrels used 2 and 4 grooves depending on manufacturers and were definitely .308.

Might find this Cast Boolits forum thread interesting as it gives alternatives to using a v block for figuring out the bore size by some highly inventive and motivated folks.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?9243-Slugging-a-5-Groove-barrel

This is from Hatcher's Notebook,

"We retained the Enfield form of rifling, but changed the bore and groove dimensions to suit our own bullet diameter of .3086 inch. To accomplish this we changed the bore from .303 inch to .300, and made the grooves .005 inch deep instead of .0058 as in the .303"

From an old THR thread, https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/eddystone-model-of-1917-barrel-question.321008/ See the post by Daniel in Australia.