M1917 Eddystones- Safe to Shoot?

[.455_Hunter]

Greetings,

I have a NRA condition excellent M1917 .30-06 made by Remington's Eddystone facility. I bought it for $275 in a small gun shop in Manhattan, KS in 1999. Over the years, I have heard rumors about them not being as strong as the Winchester or straight Remington production models. A-Square, for example, would not use Eddystone receivers for their magnum conversions. I know the story about the low number M1903 Springfields, but there is must less info. on the supposed Eddystone problem.

Assuming the individual rifle checks out OK, is there any reason not to shoot it using normal factory specification .30-06 ammunition?

Thanks,

Hunter

 

[Rshooter]

I have a low numbered Springfield 1903 > 200,000, yes you are correct about them. I have never heard that the 1917's are unsafe. Anyone else?

 

[powermad]

Wow I must be living on borrowed time, I have shot 1000's of rounds through mine with no problems.

 

[Cosmoline]

Never heard that at all about the Eddystones. Quite the opposite in fact. Whether or not it's kosher for magnum conversion is another matter, but nobody in their right mind would tear up an excellent grade M1917 for sporterization these days.

 

[Full Clip]

My primary hunting rifle is sportered 1917 (done in the 1950s). Very strong action, commonly bored out for bigger loads than 30-06.

 

[PTK]

M1917s are known for being incredibly strong and somewhat harder than modern bolt actions. They're not common to use as conversion platforms due to limited availability and destruction of limited supply.

 

[Kor]

I also have an Eddystone M1917, although I paid about $450 for mine back in 2002. The cool thing is mine has the "OGEK" cartouche that indicates it was inspected at the Ogden Arsenal during Elmer Keith's tenure as Chief Inspector.

If you shoot the rifle as-is, there should be no problem whatsoever, especially if you shoot GI-spec M2 surplus ammo or similar loadings.

IIRC the issue with Eddystones doesn't have to do with the receiver strength per se, but rather with Eddystone's assemblers over-torquing some barrels into the receiver at the factory - this had no effect on those assembled rifles that were inspected and accepted for military use, but only became an issue when custom gunsmiths like A-Square, R.F. Sedgley, etc. tried to use the actions for custom rifles. Apparently the Eddystone barrels were torqued in so tight that trying to unscrew the GI barrel would cause the receivers to crack during the removal process and be ruined.

A related factor in the collectability/desirability of M1917's is that Remington and Winchester rifles in as-issued form are scarcer than Eddystones because, since those receivers did not crack as often during barrel removal, they were used more often for conversions to custom rifles, and are thus scarcer and more highly-priced/valued.

If you want to be sure that your receiver is not cracked, remove the barrelled action from the stock and either dunk it in, or swab it thoroughly with, a volatile liquid like gasoline, mineral spirits, acetone or alcohol. Wipe it dry with a rag, and if your receiver has even a hairline crack, you will see the liquid seep out.

 

[Art Eatman]

Anybody remember Remington's "acid test" when they first brought out the 721? Anyway, the 1917 proved stronger than the Model 70 and second only to the 721.

A caseful of 4064 and three 220-grain bullets finally proved to be too much for the 1917. The bolt was solidly locked.

Do not try this at home.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Just to clarify...

I wouldn't dream of modifying or "sporterizing" this rifle in any way. I used the A-Square statement for a reference about the relative strength of the action. My goal is to take out to the range every once in a while with some M1906 Ball equivalent ammo and look for Huns.

 

[missouri dave]

Mine was sporterized when I got it. I have no idea how many rounds I've run thru mine to include some of the old 30-06 armor piercing rounds. I wouldn't worry about it at all.

 

[mpmarty]

To answer the OP, ALL 1917 Enfields are made with Nickle Steel as opposed to some early Springfields made with Carbon Steel. All 1917 Enfileds, and the later Remington model 30s were and still are one of the strongest bolt actions ever made. Enjoy shooting your '17 and "no worries".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Eddystone is as strong as any other M1917 -- which is to say, strong enough for any magnum cartridge to which you might convert it (but please don't desecrate such a fine old rifle.)

The one "problem" with Eddystones is the hardness of the receiver, plus the crush fit of the barrel threads. People who don't know what they're doing have damaged Eddystones in attempting to remove the barrels.

Leave yours as-is and enjoy it.

 

[cuervo]

Just to chime in one more item...
If you do ever have to replace the barrel, there was a procedure for cutting a stress-relief cut on the old barrel before removing it. This would allow removing the old barrel without cracking the receiver.

 

[Slamfire]

I believe the ground zero for this is P.O. Ackley’s action blow up tests. Ackley was an outstanding barrel maker, cartridge experimenter, and conducted some interesting tests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._O._Ackley One sequence of tests involved destructive testing of a number of actions. These are described in Vol II of “Handbook for Shooter’s & Reloaders” It was a shame that these tests were conducted before affordable instrumentation, as knowing the actual loads would have been instructive.

In one test sequence Mr. Ackley blew up one Eddystone and one Remington M1917 receiver. It turned out that the Eddystone receiver shattered because it was too hard, and the Remington receiver just stretched because it was too soft.

I guess shattered receivers make for better fearmongering than stretched receivers. After the publication of these tests, the shooting community considered the Eddystone receivers as inferior to Remington and Winchester receivers.

If you have ever worked in a production environment, you would know that a sample of one is not the way to characterize the quality of 1,500,000 receivers. You would also know that in a wartime expansion of production, with a hastily assembled workforce, and we are talking WW1, that process controls are likely to be out of control, at times. You would expect a few soft, brittle, and bad receivers from all of the manufacturers. And the rest would be fair to excellent.

Incidentally the M1903 blew its cocking rod out with enough force to kill someone. But back then, folks loved the 03 and did not bad mouth that action.

The shooting community has its own myths and legends, and bad mouthing Eddystone receivers is one of those that no one knows why, but they all do it.


I have had at least three Eddystone M1917's, and they were excellent rifles. I was not worried about anything but sight alignment and trigger pull when I took up the slack in the trigger.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I have a 1917 but it's a Winchester, not an Eddystone. Unfortunately someone sported it out before I bought it. I bought it because it was only $140 and I wanted a good rifle to practice shooting 200 yards plus. It's a great rifle and I only wish it was original.

I have never heard that the Eddystone was unsafe. You have a great part of History in your hands. Find yourself a local CMP match and shoot that wonderful rifle. It's one thing not to use a 100 year old rifle for a Magnum conversion but it's another thing to shoot the intended 30-06 in it.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Thank You

It will be fun taking the gun out to the range. It has been a safe queen too long...

 

[Eljay]

I too have a '17 that I bought at a gun show 8/9 years ago. It was $150 from a private seller, it's in very nice shape and shoots great. Why so cheep? Well for some unknown reason the top of reciver is ground smooth, I can barely make out Eddystone but no serial number. There is an electro-pencil number on the side of the reciver. Its a mistery why this would be done to such a nice rifle, Even if it was rebuilt. Any one else ever seen the same thing?

 

[Sleeping Dog]

I shoot mine, never a problem. Mine "might" have an original barrel, and seems to be brand new. The barrel date is Nov, 1918. So it was made about the time the armistice took effect, may have been pulled out of the logistics pipe and stored.