Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As we've learned in the past, I'm not one who can leave well enough alone. I've got a 1917 enfield 30/06, Winchester, serial # 2xxx. This gun has been sporterized so I've assumed it as a project gun. Just as quick as I get my 25/06 back from ER. Shaw and pending the results of their work I'm considering having the 1917 sent and rebarreled also. The gun still has the odd left hand twist military barrel on it. I'd like to have something heavy enough to use on large game ie. Black bear, Moose, Elk, Caribou and stray Jersey bulls, thought I'd throw that one in there. Anyone have any information on the strength and cartridge suitability of this action for large caliber rounds??????

Frog
:toast:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Nope, It's been hacked on.....

The thought of returning it back into a service rifle had crossed my mind. I did this to 1903a3 springfield sporter and found that the demand for the gun had increased. I think this had to do with timing because it wasn't long after that "Saving Pvt. Ryan and Band of Brothers" were released and any type of vintage service rifle saw an increase in demand. The 1917 however has been sporterized by someone who appears to have a basic concept of gunsmithing as the rear sight post has been milled down and drilled and tapped. The military stock has been replaced with one of the darkest examples of aged black walnut that I've seen and the front sight post has been removed. Now all I have to do is decide what caliber it wants to be reborn as. Thanks to all who replied. :D

Frog
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,618 Posts
I have two 17's by Remington....

I have been thinking of going 375 H&H with one of them, but am having a hard time with the idea of taking off a barrel that is a tack driver in 30-06. E.R. Shaw is about 180 bucks for H&H, barrel and fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
if you can`t leave well enough alone ,as you say,why not simply rebarrel
to 35 whelen.it can take out anything in north america ,probley with the smallest investment of any makeover!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
The big american enfield actions just beg to be something large. There are many actions the can be a 35 Whelan but few that handle full length H&H 375's without major length issues. The P14's a bit easier as the rails are closer to what's needed but the winchester action you have is a great place to start. They require a bunch of metal work but can be beautiful rifles!! Good luck and with envy!! from the gunnut69

-PS--Mine's a 300 WinMag with a long throat. 200 grain bullets seated to the base of the neck and still a bit of jump to the rifling. Sort of a 300 Weatherby lite..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I think the question you are asking is: Is the Winchester-manufactured M1917 action one of the 1917s that were incorrectly heat treated?

The short answer is NO.

M1917s were manufactured by Winchester, Remington, and Remington-Eddystone, NY. The only actions that have been proven to be defectively heat treated are a very few from the Eddystone plant.

At the time of manufacture, temperatures were judged by the color of the hot metal. This is not as precise as using a pyrometer. Some receivers were not tempered correctly, resulting in very hard receivers all the way through. Think of how much weight a beer bottle can support -- very strong, huh? Drop it on concrete. Now how do we stand?

Exactly the same problem occurred with M1903s. When the problem was detected, though, production of M1917s had ceased. In the case of M1903s, two options were used: same material used with different heat treat and temper; different material with inherently more ductility, plus different heat treat and temper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
I finally got mine back, barreled as a 500 Jeffrey (actually a P-14). It certainly meets the criteria of more power.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p2dd5a05b4582b7eea64a8f89fd2265c6/fcacbf05.jpg

Some loaded rounds, 570gr Barnes XLC, 535gr cast, 600gr cast. It isn't even really that long of a round, with the XLC seated to the cannalure, only 3.5" COL

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pffb61baec3045decc3f7e9389905b3cd/fcacbeef.jpg

You gotta love something that uses 100 grs of powder for a starting load :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
Used P-14 for my wildcat 458 Hubel Express.

It was second rifle done in my wildcat.First was Ruger 77.We had to
cut rear bridge back to make port long enough.Used as single shot
for now.Cartridge case is 3.45 in long.Straight taper belted case.Can
get over 3000 fps with 450 gr bullet.We are setting up to make a run of brass.Here is picture of two of mine flanking 458 Win....Anyone interested let me know...Ed.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
Naphtali
I'd never heard of a burned steel problem with the Enfield.. The Eddystone problems I've seen discussed concerned the use of tool steel bolts that were left too hard. some of these cracked!!! The receiver cracks have occured in all makes from my understanding and relate to the forced used to install the barrel initially.. I am quite interested in the source of your info.. The problem you describe is discussed at length in several books about springfields but again I've never seen any reference to this happening to the enfields.. Where was this information found... Guess we're never too old to learn!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
gunnut69:

Sources for the M1917/M1903 steel problems include: Hatcher's Notebook by Julian Hatcher; Book of the Garand by Julian Hatcher; The Modern Gunsmith by James Howe; The Modern Rifle by Phil Sharpe.

The steels used were OK for their purposes. Heat treat and draw were less than perfect. Occasionally, "less than perfect" metamorphosed -- don't you love that word?? -- marginally unsafe. These rifles (actions) were used, I believe, without incident during WW I. The problems existing in produced rifles did not surface until after the war.

Not having the reference books at hand, my memory is that while the "low number" M1903s from Springfield Arsenal, and M1917s functioned as-diagrammed during the war, problems surfaced from several different incidents occurring in a short time.

1. M1903s were shattered when inadvertently loaded with 8x57 mm ammunition.
2. M1903s and M1917s shattered and/or cracked when dropped on concrete floors by Army Ordnance personnel.

There were other warning signs I don't remember. But these caused Ordnance Department to analyze materials used in receiver, bolt, and barrel. In some cases materials changed. In some cases heat treat changed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
Naphtali-- I have been seriously researching your statement that the P14 and P17's had the same problem as the springfields of the time.. I have found no such reference.. The only caution I found was in a re-print of an 'American Rifleman' article concerning the history of the British Enfield.. the P14 having been built for the Brits.. They found that some barrels 'split' when fired with even minor obstructions. These were predominately Eddystone rifles. In fact the same article point out that in 1918 the manufacture of 1903 rifles was changed to use nicjkle steel, as had been used by winchester, Reminton, and Eddystone all along for the manufactuer of the P-14 and P-17.. All the low number(burnt steel springfields) were manufactured before 1918 and were 'casehardened'. Since the Enfields were not made using the same material they were not subject to the same problems as were the Springfield rifles. I would really appreciate exactly where this information was found.. I believe sir you are lumping the enfields into the same bin as the springfields and up until 1918 they most certainly are not the same.. Until further proofs are forthcoming I must assume your statement was incorrect..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I believe A-Square used 1917 Enfield actions to make a good deal of their rifles before they became too scarce to buy in bulk.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
You are correct.. And some of the calibers they created made the enfield dangerous, on both ends but not as far as the action goes.. ;-) :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
gunnut69:

You have my sources. If you are unable to locate information in any of these sources, your last hope is a letter to "Dope Bag", American Rifleman, National Rifle Association. Include a stamped, self-addressed envelope, and your NRA membership number.

Dope Bag will, upon request, furnish acrticle reprints from early American Rifleman Magazines. Staff will also return a specific response to your specific query.

If you choose to believe I'm talking just to hear myself make sounds, that's OK by me. Remember, if you are captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck, gunnut69.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,238 Posts
My last post indicated I had checked NRA articles and that's where I found the item noting that the enfields were made of tool steel, not case hardened like the early 1903's. Also I checked the Dunlop book and there are no references to enfields having the same problems as do the 'low number' springfields. I suppose I must then assume you must have mis-remembered. There are problems with the P14's and P17's but none are in any way related to the heat treating problem with the low number springfields.. If you find anything that would dispute my last statement I would appreciate a referal to the book/page where it exists... Also just for informational purposes the problem with the springfields was not that they were too hard but that excess heat in the hardening process hard 'burned' the steel. This excess heat damaged the steel to the point that it weakened them.. although they were not withdrawn from service until after WWI. The Springfield arsenal between the wars would replace any civilian owned receiver that was in the 'low number' list with a newer receiver without charge... Thanks from the gunnut69
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top