PDA

View Full Version : P-17 Enfield question


stoner
October 11, 2016, 07:56
I seem to have heard / read that the P-17 Eddystone 30-06 is to be avoided. Something about it was not heat treated properly, and is subject to cracking. Supposedly, one should only trust the Remington or Winchester models.

I remember reading that in Bostons Gun Bible, some other places, and have heard others say it.

What do you guys think? Is this true, or is it BS ?

Thanks in advance for your valued opinions!

Regards, Stoner :confused:

hagar
October 11, 2016, 08:39
It is not a heat treating problem. The original barrels were installed so tight that the receivers could crack removing it. If it has the original barrel, go for it.

stoner
October 11, 2016, 10:33
It is not a heat treating problem. The original barrels were installed so tight that the receivers could crack removing it. If it has the original barrel, go for it.

Hagar, if it has the original barrel, how would it be marked, with an E & the date?

tac-40
October 11, 2016, 19:36
Removing the barrel and installing another is quite easy. You make a relief cut on the barrel up close to the receiver. Use of a lathe is the preferable method,but I have done it using a dremel cut off wheel very, very carefully. The shoulder is compressed to hold the barrel tight, and making this cut relieves the pressure caused by torquing the barrel on. It will still be tight, but should not cause any receiver damage.

gew98
October 11, 2016, 20:58
I seem to have heard / read that the P-17 Eddystone 30-06 is to be avoided. Something about it was not heat treated properly, and is subject to cracking. Supposedly, one should only trust the Remington or Winchester models.

I remember reading that in Bostons Gun Bible, some other places, and have heard others say it.

What do you guys think? Is this true, or is it BS ?

Thanks in advance for your valued opinions!

Regards, Stoner :confused:

Firstly there is no such animal as a P-17 . There is a US model 1917 rifle though. The brit forefather to the M17 was as brit parlance goes Patt'13 , then as a decided model shortly thereafter Pattern'14.
Anyhow as other replies show it's all good if you have one not rebarrled by a bubba or have one that was rebarreled by an arsenal when rebuilt/salvaged. The Eddystone are no better nor worse than the other "name brand jobs" .

HighRatMaster
October 11, 2016, 21:32
I seem to have heard / read that the P-17 Eddystone 30-06 is to be avoided. Something about it was not heat treated properly, and is subject to cracking. Supposedly, one should only trust the Remington or Winchester models.

I remember reading that in Bostons Gun Bible, some other places, and have heard others say it.

What do you guys think? Is this true, or is it BS ?

Thanks in advance for your valued opinions!

Regards, Stoner :confused:

Sounds like you have it confused with early Rock Island 1903s, there were episodes of bad heat treat and they had no safety margin, a situation an average 1903 could handle could be a kaboom in bad RI.

:fal:

stoner
October 12, 2016, 11:08
Sounds like you have it confused with early Rock Island 1903s, there were episodes of bad heat treat and they had no safety margin, a situation an average 1903 could handle could be a kaboom in bad RI.

:fal:

I based my question on what I have read, and heard several people say. I do remember reading what you said about the RI 03's. You are probably right about the confusion of the two being mixed.

I thank you for your information, and I thank all others for their responses. I really value the great wealth of knowledge of the the people on this forum!

If I encounter a good 17 Enfield at a good price, I will keep all this info in mind.

Thanks again to all !!! :bow: :smile:

tac-40
October 12, 2016, 19:06
If you get one with the barrel shot out or otherwise trashed, just remember Criterion makes barrels for it. The also make barrels for the .303 calibre Pattern 14 if you happen to run across one of those. I have a Winchester P14 and a Remington Model of 1917. Both have been rebarreled to replaced bubba'd counterbores. Both are fine shooters with quality ammo.

bnz42
October 13, 2016, 17:02
I have a M1917 Eddystone that was rebarreled with a new Criterion barrel. This particular gunsmith got it right, in removing the old shot-out barrel. The receiver is not cracked, and the barrel shoots great.

http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q646/jeffe6458/eddystone_zps8smliwrd.jpg (http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/jeffe6458/media/eddystone_zps8smliwrd.jpg.html)

357ross
October 13, 2016, 17:49
The Eddystones had a reputation for egg shaped or cracked receivers for a time but as mentioned the barrels were run in so tight as to cause this problem upon removal. But as mentioned a cut just in front of the receiver ring will let relieve a lot of pressure. P.O. Ackley tested these things to the point of destruction back in the day and if I remember the article right (I may stand corrected) was only able to blow the barrel out when the threads on the barrel itself failed. The receiver and bolt remained intact. Some of the earliest Springfields ( don't remember the maker or serial numbers) did have heat treat problems, but the failure rate on even those was fairly low. Maybe gunplumber can shed some light on this subject. As for barrel markings, there should be an E along with the year of manufacture toward the muzzle, but it's possible to find many different makers marks as these guns were rebuilt in government arsenals over time. Just my 2 worth.

stoner
October 14, 2016, 09:20
I have a M1917 Eddystone that was rebarreled with a new Criterion barrel. This particular gunsmith got it right, in removing the old shot-out barrel. The receiver is not cracked, and the barrel shoots great.

http://i1352.photobucket.com/albums/q646/jeffe6458/eddystone_zps8smliwrd.jpg (http://s1352.photobucket.com/user/jeffe6458/media/eddystone_zps8smliwrd.jpg.html)

bnz42, that is a beautiful rifle. I hope I could find one that looks that good!

V guy
October 25, 2016, 13:26
The deal on breaking the receivers during bbl removal, was mentioned in the old "Bolt Action Rifles" book, and maybe in the P.O. Ackley books. Hatcher might have covered it too.

At a gun-smithing school long ago the story went, (in one of the above books,) students managed to break quite a few of the receivers, while taking the bbls off.

Tac-40's advice is sound. I have removed several barrels in the lathe by cutting a relief cut, just in front of the receiver...do I now owe an ITAR tax?

Nomad, 2nd
November 02, 2016, 15:28
I picked up an eddystone about 2 years ago with sling and bayonet ("honest wear" condition, good rifling) for $450.

I used to do WW2 Renactments, and had buddies who rebuilt them out of drill rifles. Cracking recievers when rebarling is all they mentioned, and they would of known. (Dead now)