• Us Model Of1917 Eddystone
• 1917 Eddystone Serial Number 25522 History Chart
• 1917 Eddystone Rifle Serial Numbers

Eddystone 1917 Enfield Rifle.30-06 Johnson Barrel GI#: 101236532 Serial #1047993,.30-06, 26' barrel with a very good bore that has some mild freckling within the grooves.

Thanks Guys, that's interesting, I presume the barrel will have a serial number on it, under the woodwork maybe?Thinking back I looked at an M1 carbine a while ago and the only serial number was on the receiver, so I guess the Americans aren't quite as thorough as the Brits.That's an a good point about manufacturer marks on the receiver, some of these guns I have come across seem to have mismatching parts, although I guess this is no surprise if they had a long service life and as it looks like the parts are interchangeable across the 3 makers.I will check the links out.Ta. Thanks 4th Gordons, these rifles don't seem to have been as well documented as SMLE'S and not that many people know about them.I guess in Britain certainly the SMLE played a bigger part, and I suppose the m1917's were also useful in ww2 with the Home Guard (Although that is going off on a tangent) and as this is a WW1 forum.In the UK, the M1917 played NO part in the Great War at all.

They were only used by the UK in WWII.The Stratton book on the P14/M1917. Although a little dated, is a very good start on that group of rifles.

• Page 1 of 2 - Post Your US Enfield 1917 Pictures Here! - posted in M1917 RIFLES REF: Allright, its time for a picture thread. An Eddystone with 26000 serial number. The bolt is Winchester & front sight is Remington. It's a WW2 refurb. I picked up an Eddystone U.S. Here is the photo from the local auction.
• Find great deals on eBay for 1917 eddystone. Shop with confidence. Skip to main content. 1917 enfield 1917 eddystone bayonet 1917 eddystone stock 1917 stock 1917 remington 1917 winchester p14 enfield eddystone 1917 sling p17 enfield 1903 springfield m1917 enfield. Number of bids and bid amounts may be slightly out of date.

Jimmy I hope the following satisfies your curiousity.No serial numbers anywhere except the receiver ring. As mentioned above, eagle stamps on small parts.

All parts marked with R E or W. Usually a mix, after all these years.Barrels marked with month-year date, and manufacturer letter. HS or JA with no date is WW2 replacement.All this and more, including serial data can be found in the books I reccommended. They are excellent rifles, and a pleasure to shoot, but the complicated story behind their existence makes them even more appealing, and summaries do not do justice to the details.I actually recently lent my copy of Ferris to a coworker who picked up a 1917.Here are an extra 3000 words.

The M1917 was produced in far larger numbers than the M1903 Springfield (during the Great War) and armed a larger number of the AEF by most accounts. They were indeed used for the whole period in which the AEF was in action.On the WWII use, you should note that Britain also purchased a large number of M1917s prior to the the existence of the lend-lease program (so they were not all lend-lease by any means).As noted above the M1917 is interesting in lots of ways - and arguably it was one of the very few (I might argue ONLY) twentieth century designed rifle used in the war.

Most of the other rifles date to the late 19th. The 1903 Springfield and the 1907 SMLE MkIII but the development of these started earlier. The P13/P14/M1917 was modern in a number of ways (the proposed calibre of the P13, the design that made mass production easier (certainly than the 1903 Springfield), the incorporation of a peep ('ring') battle sight zeroed at 300yds.all very modern in many respects. I must admit - not being large of stature I prefer the SMLE in terms of balance and handiness, but the P14/M1917 design was certainly a reliable, accurate rifle.Chris. I must admit - not being large of stature I prefer the SMLE in terms of balance and handiness, but the P14/M1917 design was certainly a reliable, accurate rifle.ChrisAmusingly, I am on the exact opposite side of the coin.

I love my Enfields for what they are, but at 6' 3', with even longer arms, the 1917 just fits better.The interesting thing is how both countries treated the 14/17 in the post war era, deciding to remain with the familiar (and as Chris pointed out, arguably more obsolescent) old standards, and relegating both variants to colonial, territorial and reserve uses.In my opinion, they made the wrong choice for an overwhelming number of right reasons. Amusingly, I am on the exact opposite side of the coin. I love my Enfields for what they are, but at 6' 3', with even longer arms, the 1917 just fits better.The interesting thing is how both countries treated the 14/17 in the post war era, deciding to remain with the familiar (and as Chris pointed out, arguably more obsolescent) old standards, and relegating both variants to colonial, territorial and reserve uses.In my opinion, they made the wrong choice for an overwhelming number of right reasons.Well. On the WWII use, you should note that Britain also purchased a large number of M1917s prior to the the existence of the lend-lease program (so they were not all lend-lease by any means).I have not seen any evidence that the UK received ANY M1917s under Lend-Lease. The first (and larger) tranche were bought in 1940 and a (much) smaller number in 1941 - but all prior to the Lend Lease Act.BTW, following our Great War Machine Gun shoot at Bisley last year, last week, the HBSA just did a Great War Rifle shoot. We filmed every Great War Rifle that we could get hold of and could get ammunition for - it was a lot).

The US was represented by a Krag, a 1903, and (my) M1917. The M1917 is a great rifle to shoot. It's fast and accurate, however it is very heavy.We will be putting this and the machine guns together with a pistol and revolver shoot on a DVD next year. The received wisdom on the withdrawal of the M1917 right after the end of hostilities is the the US authorities did not like the idea that their soldiers were equipped with a foreign designed rifle. (The NIH syndrome.) As there were plenty of the M1903 to equip a peacetime Army and Marine Corps, the M1917s were put into store.As to soldiers not liking them, Alvin York got on very well with his.

(I will admit though that they are heavy.)BTW, if I compare my 'standard' Mausers e.g. K98k and the 'modified Mauser' M1917, I prefer the forward cocking of the latter.The red stripes on British issued M1917 Rifles were indeed there so that soldiers did not attempt to try to load a.303 round intended for a P14 into a 30-06 rifle and thus ruin everyone's day.

Us Model Of1917 Eddystone

M1917s do not have the disc in the but stock found on P14s. It is one of the methods that I use for IDing an M1917 vs. A P14 at a distance. Britain did not, to my knowledge, use the M1917 as a sniper weapon in either war.There were several versions of the Pattern 14 that were used in this role both with 'Fine' (F) versions of the standard sight (with a screw adjuster) and with telescopic sights. Indeed received wisdom is that it is really only in this Sniper role that the P14 Mk1.(W) T, saw any significant battle use during WWI.

Britain only used Winchester produced rifles in these roles.Regarding the unit disc, yes these were fitted as standard in WWI.It appears that when rifles were taken out of storage in the late 30s early 40s to prepare them for war use (so called Weedon Repair Programme), in addition to removing the volley sight and checking them over, many rifles had this disc removed. The same appears to have been done in India. From the factory however they were fitted with the disc.In order to remove the hand-guards on the P14/M1917 you have to remover (or at least loosen) the middle band (where the sling swivel attached) this will allow you to lift off the rear handguard.

It is not spring clipped but held under a fixed ring on the front of the receiver (at the back of the hand-guard) and the barrel band (at the front), in much the same way as was done later on the No4 rifle.Chris. Thanks Chris,It was the P14 that Brits used as a Sniper Weapon then, all cleared up, hopefully I will stop mixing these two rifles up now.

I am looking for information about the p17 eddystone. I remember hearing that certain serial number rifles have weak recievers. Would be helpfulI'm relying on memory,so this is not Gospel.I understand that the rap against the Eddystone is that it is Brittle.

Tha means that an overcharge will erupt and cause greater damage than a soft receiver that will merely expand and release hot gas.This does'nt concern me.I have no problem with my Eddystone.It s a possible problem with Hot Rod Handloaders.Frank. I believe you're confusing the 1917 Enfield with the 1903 Springfield. There were some early 1903 Sprgfld actions that were hardened by case hardening at both the Springfield Armory and the Rock Island Arsenal. The rifles were manufactured with WD 1325 steel, which had a carbon content of.20 to.30, i.e. 'low carbon' steel. It was easily machined, but not near hard enough for use in a rifle with two locking lugs that were supposed to take a backthrust of approx. So the rifle receivers and bolts were case hardened.

I have an exact description of the process, but it is rather involved, so I won't bore you with it. Needless to say the rifles mfg. With this process were fine for use with normal pressures, but were not going to stand for alot of hotrodding from handloads.

1917 Eddystone Serial Number 25522 History Chart

The pressure 'problems' came to light in the 1920 National Matches at Camp Perry when some competitors were using a popular motor lubricant called Mobilubricant to coat their cartridges. Seems that this product increased the ease in chambering and extracting cartridges, thus increasing the speed at which one could manipulate the bolt during rapidfire stages, so it became the 'hot ticket'. It also raised pressures to the breaking point in alot of these actions, thus giving some of these 1903 actions a bad reputation. The serial numbers of the rifles involved are below 285,507 for Rock Island, and below 800,000 for Springfield Armory. After 800,00 the actions were double heat treated using a different method that would decrease brittleness, and after serial number 1,275,767 the receivers/bolts were made from a Nickel steel alloy. After # 285,507 at Rock Island, all were made with Nickel steel alloy.A 1903 of the lower numbers would be fine to use with factory ammo or mild handloads, but be advised that hot loads are not recommended.The 1917 Enfield was made with the double heat treatment steel, and did not suffer the same problems, if you want to characterize this as a problem.

I believe you're confusing the 1917 Enfield with the 1903 Springfield. There were some early 1903 Sprgfld actions that were hardened by case hardening at both the Springfield Armory and the Rock Island Arsenal. The rifles were manufactured with WD 1325 steel, which had a carbon content of.20 to.30, i.e. 'low carbon' steel. It was easily machined, but not near hard enough for use in a rifle with two locking lugs that were supposed to take a backthrust of approx. So the rifle receivers and bolts were case hardened.

I have an exact description of the process, but it is rather involved, so I won't bore you with it. Needless to say the rifles mfg.

With this process were fine for use with normal pressures, but were not going to stand for alot of hotrodding from handloads. The pressure 'problems' came to light in the 1920 National Matches at Camp Perry when some competitors were using a popular motor lubricant called Mobilubricant to coat their cartridges.

Seems that this product increased the ease in chambering and extracting cartridges, thus increasing the speed at which one could manipulate the bolt during rapidfire stages, so it became the 'hot ticket'. It also raised pressures to the breaking point in alot of these actions, thus giving some of these 1903 actions a bad reputation. The serial numbers of the rifles involved are below 285,507 for Rock Island, and below 800,000 for Springfield Armory. After 800,00 the actions were double heat treated using a different method that would decrease brittleness, and after serial number 1,275,767 the receivers/bolts were made from a Nickel steel alloy.

After # 285,507 at Rock Island, all were made with Nickel steel alloy.A 1903 of the lower numbers would be fine to use with factory ammo or mild handloads, but be advised that hot loads are not recommended.The 1917 Enfield was made with the double heat treatment steel, and did not suffer the same problems, if you want to characterize this as a problem.MiikeThe low numbered Springfields were MUCH worse.Bad enough to be withdrawn from service. As I recall,at least one rifle failed with a regular service round.The Eddystone Enfield is not unsafe;POAckley tested one,without any comment. It did fail before the Remington Enfield,though.Frank. I agree with all of you fine folks and you are correct about the low numbered Springfields having the heat treatment problems. The 1917 rifles often did have the barrels installed with hydraulic tools. My local gunsmith was unable to remove a barrel from a 1917 receiver.

1917 Eddystone Rifle Serial Numbers

These are fine rifles. All the best.GilHighly subjective and non-scientific, but hen cleaning the grease off these old guns, tend to give the metal work (without wood attached) a dunk in gasoline.do keep well away from flames please.and watch it evaporate arround the reciever and barrel breech. The simplist and best nondestructive testing for cracks in metal is the Dye Penetrant method. Welding supply shops generally carry these kits.Steel is wiped clean with a degreaser and allowed to air dry. The dye is applied (spray, usually and red in color), allowed to set (penetrate) for a specified amount of time, then wiped off.

A developer (whiteish color) is sprayed and allowed to set. The developer draws the dye from any crack or hole that retained the dye after the surface was wiped off. If the results are to be retained, a fixer is sprayed on and allowed to dry, which will keep the dye from wicking to the rest of the developer. Kragman71,When were the low numbered Springfields withdrawn from service? They were being manufactured through 1918 with the case hardening procedure, and had been issued to our troops through WW I. The reputation that the Springfield holds was made using the low numbered receivers. That's not to say that there were some surveyed as being unfit due to wear and tear, but the majority were sold through the DCM to civilians, and I can't see the government doing that if they were that dangerous.

According to my research there were only six instances of the old receivers coming apart, and almost the same number of newer double heat treated ones, with no recorded fatalities in any of them. Jack copied a bunch of stuff from Hatcher's Notebook about the Springfields, it's in here somewhere.Suffice to say, when you can smack one with a hammer and it shatters, you have a problem. All's well till a primer pocket leaks or a case head splits, then you the makings of a grenade.The moly-greased round theory was somewhat debunked in a Precision Shooting article, don't have it right now, but Ranch Dog does.

Bad ammo one year at the national matches, and grease got the blame, per the people who selected the ammo (surprise). I wasn't there, so can only say the article is well-written and makes sense.Got a 1917 Enfield, as well. Great rifles, a bit big and heavy. Kragman71,When were the low numbered Springfields withdrawn from service? They were being manufactured through 1918 with the case hardening procedure, and had been issued to our troops through WW I. The reputation that the Springfield holds was made using the low numbered receivers.

That's not to say that there were some surveyed as being unfit due to wear and tear, but the majority were sold through the DCM to civilians, and I can't see the government doing that if they were that dangerous. Kragman71,Looks like we're both correct. I pulled out my copy of Hatcher's Notebook, and found the same notes from the board, as well as the determination of Brigadier General Samuel Hof to the Chief of Ordnance in which he recommends pulling the low numbered rifles when they came in for service, and keeping them as a war reserve, as well as not reissuing low numbered receivers to the troops.

He also recommends that the receivers be scrapped when they were turned in for repair at the depot.There is a discrepancy between Hatcher and Crosman on the number of blowups attributed to the low numbered receivers. Hatcher says 33 Springfield made receivers burst in 13 years, and 24 Rock Islands in the same period. Crosman claims 6, but doesn't say where he gets those figures. The injuries reported were as follows:Loss of eye 3Serious injury 3Severe injury 3Slight injury 27No injury mentioned 25Definite report of no injury 7There were no fatalities, and the use of shooting glasses would have prevented or reduced the severity of the injuries.As for the aforementioned 1917 Enfield, the receivers and bolts were made from 3 1/2% Nickel Steel, so should be plenty strong for any reasonable.30-06 load, as well as various other chamberings of equivalent cartridges. I have a plain but charming Winchester M17 converted action in a classic styled walnut stock in 300 Win Mag as my main Sambar rifle. The previous owner bought it as a bare action, fitted a Timney trigger, had the ears milled off and the rear ring machined to fit Winchester Model 70 bases.

The barrel is a 26' semi target profile so it is heavy but plenty accurate for a big banger. Fitted with the Limbsaver pad it really is a joy to shoot considering the proportions of the bang! I modified the feed lips to accommodate the longer length to shoulder of the 300 case, but it will still hold and feed 30-06 rounds. The bolt face was opened up, so at least with this bolt it will stay a magnum.It is a little heavy for the terrain I hunt but the action is strong and positive in every way and the safety is such that I am happy to carry it cocked and locked all day.I will see if I can dig up some photos.