i am looking for information about the p17 eddystone . i remember hearing that certain serial number rifles have weak recievers . any info. would be helpful

i am looking for information about the p17 eddystone . i remember hearing that certain serial number rifles have weak recievers . any info. would be helpful
I'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. 6500 psi. 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.

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. 6500 psi. 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.
Miike
The 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

Can't remember which, but I recall some barrels were torqued excessively when threading into the receivers by the manufacturer and caused some receivers to crack on the 1917's. Mine is a Remington and has checked out OK. Matter of fact, it's on the third barrel, now.

Have read about 1917's becomeing cracked when rebarreling, and passed on one conversion that did have a crack, but that's more about how the original barrel was put on and later taken off than the action's treatment. Not something common with 1917's still running on the issue barrel.

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. These are fine rifles. All the best...
Gil

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. These are fine rifles. All the best...
Gil

Highly 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. Usually these old guns carry a good number of scrathces that can disguise a crack, so just a visual check isn't quite good enough.

Not real scientific, and not definitive for cracking, but if ther is a crack it will absorb more gas than the smmoth metal, and as the thin layor on the non-craked area evaportaes, the crack sill has some seeping out, so it stands out as a thin wet line.

Can also have it checked for cracks by a magnetic process (magnaflux?)..old process, and I'm sure there are mor modern ones at use today, but it still works...some of the big time hot-rod shops have the ability; one local racing boat shop is colse at hand. Strong magnetic field, spray with fine iron based powder in a carrier, will collect at the cracks.

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). Intersesting.... 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. 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.
,MIKE,
Thanks for the reply.
It gave me an excuse to revisit "Hatcher's Notebook".
On page 222,he mentions the experiments of the Springfield Armory Board.
I) The low numbered receivers are not suitable for service
2) There was no known way to make them servicable
3)It was impracticable to reheat treat these receivers
4)The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped
You are right;no rifle was returned simply because it was low-numbered. The Chief of Ordinance decided to no longer issue these rifles and to remove them from service when they were returned for any repairs.
Frfrank

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 3
Serious injury 3
Severe injury 3
Slight injury 27
No injury mentioned 25
Definite report of no injury 7

There 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.

P.O. Ackley chambered a 1917 Enfield (Winchester Manufacture) to 300 Winchester Magnum for me years ago, and stated that the action was strong enough for any Magnum.

Lee L.

try this link....

http://www.surplusrifle.com/m1917/index.asp

M1894,
My uncle used to rechamber 1917's all the time, and said it was a great action, once you ground off the "ears" protecting the rear sight. Remington sporterized the 1917 and called it the Model 30, and it was chambered for all the standard .30-06 based calibers available at that time.

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...

BTW, there may be some weak M17 actions, but the strong ones are plenty strong!

A-Square build their Hannibal dangerous game rifles in ludicrous calibres on Enfields...

http://www.e-zbrane.sk/jpg/Hannibal2.jpg