Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/30/2005 11:26:42 AM EDT
| I have a 1903 and I have been pleased with the rilfe, howeer I was thinking about purchasing a 1917. Unfrotunatly I know very little of these rifles. What are the good manifactures, is there anything I need to be concerned with? Whats the general impression of these rifles, other that holding one at a store thats about my experience with them. THanks Mike K |
Read this and come back with questions.  ETA: Yes, they are good rifles. |
|
The U.S. 1917 Enfields are Great Vintage Historic Guns, and also lots of fun to shoot! Look for a REMINGTON, as the Winchesters had problems with "staying within the lines" - Ie making parts of one size for interchangability - Pershing threated to leave all the Winchesters at the dock! Eddystones had a reputation for brittle receivers due to problems with heat treatment. Hope this helps! BIGGER_HAMMER 
|
The Winchester problem was with the first 10K rifles. Nothing to worry about there except folks expecting a higher proce because it says Winchester. The Eddystone "brittle reciever" myth is just that, a myth. This "reputation" was given because armorers replacing barrels over tightened the barrel and cracked the reciever in the process. Because of the problems with the M1903 and the SHT process, people just assumed the same when they saw a cracked M1917. |
|
My favorite bolt-action Battle Rifle. If you replace the fragile ejector with a modern unit, there is nothing to equal it in its class. Assuming an M-1917 in good condition, one is arguably better armed than with an SAO AR. It is now uncommon to find an M-1917 with a good bore, so re-barreling is usually necessary. A competent gunsmith can re-barrel any M-1917. My Eddystone was re-barreled, and the receiever didn't crack because the gunsmith knew enough to relieve the barrel area which touched the receiver. Standard practice, among the competent. Numrich sells the barrels, IIRC. If they don't have any, a good 'smith can fab one for not too much money. Another possible problem is the front sight, which must be of the correct height in order to zero the weapon. Unless you are lucky enough to own an Armorer's Sight Kit, (as I do), simply determine if you need to have your gunsmith make a taller front sight which you can file down for elevation zero. Read up on the rifle, and especially the rear sight before sighting-in. More complicated than it first appears. Rebarreled, and using milsurp ammo, and without using a sling, mine shot a 1.5" high by 3" group at 100 yds. I've no doubt that using a sling would have cut the group by half. BTW, I've either owned and/or shot all the other commonly available bolt MBRs. The M-1917 beats 'em all when the day is done. |
I am suprised to hear you say that Raf. You don't find that lack of windage adjustment makes the 1917 second to the '03? I sold my Eddystone in Spring, looking to pick up an '03 these days but the 1917 was loads of fun to shoot and somewhat accurate for a rifle of it's age. The problem with 1917 rifles and 1903 rifles is that they fired mucho blanks in parades in such. Mix the blanks with corrosive .30-06 primers from back in the day and we have the 1917, Garand and '03 barrel problem we have today. My Eddystome would shoot about 5 inches at 100 yds with Danish surplus. That was a fun rifle I miss it. My all time favorite bolt gun is the Brit Enfield N0. 4 Mark 1 nothing in the world beats a British bolt action 
|
If you have the rifle properly zeroed for both elevation and windage, the lack of windage adjustment is a mere annoyance. Under most conditions, you can use the width of the front sight blade both as a rangefinder, and as an aid in achieving the correct hold-off.
Very likely true, not to mention that the ball ammo of the period was corrosive as well.
Keep in mind that the Brits were poised to replace the Enfield with the P-14 at the outset of WW I, considering the P-14 to be superior. War intervened, and only a few '14s were made. Some of these were converted to Brit sniper use, doing great execution once the program got rolling. Of course, the M-1917 is a near clone of the P-14, so claims that it is superior to the Enfield can be made. I once had a Savage-made No.4 MK. I *. Good rifle, no doubt, but it really had nothing on the M-1917. YMMV. |
Slight correction...The P13 in .276 was slated to replace the Brit. Mk III. They scrapped this project at the outset of the war for logistical reasons. Only about 1200 test rifles were produced. The P14 is a redesign in .303. About 1.2 million were produced. |
| I know this reply is long winded but I'll tell you what, I've been shooting these for years and they are great rifles. I've had probably 10 or 15 of them and with one exception they were all excellent shooters. I've bought a few on line and never got a bad one. Buy the nicest one you can afford and you won't regret it and Eddystones are as good as any of them, just cheaper although I understand the Eddystone arsenal was run by Remington at the time. You can still get a pretty nice 1917 for $375 to $500. Get a numbers matching rifle because there are still a ton of them out there and you can be confident the parts weren't pieced together by some Bubba. Incidently, if you want to sporterize it buy one done already. You can get one for $200 or better and if you shop around can find one where they haven't milled any of the metal parts. Then you can put it back to original at a later date. Save the stock configured ones for future generations to enjoy. Generally sporterizing military rifles like the 1917 or the 03 kills the value of them. Usually the barrels are good shooters if the bore is shiny or not shot out because they clean from the breech instead of the muzzle end. I had one with a dark and I mean dark bore but strong rifling and it was a tack driver at the range. Eventually it cleaned up pretty good from shooting it. Take your time and shop around. Just my .02 (more like .20) |
|
I just picked up an Eddystone this summer at the CMP store. I think I paid $350 for it, if I remember right. There were only 2 racks of them there and I went and checked the Muzzle Wear on every one and took the one that had the lowest number at that time. Mine is almost a 2. Barrel dates 12/17 and the reciever shows 220,XXX which shows a production date of Jan 1918. I think it might be the original barrel. I can't wait to take it out and test it this spring when I have more time. |
Armory Sponsor