The U.S. 1917 Enfield was in mass production by Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone.
The guns are as physically identical as that time period allows in terms of quality control.
The problem with Eddystone centered primarily on the lack of sophistication in heat treating with a lesser concern as to metallurgy.
This does not mean the Eddystone is dangerous or of poor quality. It does mean the gun was not considered on the same level as either the Winchester or the Remington product.
When I was young the 1917 Enfield was a prime source of actions for more powerful cartridges (beyond the .30-06 range). The guns chosen for conversion were the Winchester and Remington actions.
My understanding is that the Eddystone plant was a subsidiary of the Remington company. I know there were issues with the heat treating process of the A3-03 but never heard of a problem with the M1917.
Is there a Serial Number variance I need to stay within to get a "Good" Eddystone?
No, and I've never heard of this "heat treating" tale, in fifty years of paying attention .
I have two Eddystones, my preferred variation of the US Rifle, Caliber .30, Model of 1917. My first "real" job was housed in the old Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton HQ building, on the grounds where the Eddystone rifles were built.
Certainly, all of the U.S. Model 1917 built by Eddystone Arsenal, Remington UMC, and Winchester Repeating Arms met Army Ordnance Department inspection standards. I believe there were some 2.3+ million copies made between mid-1917 and late 1918. As for heat treatment concerns; weren't they limited to an already identified run of '03 Springfield and '03 [Rock Island] receivers that were since replaced or deemed servicable?
My understanding is that the Eddystone plant was a subsidiary of the Remington company. I know there were issues with the heat treating process of the A3-03 but never heard of a problem with the M1917.
Yes, Remington bought the Eddystone factory to increase their output to meet the demand created by the WWI contract. Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone rifles should be equal in quality as shooters, but I think a Winchester is rarer, making it a bit more valuable.
The biggest problem with the ERA rifles is with rebarreling. The barrels need to be taken off in a bit different of a way. If not the recievers usually crack. It seems that they used hydraulic machines to install the barrels at Eddystone.
Back in the day the rule of thumb for all M1917s, not just Eddystones, was "Save the barrel and lose the receiver, or save the receiver and lose the barrel." The issue is not so much tightness as it is the hardness of the M1917 receiver.
To remove an M1917 barrel without damage to the receiver, in a lathe turn down the portion of the barrel shoulder next to the receiver. Removing the barrel shoulder will free the barrel for easy removal.
I do not know of any special serial numbers for a "good" Eddystone.
Any of them would be good with the original barrel. They did meet War Dept. acceptance and performed well in WW1.
My best advice would be to get one if you want one.
As I posted earlier, the Eddystones were just not chosen for higher power conversions during the 1960's. The lack of sophistication in heat treating
was "common knowledge" in the 60's although I do not have specifics as to the degree of hardening on an Eddystone versus a Remington or Winchester.
If you have an Eddystone receiver and wish to spend some money there are good metallurgical firms that could re-heat treat to any specification.
there is no heat treat issue with the eddystone, or any other 1917. the problem as others have mentioned above was the method of rebarreling causing the reciever rings to crack.
I have a beautiful 1917 Eddystone, with a "W" stamped on the end of the stock.. So what does this tell me??? It's a Winchester, or a mixed-lot rifle?? It shoots great, and I don't usually take it out very often.
Back in the day the rule of thumb for all M1917s, not just Eddystones, was "Save the barrel and lose the receiver, or save the receiver and lose the barrel." The issue is not so much tightness as it is the hardness of the M1917 receiver.
To remove an M1917 barrel without damage to the receiver, in a lathe turn down the portion of the barrel shoulder next to the receiver. Removing the barrel shoulder will free the barrel for easy removal.
Regards,
Walt
Wow. Great story. I love this kind of stuff! Thanks for sharing, Walt.
__________________
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss." -- Lazarus Long
i was going to post a thread like this but i saw this one first haha. i happen to own a 1917 eddystone. it's actually an enfield right? is it a 1903 model?
i was going to post a thread like this but i saw this one first haha. i happen to own a 1917 eddystone. it's actually an enfield right? is it a 1903 model?
You have a US Rifle Model of 1917. It was an adaptation of the British Pattern 14 (Pattern of 1914, or P14) in .303 British, which in turn came from the British P13, which was in a new rimless cartridge, the .276 Enfield. The British design was developed at the Royal Arsenal at Enfield, and was based on a Mauser type action. When the Brits feared they would not be able to manufacture enough SMLEs to arm their troops in WWI, they contracted with Winchester and Remington to manufacture the P14 in the USA as a supplemental arm.
In the event, the Brits were able to manufacture sufficient SMLEs for their needs. When the Brit contracts ran out, coincidentally the US had entered WWI and needed rifles. There was not time to tool up other plants for the US design, the Model of 1903, also based on the Mauser but a completely different rifle from the Brit Enfield-designed P13/P14. It turned out to be easy to convert the P14 back to a rimless cartridge, in this case, the .30-'06, and the result was the Model of 1917. A third plant, in Eddystone, PA, was added to raise production further. The result was that more M1917s were fielded in France than M1903s!
After the war, a combination of "NIH" and the greater suitability of the M1903 as a target rifle sent the M1917s into storage.
US Springfield 1917 30-06 "Eddystone" ? 
.
