close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

US Springfield 1917 30-06 "Eddystone" ?

Discussion in 'Springfield Armory' started by LarryO1970, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. LarryO1970

    LarryO1970 G&G Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,437
    Likes Received:
    8
    I hope this is in the correct location. Moderator, IF this belongs somewhere else more specific, please move it and let me know where.

    My question is: What is the difference between a Winchester and an Eddystone 1917, aside from the name?

    Is one original and the other a newer manufacture? I need guidance here.

    The intent is to get an original to add to the collection of old war rifles I am collecting.



     
    #1
  2. nathangdad

    nathangdad G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    11,239
    Likes Received:
    22
    I know the answer

    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.
     
    #2
  3. WW2Junkie

    WW2Junkie G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #3
  4. LarryO1970

    LarryO1970 G&G Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,437
    Likes Received:
    8
    Is there a Serial Number variance I need to stay within to get a "Good" Eddystone?
     
    #4
  5. wjkuleck

    wjkuleck G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    Regards,

    Walt
     
    #5
  6. rondog

    rondog G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,186
    Likes Received:
    808
    Here's one for sale Larry..... THR
     
    #6
  7. SightNSqueeze

    SightNSqueeze G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,998
    Likes Received:
    26
    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?
     
    #7
  8. twtalbot

    twtalbot G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #8
  9. Woodbeef

    Woodbeef G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #9
  10. wjkuleck

    wjkuleck G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    See The Eddystone Story for details on the Eddystone operation.

    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
     
    #10
  11. nathangdad

    nathangdad G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    11,239
    Likes Received:
    22
    Hi LarryO1970

    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.
     
    #11
  12. lefty o

    lefty o G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    9,224
    Likes Received:
    42
    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.
     
    #12
  13. LarryO1970

    LarryO1970 G&G Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    6,437
    Likes Received:
    8
    ... thanks to all the responders to this thread... as I am always willing to listen & learn about something I have no clue about.
     
    #13
  14. .22hustler

    .22hustler G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    235
    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.
     
    #14
  15. littlejoe872

    littlejoe872 G&G Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    73
    I had heard, or read somewhere that the early Winchesters had a problem with parts interchangeability. Anybody else heard this?
     
    #15
  16. WW2Junkie

    WW2Junkie G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Though I've not seen it personnaly, yes, I have heard that too. Something about not wanting to conform or some such.
     
    #16
  17. TheJoker

    TheJoker G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    151
    Wow. Great story. I love this kind of stuff! Thanks for sharing, Walt.
     
    #17
  18. 'ole'06

    'ole'06 G&G Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    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?
     
    #18
  19. wjkuleck

    wjkuleck G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

    Regards,

    Walt
     
    #19
  20. TheJoker

    TheJoker G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    151
    I still marvel at the story. 6000 rifles a day...in the 1910's...Wow!!!
     
    #20
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted