View Full Version : "E" on receiver ring?......
First, this isn't my rifle. And, the photo is not pretty, at all, IMO!
I've offered to give it a once-over and "help him clean it up a bit".
Someone near me asked about this rifle. Apparently it was from an older family member.
Anyways, what is the "E" on the receiver ring? If this is an M1917-101 level question, y'all please humor me and use little words!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/M1Tommy/armaments/WinM1917.jpg?t=1417704564
It's the handguard retainer ring, Eddystone part.
"duh" on me........... I know...
Tommy
Dan Shapiro
12-04-2014, 08:34
As I tell ROTC units when I give an antique weapons presentation:
There's no such thing as a 'dumb' question.
1) It means you're paying attention.
2) I'm not boring you.
3) It shows that you're interested and want more information.
More importantly, I cannot tell from the guy's photo if that's a scratch, a hair or a crack between the lines with U.S. and MODEL OF 1917.
I'm no M1917 guru, my one having been foolishly horse traded away years ago, but I'd think that a crack induced by re-barreling would not come from that direction.
Apparently other family member have "told him that grandpa never would shoot it again...."
Thanks for that reply.
Tommy
I see not directly answered. We all learn and I have had my share of mistakes. Better to ask first as you did.
Please be careful on cleanup as to to alter things. Stock should be done gently with soapy water and not finish work as you can alter that past the value (look at the tip and see what mfg mark is on it)
Short answer and history is that the Model of 1917 aka Eddystone or " Enfield was made by 3 mfgs.
Remington in Ilion NY, A Remington subsidiary and then independent operation called Eddystone in PY and Winchester (New Haven?)
The parts ultimately were interchangeable though many were so early and likely non critical ones were the easiest (most tolerance).
If you disassemble the gun and or look at details you can see on the surface (sights, bolt, safety etc) you likely will fine a wide variety of R, E as well as W marked parts as well as a few others. These tended to be re-arsenaled and parts got replaced with whatever was at hand as they no longer cared (all original parts 1917s are not common but out there)
The Bolt will have a stamp on it of R, W, or E, you may be able to see the same on the cocking piece.
Some only have numbers but those number can be traced to specific mfg (inspector numbers used exclusively at the plants)
My Winchester has an unmarked mfg front sight blade but does have the 400 number on it which makes it a Winchester factory part.
CS Ferris has a very good book at a low price on the gun if you want to read up on the markings and variations.
None of mine are all OEM parts, they all saw service of some sort and replacement parts added or reused and they all came out of common bins most likely as it did not matter.
On the other hand, there is no known cross of parts in the OEM mfg process, whether that was a government thing and they all had to be single accountable to the OEM that built the rifle or they simply did not exchange parts if anyone had excess is unknown to the best of my knowledge (or speculative). It did not happen as far as anyone ahs ever documented.
DRAGONFLYDF
12-04-2014, 09:08
take it to a machine shop that does dye penetrate or eddy current inspections and see if they would test it for you
I see not directly answered. We all learn and I have had my share of mistakes. Better to ask first as you did.
Please be careful on cleanup as to to alter things. Stock should be done gently.................
......On the other hand, there is no known cross of parts in the OEM mfg process, whether that was a government thing and they all had to be single accountable to the OEM that built the rifle or they simply did not exchange parts if anyone had excess is unknown to the best of my knowledge (or speculative). It did not happen as far as anyone ahs ever documented.
Understand. I have owned several older rifles before, have made my share of mistakes, and have cleaned and 'refreshed' some old stocks that now are 'much healthier' too.
take it to a machine shop that does dye penetrate or eddy current inspections and see if they would test it for you
If he allows me to look it over, I will at very least do a "gasoline test" on the receiver.... and will advise what you said if there is ANY doubt at all.
Thanks for the replies.
Tommy
Dan Shapiro
12-04-2014, 12:19
Why?
It will determine if its' a 'scratch' or an actual 'break' in the metal.
oldtirediron
12-05-2014, 12:13
I am not sure what the problem is here but 1917 Enfields were known for their inherinet over torqued barrel especially Eddystone and Winchester rifles ! I know because removing the barrel from many sporterized receiver's and it entailed a 6 foot extension bar and standing on the end of it to loosen the barrel ! Seems others had this problem also and usually they cut the barrel in a lathe to remove the barrel from the receiver about 1/16 from the receiver face. Not to be defeated by an M1917 Enfield I would put a barrel wrench on the receiver and rosin on the receiver and screw it together in a Brownell's barrel vice and receiver wrench After jumping up and down on the barrel wrench extension that was made from a car axel it would finally give after a few hops of my 230 Lb frame on the end os the 5 foot barrel wrench extension ! A loud crack and the barrel would be free but the Enfield 1917 was the worst offender of all US Military arms !the barrels were torqued on supposedly to 120 lb foot statistics more than double what they should have been- The builders at the Baldwin Locomotive works (Eddystone)were even worse and those barrels aree sometimes immovable except by lathe action !!
Sir, Yes, I've heard similar from others.
I am about to cobble together my first AR-15, and trust that similar antics won't be warranted, eh?!? <grin>
Thanks for that reply.
Tommy
It will determine if its' a 'scratch' or an actual 'break' in the metal.
My apologies, I missed the post on the crack, I think it came through while I was formulating my reply. Regardless I did miss it.
I see both the suspected crack /scratch and the post and yes it should be checked out.
It does seem an odd place for a crack as my understanding is that they occurred in the thread area, no experience with that other than general work related and defer to others with that specific experience.
M1Tommy: If you can get the date off (and MFG) the barrel we can cross reference the serial to build date to see if there indeed was a likely barrel replacement.
I don't know that end of the history well (barrel replacement), I have yet to see one that got even a different mfg barrel that was not a civilian change or WWII era, but again limited experience in that regard.
I have seen a number of the 1903s that was done on. You would think spare barrels made and it should show up on the 1917s - interesting area.
If barrel were too tight then it would have to do with the mfg process and not a torque spec. I.e. the barrels are lined up to a witness mark, you meet the mark. If more torque used to get there than there should have been then something in the barrel machining or the receivers would have been out of spec. Same end result to break loose of course and as they cranked out many thousands a day as long as they lined up it might have been expedient to continue.
somewhere in that though the inspectors should have caught on as tolerances would have been off and should be caught on master gauges.
I continue to ponder the spare barrel situation as the 1903s were supplied with spare parts for so many made (at least WWII) but I have yet to see similar for the 1917s in the barrel arena.
My apologies, I missed the post on the crack, I think it came through while I was formulating my reply. Regardless I did miss it.
I see both the suspected crack /scratch and the post and yes it should be checked out.
It does seem an odd place for a crack as my understanding is that they occurred in the thread area, no experience with that other than general work related and defer to others with that specific experience.
Understood and agree. Thanks, Tommy
M1Tommy: If you can get the date off (and MFG) the barrel we can cross reference the serial to build date to see if there indeed was a likely barrel replacement. .............
Understood. I'm not sure just when I may get to look at that rifle. It is about 120 miles from me, I just learned.
RE M1917 replacement barrels, I agree. I've never come across a "new old stock" M1917 barrel myself.
Tommy
I have only seen one 1917 barrel for sale and I don't remember the specific details as that was two years back.
the bid went higher than I was willing, darn.
One method of determining if that's a crack, or just a scratch, is to rotate the rifle so that the suspected area is in the 12 o'clock position (straight up) and placed
a cotton ball saturated with rubbing alcohol on top of it. The idea being to allow alcohol to seep into the affected area. A succession of several saturated cotton balls should assure that enough alcohol was present to seep into a crack, if in fact there's one actually there.
After removing the last cotton ball, quickly wipe the receiver ring dry and invert the affected area 180 degrees so that it's pointed straight down. If it's merely a scratch, any alcohol in it will quickly dry. However, if alcohol keeps seeping out over an extended time, it's very likely a crack.
I think it was chuckindenver who thought the cracked 1917 actions due to rebarrelling were unlikely. as they were even softer/tougher/less brittle than any 1903 action was/is.. I'm hoping he weighs in on this........... I agree that the line/mark on the receiver of the OP looks suspicious........if it was mine, I'd be off to the machine shop if you can do it within the refusal period.
I think you are right about Chucks take on it and he has done a slew of them
I have only seen one 1917 barrel for sale and I don't remember the specific details as that was two years back.
the bid went higher than I was willing, darn.
I was able to purchase a Winchester barrel, dated 12-18, it very good condition, earlier this year. I was dogged in my search and looked regularly
Needs a little clean up, but very good non the less
The Eddystone receivers where subject to cracking, when building the Remington and Winchester M1917 was/is the preferred receiver, when using the Eddystone it was any one's guess when using Roy Dunlap as a resource.
F. Guffey
Eddystone was run/owned by Remington. It was not an independent maker. The name was Eddystone Rifle Plant, Pennsylvania, originally owned by Remington and later sold to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. Eddtstone made 1,181,908 rifles, more then half million more then the original Rem. plant or Win.
If barrel were too tight then it would have to do with the mfg process and not a torque spec. I.e. the barrels are lined up to a witness mark, you meet the mark. If more torque used to get there than there should have been then something in the barrel machining or the receivers would have been out of spec. Same end result to break loose of course and as they cranked out many thousands a day as long as they lined up it might have been expedient to continue.
.[/QUOTE]
During manufacture process the barrels are not "lined up to a witness mark". That mark is applied after the barrel is fitted and headspaced, so if removed for some reason and reinstalled it goes back where it was when made. A new barrel would be torqued, head spaced and then marked to match the receiver mark. It also tells you the barrel has not been moved since properly fitted/headspaced.
During manufacture process the barrels are not "lined up to a witness mark". That mark is applied after the barrel is fitted and headspaced, so if removed for some reason and reinstalled it goes back where it was when made. A new barrel would be torqued, head spaced and then marked to match the receiver mark. It also tells you the barrel has not been moved since properly fitted/headspaced.[/QUOTE]
That is incorrect: new and replacement G.I. barrels for both M1903 and /A3 and M1917 rifles do, in fact, have a witness/draw mark on them as manufactured. The purpose was/is to insure that, when the barrel is drawn-up to align the witness marks on both barrel and receiver, the sights will be properly vertical and the extractor cut in the barrel shank will align with the receiver raceways and the extractor.
mhb - Mike
The Eddystone receivers where subject to cracking, when building the Remington and Winchester M1917 was/is the preferred receiver, when using the Eddystone it was any one's guess when using Roy Dunlap as a resource. F. Guffey
As Chuck in Denver has not weighed in I wil as I dislike spreading of rumors.
Some of you may not know Chuck and while I do not personally my brother has done business with him and I have followed his posts
He is a gun smith who specializes in work on Mil Surplus, 1917s included.
http://criterionbarrels.com/warpath_vintage_llc
He has never had an issue with an Eddystone 1917 as he uses the right tools. Wrong tools, bad results (with all guns). He has done a lot of them. I forget the numbers but its no small number.
It may be that due to the larger number of the Eddystones they got messed with by bubba more often and hence the reputation
I will take an active gun smith with his breadth of work over a "source" any day of the week.
Eddystone was run/owned by Remington. It was not an independent maker. The name was Eddystone Rifle Plant, Pennsylvania, originally owned by Remington and later sold to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. Eddystone made 1,181,908 rifles, more then half million more then the original Rem. plant or Win.
I have looked at the Remington Eddystone relationship a great deal and still come up confused.
What I can say is that Baldwin Locomotive had a plant at Eddystone and built other non locomotive buildings, one of which was a Rifle plant, the other(s) for ammunition.
As near as I can reconstruct from Ferris and other writing said rifle plant was setup and equipped by Baldwin Locomotive (and I am guessing on WWI speculation and or in discussion with Remington) and then Remington formed a separate entity for the contracts to build the Pattern 14 and then the Model of 1917 in that plant. There seems to have been little if any direct Remington involvement and Eddystone was represented at the government meeting with their own representative.. Further there is zero evidence of any collaboration between the two plant, i.e. the rumored trading of parts.
My take is Remington knew they would not need that plant after WWI and did not want the capacity so it was a move of convenience, they had the British (initially) contracts and then maybe the US contract (depends on Midvale Date of buy)
Per Ferris, Midvale Steel then bought out the Remington of Delaware entity at a contradictory date, Jan of 1918 or April of 1917. I do not know which is correct but the following ref indicated it was even earlier in that Remington sold out its interest in Remington of Delaware in November of 1916.
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/journals/Eddystone
The Pattern 14s had their own designation for the plant, i.e. ERA.
Regardless I have yet to read anything that said Remington did anything more than sub contract to Eddystone the manufacture of rifles and that there is some contradiction in who setup the machinery as Ferris reports it was Baldwin and the Remington article seems to indicate Remington (both agree it was managed by Baldwin) and I tend to think it was Baldwin who did and set it all up as Remington was extremely busy re-doing their Ilion operation though that is speculation on my part.
It would appear to be a convenience for Remington to have taken the opportunity that and there are reports the British supplied the machinery though I am skeptical in that regard as they really had none as the Pattern 13 had never gone into production in quantity.
That Remington then sold out that interest (Remington of Delaware which was Eddystone) also indicates they were too busy to manage it.
Possible support for Baldwin doing the machinery is they managed it and I am not sure they could have if they had not been involved in the install and setup as they knew (at the time) anything about making rifles. Maybe good management and the use of experienced rifle plant managers (i.e. Col Thompsons involvement as well)
I don't know about the E on the receiver ring but I can sure say I know why a lot of my test papers in school came back with that E at the top!!!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.