View Full Version : Accurate shooting M1917
The more I shoot my early (mfd. Nov. 15, 1917) M1917 Winchester with a minty barrel and NOS Winchester replacement parts, the more I'm impressed with the accuracy, design and construction of the rifle and especially the close eye placement location of the open adjustable sight.
Shooting from a rack at 100 yards, I'm consistently grouping in the center of a 12" target that is barely visible to me at that distance. I use the rear ladder sight at the lowest possible setting for 100 yards.
I didn't add any bedding to the stock but did place some thick paper shims around the nose cap that was loosely holding the front hand guard in place. Shims were also required around the upper barrel band for the same reason. There's still some slight movement in the front end if forced but it's not exactly what I'd call a floating barrel.
All things considered, it's an impressive rifle.
Merc
The M-1917 was a very well thought out rifle. Ideal battle sights. Superior caliber... .30-06 was the queen of the battlefield for at least three wars. Accurate beyond a fault. Your on target results are not atypical. With good ammo and proper shooting technique, a M-1917 in good shape will produce extremely good scores at the range... and excellent results in the field. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
Griff Murphey
07-14-2016, 04:56
My dad's insurance man was an ordnance enlisted army troop in WW-2 and had his pick of guns and usually carried a carbine but after mis-laying his third one on Okinawa, the master sergeant handed him a 1917 and said, "Here's something harder to lose. You lose this one, you will be unarmed."
Griff,
Those of us who own and admire the '17 didn't have to live with it on a daily basis and carry into battle. It is a strong, powerful and dependable battle rifle but it is also overbuilt in many respects which made it big and heavy and it must have looked intimidating with the long bayonet attached. I wonder if he thought he was being rewarded or punished since his first choice was a carbine.
Merc
Griff Murphey
07-15-2016, 04:31
Ha ha! Pretty sure he felt he was being punished. I picked up a minty Winchester at an estate sale about 30 years ago for maybe $60. At the time there was not much interest in these guns, no vintage CMP style shoots existed. I bought it simply as an example of an important type of US service rifle. It's a fine rifle and fun to shoot but that cock-on-closing is just a bunch harder in rapid than a good old 03.
Griff,
I agree, although I'm sure he grew to appreciate it.
That minty M'17 Winchester you bought for $60 turned out to be quite an investment for you. A M'03 is probably my next rifle. The fact that the heart of my M'17 Winchester (barrel/receiver/bolt) were minty when I bought the rifle was pure luck. Although I saw the rifle in person, I didn't own a .30-06 headspace field gauge and didn't know any of the simple techniques that are out there to determine the degree of throat erosion. I will not trust pure luck again when I go looking for a M1903.
Merc
Well after all it is the rifle Sgt. York used to kill all those Germans! hehehe!
Griff Murphey
07-15-2016, 10:54
Well after all it is the rifle Sgt. York used to kill all those Germans! hehehe!
Or at least, Gary Cooper did
No, Cooper used the 03; but his only wars were with movie studios and far from the western front.
My dad's insurance man was an ordnance enlisted army troop in WW-2 and had his pick of guns and usually carried a carbine but after mis-laying his third one on Okinawa, the master sergeant handed him a 1917 and said, "Here's something harder to lose. You lose this one, you will be unarmed."
For a non infantry guy that would be punishment and well deserved. How to you loose 3 carbines? Probably selling them to others. Trading maybe.
Reports and pictures back up showed that upwards of half the European Infantry by 1944 were armed with Thomson or other 45 caliber machine guns.
Some carried Schmiesers (yes I now that's wrong name) but ammo was an issue and the mistaken sounds not always a good idea though I don't know if it was an issue with that gun.
the 45 caliber sub machine guns were issued to tank crews in numbers (what they were supposed to do with them somewhat a mystery but...)
Mostly they just got the hell out, a pistol would have been fine, not like they were going to fight their way out of anything very successfully.
Garand's while a great longer distance gun was not handy for village and urban combat. Ergo a good mix.
Good history stuff, love it.
The M-1917 was a very well thought out rifle. Ideal battle sights. Superior caliber... .30-06 was the queen of the battlefield for at least three wars. Accurate beyond a fault. Your on target results are not atypical. With good ammo and proper shooting technique, a M-1917 in good shape will produce extremely good scores at the range... and excellent results in the field. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
For a non infantry guy that would be punishment and well deserved. How to you loose 3 carbines? Probably selling them to others. Trading maybe.
Reports and pictures back up showed that upwards of half the European Infantry by 1944 were armed with Thomson or other 45 caliber machine guns.
Some carried Schmiesers (yes I now that's wrong name) but ammo was an issue and the mistaken sounds not always a good idea though I don't know if it was an issue with that gun.
the 45 caliber sub machine guns were issued to tank crews in numbers (what they were supposed to do with them somewhat a mystery but...)
Mostly they just got the hell out, a pistol would have been fine, not like they were going to fight their way out of anything very successfully.
Garand's while a great longer distance gun was not handy for village and urban combat. Ergo a good mix.
Good history stuff, love it.
The more I read, the more I learn. Thanks
PhillipM
12-23-2016, 12:05
For a non infantry guy that would be punishment and well deserved. How to you loose 3 carbines? Probably selling them to others. Trading maybe.
Reports and pictures back up showed that upwards of half the European Infantry by 1944 were armed with Thomson or other 45 caliber machine guns.
Some carried Schmiesers (yes I now that's wrong name) but ammo was an issue and the mistaken sounds not always a good idea though I don't know if it was an issue with that gun.
the 45 caliber sub machine guns were issued to tank crews in numbers (what they were supposed to do with them somewhat a mystery but...)
Mostly they just got the hell out, a pistol would have been fine, not like they were going to fight their way out of anything very successfully.
Garand's while a great longer distance gun was not handy for village and urban combat. Ergo a good mix.
Good history stuff, love it.
No mystery at all. Subguns were on tanks to repel boarders.
38942 My cousin was in an ordnance/heavy repair company from D+1 to Berchtesgaden. He said everyone in the company had a Thompson. Moving through Holland, one fella jumped off the back of their deuce and a half and shot out his own guts because the gun wasn't on "safe."
My neighbor's dad returned home from WW2 with two Thompson subs. He has no idea what became of them. Not an easy gun to shoot.
I had a beautiful Winchester M17 and I liked it a lot. When I got the Canadian it shot so well I sold the Winch. I recently got a 1903, the first I have owned. Sorry to say, even with five different kinds of ways to sight with it, I couldn't see to shoot it. I sold it. I'll never sell my M17.
I had a beautiful Winchester M17 and I liked it a lot. When I got the Canadian it shot so well I sold the Winch. I recently got a 1903, the first I have owned. Sorry to say, even with five different kinds of ways to sight with it, I couldn't see to shoot it. I sold it. I'll never sell my M17.
The '17s had a lot going for it. Big, strong action, accurate shooter, etc. I enjoy taking my '17 to the range since it's lots of fun to shoot. I have no trouble hitting 100 yard targets with the rear sight ladder at the lowest setting. My range also has a 200 yard target but I don't waste the ammo. These old eyes can barely see the target at 100 yards.
I have a minty 03-A3 that I also enjoy shooting although the front sight blade is thin and can make the targets difficult to acquire at times. Took some getting used to.
I also have an 03-A3 and it is also "not for sale". This one has been modified for a Lyman sight set, front and back. Glass bedded and Timney trigger. I wouldn't call it Bubba'd. I don't care for thin front sites. My 17 has a Canadian modifcation. They installed a plain old roll pin in the front. It's just what I like.
39231
Dryheat, your roll pin front sight is generally thought to be a Danish modification. They were given 38,000 '17s in 1953 by the Canadians for home guard use. Other Dane markings are neatly stamped (usually mismatched) serials on the bolt handles. Serials and some lettering on stocks. Sometimes a decal showing 'hold off' points is present also. They also ground the follower to allow closing while empty in drills.
Original Canadian broad arrow stamp and remnants of a painted red band should also be present on the stock.
Edit: Above info from Nick Ferris book on the '17
Also a sample thread from many around the web.
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=14422
Thanks. I was a little vague on where it had been. I actually thought it was Brit and then sent to Canada. It has [mismatched] red paint and the modified follower. Mismatched numbers on the bolt. I have looked for a broad arrow, but have never seen it. 30-06 is painted on the side of the stock. I like it because it is accurate and has a little history. I initially bought it just for the wood. It has some very striking figure towards the back of the butt stock.
Well, absent the Canadian stock stamp, which could of been sanded, the Danes also received Brit rifles via Norway around the same time.
These should have Brit proof markings on receiver and barrel under hand guard though. The Brits did mark caliber with red paint also.
Some suggest the roll pin was used on the more accurate rifles for match use by Danish home guard.
My M1917 has been used in 200 yard local competitions. The only period correct gun I own that bests it is a Swede in 6.5 X 55 and not by much. Mine is a Eddstone lend leased to Canada during WW2.
My grand father was a Sherman tanker from 41 to 45. He had 5 tanks knocked out from under him. The first in North Africa hit a land mine. He was sitting in the commanders hatch and was blown clear. No one else in the crew made it. The others were , track shot off twice, main gun hit and cut in half. Turrent strike did not penetrate but turrent was stuck. He only talked about initially carrying a revolver and later a 1911. I never heard him say much about any long gun. He had Some experience unassing Shermans and bugging out. On the main gun and stuck turrent they drove out. He was 28 when he joined in early 41. All of his crew members called him Gramps.
My M1917 has been used in 200 yard local competitions. The only period correct gun I own that bests it is a Swede in 6.5 X 55 and not by much. Mine is a Eddstone lend leased to Canada during WW2.
My grand father was a Sherman tanker from 41 to 45. He had 5 tanks knocked out from under him. The first in Noth Africa hit a land mine. He was sitting in the commanders hatch and was blow clear. No one else in the crew made it. The others were , track shot off twice, main gun hit and cut in half. Turrent strike did not penetrate but turrent was stuck. He only talked about initially carrying a revolver and later a 1911. I never heard him say much about any long gun. He had Some experience unassing Shermans and bugging out. On they main gun and stuck turrent they drove out. He was 28 when he joined in early 41. All of his crew members called him Gramps.
Great story. Sherman tanks were badly outgunned by the Germans. Glad to hear he made it out of the tanks and survived the war. Do you have any photos of him in his uniform? Post photos of the rifles too, if possible.
Great story. Sherman tanks were badly outgunned by the Germans. Glad to hear he made it out of the tanks and survived the war. Do you have any photos of him in his uniform? Post photos of the rifles too, if possible.
My mom has a photo of him with my grandmother and my Uncle when he was a baby. I'll try and get a scan of it. The shoulder patch on his uniform at the time was a black panther biting a set of tank tracks. I should remember his unit but it escapes me right now.
5MadFarmers
01-05-2017, 06:38
The shoulder patch on his uniform at the time was a black panther biting a set of tank tracks.
Tank Destroyer, not tank.
39286
Tank Destroyer, not tank.
39286
He moved units from 41 to 45. He was moved to a Tank Destroyer unit sometime in 1945. He spent most of his career in Shermans, but started training in Grants and ended in a tank destroyer unit. He liked the speed of the tank destroyers but still felt a little naked in them. His words not mine. The photo I'm speaking of was taken in 1945 while on leave. I don't know of any photos that exist of him in uniform prior to this one. I know he participated in combat in Africa, Sicily, and Europe. All of his loaders were nicknamed shorty, that story I remember.
He passed in 1979. I was young and wished I had paid more attention when he talked about his military career.
My dad's insurance man was an ordnance enlisted army troop in WW-2 and had his pick of guns and usually carried a carbine but after mis-laying his third one on Okinawa, the master sergeant handed him a 1917 and said, "Here's something harder to lose. You lose this one, you will be unarmed."
He moved units from 41 to 45. He was moved to a Tank Destroyer unit sometime in 1945. He spent most of his career in Shermans, but started training in Grants and ended in a tank destroyer unit. He liked the speed of the tank destroyers but still felt a little naked in them. His words not mine. The photo I'm speaking of was taken in 1945 while on leave. I don't know of any photos that exist of him in uniform prior to this one. I know he participated in combat in Africa, Sicily, and Europe. All of his loaders were nicknamed shorty, that story I remember.
He passed in 1979. I was young and wished I had paid more attention when he talked about his military career.
You're lucky he was willing to talk about the war. So many vets with great stories to tell were often reluctant to share them with their families because it sometimes meant they had to dig up some terrible life and death memories.
You're lucky he was willing to talk about the war. So many vets with great stories to tell were often reluctant to share them with their families because it sometimes meant they had to dig up some terrible life and death memories.
He talked about the funny stuff with his second crew, never talked about first crew or hitting the land mine. That was related to me by Uncle and Mother. He told me several times he had 5 tanks knocked out from under him. He would only really talk about the main gun being hit (he'd giggle and said it looked like a cigar been shot with a BB gun). Said it was more torn off than shot off. He also talked about the hit against the turrent base. It took a chunk out of the turrent and damaged to top of the tank just under the turrent hit. This strike caused the turrent to immediately stick. He said the strike area got hot and made the inside of the tank smelled "even worse". With a stuck turrent they backed out and RTB.
When he talked about first tank (landmind) he would just say the tank was shot out from under him. On the onther two he'd just say a track got shot off and put us to foot.
He only related one direct fight which was in ITALY. The were leading a 50 man Infantry patrol on a narrow mountain road, As they rounded a corner 50 to 75 yards away was a Panzer III with its own infantry in support. He said it was over in a few seconds. Shorty loaded a round, and the gunner got it out. The shot was good and the Panzer was destroyed. There was some small arms fire but the Germans fell back when they lost their armor and had no room to maneuver.
He talked about the funny stuff with his second crew, never talked about first crew or hitting the land mine. That was related to me by Uncle and Mother. He told me several times he had 5 tanks knocked out from under him. He would only really talk about the main gun being hit (he'd giggle and said it looked like a cigar been shot with a BB gun). Said it was more torn off than shot off. He also talked about the hit against the turrent base. It took a chunk out of the turrent and damaged to top of the tank just under the turrent hit. This strike caused the turrent to immediately stick. He said the strike area got hot and made the inside of the tank smelled "even worse". With a stuck turrent they backed out and RTB.
When he talked about first tank (landmind) he would just say the tank was shot out from under him. On the onther two he'd just say a track got shot off and put us to foot.
He only related one direct fight which was in ITALY. The were leading a 50 man Infantry patrol on a narrow mountain road, As they rounded a corner 50 to 75 yards away was a Panzer III with its own infantry in support. He said it was over in a few seconds. Shorty loaded a round, and the gunner got it out. The shot was good and the Panzer was destroyed. There was some small arms fire but the Germans fell back when they lost their armor and had no room to maneuver.
You should consider becoming your dad's voice and tell all the stories your dad told you to your family members. Write them down so that they can be passed down to future generations. He gave you a great gift.
You should consider becoming your dad's voice and tell all the stories your dad told you to your family members. Write them down so that they can be passed down to future generations. He gave you a great gift.
Easy there grandpa not dad, but Dad was in the 9th Division (Old Faithful) in Vietanam. Air Mobile Artillery, but that's another story��.
Easy there grandpa not dad, but Dad was in the 9th Division (Old Faithful) in Vietanam. Air Mobile Artillery, but that's another story��.
Quite a military family. I'm the historian in my family and recorded as many genealogical details as I could before they were lost to time. Had lots of fun doing it.
And that is why sub machine guns while an issue item were not kept. The idea was self defense after a bail out or in lager.
Inside a tank there was no room, ergo the pistols.
Most of the time they would have been camped with infantry, carbine good enough and a lot easier to shoot well.
My grand father was a Sherman tanker from 41 to 45. He had 5 tanks knocked out from under him. The first in North Africa hit a land mine. He was sitting in the commanders hatch and was blown clear. No one else in the crew made it. The others were , track shot off twice, main gun hit and cut in half. Turrent strike did not penetrate but turrent was stuck. He only talked about initially carrying a revolver and later a 1911. I never heard him say much about any long gun. He had Some experience unassing Shermans and bugging out. On the main gun and stuck turrent they drove out. He was 28 when he joined in early 41. All of his crew members called him Gramps.
This thread migrated. LOL
I'm blaming it on Merc and he started the thread so it's legal. lol
Sorry guys. Things have a way of drifting away from the original subject. This has happened to several of my threads, but never this bad. Subs, pistols and tanks?
How about getting back on track by posting some photos of your M1917s on this thread. IMHO M1917s are the among the best looking rifles that were ever made. I'll start if I can just find my camera.
[QUOTE=Merc;483934]Sorry guys. Things have a way of drifting away from the original subject. This has happened to several of my threads, but never this bad. Subs, pistols and tanks?
How about getting back on track by posting some photos of your M1917s on this thread. IMHO M1917s are the among the best looking rifles that were ever made. I'll start if I can just find my camera.[/QUOTE
Um I'm picking up a P14 tonight that was made at the Eddystone plant. I'll post of pick of it beside my Eddystone M1917 and get us back on track....but I don't think anyone minds if guys talking about subs, pistols, and tanks. Better than politics any old day.
True. The only thing better than a pic of a M1917 rifle is a vintage pic of a dough boy holding one.
3934539346393473934839349
My Model of 1917 (November, 1917) Winchester rifle and bayonet.
3935039351393523935339354
Five more photos.
3935539356393573935839359
Five more photos.
393603936139362
Three more.
393633936439365
Three more.
These pics might be going slightly off subject again since there's no connection to the M1917. I thought you guys might enjoy seeing three trophy Japanese tank battle flags. My uncle Frank was a Sergeant squad leader and carried a BAR. He served in the Army in the Philippines and was badly wounded by a grenade on Luzon shortly after the two snapshots were taken that brought an end of his WW2 service. He survived the war and passed away in 2010 at age 92. He's wearing the hat in the snapshots.
393733937439375
As promised to get us back on M1917s kinda. My Eddystone M1917 Canadian Lend Lease (all matching) with Kerr sling in background and my 1916 Eddystone Pattern 14 repro sling which went through Weiden Repairs. Barrel/receiver/butt plate numbers match. Bolt is areplacement and rear sight bears different serial number. During weiden repair it lost its whale belly stock and volley sights and got a M1917 stock. The bore is not as nice as the 1917 which is near perfect. The p14 bore is frosted but has good rifling throughout so should shoot.393783937939380
The P14 looks like an interesting rifle. I've been to lots of dealers and gun shows over the past few years and have yet to see one.
My M1917 also lost its original stock somewhere in time and now has a replacement that's stamped with a "T" on the front end. The stock has no proof, acceptance or inspector's marks stamped anywhere but it's in nice shape and fits the action well. The rifle was a mixmaster of Eddystone and Remington parts which I've since replaced with mostly NOS Winchester parts. Not surprised how much better they fit. The only component that is non Winchester other than the stock is the bolt and its internal parts which were made by Eddystone. It works and head spaces well so I'm in no hurry to find a Winchester bolt to replace it. Good thing because they are hard to find.
Some have suggested the "T" stamping on the stock stands for tall. I'm hopeful that somebody can recognize it and give me more information, i.e. OEM, pre or post WW2 rebuild, USGI or civilian replacement, etc.
Wife bought me a cut down 1917 Eddystone at a yard sale for $75. Close to new and full of grease it took a while to clean her up. The cut down stock was a OGEK in the box.
I put a scope on the rifle, a Timney trigger, free floated the barrel and set the stock bolts at 65 inch pounds. Purchased a 10x Leupold scope to put on rifle that I was saving to buy. While waiting I wanted to play with the scope so I mounted it on the 1917.
Working up loads using 4064 powder and the 168 Match King bullet 5/1000 off the lands I got her zeroed in and it show a lot of promise of being accurate.
Next time to the range I shot a 720/1000 inch 5 shot group from a cold barrel to point of aim at 200 yards. 720/1000 was the extreme edge to edge measurement so I think a guy could subtract 300/1000 of that group.
Must of been perfect day and the range gods were in my favor I really doubt if I could do that again. I do believe it will hold sub MOA.
It took a while and I had to buy another rifle to get the OGEK stock and handguards. to put my original rifle back to the original configuration. So far I just cant get myself to start this project.
Bad part about this rifle is it uses a leather cheek piece to raise the comb and a recoil pad to lengthen the LOP and its still the most uncomfortable rifle in the world to shoot. Best part is it must have been the most perfect barrel Eddystone ever produced.
Great price at $75 at the yard sale and impressive shooter. I've had some luck at estate sales in the past. Post a photo of your Eddystone after you swap the stocks.
The P14 looks like an interesting rifle. I've been to lots of dealers and gun shows over the past few years and have yet to see one.
My M1917 also lost its original stock somewhere in time and now has a replacement that's stamped with a "T" on the front end. The stock has no proof, acceptance or inspector's marks stamped anywhere but it's in nice shape and fits the action well. The rifle was a mixmaster of Eddystone and Remington parts which I've since replaced with mostly NOS Winchester parts. Not surprised how much better they fit. The only component that is non Winchester other than the stock is the bolt and its internal parts which were made by Eddystone. It works and head spaces well so I'm in no hurry to find a Winchester bolt to replace it. Good thing because they are hard to find.
Some have suggested the "T" stamping on the stock stands for tall. I'm hopeful that somebody can recognize it and give me more information, i.e. OEM, pre or post WW2 rebuild, USGI or civilian replacement, etc.
Melton Bradely company made many of the stocks. The P14 pictured above has a T stamped stock. I know Chuck In Denver has said in past it stands for tall. I've been looking for a not cut M and S stock to see what the measurement difference is. So far no luck. If the P14 shoots 1/2 as good as the M1917 I'll be very happy. Looking at these two rifles I can see why the 30-06 got a red stripe. From 5 feet they look identical (subtracting slings and the off colored front hand guard on the M1917). I wonder if a guy bought a new '1917 barrel if it could be reamed for 303. A 303 using .308 bullets would solve so may problems.
Wife bought me a cut down 1917 Eddystone at a yard sale for $75. Close to new and full of grease it took a while to clean her up. The cut down stock was a OGEK in the box.
I put a scope on the rifle, a Timney trigger, free floated the barrel and set the stock bolts at 65 inch pounds. Purchased a 10x Leupold scope to put on rifle that I was saving to buy. While waiting I wanted to play with the scope so I mounted it on the 1917.
Working up loads using 4064 powder and the 168 Match King bullet 5/1000 off the lands I got her zeroed in and it show a lot of promise of being accurate.
Next time to the range I shot a 720/1000 inch 5 shot group from a cold barrel to point of aim at 200 yards. 720/1000 was the extreme edge to edge measurement so I think a guy could subtract 300/1000 of that group.
Must of been perfect day and the range gods were in my favor I really doubt if I could do that again. I do believe it will hold sub MOA.
It took a while and I had to buy another rifle to get the OGEK stock and handguards. to put my original rifle back to the original configuration. So far I just cant get myself to start this project.
Bad part about this rifle is it uses a leather cheek piece to raise the comb and a recoil pad to lengthen the LOP and its still the most uncomfortable rifle in the world to shoot. Best part is it must have been the most perfect barrel Eddystone ever produced.
Nice find. The Eddystone pictured above I used to shoot a 188 out of 200 score at our local WW1 shoot. 200 yards 23 shots in 10 minutes. The 10 ring is not big. The only rifle in WW1 make I've bested it with is a 1918 Carl Gustav Swede in 6.5 X 55 with a 191. Surprising the M1917 loves Sierra 168 grain match king boat tails over 47 grains Varget, Federal 210 primers in prepped HXP brass. The big girl is not as pretty as a nice RI or SF 1903, but they will dang sure shoot.
Melton Bradely company made many of the stocks. The P14 pictured above has a T stamped stock. I know Chuck In Denver has said in past it stands for tall. I've been looking for a not cut M and S stock to see what the measurement difference is. So far no luck. If the P14 shoots 1/2 as good as the M1917 I'll be very happy. Looking at these two rifles I can see why the 30-06 got a red stripe. From 5 feet they look identical (subtracting slings and the off colored front hand guard on the M1917). I wonder if a guy bought a new '1917 barrel if it could be reamed for 303. A 303 using .308 bullets would solve so may problems.
Chuck in Denver did mention Melton Bradely Co. on another thread where I asked about the T. I've never been able to find anything on the company. See if you can take a pic of the T on your P14 and post it. Are there any other cartouches, etc stamped on the stock?
Update: If you have C.S. Ferris' book on the M1917, look on page 91. He talks about the circle star stamp (which mine has with a low serial number) and then talks about TPO and T. The circle star was supposed to mean that the rifle parts weren't fully interchangeable with Eddystone and Remington and the TPO was supposed to mean Training Purposes Only which could be shortened to just plain T. Only problem, those letters were supposed to be stamped near the buttplate, not stamped on the front end where the OEM's mark is supposed to be. The rifle, as I purchased it, was all Eddystone and Remington parts except the barrel and receiver. So much for non-interchangeable theory although a few of the Winchester parts that I bought seemed to fit much better but, the non-Winchester parts did work.
Chuck in Denver did mention Melton Bradely Co. on another thread where I asked about the T. I've never been able to find anything on the company. See if you can take a pic of the T on your P14 and post it. Are there any other cartouches, etc stamped on the stock?
Update: If you have C.S. Ferris' book on the M1917, look on page 91. He talks about the circle star stamp (which mine has with a low serial number) and then talks about TPO and T. The circle star was supposed to mean that the rifle parts weren't fully interchangeable with Eddystone and Remington and the TPO was supposed to mean Training Purposes Only which could be shortened to just plain T. Only problem, those letters were supposed to be stamped near the buttplate, not stamped on the front end where the OEM's mark is supposed to be. The rifle, as I purchased it, was all Eddystone and Remington parts except the barrel and receiver. So much for non-interchangeable theory although a few of the Winchester parts that I bought seemed to fit much better but, the non-Winchester parts did work.
I can do that. The T is stamped on the nose of the P-14 Stock Where the original W R or E were stamped. The P14's had tremendous parts interchangeability issues. I can only find one R marked part on it (cocking piece). The rest is all E. The very early Winchesters had some parts interchangeability issues. However, its my understanding they eventually got it figured out.
Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.
These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.
--fjruple
I can do that. The T is stamped on the nose of the P-14 Stock Where the original W R or E were stamped. The P14's had tremendous parts interchangeability issues. I can only find one R marked part on it (cocking piece). The rest is all E. The very early Winchesters had some parts interchangeability issues. However, its my understanding they eventually got it figured out.
I'm beginning to wonder if the T stamp was typical to P14 stocks.
There was one Remington part that was in my Winchester that indicated a compatibility issue. The R stamped mag box that was in my '17 when I bought it was much smaller than the W stamped mag box that I bought to replace it. In fact, the R mag box would fall out of the stock when the trigger guard was removed. I had to press the larger W mag box into the stock and it stays put when the trigger guard is removed. There's probably no way the W mag box would fit inside a R stock.
Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.
These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.
--fjruple
I like the looks of the 17. It's a handsome well-built rifle that served us well. It's a shame that Winchester took so long to get its parts compatability act together which may have prevented the 17 from being the official US Army rifle for the next 20 years.
I'm beginning to wonder if the T stamp was typical to P14 stocks.
There was one Remington part that was in my Winchester that indicated a compatibility issue. The R stamped mag box that was in my '17 when I bought it was much smaller than the W stamped mag box that I bought to replace it. In fact, the R mag box would fall out of the stock when the trigger guard was removed. I had to press the larger W mag box into the stock and it stays put when the trigger guard is removed. There's probably no way the W mag box would fit inside a R stock.
Hmm wonder if you had a Remington P14 mag box in your M1917 W?
I believe the T stock is a M1917 stock. The P14s given the weiden repair were put in '1917 stocks if the original whale belly was bad. If the whale belly was good then the volley front sight was removed from it and the stock was reissued. It's my understanding there was not a supply of replacement P14 stocks so M1917 stocks had to be used. I'd like to find a P14 sniper either telescoped or diopter sight....probably never happen.
Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.
These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.
--fjruple
Couldn't agree more. Without the M1917 a lot of doughboys would have been using British and French Rifles. Probably the Remington and Westinghouse Mosin Nagants to.
i need to do more testing with mine yet... The barrel is a little pitted from about the muzzle down about 6"... She's still capable of holding 10 rounds in about 10"...
bombdog, out...
p246--
The magazine boxes are not changeable in the P14. The Winchester P14 is uniquely different. The other problem I have noted on the P14 is that there are two types of magazine boxes. These changes are unassociated with the upgrade of the bolt in the MKI*. I have only found two parts dealers in the US who knows about the compatability issues between the different P14 manufacturers. Unlike the P14, the M1917 has just about all of the parts are interchangeable except for the first 10,000 Winchesters M1917s. This really was a lifesaver with the M1917 rebuild programs in WWII. The guns in a lot of cases were stripped completely down to the last screw during the rebuilds. There was a major fubar after WWI when many M1917s were rebuilt with new barrels and stored as a limited standard. A lot of M1917s were stored without any cosmoline in the bores and they rusted and had to be replaced when they were pulled from storage at the beginning of WWII.
--fjruple
Merc--
The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.
--fjruple
5MadFarmers
01-10-2017, 05:10
Merc--
The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt.
--fjruple
None of that is accurate and I'm not guessing.
Merc--
The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.
--fjruple
While I agree your explanation is valid and probably swayed enough politicians of the day to support standardizing the 03, there were other reasons.
The parts interchangeability problem was never fully resolved. From what I've learned, 90% compatability by the end of the war was the best they could do. Perhaps they could have achieved 100% if the war had gone on for a few years.
According to C.S. Ferris:
The government had financial issues after the war. Springfield Arsenal would have had to retool the factory and train their workforce to build the 17s. There was no immediate war to fight. It was much cheaper to just keep on building the 03s.
The government didn't want to run the risk of losing control of rifle manufacturing to strikes and bankruptcy if it allowed private companies such as E, R and W to continue to build the 17. Both occurred in the years following the war.
The 17 was a superior rifle in some respects. The strength of the 17's action was obvious. However, according to Ferris, the 03's rear sight configuration was identified during the war as a design deficiency that needed to be corrected. The 03-A3s that were built later had (guess what?) a re-designed rear sight that somewhat resembled the 17's rear sight. It was moved to the rear side of the action like the 17 and had protecting sides that were similar to the 17 although a bit smaller, and kept its windage adjustment.
I have an 03-A3 and the rear sight is fine however, the front sight takes some getting used to. The thin blade makes target acquisition difficult at times. Target acquisition has never been a problem when I shoot the 17.
i need to do more testing with mine yet... The barrel is a little pitted from about the muzzle down about 6"... She's still capable of holding 10 rounds in about 10"...
bombdog, out...
It doesn't sound like the pitting is having much of an effect on the accuracy. I wouldn't worry too much. Just take her to the range and have a blast (no pun intended). How about a pic?
p246--
The magazine boxes are not changeable in the P14. The Winchester P14 is uniquely different. The other problem I have noted on the P14 is that there are two types of magazine boxes. These changes are unassociated with the upgrade of the bolt in the MKI*. I have only found two parts dealers in the US who knows about the compatability issues between the different P14 manufacturers. Unlike the P14, the M1917 has just about all of the parts are interchangeable except for the first 10,000 Winchesters M1917s. This really was a lifesaver with the M1917 rebuild programs in WWII. The guns in a lot of cases were stripped completely down to the last screw during the rebuilds. There was a major fubar after WWI when many M1917s were rebuilt with new barrels and stored as a limited standard. A lot of M1917s were stored without any cosmoline in the bores and they rusted and had to be replaced when they were pulled from storage at the beginning of WWII.
--fjruple
Yep I know the P14 and M1917 internal magazine box was not interchangeable. That comment was in response to Merc saying a Remington magazine box would not work in his M1917. I suspect because it might have been actually a Remington manufactured P14 internal magazine box. As you know that was one of the parts they had to change for the 30-06 round to work in that platform. I have the difference in measurements laying around her somewhere.
Merc--
The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.
--fjruple
Its my understanding the M1917 did have it's followers that wanted to have it adopted over the 1903. Whomever they were they did not have the horsepower to get it done. Plus after WW1 the US was flush with rifles compared to pre WW1. I'm sure many bought the war to end all wars ideology and figured we had more than enough of both to last. Although I like my M1917 I like my 1903A3 better in many respects (Weight, Length, windage). The only reason frankly I like both for shooting purposes over the M1903 is I just like peep type sights better (Aging eyes play a role in this-Same reason I like to shoot L.E. No 4's over No. 1's)). For just looks nothing beats the lines of a nice Rock Island or Springfield 1903.
PhillipM
01-10-2017, 10:00
Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.
These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.
--fjruple
The problem was trying to make the action designed for 276 work with 303. No one ever got them to feed perfectly.
Winchester had a very valid reason for jumping the gun as you put it. They had a trained workforce IDLE. They had two choices, let them build rifles or lay them off and let this trained workforce scatter in the wind. What would you have done?
PhillipM
01-10-2017, 10:03
Good P14 video
https://youtu.be/rxPRFQCGSgM
Good M1917 video
https://youtu.be/jWrRowbvVio
5MadFarmers
01-11-2017, 05:03
Its my understanding the M1917 did have it's followers that wanted to have it adopted over the 1903. Whomever they were they did not have the horsepower to get it done. Plus after WW1 the US was flush with rifles compared to pre WW1. I'm sure many bought the war to end all wars ideology and figured we had more than enough of both to last. Although I like my M1917 I like my 1903A3 better in many respects (Weight, Length, windage). The only reason frankly I like both for shooting purposes over the M1903 is I just like peep type sights better (Aging eyes play a role in this-Same reason I like to shoot L.E. No 4's over No. 1's)). For just looks nothing beats the lines of a nice Rock Island or Springfield 1903.
Let's fix it with one bit ok?
The Army needs to get funding for whatever they do. At that time that meant operations at Springfield Armory. The money request for Springfield Armory was made in advance of the budget - sometimes pretty significantly. The request for money for post-war operations was requested before the war had stopped, greatly in advance of any post-war shooting match, and the operations at Springfield Armory were covered in the budget request. The decision to keep making M-1903s had already been made and that was covered in the request.
Appropriations requests, and the hearings on them, can be rather fascinating.
Let's fix it with one bit ok?
The Army needs to get funding for whatever they do. At that time that meant operations at Springfield Armory. The money request for Springfield Armory was made in advance of the budget - sometimes pretty significantly. The request for money for post-war operations was requested before the war had stopped, greatly in advance of any post-war shooting match, and the operations at Springfield Armory were covered in the budget request. The decision to keep making M-1903s had already been made and that was covered in the request.
Appropriations requests, and the hearings on them, can be rather fascinating.
I'll consider it fixed thanks you, and to be clear I'm in the no change crowd. I've always wondered who wanted to make the switch. I've seen plenty written in general, but never any names. I'd also think the powers to be at Springfield would be reluctant to change unless there was a huge improvement. The M1917 is a stronger action but it also is longer and heavier. Gain something loose something isn't huge in my book. I own both and like both but if I was the guru at Sprinfield I don't think I'd be convinced to change over. I shoot my M1917 better than any of my 1903s, but I've never tried with 18 year old eyes so who knows what that might have changed.
I believe labor concerns also weighed in although McNamara changed that path about 50 years later.
This P14 with dummy rounds seems to be cycling. We will see what happens when I get it out for real. I'll post a range report in a new thread.
The problem was trying to make the action designed for 276 work with 303. No one ever got them to feed perfectly.
Winchester had a very valid reason for jumping the gun as you put it. They had a trained workforce IDLE. They had two choices, let them build rifles or lay them off and let this trained workforce scatter in the wind. What would you have done?
I'd build build build. It was eventually worked out for the most part. Needs of war tend to push things along. The US was fortunate the P14 contract had ended and W,R, and E were there ready and waiting. I think Britain bought the three lines for 20 million and sold them back for 9 million.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39554&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39556&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39555&stc=1
It doesn't sound like the pitting is having much of an effect on the accuracy. I wouldn't worry too much. Just take her to the range and have a blast (no pun intended). How about a pic?
Think i posted some on another thread, i'll see if i can find some more...
bombdog...
The little blurry white dot by the barrel is a SR replaceable center... 200 is a good shoot for her...
Looks like a winner from here. Fine looking old girl for being around 100 years old.
Looks like a winner from here. Fine looking old girl for being around 100 years old.
Thankya kindly sir... i think so as well... i can't remember her birthday, but was rebuilt in Nov-1918... Hang on i'll check.........................
bombdog...
Thankya kindly sir... i think so as well... i can't remember her birthday, but was rebuilt in Nov-1918... Hang on i'll check.........................
bombdog...
Jan-1918 according to my records...
bombdog, out here...
Jan-1918 according to my records...
bombdog, out here...
The finer things in life should include owning an old war rifle like the M1917.
I have a ball with this old girl. Other than looking like the stock was sanded using a road grader. She has a JA barrel that guages less than 1 and shoots wonderfully. This Eddystone came for the last mail order release from CMP a few years ago.
http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0768_zpsntklcrpy.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0768_zpsntklcrpy.jpg.html)
http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0767_zpssasowxfs.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0767_zpssasowxfs.jpg.html)
Semper Fi
Art
Art,
Yeah, I know the feeling. Hard not to fall in love with them. Robust in every way, well built, good looking, great shooter. What more could you ask for? I had my Winchester '17 out to the range a few days ago along with my Remington 03-A3 and thoroughly enjoyed the day. Both rifles shot well, are nicely finished and always attract attention from other gun club members seeing them for the first time. Is that your shooting table?
A buddy bought an AR rifle a few weeks ago and was anxious to shoot it. Great rifle and accurate with open sights. Almost no recoil.
The backhoe in your pics is interesting.
Merc, that's not a backhoe it's Arts massive berm builder. I shoot with a lot of black rifle guy, most 15 years younger than me. I shoot my own AR, pull out a magnum and hit steel at ranges they dream of. Then pull out the M1917 and my No 4 Mark 1. (Sometimes a Garand, Trapdoor, or a 6.5 Swede). One guy, who had not shot with me asked if I needed the 100 yard target pulled into 50. Said nope dialed Mark 1 sight 12 clicks and dinged the 500 yard plate. Dialed 20 clicks and hit the 600 yards plate. (Prone on bag). Looked back at him and said this is just a punny 303 can you had me that ought 6. He's shot with us a bunch since but doesn't bad mouth my old girl anymore. Matter of fact he kept shooting the M1917 so much I told him it was time to help load. He wants to shoot the Garand but we call him slide lock due to his multiple mag dumps so he does not get that one.
Art,
Yeah, I now the feeling. Hard not to fall in love with them. Robust in every way, well built, good looking, great shooter. What more could you ask for? I had my Winchester '17 out to the range a few days ago along with my Remington 03-A3 and thoroughly enjoyed the day. Both rifles shot well, are nicely finished and always attract attention from other gun club members seeing them for the first time. Is that your shooting table?
A buddy bought an AR rifle a few weeks ago and was anxious to shoot it. Great rifle and accurate with open sights. Almost no recoil.
The backhoe in your pics is interesting.
Yep , that's my fancy 3 legged shooting bench. Not the most rugged in the world, but it has helped me with a couple of postal shoots. I love competing against the boys with the big concrete benches.
That tractor backhoe is 15 years old now. I use it of all sorts of projects. Last year my wife bought me a rock bucket for the front. I can get lost for days at a time with my toys.
Merc, that's not a backhoe it's Arts massive berm builder. I shoot with a lot of black rifle guy, most 15 years younger than me. I shoot my own AR, pull out a magnum and hit steel at ranges they dream of. Then pull out the M1917 and my No 4 Mark 1. (Sometimes a Garand, Trapdoor, or a 6.5 Swede). One guy, who had not shot with me asked if I needed the 100 yard target pulled into 50. Said nope dialed Mark 1 sight 12 clicks and dinged the 500 yard plate. Dialed 20 clicks and hit the 600 yards plate. (Prone on bag). Looked back at him and said this is just a punny 303 can you had me that ought 6. He's shot with us a bunch since but doesn't bad mouth my old girl anymore. Matter of fact he kept shooting the M1917 so much I told him it was time to help load. He wants to shoot the Garand but we call him slide lock due to his multiple mag dumps so he does not get that one.
My berm is about 250' vertical, custom built when the glaciers moved through the area a few thousand years ago.
http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0428_zpsxwds2bfg.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0428_zpsxwds2bfg.jpg.html)
nf1e,
Impressive property and impressive "TOYS" and a wife who understands and plays right into your passions. Lucky man. You've really got it all.
So, your range is in your front yard? Pretty amazing. Good thing you're not a braggart.
Merc, that's not a backhoe it's Arts massive berm builder. I shoot with a lot of black rifle guy, most 15 years younger than me. I shoot my own AR, pull out a magnum and hit steel at ranges they dream of. Then pull out the M1917 and my No 4 Mark 1. (Sometimes a Garand, Trapdoor, or a 6.5 Swede). One guy, who had not shot with me asked if I needed the 100 yard target pulled into 50. Said nope dialed Mark 1 sight 12 clicks and dinged the 500 yard plate. Dialed 20 clicks and hit the 600 yards plate. (Prone on bag). Looked back at him and said this is just a punny 303 can you had me that ought 6. He's shot with us a bunch since but doesn't bad mouth my old girl anymore. Matter of fact he kept shooting the M1917 so much I told him it was time to help load. He wants to shoot the Garand but we call him slide lock due to his multiple mag dumps so he does not get that one.
So, which one is your favorite rifle to shoot? I like them all but the M1917 is probably my favorite but only because I've never shot a Garand.
All of them lol. The only ones I dont like to shoot much is carbines in full military loads. Just loosen my teeth too much. No 5 mark 1 M95 in 8 X 56R carbine is the worst. My problem is I should concentrate in more of 1 area but my A.D.D. kicks in.....squirrel
All of them lol. The only ones I dont like to shoot much is carbines in full military loads. Just loosen my teeth too much. No 5 mark 1 M95 in 8 X 56R carbine is the worst. My problem is I should concentrate in more of 1 area but my A.D.D. kicks in.....squirrel
Carbines lack the mass to help soften the recoil. Don't see many for sale around here.
Since you reload, has this ever happened to you? I was shooting the M1917 and noticed that a spent primer popped out of the primer hole when I ejected a case. I've reloaded hundreds of cartridges and this was a first for me. I gathered up all the brass like I always do and took them home to reload. The primer hole in the case that lost the spent primer was way too big to hold a fresh primer. I don't do anything to the cases other than cleaning them in a tumbler and annealing/trimming/resizing the necks. The primer holes come pretty clean out of the tumbler so there's no need for any further attention other that occasionally cleaning walnut shell particles out of the flash hole. Just when you think you've seen it all.......
Yes, I've lost primers (or found them backed out) on cases that I've reloaded a lot. Since I anneal, usually what I loose first is the primer pocket (versus split neck). When I loose em I toss em. I've heard of guys staking them to get another shot out of them, but I figure they don't owe me anything.
Also particular brands of brass (even lots for that matte) give very different results. For most of my 30-06 I'm using HXP brass but I was given some Remington which was obviously softer. It did not last near as long.
Worst case scenario is you might have loaded a hot round and popped a primer....
On my benchrest magnum I use pin gauges to track primer flash hole size and toss em when they get too oversized. But I only use Norma Brass and it took me some time and a lot of documenting to get that all worked out. Benchrest is a whole different game though. Part of the reason for tossing these is not failure (well it kinda is) but increasing velocity which screws my data up.
It's good to hear that enlarged primer pockets are just part of the wear and tear process and not something I caused. I'll toss them into the scrap bucket at the range.
I've had good luck with PPU cases so far. They're a little heavier than Remington and Winchester cases and have held up well even though some have been reloaded 10 or more times. I've only scrapped a few due to split necks. Annealing seems to have cured that problem. I avoid hot loads and use just the starting loads.
I weigh each finished loaded round on a digital scale just as a safety measure to avoid double loads. Reading about the exploded M1903 chamber on this forum has made me overly cautious.
It's good to hear that enlarged primer pockets are just part of the wear and tear process and not something I caused. I'll toss them into the scrap bucket at the range.
I've had good luck with PPU cases so far. They're a little heavier than Remington and Winchester cases and have held up well even though some have been reloaded 10 or more times. I've only scrapped a few due to split necks. Annealing seems to have cured that problem. I avoid hot loads and use just the starting loads.
I weigh each finished loaded round on a digital scale just as a safety measure to avoid double loads. Reading about the exploded M1903 chamber on this forum has made me overly cautious.
Yes takes the fun out of reloading if you blow up your gun I would think. I've used a ton of PPU in 303 and have been happy with it. The primer pockets need trued as some are shallow. I just got some PPU in 308 and CBC I believe is the other headstamp. Haven't messed with it yet. Funny how much brass I get from fellow shooters that don't reload.
I used to shoot with a a guy that was really into Swedes. He was the one that would run the pocket till they were worn, he had a tool that put three little stakes after primed to get one more shot out of the brass. Always thought that was pushing it a bit. I don't know how hot he loaded that 6.5 X 55 but that old guy use to embarrass us years ago when we were young and bullet proof.
What pin gauge sizes for primer holes are acceptable and not acceptable (Go and No-Go)?
They come in large sets, most you won't use. $60 to $150 depending on size,range and where made. sammi spec for rifle is .078 to .082 for rifle and 074 to .078 for pistol. SAMMI can be pushed a ,little bit add .001, for my 300 win mag with Retumbo roughly 18 feet per second per .001 in Increase at 80 degrees. Every load/ caliber will have its own average but it will be somewhat close.
I used my digital calipers to measure the width of the primer pocket on three good dummy round cases and found two are .206 wide and one is .207" wide while the primer pocket on the worn case is .210" wide. A new large rifle primer is .209" wide. I don't have any new cases to measure. Still wondering - is it the act of pressing in a new primer or firing a bullet that widens the hole?
Sorry for going off topic. This topic belongs on the ammo thread.
Ah o big deal. it's your thread and it's been fun...all over and fun
Hey, that's true. Here's something else we can talk about that actually pertains to my M1917. I always see the same guy at various gun shows in Western PA selling Ballistol oil. Don't remember seeing it in stores, gun shops, etc. I saw him again last Sunday at a show and since there wasn't anything there that I was interested in buying (for about the 5th gun show in a row) I decided to give it a try. Turns out to be a non-petroleum plant based/mineral oil in a spray can that's supposed to clean and lubricate metal parts and enhance wood. You guys are probably familiar with this stuff, but I'm still feeling my way around. I lubed the bore and bolt, etc. on my M1917. Looked OK. I then rubbed some on the stock. I liked what it did to the stock. The wood appears to have absorbed the oil and brought up the grain's appearance. It was probably a lot dryer than I though it was. Good stuff.
I have a gunsmith buddy who loves that stuff, he puts it on metal and wood. Supposedly its some German concoction dating back to WWII. Maybe before, I'm not sure I've got that story right.
Yep, that's true about the WW2 roots of this oil according to the literature this guy gave me. It says the oil is supposed to be good for cleaning smokeless and black powder residue from bores and on leather products as a preservative that keeps things from drying out. It should really be useful where you live. I just returned from spending 6 weeks visiting my elderly sister who lives in Cave Creek, AZ. The weather was dry while I was there but I guess the recent rains are making the washes there run violently.
I brought my M1917 Winchester with me on our vacation to Florida this year to go shooting with friends and relatives. Took my 99 year old rifle to the range today and had a great time. Surprised to see several other vintage rifles at the range including a rough looking M1 Garand. The owner appeared to be having trouble getting it to accept a full clip and was pushing and pounding away on it with his fists. Also saw a M1903 that looked pretty good and was functioning just fine. The old war horses drew lots of attention. Several spectators were there just walking around looking at the vintage hardware and waiting for more to arrive.
Folks get overly excited about rain around here. Now thirty years ago it did get a might rainy. 40108 A pallet that got washed down from who-knows-where. Back on subject-
I just bought my first 03 a few months ago. It may have to do with my sixty plus eyes, but I can't use that touchy five-way rear sight. I take the M-17 out whenever I go out. Like my old 03/a3 it has a simple sight that works for me. My rifle is a Canadian/Danish with the roll pin front sight, that works for me too. My rifle has some great figure in the stock, kind of like the one that is pictured on page seven of this thread.
40107
The rear sight on a M1903 was redesigned to somewhat resemble the M1917 rear sight for the 03A3. I can shoot my 1943 03A3, the M1917 and the 1944 LE No. 4 Mk 1* about as accurately as possible with open sights that are placed to the rear of the action. I've not shot a M1903 yet but I do own and shoot a 1937 M1916 7 mm Spanish Mauser that also has a long eye relief rear sight. I don't do as well with the Mauser but I'm not sure that I can blame it on the rear sight.
The stock in the photo of your M1917 looks like it has a tiger stripe wood grain pattern. My 03A3 has a similar pattern. Believe it's walnut.
I'll be leaving for Cave Creek tomorrow morning.
Rapidrob
02-24-2017, 09:20
I run a long range shooting club called NM MILSURPS. I was a BUDS Instructor for the Navy and started my club to pass on what I learned over the years.
We set up an AR500 steel target at 800 yards and have two classes of rifles. Open sights and original Scope rifles.
My favorite US made rifle is the M1917 and with my hand loads of pulled M-118 175 grain bullets I won the last match in August of '16. The M1917 has one of the best sighting system of any of the old WWI rifles and it a true riflemans rifle. The match was 20 rounds in 15 minutes. Weather was perfect,calm air and sun at 3 o'clock.
After three sighters I went for score.
A club member and active duty Marine borrowed my rifle and ammo so he could shoot it as well. He took 2ND place. Truly a day to remember.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c374/Rapidrob/Targets/800%20yard%20shoot%204%2012%202015G_zpszh9jkrum.jp g
There's lots to like about the M1917. I also like the sight system and I set the ladder at the lowest possible setting for 100 yards. It's also my favorite shooter. I haven't tried anything over 100 yards but I do well at that distance. The next step at my range is 150 yards but nothing at 200 yards.
Like a lot of M1917s, my Winchester turns 100 years old this year (on November 15th). It's still my overall favorite and I probably prefer shooting it because of it's accuracy with open iron sights and how well it handles. It's hard to believe that military rifles of that era were so well made. I took it to the range yesterday and had a great time. Nothing special, just me and my antique rifle consistently hitting targets at a distance of 100 yards that I can barely see. My son-in-law bought me a spotting scope for Christmas that comes in handy.
Depending on temperatures and conditions my choices on military match rifles are between my 1917 Remington with HS barrel or Smith Corona 03A3 in a C stock. The colder days the SC likes light bullets and on the warmer days the 1917 with 168 or 175 works well. The unmarked targets are 1st round and composite from Novembers match with the SC.
4088040881408824088340884
Depending on temperatures and conditions my choices on military match rifles are between my 1917 Remington with HS barrel or Smith Corona 03A3 in a C stock. The colder days the SC likes light bullets and on the warmer days the 1917 with 168 or 175 works well. The unmarked targets are 1st round and composite from Novembers match with the SC.
4088040881408824088340884
Nice shooting. All from 100 yards? Are the bullets you use boat tails or flat base? FMJ or some other point?
410344103541036
I shot the M1917 Winchester at a 100 yard target from a solid one piece shooting rest someone gave me. No elevation springs or tie down mechanisms. The rifle is held in a normal shouldered position while it is on the shooting rest. The results weren't too bad and will hopefully improve with some practice.
I have another shooting rest that does have an elevation spring and a muzzle tie down and it jumps around a lot from the recoil.
Nice shooting! Took my 1918 Eddystone to the range today and with 155gr Nosler HPBT bullets had a 2.2" 5-shot group at 100 yards. With my near 69 year old eyes, the old Eddystone is a gem.
Just to add a little background on my November 1918 Eddystone Rifle. It has a 1-1918 Eddystone barrel with a lovely bore and crown. It spent the last 40 plus years in an attic with a deteriorating plastic wrapper and desiccating cosmoline all over. There was some very superficial minimal rust under the hand guards that responded well to ballistrol and fine steel wool with no pitting to my eyes when it finally came to me. Happily a wife refused to allow the rifle anymore time in her home.
It has mixed parts and was reworked after WWII (by stock stamp) It doesn’t look like it saw much firing, perhaps the barrel was a late replacement. I wish someone knew its history and story how it got to the attic etc and what service it
I enjoy shooting my M1917 Winchester and my other old rifles (Remington 03-A3 and Savage Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1*) but will have to wait for a couple months before I can shoot anything again. I need to recover from right rotator cuff surgery I had about 5 weeks ago.
My fellow shooters at the range with their scoped rifles are always amazed at the accuracy I can achieve with my M1917 with its open sight. The rear sight on mine is spot-on target at 100 yards at the lowest possible setting. I reload and seem to do well using 150 gr Sierra or Hornady FMJ-BT. The places where I buy my shooting and reloading supplies carry mostly fully loaded 30-06 SP and rarely stock any quantity of fully loaded FMJ BT, and that's the reason I'd rather reload my own.
Update 5/21/18: I had my Winchester M1917 at the range the other day. I believe it was the first time since rotator cuff surgery in July, 2017. The first group was a bit loose with all 6 rounds in a 12 inch circle. The second group was in a 6 inch circle. I’ll keep up the range time and hopefully improve. It’s a joy shooting this 100 year old was horse. As usual, the rifle attracts attention and I always seem to make a few new friends at the range.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.