View Full Version : JA Replacement barrel
Darreld Walton
09-03-2017, 11:21
Future son in law asked if I'd repair a stock for him, and I had no idea what I was getting into before I agreed. What was handed to me is a 'sporterized', restocked, US M1917, Eddystone, with rear sight ears removed, all the usual...except this one is wearing a two groove Johnson Arms replacement barrel with a 'prick punch' mark in the Ordnance "Bomb" behind the front sight. I've seen these barrels 'loose', for sale, but not encountered one installed. I 'assume' that the prick punch mark would lend credence to the notion that this was an arsenal or armory installation. Couple of questions come to mind, though. Were 17's rebarreled and revamped before going over for Lend Lease to Allies, were they retained here in the States for Guard Duty and training?
The stock is shot, probably cheaper/easier/less time just to replace with a new sporter type. The action screws were both 'less than finger tight', the stock split at the rear of the inletting for the rear tang, forward through the magazine mortise, and a large portion of the recoil lug is broken out.
The returning 17s were supposed to go directly into storage right after WW1 when the govt. decided to continue using the 03s. They were given a rebuild prior to being stored when it was discovered that they were beginning to rust and would soon be useless if something wasn't done quickly. It's possible the original barrel was replaced during the post-WW1 rebuild. What's the date that's stamped on the barrel?
I've seen one or two sporterized 17s for sale at gun shows with their ears cut off and it always makes me wonder...
Johnson Automatics barrel would be a WWII rebuild. The answers to your questions can be yes and no depending on the time period and to who the m1917s were shipped. For example after the Battle of Dunkirk and enormous numbers of M1917s were just given to Great Britain this taking place before the Lend Lease program. Later the M1917s were also given under Lend Lease to several of the Allied nations, Chinese and French come to mind. The M1917 was used by the US military as a secondary standard after our entry into WWII. Upon the US entry into WWII there was a shortage of .30-06 caliber rifles in general. Many that were taken out of storage were found to have rusted barrels due to improper preservation of the barrels. The US Army Ordnance had a vast number of left barrels from the WWI production of the M1917. These barrels were used up in the replacement, Additionally US Army Ordnance "built" additional 20,000 rifles from these left over spare parts thereby creating a shortage of new barrels. The Army at this point contracted RIA, High Standard (HS) and Johnson Automatics (JA) for new barrels. The M1917 was used by rear echelon US troops overseas but generally used states side.
--fjruple
Darreld Walton
09-04-2017, 10:02
Thanks for the information fellas. This barrel has been polished, and had to use magnification just to glean what information I shared. Can't, as yet, make out a date, but I suspected it was a War II replacement. Just got through cleaning the bore, and it looks like it should be pretty nice. What threw me at first is that it was a 'right hand' twist, instead of the usual five groove, left hand twist that are common on these things. Again, thanks!
Just came in from making a little noise with my Eddystone 1917 with a Johnson Automatics replacement barrel. Old girl does a pretty good job at 100 yds even if I can't see the target very well.
http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_1208_zpsiyv4wxdy.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_1208_zpsiyv4wxdy.jpg.html)
Semper Fi
Art
blackhawk2
09-04-2017, 05:14
I would check for a cracked receiver.....Carefully go around the entire receiver with the q tip wet with lighter fluid.....I would not shoot a rifle with part of the recoil lug missing....regards....alex
Just came in from making a little noise with my Eddystone 1917 with a Johnson Automatics replacement barrel. Old girl does a pretty good job at 100 yds even if I can't see the target very well.
http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_1208_zpsiyv4wxdy.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_1208_zpsiyv4wxdy.jpg.html)
Semper Fi
Art
Art--
That's not bad shooting with a two groove JA barrel at 100 yards.
--fjruple
I have one that is a full up original (0r as original as they get after all the go through)
Pretty good barrel. Responds more like a 1903 to reloads as its the same form.
And they could go anywhere. Less likelyh to overseas as most of those went early and were the ones removed from Stoarge.
The JA and HS came latter as they realized they did not have enough weapons for all the rear line (mostly) needs and started to supply barrels.
Most are fine as they were done right with the right tools.
The ones that you have to watch are the sporterized ones and if done wrong yes they can be cracked
jjrothWA
09-21-2017, 08:47
WWII 17 barrel were supplied by JA uing the current 2-groove arsenal rifling speds, the HS used the WWI four-groove specs.
Pricking the bomb was a authorizes requirement after rebarreling and proofing with the standard test load.
PrimePower
09-27-2017, 01:49
I have a M17 with a JA barrel. They can shoot well.
I believe that accuracy testing done did not find a great difference between 2 and 4 groove barrels.
Fred Pillot
09-27-2017, 03:17
I bought a NOS '17 JA 4 groove barrel off of Ebay for $150 so they must have made both 2 and 4 groove barrels.
Most curious. As far as I know JA only made 2 grove barrels for the 1917.
Have to do some research but 99.999% sure JA did not make a 4 grove for 1917.
If not JA then has to be RA - most likely.
Never fired a 17 w/ a 2 groove barrel. Have fired a pile of 03-A3 rifles w/ both 2 and 4 groove barrels. Day in and day out, firing rifles in equal condition using good quality handloads worked up for best results in these rifles, have not ever seen any measurable difference on target using either 2 or 4 groove barrels. If the throats, bores and crowns are good, if the rifle is well bedded, etc., then the rifle will give excellent results. The number of grooves in the barrel is irrelevant. When it comes t shooting cast bullet loads, I have actually had better results using the 2 groove barrels. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
P51MUSTANG
11-21-2017, 02:09
Bruce...Thanks for the info... Many people swear by grooves and say 2 groove cant shoot for anything.....
Re: two grooves. Back about 1990 I was pastor of a small rural church in farming country. Peanut fields surrounded the parsonage on three sides. The church was across the road. I built a nice backstop a little over 220 yds. from the back fence down by the woods. I spend several summers shooting a very nice Rem. 03-A3 with various handloads firing at standard 100 yd. bullseye targets. It got to here I could keep 10 inside of 2.5 inches almost without fail. Then one day I gloomed onto some nice little 180 gr. Hornady bullets. With the sights properly sooted up and with a decent set of sandbags, I'd stand in the back of the pickup and use the roof of the cab for a benchrest. It was lots of fun. The groups ... sometimes less than 2.0 inches. Had any number of 5 shot groups that were 1 inch. Just couldn't put a 10 shot 1 inch string together with that rifle. Hard to not break my position during reloading. True, it was a particularly fine shooting rifle. Just about any load shot well in it. Currently I have two 03-A3's in the gun cabinet ... Smith Corona and Remington. Both have two groove Remington 1944 barrels. Either one will shoot lights out! The SC I have used in local club matches with both jacketed and cast bullet loads. It will with care hold the 10 ring of a SR-1. In my hands, it stays in the 9 ring or better shooting prone slow or rapid fire. I do shoot a lot of cast bullet loads in it. It shoots wonderfully. The Remington shoots exactly as well. Either rifle is a shooting machine. I have a Remington 03-A4 replica with the common Weaver 2.5 scope. It will keep Winchester 150 gr. PSP's right at 1 inch. Firing Greek HXP, it will shoot 1.3 inches. These are five shot groups from a sandbag rest. In the field, it is pure poison. Unless it is some sort of air gauged national match special barrel, I just don't think there is any common issue barrel or for that matter any common commercial barrel that will do more than equal the results on target obtained with these two-groove barrels. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
FJruple:
As near as I have been able to determine, there were not a lot of surplus barrels made for 1917s in WWI.
FJruple:
As near as I have been able to determine, there were not a lot of surplus barrels made for 1917s in WWI.
RC20--
A lot of surplus barrels is really a subjective term. The US Army Ordnance had enough to build 20,000 additional rifles from spare parts in addition to replacing barrels on M1917 rifles that improperly preserved after WWI. This created a shortage of replacement barrels for spare parts. Given the fact that a little over 2 million of the rifles were built in WWI plus the US had to support the 200,000 M1917s that were shipped to the Philippines in 1935 a shortage could very easily take place. Additionally the US had to supply spare parts for M1917 provided under Lead Lease so it does not take long to go through a lot of barrels quickly especially given the fact that corrosive priming was used in our ammunition at the time. Another perfect example would be the massive rebuilding program for the M1 rifle after WWII in the late 40's.
--fjruple
The experts I have asked about this found no evidence that contract called for extra barrels as a parts suite as was done in WWII.
WWII they recognize that not only barrel but major spare part orders would be part of a package so extra barrels were made under those contracts by SC and Remington.
None have reported other than an occasionally find of a barrel in NOS condition in the original wrapping.
Dates and the rifles with barrel match up well. Some clearly were taken apart on salvaged barrel put on either by gunsmith or possibly military if a receiver was found damaged and barrel still good. Obviously this did not take place in any number other than run on parts.
There was massive amount of repair, there were major efforts to clean barrels that failed and when opened up found to have rusted on out.
That was when contract were let to mfg new barrels by RI, JA and HS.
No date on if they inspected before shipping got the Philippine , China and UK.
As each mfg was in full production of thousands of rifles each a month, the impetuous of production would indeed have had surplus receivers and barrels.
Agreements were made to finish up some and terminate others which then result in some receivers and barrels not finished though evidence from a gun I know of says production went beyond the stated.
There are notes extra rifles were shipped to Philipes for spare parst as there were none.
musketshooter
01-28-2018, 02:45
Original barrels were 5 groove left hand twist. JA barrels were not dated. No one has mentioned RIA replacement barrels. They are 4 groove right hand twist. The 2 groove barrels shoot at least as good as 03A3 2 grove barrels.
Original barrels were 5 groove left hand twist. JA barrels were not dated. No one has mentioned RIA replacement barrels. They are 4 groove right hand twist. The 2 groove barrels shoot at least as good as 03A3 2 grove barrels.
Musketshooter, I was not going to say anything but there was a forum that had members that were infatuated with measuring the diameter of 5 groove barrels, the last time I checked the forum was so rude they shut it down. And then there was the other problem, they could not decide the diameter of the barrels.
F. Guffey
What is the point? We are discussing and clarifying. Bringing up another site has no relevance.
We know what the diameter of the barrels is.
What is the point?
We know what the diameter of the barrels is.
I suggested you were talking about something you have never seen. If "We know the diameter" tell me what the diameter of the two barrels, inside and out and then explain why the two stocks are not interchangeable.
F. Guffey
So, what is the measurement of a P14 barrel? At the fat part and the end. OD.
So, what is the measurement of a P14 barrel? At the fat part and the end. OD.
I said the P14 barrel is a SA barrel. I have my doubts everyone has two or three of them; it seems if anyone on this forum had one they would have already measured it.
F. Guffey
Then it stands that unless otherwise noted, the original barrels are the same profile.
SA? Springfield Amory? Savage?
[QUOTE=RC20;523190]Then it stands that unless otherwise noted, the original barrels are the same profile.
SA? QUOTE]
Skinny A$$
F. Guffey
Ahh a comedian. Good luck with the career.
Ahh a comedian. Good luck with the career.
The stocks are different, the barrels are different.
Then it stands that unless otherwise noted, the original barrels are the same profile.
I can not believe owners of P14s are scarce on this forum. I have at least 7 P14 barrels, I have access to 250 more. When comparing the P14 to the M1917 barrel the P 14 is like comparing a 98 Mauser to a 03 Springfield. The Mauser is a skinny barrel.
F. Guffey
So Mr. G, give us the dimensions? Rear profile, how far the breach extends and diameter at the end, barrel diameter where it narrows, how far that is from the rear, diameter at the end.
Or is the intent to just keep it to yourself so you can say I told you so?
I am happy to be corrected and learn. I have often posted things I have found out for the knowledge of the community as a whole. That is what the forums are supposed to be about.
Or is the intent to just keep it to yourself so you can say I told you so?
I have given up on working with you, starting over everyday should not be necessary. I am assuming you can not help yourself.
I suggest you purchase a take off barrel for a P14.
F. Guffey
Can't say I am surprised.
Same old thing, I have knowledge but won't share it. Or at least the claim of that. The usual.
I have P14s and a M1917. What part are you wanting measured.the OD in front of receiver? They are Eddystones with original barrels. Let me know and I’ll pull some numbers. I have no JA barrels to compare though.
I have the 1917s and I don't believe the JA differs but I will measure that one up.
Pretty much a profile of the barrel. Where it contacts the receiver, how far the chamber section is to taper down, OD at that point.
Then the distance of the tapering and where it stops and beings the barrel OD.
and then the OD of the end of the barrel.
I will pull one out of the stock as well and get the figures for comparison.
Guys-
Bear in mind that the British Armourer Supplement for the Pattern 1914 indicates that the barrels for each manufacturer is incompatible and may vary slightly in dimensions especially between the Winchester and Remington/Eddystone. I have actually experienced this with rebarreling my Pattern 1914s
--fjruple
milboltnut
03-23-2018, 05:12
from what I read about the brits and how uncooperative they were when trying to build guns for them.... yes I believe it. You would think our 1917 would be the same.
from what I read about the brits and how uncooperative they were when trying to build guns for them.... yes I believe it. You would think our 1917 would be the same.
milboltnut-- US Army Ordnance was quite aware of the incompatibility issues with the Pattern 1914 and would not have any of the nonsense that the British experienced. They formed a "Rifle Committee" between the three manufacturers to get the maximum compatibly possible from the M1917. Hand fitting was kept to a minimum with the only part require handfitting in the long run was the firing pin which was due to the nature of the rifle design. While this issue delayed the fielding of the M1917 in the long run it paid off with quicker manufacture of rifles. The max the Brit could assemble in a day was about 50 rifles per assembler. With the compatibility of parts, an assembler often assembled 250 rifles in a day which also reduced the cost of the M1917 per copy. Later after WWI, it was also easier to rebuild the M1917 as less fitting was required.
Wasn’t the P14 compatibility issues caused by sending a Pattern gun to each manufacturer that had slight dimensional differences. If memory serves the Brits ended up buying the lines to ultimate fix the issues. I stuck with P14 and M1917Eddystones myself.
p246-- The brits really never fixed the compatibility issues with the Pattern 1914. You are right that they got off on the wrong foot by sending copies of the Pattern 1914 to each manufacturer and also permitted each to make changes to ease production. Unfortunately, each of the manufacturers did not coordinate with each other for the purpose of compatibility of parts. The UK and the Commonwealth countries were over a barrel sort of speak as they needed rifles fast to fill in the gaps where No 1, MKIII SMLE rifles were withdrawn to be issued to front line troops. The manufacturers knew this and were very resisted to any changes as it would cost them money. The Brits did provide the money for the machinery for production of the Pattern 1914 rifle. One manufacturer was also accused of using the money for other non related items to the Pattern 1914 production. The situation had gotten so bad they had to send a MOD official to straighten things out. The manufacturers produced the rifles as they wished. When the US military took over the Pattern 1914 production to produce the Model of 1917 Rifle they purchased all of the production equipment the Brits had paid for on for pennies on the dollar. The Brits could do very little the manufacturers, but the US military could if issues were not addressed. They had seen Smith & Wesson taken over by US Army Ordnance for "bucking the system." They did not want the same thing to happen to them.
I believe the hard problem most folks fail to grasp that we are really talking apples and oranges between the three different models of the rifles even though they are built in the same plants. The Pattern 1914 MKI, Pattern 1914 MKI* and the Model of 1917. (In reality you are really dealing with six different Pattern 14 rifles, two models, the MKI and MKI* from each manufacturer)
While the fit of the various parts of the P14 were not good, I do wonder if the overall outer profile line of the rifle was not the same.
The Brits mistake was they did not do what industrialization requires, and that is have pattern parts that are the true template of the part. Copying a copy leads to tolerance growth.
However, they did get rifles and they cold then send the SMLE into combat and train with what they had where it was vastly less an issue.
I also think it breaks down to two issues regardless.
1. Any gun is better than no gun.
2. Can you segregate the gun population?
And I am not dissing anyone, but to me, in the end the Parts compatibly paid off lacks evidence it did (short run)
A great many of US troops trained with Broom sticks and fake wooden guns.
What I think the US 1917 should have been done was that they all should have started making rifles based on each plants setup and got them into the hands of the troops for training. Any down gun could be used for drill and or practice and it would have bee the same gun that they went into combat with.
Any down gun would have been fixable, just not conveniently as a parts swap.
Those guns all could have been marked (as was early Winchester) so even a mistake would be recognized for what it was.
In the meantime working towards the better parts swap compatibility and those rifles sent over seas.
I don't think it was a binary choice.
Default
While the fit of the various parts of the P14 were not good, I do wonder if the overall outer profile line of the rifle was not the same.
They are not close.
A friend was building bench rest type rifle and having a melt down when I walked in. He was swearing off of the P14 and the M1917. I asked him what it was he did not understand? He did not know so I asked him if it was the difference between the two; and he said, " YES!". And I said let us make this one like the other one so we chucked the receiver up in a mill, When finished everything from the M1917 would fit the P14 receiver. I even gave him the mill cutter tool.
F. Guffey
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.