New old stock bolt

[Merc]

I recently bought a NOS Winchester bolt for my M1917 rifle. Other than checking headspace with a headspace field gauge, is there anything else that needs to be done before I can start using the new bolt?

[lyman]

besides putting it together (striker etc:icon_jokercolor:)

if it passes headspace, and the safety etc work fine, you should be good to go,

I don't think you need to worry about fitting the lugs on the 1917's

[fguffey]

I recently bought a NOS Winchester bolt for my M1917 rifle. Other than checking headspace with a headspace field gauge, is there anything else that needs to be done before I can start using the new bolt?

As you can see I am the only member that believes you left out all of the information necessary to help you. "headspace field gauge"; the headspace field gauge gage will not allow the bolt to close. I have a M1917 that has a chamber that is .016" longer than a minimum length/full length sized, over the counter new factory round when measured from the shoulder to the case head. That is .011" longer than a go-gage length chamber.

So I ask; did the bolt close on the field reject length gage? M1917 rifles with long chambers are not rare; how they got that way is an interesting story.

F. Guffey

[Merc]

Thanks for your help. Full story: I bought the NOS Winchester bolt to replace a slightly worn Eddystone bolt that was originally installed on my M1917 Winchester rifle when I bought it. The E bolt would close on a gunsmith’s no go gauge but only closes about 80% on my field gauge. The W bolt closes about 50% on the same field gauge. Seeing the difference in closing percentage makes me think that the W bolt would probably not close on the gunsmith’s gauge.

I’ve not fired the rifle with the W bolt but I was able to successfully chamber and eject a dummy .30-06 round smoothly and it fits nicely inside the chamber with minimal movement.

The field gauge measurements on the E and W bolts were taken with the strikers removed.

Because I thought the E bolt was worn, I’ve been watching the internet all this time for a NOS W bolt, although the E bolt has successfully sent hundreds of bullets down range over the 4 years that I’ve owned the rifle without inflicting any damage to the rifle or the brass cases. In fact, I’m still reloading the original cases. I’ve had zero case-head separation and only one case that became unusable due to an enlarged primer hole. I re-sized the case and pressed in a bullet anyway and use it as my .30-06 dummy round.

I’d be interested to hear the story about the long chambers.

[lyman]

if the field gauge a commercial or USGI one?

either way, you measured correctly, stripped bolt (extractor off?) and did not close,

you could run a no go thru and see, if you wanted, at 50% of field, it may not close on it,

[Merc]

Commercial or USGI? Good question. The label on the box says it’s a .30-06SPRG and the mfr is Clymer. The model is CLY1015.

[lyman]

commercial,

may want to remove the extractor to check, but thinking you will be good either way

[Merc]

I removed the extractor and striker and checked it again. Still 50% closure. Aren’t headspace gauges set to commercial specs always a bit tighter than milspec gauges? Assuming that’s true, a military bolt that passes a commercial gauge should be ok. It’d be nice to have a milspec .30-06 gauge set. Any idea who handles them?

[fguffey]

I removed the extractor and striker and checked it again. Still 50% closure. Aren’t headspace gauges set to commercial specs always a bit tighter than milspec gauges? Assuming that’s true, a military bolt that passes a commercial gauge should be ok. It’d be nice to have a milspec .30-06 gauge set. Any idea who handles them?

Military? Commercial? What is the difference? Before SAAMI: I sold most of my head space gage, I had a few that disappeared because someone stole them; but I had both commercial and Military. When changes were made it was not like waking up in a different world, we all woke up in the same world but someone moved the datum. On the old head space gage the datum was at the case body/shoulder juncture' on the new head space gage the datum was on the shoulder and was determined by a round hole/circle. The round hole circle diameter became .375", .400" and .410" for many chambers.

I have never found it necessary to remove anything from the bolt when checking the length of the chamber from the datum/shoulder to the bolt face.

F. Guffey

[lyman]

I removed the extractor and striker and checked it again. Still 50% closure. Aren’t headspace gauges set to commercial specs always a bit tighter than milspec gauges? Assuming that’s true, a military bolt that passes a commercial gauge should be ok. It’d be nice to have a milspec .30-06 gauge set. Any idea who handles them?

no,

like Fguffey said,

same gauge, but the commercial measures from a different point,

example, and going from memory, 1.940 is go, 1.946 is no go, 1.951 is field on a military headspace gauge, (I have a go and field, lost my no go,,,)

bought a set of Commercial and the numbers are different (longer) but measure the same, (bolt closure)

military are usually cut so you do not have to remove extractors etc,

[RC20]

As you can see I am the only member that believes you left out all of the information necessary to help you.

After one response that is taking a null data point (making a mountain out of a molehill) - for someone that reveres technicalities (shoulder setback) and datum etc, that ruins credibility.

Merc: What you had with your Eddystone bold was normal. I have had one Winchester bolt that was quite different, most others (including another Winchester) were at the 80%.

I suspect your Winchester bold was tighter (more material forward) than the rest.

Just keep in mind, a lot of slop was the norm for these, mine on a rigged field reject (tape on a no go) close about 80%.

Military cartridges are not made to SAMI, not did SAMI exist back then. Chambers on military guns tend to generous for field conditions for functioning (crud) - they had not figured on civie pick up and use latter (nor did they care of course)

I just keep the brass for those guns separate as the head spaces is longer and I don't mash the shoulder back more than needed on them for reloads. With your tighter Winchester bold you might be able to cross shoot them with minimum shoulder setback (which avoids cracked bases)


Thanks for your help. Full story: I bought the NOS Winchester bolt to replace a slightly worn Eddystone bolt that was originally installed on my M1917 Winchester rifle when I bought it. The E bolt would close on a gunsmith’s no go gauge but only closes about 80% on my field gauge. The W bolt closes about 50% on the same field gauge. Seeing the difference in closing percentage makes me think that the W bolt would probably not close on the gunsmith’s gauge.

- - - Updated - - -


So I ask; did the bolt close on the field reject length gage? M1917 rifles with long chambers are not rare; how they got that way is an interesting story.

Not really, they were made that way at the factory. Said factories were setup originally for 303 which has a lot of excess chamberage.

Brits having a lot of hard combat experience that in turn was clear the unlike low use US forces they did not have the latitude all the time to keep the guns pristine.

The M16/M4 has the same aspects. They work and are accurate when maintained well. When not they fail. AK-47 does not care.

[fguffey]

Thanks for your help. Full story: I bought the NOS Winchester bolt to replace a slightly worn Eddystone bolt that was originally installed on my M1917 Winchester rifle when I bought it. The E bolt would close on a gunsmith’s no go gauge but only closes about 80% on my field gauge.

RC20, you are the self designated M1917 expert so I will wait until for you to explain how that could happen.


Just keep in mind, a lot of slop was the norm for these, mine on a rigged field reject (tape on a no go) close about 80%.

And while you are at it explain why you found it necessary to tape up a go-gage? A reloader that is as great as you claim to be should be able to determine the length of the M1917 chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face with a 280 Remington case.

And then there is that part about "How they got that way", you made that one up because I never told the real story.

F. Guffey

[el Woodman]

And here's a worst case scenario for you...Sometimes the Winchester M1917s are very persnickety about replacement parts, as most were actually HAND FITTED. That means that out of a bucket of "W" marked bolts, they tried several and sent it out with the bolt with either the best fit, or requiring the least modification to fit...I've heard this fro several owners of Winchester M1917s. FWIW...

[JohnPeeff]

Didn't early Winchester guns "flunk" interchangeability testing?

[fguffey]

And here's a worst case scenario for you...Sometimes the Winchester M1917s are very persnickety about replacement parts, as most were actually HAND FITTED. That means that out of a bucket of "W" marked bolts, they tried several and sent it out with the bolt with either the best fit, or requiring the least modification to fit...I've heard this fro several owners of Winchester M1917s. FWIW...

I find Winchester parts fit Winchesters, as the story goes Winchester parts did not fit Eddysone rifles and Remington rifles good enough to be considered interchangeable. I have never found a W2inchester part that would not fit one of the other two rifles. I have built 2 rifles with P14 receivers and M1917 barrels. Now that is something I am not allowed to discuss on a gun forum.

F. Guffey