Head Space and the 1917

[milboltnut]

:eusa_whistle:

forgot about full length sizing that Hatcher didn't include sorry all

[fjruple]

If the headspace is too tight, the last thing you want to do is removing material from the bolt lugs especially if the bolt is fitted to the reciever. when the military was using the M1917 they would just look for a bolt that properly headspaced to the barrel. Now a days we do have those luxuries of the endless supply of bolts. A finishing chamber reamer should be used to clock in the final headspace. A pull through chamber reamer is better yet.

[lyman]

I'm not sure what you are commenting on,,

headspace is a measurement from the bolt face to a datum line on the shoulder for the 1917, (in 30.06),
too tight and the round will not chamber,or will have to be forced to close, too loose and brass will stretch ,

at no time would anyone grind on the bolt lugs or face to fix headspace, just simply ream the chamber correctly (yes, pull thru works best) until it headspaces with the correct guages,


it's not rocket science, but can be difficult at first to wade thru the chaff to get to the wheat,,,

the pics shown are of a 308 fired in a 3006 chamber, not really dangerous, but also not really relevant to headspace issues

[milboltnut]

Chambers are cut to spec or slightly beyond in this case of military rifles.... and bolts are fitted to cut chambers.

I never said I would grind bolt lugs. Hatcher was saying that's what would increase HS, if bolt lugs were ground. Cutting chamber further down the barrel would not effect HS.

the 308/30-06 was an example to reinforce what Hatcher was saying, that's all. After reading his notes, I see how HS really works. Always wondered, but not fully knowing what increases HS... and it has nothing to do with the chamber.

Noted was HS 1.950 or more was due for an overhaul.

Reamed to 1.955.. "with excellent grouping at 100 yards"

Reamed to 1.960.. "larger group"

Reamed to 1.965.. "group was better.. but not as good as the first, but don't put too much store in group size.... got no reaction whatsoever and the cases themselves showed only a very slight indication stretching and were nowhere near a rupture"

Below show no sign of incipient case head separation

https://i.imgur.com/TeYqYFV.jpg

[lyman]

thanks for editing your post,

I am not sure (been a while since I have read Hatcher) if US Rifles were headspaced to a standard, the bolts fitted,,,

seems counter productive, esp when replacements are all short chambered and finish reamed using the bolt that is with the rifle,

1903 armors or some level were issues Test Bolts , I am not sure one was used on the 1917,

[milboltnut]

I'm sure setting back the barrel was done if need be.... if the original bolt was used.

He was just proving a point that chamber dimensions doesn't really effect case head separation. Case in point .308 case fired in a .30-06 chamber.

If the case is... #1 fully supported by the bolt and lugs locked against the recesses with minimal clearance #2 held by the extractor #3 expands and grips the chamber walls.... the case expansion is very minimal at the head.

But..... if the clearance isn't minimal, and excess movement is present between the lugs and recesses... then the case thrusts rear ward while the case thrusts forward. The old saying goes....for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/media/Propulsion/basketball.gif

so the lock up.. lugs and recess prevents separation, but the roller skates is lugs a bit worn or more.

[lyman]

I'm sure setting back the barrel was done if need be.... if the original bolt was used.

He was just proving a point that chamber dimensions doesn't really effect case head separation. Case in point .308 case fired in a .30-06 chamber.

If the case is... #1 fully supported by the bolt and lugs locked against the recesses with minimal clearance #2 held by the extractor #3 expands and grips the chamber walls.... the case expansion is very minimal at the head.

But..... if the clearance isn't minimal, and excess movement is present between the lugs and recesses... then the case thrusts rear ward while the case thrusts forward. The old saying goes....for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/media/Propulsion/basketball.gif

so the lock up.. lugs and recess prevents separation, but the roller skates is lugs a bit worn or more.

.gov did not set barrels back,

if headspace or bore warranted a replacement, it was replaced, old tossed,

civilian gunsmiths will set back, .gov is not set up that way

[milboltnut]

I hear ya

[fguffey]

it is almost impossible for reloaders to be able to keep up' and then it gets worst when they read Hatcher's Notebook. Hatcher was before the Internet, it would seem he had his hands full, he head the 03 rifle and he had to answer questions about head space. Hatcher increased the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face .065"+ thinking that would be enough to cause case head separation; problem, nothing has changed. They did not know or understand what happen between pulling the trigger and the bullet leaving the barrel (nothing has changed, they still don't)

For years I have shared information on my M1917, when I fire a factory, over the counter new full length sized/minimum length ammo in that rifle I have .016" clearance. My chamber is .002" longer than a field reject length gage; reloaders do not understand or know what effect the chamber has on the case when fired.

ME? I form 280 Remington cases to 30/06 cases by adding .014" to the length of the case from the shoulder back to the head of the cases. I off set the length of the chamber with the length of the cases and like magic I have .002" clearance between the shoulder of the chamber and shoulder of the case. And my shoulder does not move, I can not bump it back, I can not move it back with a die that has full body support.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

I doubt very much, I doubt very much if we would get a rupture this way, no matter how much we reamed the headspace. We would just move the shoulder further and further forward.

The first team shooter that took himself too seriously claimed the firing pin struck the primer and then drove the case, power and bullet to the front of the chamber. That cute little saying put reloader into a rut; I could not get him to consider other options, instead he made up another one of those cute little sayings. He claimed the case had head space, for years and years and years I have never seen anything from SAAMI that suggested the case had head space. He called SAAMI and tried to convince them they were wrong, they were not as easy to convince as reloaders, anyhow my cases do not have head space.

MOVE THE SHOULDER FORWARD? And now you are back to the team shooter that claimed the firing pin drove the case, powder and bullet to the front of the chamber; anyhow, I suggested he think about it but he had so much time invested in getting it wrong he had to convince others they were wrong.

F. Guffey

[milboltnut]

reloaders do not understand or know what effect the chamber has on the case when fired.


https://i.imgur.com/1v6RxHb.png

Do you see any incipient case head separation?



- - - Updated - - -

most reloaders and others alike really don't know why you get a case head separation... they really don't.

I had them in a 03... once and replaced the bolt and they went away.

[fguffey]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8-g15CMR3L...1600/006-1.JPG

Do you see any incipient case head separation?

This is not the first time I have seen a 308 W case that was fired in a 30/06 chamber. Their was a member on this forum that claimed the 308 W was a small version of the 30/06; he impressed a lot of members by posting a picture of a 308W case chambered in a 30/06 chamber. And that is all he had to convince the crowd.

The 308W cases is .014" larger in diameter than the 30/06 chamber at the 308 W case body/shoulder juncture; meaning the 308W head spaces on the case body/shoulder juncture. When a 308W round is fired in 30/06 chamber the case is ejected with no neck and very with almost no shoulder.

Some shooters have shot M1 Garands with 308 W ammo; they claimed it shot 'quite nicely'.

I have 3 rifles that are chambered to 8mm/06; I have shot 8mm57 ammo in my 8nn06 rifles. The difference in length from the shoulder to the case head for the 8mm57 and 8mm06 is .127". After firing the 8mm57 in the 8mm06 chamber I ejected what looked like 30/06 cases with no necks and almost no shoulders.

AND! I have a M1917 that has been with us since the controversy began. The chamber has .016" clearance meaning the chamber is .002" longer than a field reject length gage, that also means it is .011" longer than a go-gage length chamber.

Your picture has nothing t do with case head separation.

F. Guffey

[milboltnut]

are you gonna answer my question.... or feed me a bunch of hoopla?

[milboltnut]

you win..... moving on

[lyman]

you won' t see any case head separation in that pic unless it is about to happen,

it is my understanding, and experience, that the separations start on the inside , and you can feel them with a scribe or paperclip with a bent end,

I have had several cases of questionable brass (as in no idea of rounds loaded or what shot thru) that you could feel the line on the inside,

cases were tossed,

[milboltnut]

incipient definition is beginning stages..... you would see stretch marks on the outside with all that "headspace"


the second pic to the right is the outcome of excessive headspace.... and it's up to you to figure out what makes the girl roll backwards on her skates.

http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/media/Propulsion/basketball.gif

[fguffey]

are you gonna answer my question.... or feed me a bunch of hoopla?

That was rude, I did not expect you to say anything like; 'thank you".

I said nothing about how far I believe you have to go before you can understand the answer.

I knew that when you starting with the moving the shoulder forward.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

I never said I would grind bolt lugs. Hatcher was saying that's what would increase HS, if bolt lugs were ground. Cutting chamber further down the barrel would not effect HS.

While grinding lugs does increasing head space.

Chewing the chamber deeper also does.

As the key element is the shoulder that the cartridge rests on if momentary when fired, if that goes deeper then the case will expand to meet it (if it can) and more importantly, the distance from the bolt face to the chamber shoulder datum point (as will the whole shoulder) will be longer and that is the definition of head space.

A lot is missing that has been removed or does not show up.

Longer heads space of itself does not cause a case to bust. It just stretch it. 303 is a case in point, unless you do minimal shoulder bump back or neck size, it will break a case in about 3 firings.

It may or may not fire if the extractor does not hold the head tight to the bolt.

Normally the 1917 has more head space than a SAMI made to spec rifle does. Its a combat rifle, SAMI did not exist then. Keep the same cases and minimum shoulder bump back and its not an issue.

Again worst case it does not fire, if it fires it fire form to the chamber (with some drop back as it contracts after firing)

[fguffey]

While grinding lugs does increasing head space.

I would suggest: If you have a M1917 examine it, take notes and it helps if you are able to compare the M1917 with other designs like the 03.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

While grinding lugs does increasing head space.

and then I responded with



I would suggest: If you have a M1917 examine it, take notes and it helps if you are able to compare the M1917 with other designs like the 03.

If you do not have a clue as to what I am talking about I recommend you do not mess with the lugs. I have heard the M1917 bolt arrangement is the most strongest in the world, I believe that is nice to know but I want to know about clearance.

I have a M1917 with a chamber that is field reject length + .002", that is .011" longer than a go-gage length chamber. What? Me Worry? I off set the length of the chamber with the length of the case from the shoulder of the case to the case head.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

I simply put a fact down, grinding the lugs does increase head space

Its a really bad thing to do as it allow movement on the bolt and that is a bad thing.

As noted, fire the round, measure it at shoulder , set it back the minim opf .003 to .005 and its no longer an issue.

Its not a case you can use in most 06 rifles, so you segregate.

All the rest if fluffy hoopla.

Don't make it any more complicated than it needs to be to work.


are you gonna answer my question.... or feed me a bunch of hoopla?

Mr. G is in love with his hoopla. I think it allows him to feel superior when all he does is make the issue as hair splitting as the best attorney in pursuit of that.

Some of us try to keep it no more complex than needed, we don't need the underline physics, just how to deal with it successfully.

As a 1917 shooter I have done so.

[fguffey]

I simply put a fact down, grinding the lugs does increase head space

And I simply asked you if you owned a M 1917 and then I asked if you owned one would you examine it and then compare the action with another action.
You have spe3nt a lot of time talking about the M1917 and the chamber. From your explanations I have to draw the conclusion there are no good ones. And then there are sources, you never list one, this leads me to believe you are the expert. That brings us back to the question about owning a M1917. You talk about grinding the back of lugs like you do it everyday. I have never found it necessary to grind the back of the lugs for any reason, but! if I did grind the back of the lugs I know that would be the beginning of another problem.

And then there is the head space gage: You have spent a lot of time talking about wrecking the head space gage. The head space gage is solid and made of good material. Arsenal gun smiths never considered crushing a head space gage by closing/forcing a bolt closed on one of them. They got real tacky with one smith, they did not understand what he was doing or how he was doing 'it'. The important thing? He did not care what they thought and the fact they did not understand what was going on did not upset him. All of this went on 70+ year ago. When he was checking rifles it did not take him long to look at them.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

Well when your minds thoughts resemble a pretzel then you of course are going to be confused as you cross over your previous thought and you never know which way its going to turn.

Just to clarify, I never said I grind down lugs, nor did I suggest it was anyting but stupid idea, all it did was convey that doing so is close to if not criminally dangerous. Hopefully that is clear enough?

And you know I own 1917s. (don't ask how many I won't tell you).

And your conclusion is there are no good ones, not mine.

For anyone else, they are fine. They are long on head space per SAMI but its not an issue though reloading procedure is best done with dedicated brass. They are potentially DANGEROUS guns as they have unsupported heads and a gas blowout wold be an ugly incident fore the shooter. Also clear?

As for head space gauges, yes they are steel. At issue is you can't feel the free action of closing if the striker is in the bolt. As its an iffy end of Field Reject, getting the striker out (which is easy) allows for that fine feel.

What some guy was doing 70 years ago is not relevant to me in the least. Some understood the guns and some did not and do not and we have good current knowledge and procedures for working with them. Bad info was bad info back then as it is now. The caliber being 303 was one that still exists.

[JOHN COOK]

RC20, you know you won't get the last word on this subject..:eusa_wall: Don't make Mr. fguffey pull out his feeler gauges, if so , it will be an open and shut case, or an open and shut bolt, or what ever. You will be wrong in his opinion.Don't have a dog in this scenario but enjoy the commits..:1948:

john in SC

[fguffey]

For anyone else, they are fine. They are long on head space per SAMI but its not an issue though reloading procedure is best done with dedicated brass. They are potentially DANGEROUS guns as they have unsupported heads and a gas blowout would be an ugly incident fore (for) the shooter. Also clear?

Long before me Hatcher carried out experiments on case head separation, He decided to use the M1917 in one of three situations, when finished the conclusion of his experiments/testing proved there was no way the chamber could be long enough to cause case head separation. He increased the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face in increments. Legend has it he advanced the shoulder .060" beyond go-gage length. Hatcher could have explained the effect the long chamber had on the case when fired; the shoulder of the case did not move, the shoulder of the fired case became part of the case body; the new shoulder of the fired case was formed from part of the shoulder and neck. As a result of the fire forming the case got longer from the shoulder to the case head and shorter from the end of the neck to the case head.

I said the shoulder of the case when fired did not move; the shoulder/case body juncture did not move. I can do nothing about the reloaders infatuation with moving shoulders, reloaders insist they can move the shoulder by bumping (?) they insist the shoulder moves back when full length sizing. I insist it is impossible to move the shoulder back with a die that has case body support.

What feed back do I get from reloaders? I could get more civil responses from children.

Again: I chambered 3 Mausers to 8MM06, when I started the chambers were 8MM57. I went to a firing range and fired 8MM57 ammo in the 8mm06 chamber. The difference in length between the chamber and ammo when measured from the shoulder to the bolt face and case head was .127”. For those that can keep up that is twice as much clearance as Hatcher had with the M1917. When I ejected the cases I knew what effect the chamber had on the case when fired. One more time: The shoulder on the fired case did not move, the shoulder became part of the case body and the neck of the 8mm57 became part of the shoulder on the 8mm06 case. The case had a hint of a neck.

Same thing only different: A friend built 4 magnificent rifles, he made the reamer, and he made the die (and magnificent dies they were), he did the bluing and carved the stocks, a most talented individual with skills beyond etc. etc.

After building the first rifle he went to the range to test fire; he had 5 case head separations out of the first 10 cases fired. I suggested I could have tested the rifle before he headed for the range and I told him I could have ‘fixed it’ before he left for the range. I also suggested I could have formed his cases before he fired them.

He broke the reamer, how I do not know but that was the end of his building 270 Wildcat improved based on the 30/06 case and very similar to the Gibbs chamber.

I did not have case head separation with my Mausers, I did not have case head separations with my M1917s. He did not use the Mauser action; he did not use the M1917 action for his builds. He used handpicked 03s and 03A3.

When Hatcher was doing his experiments he used Category 1, Category 11, and Category 111.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

RC20, you know you won't get the last word on this subject.. Don't make Mr. fguffey pull out his feeler gauges, if so , it will be an open and shut case, or an open and shut bolt, or what ever. You will be wrong in his opinion.Don't have a dog in this scenario but enjoy the commits..

john in SC

Oh god, not the feeler gauges. then comes transfers and standards. Arrrgghhhhhhhh, doomed, doomed.

[fguffey]

Oh god, not the feeler gauges. then comes transfers and standards. Arrrgghhhhhhhh, doomed, doomed.


RC20, you know you won't get the last word on this subject.. Don't make Mr. fguffey pull out his feeler gauges,

A member of this forum built a period correct rifle; problem, the chamber could not be measured with a head space gage or A no go-gage or a field reject length gage by any member on this forum with the exception of one. He can measure the length of the chamber with a fields reject length gage and he can measure the length of the chamber with a no go-gage length gage and he can measure the length of the chamber with a go-gage length chamber. AND he can measure the length of the chamber without a chamber length gage.

Back to the 03 Rock Island period correct 1911 rifle. The builder of the rifle had all he could stand when it came to 'help from this forum'. No one would shut up long enough for the man to get help.

I went to his shop for a different reason when he explained to me about the difficulty in finding help with answers on the Internet. He explained to me he had 20 head space gages for the 30/06; problem, he did not have a head space gage that would indicate the length of the chamber from the datum to the bolt face. I explained to him measuring the length of the chamber from the datum to the bolt face was easy. I measured the length of his chamber and found it was .0025" longer than a go-gage length chamber.

Next? He wanted to correct the length of the chamber to go-gage length. I assured him he did not have a bolt that would correct the length of the chamber even thought he had 100+ 03/03A3 bolts. I reminded him I had 35 new replacement bolts from old stock, I told him I did not have a bolt that would correct the length of his chamber. I suggested he size/form his cases by increasing the length of the cases from the shoulder to the case head by .0025" or go for the magic .002 clearance. Problem, he was going to sell the rifle and the buyer wanted a go-gage length chamber.



Oh god, not the feeler gauges. then comes transfers and standards. Arrrgghhhhhhhh, doomed, doomed.

Again, he wanted to know the length of his chamber from the datum to the bolt face and he had 20 head space gages. I checked the length of his chamber without a head space gage. I also offered to modify one of his gages to something useful, he was afraid he would loose money on the gage.

F. Guffey

[RH Scott]

I think the best advise I found on checking headspace is "go light and if the safety will not engage, the bolt is not closed and your HS is good with that gage."

[fguffey]

"go light and if the safety will not engage, the bolt is not closed and your HS is good with that gage."

'THAT GAGE' ? What gage? Reloaders are familiar with 3 gages; they are aware of the go-gage, no go-gage and the field reject length gage. I make 12 gages that are shorter than the minimum length chamber, that is .005" shorter than the go-gage length chamber. I make gages that are +020" longer than the minimum length/full length sized case when measured from the shoulder/datum to the case head. reloaders have head space, I have clearance. And then there are reloaders that insist they have case head space; SAAMI says my cases do not have head space. SAAMI says the chamber has head space.

I measure the length of the chamber from the datum/shoulder to the bolt face in thousandths; I have one M1917 with a chamber that is .002" longer than a field reject length chamber. If I fired a full length sized/minimum length case in that chamber I would have .016" clearance.

F. Guffey

[lyman]

I think the best advise I found on checking headspace is "go light and if the safety will not engage, the bolt is not closed and your HS is good with that gage."

not so sure on that advice

[RC20]

Agreed. Striker removed, very gently try on a field reject.

In almost all cases it will almost close 100% but a slight bit of resistance.

Safety has nothing to do with it.

[lyman]

Fguffey,


give this thread a read,


https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?1103237-Check-your-M1917-s-for-safety-issues-Eddystones-especially

[fguffey]

Fguffey,


give this thread a read,


https://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?1103237-Check-your-M1917-s-for-safety-issues-Eddystones-especially

I could furnish a link that goes back to 1954, the author claims there were three M1917s, There was the Winchester, Remington and Eddystone. The author of the article described the Eddystone was like a box of chocolate, you never knew what you were getting. When building rifles the Eddystone was last on his list.

And then there was another article that placed all the blame on one smith and I thought all of the tacky talk started with the invention of the Internet. With my limited knowledge and ability I did a little research and found the smith taking all the heat was a genius that had a way with tools. So I applied his skills into some of the things I do.

F. Guffey

[JOHN COOK]

lyman, give up.... You can't win.

john in SC

[lyman]

lyman, give up.... You can't win.

john in SC

yep, I know,

but I can stir the pot just a bit, :icon_lol:

and the info that CplNorton and his folks are finding is very enlightening

[fguffey]

Fguffey,


give this thread a read,

I gave the link a read, while reading through some of the responses I noticed responses from members that take themselves too seriously. the only M1917 receivers I have found to be cracked were Eddystons. I have never found a Winchester and or Remington with a suspect receiver. And then there is drilling, machining and tapping for threads.
there are folks that do that kind of work and then there are those that talk about it.

F. Guffey

[lyman]

I gave the link a read, while reading through some of the responses I noticed responses from members that take themselves too seriously. the only M1917 receivers I have found to be cracked were Eddystons. I have never found a Winchester and or Remington with a suspect receiver. And then there is drilling, machining and tapping for threads.
there are folks that do that kind of work and then there are those that talk about it.

F. Guffey

did you read the stuff CplNorton posted?

that was from Army documents, and interesting to read,


the other is chatter,

[RC20]

I gave the link a read, while reading through some of the responses I noticed responses from members that take themselves too seriously. the only M1917 receivers I have found to be cracked were Eddystons. I have never found a Winchester and or Remington with a suspect receiver. And then there is drilling, machining and tapping for threads.
there are folks that do that kind of work and then there are those that talk about it.


Chuck in Denver unlike you works on these and has done 100s of barrels on a 1917 . He found NO Eddystone cracked and a number of W and R.

Now I will take the word of someone who does this day in day out over someone who has an opinion.

[RC20]

did you read the stuff CplNorton posted?

that was from Army documents, and interesting to read,

I have read his material but it is out of context. Its historically interesting but does not track with other factual data.

I don't say throw it out, but its contradictory to whats been proven so there is more there than just the info.

Just writing things down or a record does not make it factual. That takes all the surrouning informaiton anbd it simpoly does not track.

A bit like that incident where the (5?) TBM Bombers off Florida went down in WWII. Factual they reported the sun was in the East not the West (or visa versa)

Actually they were so totally turned around (lost) they did not have a clue.

Factually an observer would have noted their compass heading and the sun was where it belonged, just not where they thought it should be.

[fguffey]

Chuck in Denver unlike you works on these and has done 100s of barrels on a 1917 . He found NO Eddystone cracked and a number of W and R.

Now I will take the word of someone who does this day in day out over someone who has an opinion.

There was 'before Chuck and there was before the Internet', I believe Chuck had an identity crises. Long before Chuck there was Weatherby and there was Roy Dunlap. In 1954 Roy published a gun smith type book. In that book he rated the Remington as the best receiver and then the Winchester, after that came the Eddystone. Roy said the Eddystone qualified as 'anyone's guess' it could be a keeper or it could be a piece of scrap metal.

Not necessary but I have a magneflux machine, to comes in handy, I went to a car parts type wrecking yard looking for 318 Dodge heads. They removed 9 heads before they found heads with only 3 cracks in each head. I replaced the seats and guides; without the magnaflus machine I would have made at least 5 trips while exchanging heads.

the only receivers I have found to have cracks are Eddystones, there are other resource types that have receivers that are cracked, all Eddystone. there is a Kentuckysmith that needed a Krag 1894 barrel, I sent him one.

And then one day a M1917 barrel shows up here, he said three smiths removed it from an Eddystone, he described the scene around the rifle as one that looked like three tire men removing a tubeless tire with out lube. That Eddystone receiver did not crack, that did not make it any easier to remove. The three smiths got to the point they did not care, it is not easy to look like you know what you are going when removing barrels from Eddystones.

When I remove a barrel I have had a few weak people pass out and I have had some strong types get dizzy,

When I installed the barrel from the Eddystone I had to modify the threads a pequeño bit .

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

When I installed the barrel from the Eddystone I had to modify the threads a pequeño bit

At the time I did not have a 308 Norma Magnum, so? I installed the M1917 barrel on a P14 receiver. I cut the chamber with one of those give-a-way reamers. The rifle worked so well I decided to install a 30/06 M1917 barrel on another P 14 receiver.

A smith/friend died just over a year ago, I went for a visit about the time he swore off of P14s; that was OK by me but I was curious as to why so I asked.

F. Guffey

[RC20]

And then one day a M1917 barrel shows up here, he said three smiths removed it from an Eddystone, he described the scene around the rifle as one that looked like three tire men removing a tubeless tire with out lube. That Eddystone receiver did not crack, that did not make it any easier to remove. The three smiths got to the point they did not care, it is not easy to look like you know what you are going when removing barrels from Eddystones.

If three people can't figure out how to cut a barrel for relief, then they are knuckle draggers not gun smiths.

Lot of here say vs someone who does the job day in day out.

[lyman]

If three people can't figure out how to cut a barrel for relief, then they are knuckle draggers not gun smiths.

Lot of here say vs someone who does the job day in day out.

not sure if the case, but I read that line in FGuffey's post as they wanted the barrel out intact, not just the receiver,

[fguffey]

not sure if the case, but I read that line in FGuffey's post as they wanted the barrel out intact, not just the receiver,

They wanted the receiver, they gave me the barrel. The smith that mailed the Barrel is in Colorado, he was in Kentucky. I do not know of a smith that has been working on M1917s that has not found a M1917 Eddystone with a cracked receiver. Roy Dunlap said the Eddystone is anyone's guess. He liked the Remington, he liked the Winchesters he said the Eddystone was not his first choice or his second choice.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

I did not believe there would be a member on this forum that could imagine what it was like in the old days when changing tubeless tires. They did not have the tools, they did not have the instructions and they did not have the lube that was necessary. And then; once the tire was on the wheel there was the little problem of airing up the tire.

When it comes to removing barrels I insist on doing it without an audience; in the past I have had the weak pass out and the strong get dizzy.

F. Guffey