Tweet
M1917 Headspace Question
My Eddystone 9-18 does not pass the field gage test using a Forster gage, which is SAAMI spec. Is that the final authority, or is there a military spec for these old rifles? I have fired it, and was pleased with results.
-
-
I would assume that the GI gauges for both the 03 Springfield and the 1917 are the same? GI gauges for the Springfield are 1.940", 1.946" & 1.950". "The 1.950" is used in the field, and the 1.940 & 1.946 are used for testing in the arsenal or depot." (As per TM9-1270)
Info I've seen says that the 17' bolt needs to be stripped and that a very light finger must be used when closing the bolt on the gauge. -
"Info I've seen says that the 17' bolt needs to be stripped and that a very light finger must be used when closing the bolt on the gauge. "
Don't forget, it's a Brit design and cocks on closing, so use a stripped bolt in order to get the proper feel."No man's life, liberty, or property is safe, while Congress is in session." Mark TwainComment
-
Forster SAAMI field gage reads 2.0577, so apparently the '03 and '17 gages are not interchangeable. You're correct about the stripped bolt==force of the striker spring on closing makes it tough to feel anything, especially subtle pressure. Without stripping the bolt on a BSA #4 Mk1, I would never have felt it "pass" when testing an Okie disc field gage, it was that close. I was stunned that it passed--first and only one of my Enfields that ever did.
I guess my overall question still is: with military rifles like the M1917/1903/SwedeM96/Kar98 and others with their greater tolerances, and mauser type actions with multiple locking lugs and gas holes in the bolt and receiver, how critical is one or two thousandths of an inch? And then of course there is the question of rimmed cartridges...oy vey!
Last edited by swede49; 08-02-2013, 10:25.Comment
-
“1.940", 1.946" & 1.950". "The 1.950"
“
1.940", 1.946" & 1.950" are measurements from the chamber body/shoulder juncture to the bolt face. When going to SAAMI measurements the first measurement as go-gage length would be 2.048, the field reject gage would be 2.058, then there is the no go-gage length that would be .004” longer than the go-gage length gage.
The Eddystone with the long chamber is not unseal, I have one that is .002” longer than a field reject gage. For me? Not a problem, I form 280 Remington cases to 30/06 with .014” added between the should of the case to the case head. The 280 Remington case is .051” longer than the 30/06 case from the shoulder to the head of the case. When forming I raise the die off the shell holder .014”, I verify the length of the case cases after forming.
Anyone that can verify the length of the case can verify the length of the go-gage or the no go-gage or the field reject gage.
Anyone that can verify the length of a gage or the length of a case from the datum/shoulder to the head of the case can measure the length of a go-gage etc. without a Hornady/Sinclair head space gage??? (comparator). I check the length of the M1917 chamber with a 280 Remington case, this method/technique allows me to to measure the length of the chamber in thousandths, meaning I do not need the go-gage, no go-gage or the field reject gage.
F. GuffeyLast edited by fguffey; 08-02-2013, 10:45.Comment
-
“Is that the final authorityâ€
Final authority? I am not the AUTHORITY, I can correlate the dimensions of the chamber with the dimensions of the die with the gage. I have no problem verifying the dimensions of the gage with the case with the die.
Then there is the press, die and shell holder, because the press has threads that match the threads on the die a strong case can be made for it is safe to assume the die is adjustable. To reinforce this concept I form 280 Remington cases to chamber in the 30/06 chamber. I could mindlessly size the cases to minimum length, PROBLEM! minimum length is full length sized and is .005†shorter from the shoulder to the head of the case than a go-gage length chamber. To size the 280 Remington to 30/06 minimum length would require the shoulder on the 280 Remington to be erased and formed .051†behind the old Remington 280 shoulder.
And I ask: Why would anyone do that? With an elementary understanding of the incline plain (threads), when forming the 280 Remington to 30/06 the case will go through changes in length between the shoulder and case head, fist it gets to field reject gage length, if the shoulder is formed .004†further back it will become no go-gage length, after it passes no go-gage length it becomes minimum length.
If any thought is put into the process of case forming it should dawn on the reloader/smith the length of the chamber can be determined, in thousandths, without a go, no or beyond gage.
And as always there is the possibility of turning a go-gage in to a go to infinity gage. And it is possible to determine the length of a chamber in thousandths with a field reject gage.
F. GuffeyComment
-
1903/A3 and 1917 gages are interchangeable.Forster SAAMI field gage reads 2.0577, so apparently the '03 and '17 gages are not interchangeable. You're correct about the stripped bolt==force of the striker spring on closing makes it tough to feel anything, especially subtle pressure. Without stripping the bolt on a BSA #4 Mk1, I would never have felt it "pass" when testing an Okie disc field gage, it was that close. I was stunned that it passed--first and only one of my Enfields that ever did.
I guess my overall question still is: with military rifles like the M1917/1903/SwedeM96/Kar98 and others with their greater tolerances, and mauser type actions with multiple locking lugs and gas holes in the bolt and receiver, how critical is one or two thousandths of an inch? And then of course there is the question of rimmed cartridges...oy vey!
The difference is that SAAMI gages read from the bolt face to the "datum", which is where the shoulder diameter is 0.375". Military gages, as noted in Hatcher's Notebook (page 237 in my copy), measures from the bolt face to the point the shoulder measures 0.4425". Different method of gaging.
There are different measurements, but only for Garand chambers. There, they allow an extra .002.
That said, the only gages I have are SAAMI gages. These are important to use in that any ammo produced with standard dies will be to that specification. Even military ammo. The thing is, military chambers generally are longer than SAAMI specs to allow for a wider variation in ammo and dirt/carbon/junk in the chamber. One of the worst examples (as far as handloaders are concerned) is the M60 chamber. Those chambers are so long they allow the case to stretch excessively vastly reducing the number of times the cases can later be reloaded.
In the end, the fact that your rifle fails the field gage is OK as long as it's only by .001 or so. You can measure how much by using .001 shims cut to fit the boltface. The thing to remember is that upon firing, your cases will stretch a little more than normal. This is not really, in itself, cause for concern. I would check that headspace measurement periodically, say once a year or every 1K rounds to ensure it's not getting worse. If it does, a gunsmith can set the barrel back one thread and ream the chamber to minimums.
If reloading your brass, you just need to be sure and set up your sizing die so it does not set the shoulder back more than about .002 from it's fired condition. You should still get about 10 reloads from those cases (LC or HPX, not commercial) before they have stretched to far, thinning the area just forward of the web and threatening a case head separation.Comment
-
Thanks everybody. Thought this might turn out to be one of those "wished I'd never asked" threads!!Comment
-
That leaves me to assume you regret asking the question. I am not a fan of 'forced conformity of thought'. I said the length of the chamber for the 30/06 chamber in the M1917 could be checked with the field reject gage, I also said the 30/06 chamber could be checked with a 280 Remington case, I also suggested a reloader with a press, die and shell holder could determine the length of the chamber by forming cases with no more than basic skills and a good understanding of the incline plain.
Stripping the bolt, cock on close, then there is pulling the trigger to prevent cocking on close.
One more time, the long chamber in the M1917 is common, one smith was blamed for the long chambers, he used a field reject gage, his skills went beyond basic, his counterparts big egos would not allow them to ask: How?
F. GuffeyComment
-
again...
on 1917 and P14s.
they have a heavy camming pressure.
with no cocking assembly, and no extractor...
it is felt restance on the tool. even if it closes on the tool.. forester Gauges seem to be undersized....and i stopped using them years ago,, G.I. guages are best...
it is common for some 1917s to have over sized chambers...more so on winchester then any others...so bad on some that case head failure is common.
short sweet...no fancy figures.... weve beat this horse with a big stick so many times...its a tender steak.if it aint broke...fix it till it finally is.Comment
-
“forester Gauges seem to be undersized....” With minimum knowledge and skill a smith/reloader can measure a gage and verify the accuracy, if they had two they could compare the difference, ‘seem?'” is not a value, it is an opinion.
“ it is common for some 1917s to have over sized chambers...more so on Winchester then any others...so bad on some that case head failure is common” I have never found a Winchester with an excessive long chamber, the most common long chamber, in my opinion, is the Eddystone chamber. As reported before the Internet by smiths that built thousands of rifles from the M1917, they suggested the Remington first, then the Winchester, they they suggested to use caution when using the Eddystone, they claimed it was anyone's guess, at best it was hit and or miss.
Normally a very boring story for me stats when someone quotes Hatcher. “so bad on some that case head failure is common” On the first firing? Smiths and reloaders should stop and think before typing, The M1917 is a control feed Mauser like design, the extractor is in front of the the rim of the case, meaning to get case head separation when firing the rim would be forced to jump the extractor.
or was it the Phoenix
Case head separation? No one measures before and again after, for the case to stretch when fired and separate between the case head and case body the body with the shoulder must move forward, problem, the case head head spaces on the extractor. Complicated for all and beyond the grasp of most, when a case is fired in the M1917 with additional chamber length the shoulder is erased and becomes part of the case body, the shoulder on the case when ejected is a new shoulder that was formed when fired.
No one scribes the case body/shoulder juncture before firing, I have fired 8mm57 ammo in a 8mm/06 chamber. that is .127” additional length added to the length of the chamber, if there was any truth to the claim “so bad on some that case head failure is common” I should have experienced case head seperation, instead I ejected cases that looked like 30/06 cases with very short necks.
Case head failure and case head separation are not the same. Case head failure can happen when the case experiences excessive pressure/failure.
No one scribes the case body/shoulder juncture, they assume the case stretches between the case body and case head, then there is the other factor, the design of the receiver and jumping the extractor.
F. GuffeyComment
-
My goodness. Someone certainly is full of himself!Comment
-
[QUOTE=Dollar Bill;321595]1903/A3 and 1917 gages are interchangeable.
In the end, the fact that your rifle fails the field gage is OK as long as it's only by .001 or so. You can measure how much by using .001 shims cut to fit the boltface. The thing to remember is that upon firing, your cases will stretch a little more than normal. This is not really, in itself, cause for concern. I would check that headspace measurement periodically, say once a year or every 1K rounds to ensure it's not getting worse. If it does, a gunsmith can set the barrel back one thread and ream the chamber to minimums.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Dollar, I will assume you missed the part about “the forced conformity of ideals”. I believe there is something very sick about the forced conformity of ideals.
It is possible there is/are elements you do not understand, again, I will assume you missed the part about the smith at the Utah arsenal that used a field reject gage to determine the length of the chamber. His critics did not ask him how he did it, they assumed he was doing it wrong.
“In the end, the fact that your rifle fails the field gage is OK as long as it's only by .001 or so. You can measure how much by using .001 shims cut to fit the boltface. The thing to remember is that upon firing, your cases will stretch a little more than normal. This is not really, in itself, cause for concern. I would check that headspace measurement periodically, say once a year or every 1K rounds to ensure it's not getting worse. If it does, a gunsmith can set the barrel back one thread and ream the chamber to minimums”
The length of the chamber can be measured in thousandths from the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face without shims. Any wildcatter can form cases to fit a chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face, I will assume there is only wildcatter on this forum, I form 30/06 cases that are .012” shorter than minimum length, minimum length is .005” shorter than go-gage length. Going the other way I form 30/06 cases that are .020” longer than a minimum length case, that is .006” longer than a field reject chamber.
“The thing to remember is that upon firing, your cases will stretch a little more than normal” I fire new cases in a M1917 Eddystone that has a chamber that is .016” longer than minimum length or .002” longer than a field reject gage without stretching the case, again reloaders assume the case stretches between the case head and case body/
“012” shorter than minimum length” is .017” shorter than a go-gage length chamber, 012” shorter than minimum length is a short chamber.
F. GuffeyLast edited by fguffey; 08-04-2013, 10:02.Comment
-
You assume way too much, sir. You are not telling me anything I don't know but, at the same time, not assisting the OP.
My apologies, swede.Comment
-
standard factory 30-06 case head failure taken from a Winchester 1917. with an over sized chamber.
every 1917 that iv ran into with headspace issues..was do to an over sized chamber or bolt set back
i have yet to find an eddstone or Remington with an over sized chamber.
most of those were do to bolt set back with wear on the locking weighs..
well, i havnt wrote or even read any of the books on 1917s...helped out a good friend on his though,..
however.
in the last 10 years.. personally...i have rebarreled and rebuilt well over 350 1917 Enfields.. maybe more if i really sat down and thought about it.
my comments are based on my own personal observations while working on the 1917. not based on info posted on the net, or by a book..
heck in the last 6 mos, iv changed barrels on well over 30 1917s ...
i dont need to post measurements...or quotes from books.... i can however provide pictures of a pile of crusty barrels iv pulled and replaced,..
and provide a list of very happy shooters...if need be...
sometimes...a guys got to put down the book, and turn off the net,..put some gloves on....and wrench on a rifle...
im ok if you dont agree..or dont like what i post.... i try and keep my answeres short and sweet, and easy to follow..Last edited by chuckindenver; 08-05-2013, 07:15.if it aint broke...fix it till it finally is.Comment
Comment