Tweet
This is my "new" and first Eddystone. I've always wanted one. Like most kids growing up in the 50's they had more surplus rifles and equipment around then they could handle. Being thought too young to own a rifle my DAD bought me a .22 instead. Will times change. Dad and the Sears Ted Williams .22 are gone,but I did manage to get that Eddystone-along with some '03's M-1's etc. I hope this link to Photobucket works. It should show a slide show of the Eddystone. Thanks.
-
-
That's one clean rifle! Bore looks almost new. Have you shot it yet? -
Nice one!"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe, while Congress is in session." Mark TwainComment
-
Let us know how it shoots. My Eddystone has been one of my better shooters. Looks like you found a nice oneComment
-
I haven't shot it yet. Need new glasses. I'm curious to see if it's more accurate than my Rock Island '03 or what was for me the most accurate of my WWII rifle collection, my Smith-Corana 03A3. To that end I've gotten ahold of 300 rounds of LC 72. This rifle also came with a Kerr sling dated July 21,1914. Thanks for the interestComment
-
Nice clean rebuild, looks good, should shoot well for you!
KurtAs the late Turner Kirkland was fond of saying, "If you want good oats, you have to pay the price. If you'll take oats that have already been through the horse, those come cheaper."Comment
-
Kurt I'm curious as to why you would refer to this rifle as a rebuild. I have U.S. Arsenal (Springfield) and Armory (Rock Island) and the proof of the rebuilding they have gone through is readily discernible. Changed barrels, different inspector cartouches,changed out stocks. This rifle still is in an Eddystone Stock. It has a very large "E" on the fore end under the front sight. It doesn't have any rebuild stamps or inspector cartouches on the stock. The barrel is dated 11-18 and the receiver is december or 1918 or January 1919. The Remington bolt , I believe, can be accounted by a squad, platoon, etc periodic cleaning that would have taken place in the military. All other parts are stamped "E". I would think on a rebuild that there would be a number of parts stamped with whatever the armorer pulled from his bin to replace a worn part. I open minded and willing to learn on what you think makes this rifle a rebuild. I believe it was issued and used for a certain amount of time and then put up. I don't believe it was rebuilt during the Second World War as per the absence of any arsenal rebuild stamps or mixture of parts from other 1917 manufactures. I don't believe it was ever exported to Canada as there is no indication of any Canadian cartouches and I don't believe it was ever lend leased to England as there are no remains English broad arrow stamps or English Proof marks indicating it was proof fired upon return to the U.S. I know this is long winded but I posted in the hopes of learning something more about this rifle than I had previously known. If there is another indication of rebuild that our government did to these rifles versus other inter-war small arms I am curious as to what they might be. ThanksComment
-
Liketoshoot, According to a couple different sources, the receiver dates to about the end of 1918, possibly the first of 1919. The barrel seems a little early, but there are always the exceptions I suppose. The finish on the rifle looks parkerized in the pictures but I believe the barrel with that date would have been blued. The bolt matches the finish on the rest of the rifle and yes, it's possible that it was changed out at the armorer level, but I would wonder why considering everything else looks in nice condition. I would accept swapped between guns during cleaning more likely. As far as the stock lacking rebuild stamps, that's not uncommon, some were, some weren't. I have 4 of these 1917's, two have what I think are original stocks with no rebuild marks, one has an RAP. The 1917's don't follow the 1903's in that regard, some are stamped with an obvious rebuild stamp, many are not yet the rifles are obviously of mixed parts. Have you looked at every part such as the magazine, follower, trigger guard, trigger, sear, all bolt parts, ejector etc? Just curious as with one exception, I always find something it seems. Ferris's book on the 1917 is excellent in confirming much of this, highly recommend it.
Others could chime in.
KurtAs the late Turner Kirkland was fond of saying, "If you want good oats, you have to pay the price. If you'll take oats that have already been through the horse, those come cheaper."Comment
-
As the late Turner Kirkland was fond of saying, "If you want good oats, you have to pay the price. If you'll take oats that have already been through the horse, those come cheaper."Comment
-
Kurt Thank you for your input. If I'm not mistaken I believe we agree on most everything concerning this rifle. I agree about the barrel receiver combo. In fact I think that this rifle was made up from parts that had been manufactured by Eddystone but never made it as a complete rifle into WWI. The barrel date of 11/18 and a receiver date of 12/18 or more likely 1/1919 would lead me to believe that this rifle was a , if I may ,a "tidy up project" done at Eddystone after the war. Parts that had been manufactured and on hand that could be made into completed rifles once the manufacturing line had been shut down. You are indeed right about the parkerized appearance of the barrel. I think if you look at the picture of the rifle on the kitchen table (wife wasn't home) you'll see the receiver and barrel appear darker than the outside photos seem to suggest. I am in a bit of a quandry on what to believe my camera, or my eyes. The barrel does have an "E" above the ordnance acceptance mark. I know during re-builds that parkerizing was often done. I also know that Eddystone also began parkerizing some parts on their late production Eddystones. I'm undecided weather this actually occurred on this rifle. I think I'd need someone with more experience than I to have an eyeball look at it to determine if this rifle is parkerized as some of the pictures suggest,if so what kind of parkerizing. I understand that parkerizing or the process progressed as time and the rapid need for rifles progressed. I do want to thank you for your input as it will hopefully lead me to a more knowledgeable understanding that parkerizing might have played in the history of this rifle. By the way Kurt I noticed something to on the outside photo of the receiver were the eagle acceptance mark is stamped the coloring of the receiver seems almost two tone. The lower part of the receiver appears lighter than the upper part. Upon looking closely there appears to be a distinct horizontal line that separates the darker from the lighter color. This ,I know, on a Garand could indicate a re-weld. I hope that's not the case here. I would think with the war over or nearly over that this was just a case of a worker in a hurry or with the war over a worker who could have been more detail oriented but wasn't. If you notice this line in the photo and have any thoughts I'd be interested as I haven't heard of any rewelds done to these receiversComment
-
for sure a rebuild. parkerizing is Zinc on your rifle, it also has a parked bolt,. that was made by Remington.
in Sept 1918 Eddstone started to phosphate finish the rifles...in iron phosphate..real dark, and smooth, bolt , screws, pins, follower, and other small bits would have been blued on an original parkerized rifle...
i take that back. i went back and looked again...small parts are blued...and the sunlight makes it look lighter...bolt was replaced at some point...rest look legit...and an orignial finish...someone has taken the rifle down, and didnt line the stake marks on the guard screws again..
the tone finish is from being annealed on each end, to prevent cracking...all 1917s were annealed.Last edited by chuckindenver; 10-08-2013, 05:18.if it aint broke...fix it till it finally is.Comment
-
A thanks for some new Knowledge and some questions
Thanks for jumpin' in Chuck. I've read your responses on a number of boards and I respect the knowledge you have that's been gained by experience. I've been reading up on the different types of rebuilding done to these rifles and I can see now where I was wrong concerning some of the parts on this rifle being blued and appearing not blued. The early parkerizing could leave a darker coat than later parkerizing which was Chemically different than done on these rifles. I also read that rifles that had been parkerized and stored in cosmoline could develop a green patina because of a chemical reaction to the parkerized surface.
Kurt I'm interested in your comment about the guard screws not being properly aligned with the stake marks. I have in the past learned the hard way about not tightening guard screws up in their proper sequence. It was a Rock Island '03 that I had gotten from CMP. I put it back together and it LOOKED good but unfortunately for me because the guard screws weren't installed properly they worked loose during range time and I ended up splitting a beautiful "C" stock. Hard lesson,one never forgotten. I've had this rifle over a week and I don't shoot these rifles,because of that lesson until I learn as much about them as possible. On this Eddystone I see two dimples by the guard screws. Are these the stake marks your referring to that have to be in proper alignment with the guard screws. I took the rifle down so how should I install these screws?? I also didn't know about the receivers being annealed. I know they had done this to some M-1 Garands because of a weakness that would develop when they were used for grenade launching. I'm interested in why it was thought necessary to anneal the receivers of the Eddystones. It wouldn't be because of any catastrophic failures of Eddystone receivers or was it done because of issues with the "low numbered" Springfield and Rock Island receivers? I'm gonna go and see if I can find out how these guard screws should be installed. I definitely don't wanna lose another original stock. By the way "Chuck in Denver" I was stationed south of you at Fort Carson in 1969 and early 1970 after coming back from my government sponsored sabbatical in S.E. Asia. Never saw much of Denver but Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Cripple Creek, Garden of the Gods, and of course Pikes Peak are places never to be forgotten. ThanksComment
-
It was Chuck who mentioned the guard screws not lining up with the original staking points. To answer that question; When originally assembled they torqued the screws down to the proper torque and then staked them in place so they wouldn't back out. Over time the receiver would settle into the wood and require re-torqueing so they aren't alignment stakes so to speak. If, IF they are still staked on a rifle, that's often an indication that its possible original. That of course is only one clue and can add to others.
The two tone as Chuck also said is from the process of heat treating the receiver. They did this by packing the receivers in various mediums including bone, charcoal, leather and other things. To achieve the desired hardness in the receiver at different places, they packed them in the different materials and that causes the two tone you see.
The different Parkerizing, blue/browning and re-park does get confusing. Lighting during photographing can completely affect how it looks and on different computer screens. The dark park that Chuck refers to is almost black, semi smooth compared to smooth on the blued ones. Then there's the WWII which appears greenish gray on the darker side.
Eddy Stone implemented the dark park sometime at the end of Sept 1918 so dating helps somewhat. Hands on makes it much easier after you've seen enough of them to make the call.
Hope that helps
KurtAs the late Turner Kirkland was fond of saying, "If you want good oats, you have to pay the price. If you'll take oats that have already been through the horse, those come cheaper."Comment
-
annealing was done by dunking the ends in hot lead.. not heat treating...
was done to keep the receiver from cracking..1917s were surface hardened, and made with 3.5 % nickle steel.
mixing info with different types of weapons, can be frustrating and dangerous..
stick with the info on 1917s. rather then mix it up with 1903,s and M1 garands..if it aint broke...fix it till it finally is.Comment
-
" By the way Kurt I noticed something to on the outside photo of the receiver were the eagle acceptance mark is stamped the coloring of the receiver seems almost two tone. The lower part of the receiver appears lighter than the upper part. Upon looking closely there appears to be a distinct horizontal line that separates the darker from the lighter color. This ,I know, on a Garand could indicate a re-weld. I hope that's not the case here. I would think with the war over or nearly over that this was just a case of a worker in a hurry or with the war over a worker who could have been more detail oriented but wasn't. If you notice this line in the photo and have any thoughts I'd be interested as I haven't heard of any rewelds done to these receivers"
You receiver "discoloration" is caused by the heat treat process used at the time of manufacture. It is common to 17's and yours has not been welded.Comment
Comment