Accurate shooting M1917

[Merc]

Great price at $75 at the yard sale and impressive shooter. I've had some luck at estate sales in the past. Post a photo of your Eddystone after you swap the stocks.

[p246]

The P14 looks like an interesting rifle. I've been to lots of dealers and gun shows over the past few years and have yet to see one.

My M1917 also lost its original stock somewhere in time and now has a replacement that's stamped with a "T" on the front end. The stock has no proof, acceptance or inspector's marks stamped anywhere but it's in nice shape and fits the action well. The rifle was a mixmaster of Eddystone and Remington parts which I've since replaced with mostly NOS Winchester parts. Not surprised how much better they fit. The only component that is non Winchester other than the stock is the bolt and its internal parts which were made by Eddystone. It works and head spaces well so I'm in no hurry to find a Winchester bolt to replace it. Good thing because they are hard to find.

Some have suggested the "T" stamping on the stock stands for tall. I'm hopeful that somebody can recognize it and give me more information, i.e. OEM, pre or post WW2 rebuild, USGI or civilian replacement, etc.

Melton Bradely company made many of the stocks. The P14 pictured above has a T stamped stock. I know Chuck In Denver has said in past it stands for tall. I've been looking for a not cut M and S stock to see what the measurement difference is. So far no luck. If the P14 shoots 1/2 as good as the M1917 I'll be very happy. Looking at these two rifles I can see why the 30-06 got a red stripe. From 5 feet they look identical (subtracting slings and the off colored front hand guard on the M1917). I wonder if a guy bought a new '1917 barrel if it could be reamed for 303. A 303 using .308 bullets would solve so may problems.

[p246]

Wife bought me a cut down 1917 Eddystone at a yard sale for $75. Close to new and full of grease it took a while to clean her up. The cut down stock was a OGEK in the box.

I put a scope on the rifle, a Timney trigger, free floated the barrel and set the stock bolts at 65 inch pounds. Purchased a 10x Leupold scope to put on rifle that I was saving to buy. While waiting I wanted to play with the scope so I mounted it on the 1917.

Working up loads using 4064 powder and the 168 Match King bullet 5/1000 off the lands I got her zeroed in and it show a lot of promise of being accurate.

Next time to the range I shot a 720/1000 inch 5 shot group from a cold barrel to point of aim at 200 yards. 720/1000 was the extreme edge to edge measurement so I think a guy could subtract 300/1000 of that group.

Must of been perfect day and the range gods were in my favor I really doubt if I could do that again. I do believe it will hold sub MOA.

It took a while and I had to buy another rifle to get the OGEK stock and handguards. to put my original rifle back to the original configuration. So far I just cant get myself to start this project.

Bad part about this rifle is it uses a leather cheek piece to raise the comb and a recoil pad to lengthen the LOP and its still the most uncomfortable rifle in the world to shoot. Best part is it must have been the most perfect barrel Eddystone ever produced.

Nice find. The Eddystone pictured above I used to shoot a 188 out of 200 score at our local WW1 shoot. 200 yards 23 shots in 10 minutes. The 10 ring is not big. The only rifle in WW1 make I've bested it with is a 1918 Carl Gustav Swede in 6.5 X 55 with a 191. Surprising the M1917 loves Sierra 168 grain match king boat tails over 47 grains Varget, Federal 210 primers in prepped HXP brass. The big girl is not as pretty as a nice RI or SF 1903, but they will dang sure shoot.

[Merc]

Melton Bradely company made many of the stocks. The P14 pictured above has a T stamped stock. I know Chuck In Denver has said in past it stands for tall. I've been looking for a not cut M and S stock to see what the measurement difference is. So far no luck. If the P14 shoots 1/2 as good as the M1917 I'll be very happy. Looking at these two rifles I can see why the 30-06 got a red stripe. From 5 feet they look identical (subtracting slings and the off colored front hand guard on the M1917). I wonder if a guy bought a new '1917 barrel if it could be reamed for 303. A 303 using .308 bullets would solve so may problems.

Chuck in Denver did mention Melton Bradely Co. on another thread where I asked about the T. I've never been able to find anything on the company. See if you can take a pic of the T on your P14 and post it. Are there any other cartouches, etc stamped on the stock?

Update: If you have C.S. Ferris' book on the M1917, look on page 91. He talks about the circle star stamp (which mine has with a low serial number) and then talks about TPO and T. The circle star was supposed to mean that the rifle parts weren't fully interchangeable with Eddystone and Remington and the TPO was supposed to mean Training Purposes Only which could be shortened to just plain T. Only problem, those letters were supposed to be stamped near the buttplate, not stamped on the front end where the OEM's mark is supposed to be. The rifle, as I purchased it, was all Eddystone and Remington parts except the barrel and receiver. So much for non-interchangeable theory although a few of the Winchester parts that I bought seemed to fit much better but, the non-Winchester parts did work.

[p246]

Chuck in Denver did mention Melton Bradely Co. on another thread where I asked about the T. I've never been able to find anything on the company. See if you can take a pic of the T on your P14 and post it. Are there any other cartouches, etc stamped on the stock?

Update: If you have C.S. Ferris' book on the M1917, look on page 91. He talks about the circle star stamp (which mine has with a low serial number) and then talks about TPO and T. The circle star was supposed to mean that the rifle parts weren't fully interchangeable with Eddystone and Remington and the TPO was supposed to mean Training Purposes Only which could be shortened to just plain T. Only problem, those letters were supposed to be stamped near the buttplate, not stamped on the front end where the OEM's mark is supposed to be. The rifle, as I purchased it, was all Eddystone and Remington parts except the barrel and receiver. So much for non-interchangeable theory although a few of the Winchester parts that I bought seemed to fit much better but, the non-Winchester parts did work.

I can do that. The T is stamped on the nose of the P-14 Stock Where the original W R or E were stamped. The P14's had tremendous parts interchangeability issues. I can only find one R marked part on it (cocking piece). The rest is all E. The very early Winchesters had some parts interchangeability issues. However, its my understanding they eventually got it figured out.

[fjruple]

Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.

These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.

--fjruple

[Merc]

I can do that. The T is stamped on the nose of the P-14 Stock Where the original W R or E were stamped. The P14's had tremendous parts interchangeability issues. I can only find one R marked part on it (cocking piece). The rest is all E. The very early Winchesters had some parts interchangeability issues. However, its my understanding they eventually got it figured out.

I'm beginning to wonder if the T stamp was typical to P14 stocks.

There was one Remington part that was in my Winchester that indicated a compatibility issue. The R stamped mag box that was in my '17 when I bought it was much smaller than the W stamped mag box that I bought to replace it. In fact, the R mag box would fall out of the stock when the trigger guard was removed. I had to press the larger W mag box into the stock and it stays put when the trigger guard is removed. There's probably no way the W mag box would fit inside a R stock.

[Merc]

Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.

These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.

--fjruple

I like the looks of the 17. It's a handsome well-built rifle that served us well. It's a shame that Winchester took so long to get its parts compatability act together which may have prevented the 17 from being the official US Army rifle for the next 20 years.

[p246]

I'm beginning to wonder if the T stamp was typical to P14 stocks.

There was one Remington part that was in my Winchester that indicated a compatibility issue. The R stamped mag box that was in my '17 when I bought it was much smaller than the W stamped mag box that I bought to replace it. In fact, the R mag box would fall out of the stock when the trigger guard was removed. I had to press the larger W mag box into the stock and it stays put when the trigger guard is removed. There's probably no way the W mag box would fit inside a R stock.

Hmm wonder if you had a Remington P14 mag box in your M1917 W?

[p246]

I believe the T stock is a M1917 stock. The P14s given the weiden repair were put in '1917 stocks if the original whale belly was bad. If the whale belly was good then the volley front sight was removed from it and the stock was reissued. It's my understanding there was not a supply of replacement P14 stocks so M1917 stocks had to be used. I'd like to find a P14 sniper either telescoped or diopter sight....probably never happen.

[p246]

Both are very good rifles. Even though the P14 and M1917 look the same both are quite different in design and execution. For some reason the P14 had major parts interchangeability issues between the three manufacturers. Not only where there three manufacturers both also produced two different variations, the MKI and the MKI*. The MKI* was a re-designed bolt which also affected the extractor and barrel. Not only that but each manufacturers incorporated changes that they felt they needed without advising the other two manufacturers. Winchester appears to be the biggest offender. Winchester also was very slow in incorporating the MK1* changes into the production. When the US Army Ordnance took over the P14 production for the M1917 they were not permitting the interchangeability issues to continue and draw up part drawings to ease the compatability issues. But Winchester jumped the gun and re-designed and produced the .30-06 M1917 without the US Army Ordnance drawings and specs which were not compatiable with the US Army drawings. Winchester produced about 10,000 rifles before the problem was discovered.

These are great rifles to fire. They are very strong and accurate with a good barrel. Unfortunately it was treated like a red-headed step-child that by circumstances the US Army was forced to adopt. Without the rifle the US would have been in a real fix in WWI.

--fjruple

Couldn't agree more. Without the M1917 a lot of doughboys would have been using British and French Rifles. Probably the Remington and Westinghouse Mosin Nagants to.

[bombdog]

i need to do more testing with mine yet... The barrel is a little pitted from about the muzzle down about 6"... She's still capable of holding 10 rounds in about 10"...
bombdog, out...

[fjruple]

p246--
The magazine boxes are not changeable in the P14. The Winchester P14 is uniquely different. The other problem I have noted on the P14 is that there are two types of magazine boxes. These changes are unassociated with the upgrade of the bolt in the MKI*. I have only found two parts dealers in the US who knows about the compatability issues between the different P14 manufacturers. Unlike the P14, the M1917 has just about all of the parts are interchangeable except for the first 10,000 Winchesters M1917s. This really was a lifesaver with the M1917 rebuild programs in WWII. The guns in a lot of cases were stripped completely down to the last screw during the rebuilds. There was a major fubar after WWI when many M1917s were rebuilt with new barrels and stored as a limited standard. A lot of M1917s were stored without any cosmoline in the bores and they rusted and had to be replaced when they were pulled from storage at the beginning of WWII.

--fjruple

[fjruple]

Merc--

The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt. The M1917 also suffered from the "not invented here" syndrome. If the US Army Ordnance had worked to take care of these issues the M1917 could well have been the rifle used initially in WWII until the M1 rifle could be fully deployed to the troops.

--fjruple

[5MadFarmers]

Merc--

The US Army was actually going to switch from the Springfield 1903 to the M1917. Production was not terminated until Early 1919 to provided a mass of spares parts and rifles. The US Army produced enough spare parts after the war to built an additional 200,000 rifles. What killed the M1917 was the National Matches in 1919. The M1917 rifle was only used instead of the beloved Springfield M1903. Rifle shooters are very traditional bunch and high disapproved of the M1917. Several of the complaints were no windage adjustments, too long of a rifle and unbalanced, and cocking on closing of the bolt.

--fjruple

None of that is accurate and I'm not guessing.