On some, but not all, M1917 Enfields there is a oval milled recess in the receiver bridge, next to the hole for the sight spring screw. Can anyone tell me if the P14 .303 Enfield has this same recess?

Bud W

yes.

it's known as "the pond".

Thanks, TC... After I posted this I found an article in an old Rifleman on the Centurian rifles which were built on P14 actions and there was the "pond". The recess was probably used, like the hollow bolt knob, for lightening purposes.

Bud W

I don’t know about the P14’s, but most all of the Remington made 1917 Enfields do not have the “pond.â€

my 17, a remington, does.


here's a P-14 that has had it's ears removed, and the pond is visible-



it looks like the receiver ring has "ERA" stamped on it- what does that indicate?

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:
my 17, a remington, does.


here's a P-14 that has had it's ears removed, and the pond is visible-



it looks like the receiver ring has "ERA" stamped on it- what does that indicate?

Like I said, “most†of the Remington made 1917 Enfields don’t have the “pond“...but some do.

“ERA†signifies that it was made at the Eddystone plant.

Tin Can ERA stands for Eddystone Rifle Armoury. It was a subsiduary of Remington and made by far the most of the P-14 & P-17 rifles.Rifles made by Remington will have an R as a prefix to the serial # on some very early P-14s and then they went to an RE stamped inside an oval on the top of the receiver ring. The Winchester made rifles will have a W as a prefix to the serial #. It was claimed that Eddystone used extra heat in the forging process to speed up production and as a result some Eddystone receivers are extremely hard. The REm & Win actions are generally considered more desireable for making a custom rifle.

quote:

The recess was probably used, like the hollow bolt knob, for lightening purposes.

Bud W

I once read that the purpose of the mortise was so that the receiver didn't warp during heat treating. Remington ultimately convinced the Army ordinance folks that it was an unnecessary step and was allowed to skip over this step.

were the 14's subject to the heat treat problems, or was it only the 17's that had the brittleness?

quote:

Like I said, “most†of the Remington made 1917 Enfields don’t have the “pond“...but some do.

wanna say it again?

I do not believe that anyone ever truly pin-pointed a heat treating problem at Eddystone. Frank de Hass says that some of the hairline cracks found on Eddystones could have been the result of replacing the barrels.

As anyone who has ever removed a barrel from one of these puppies can tell you, they are REALLY cranked on.

Another interesting note on P17’s is that the Brits had absolutely no requirement that parts from the different manufacturers interchange. There were no “master†gauges used by all three factories.

Not sure why some have a "pond" and some don't. I have two Eddystone's but no pond. From what I have read, there were issues with a lot of the p17's at first due to heat treat issues. Most of the problems with the Eddystone was due to them using a machine to torque the barrels on tight....very tight. Per several gunsmiths, if you cut a groove around the barrel up close to the receiver it relieves the pressure and greatly reduces the chance for cracking. One of my rifels has a 35 Whelen barrel but the other is the original barrel in 30-06. This rifle still had the wings on it when I purchased it two years ago. The receiver could not be restored to original so I cut the wings off, used a carbide end mill to remove more metal, then a file to finalize the shape.

<img src="http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/LostOkie66/closeupof061.jpg" alt="image hosting by http://www.myhostedpics.com/" />

Oops, lets try that pic again

http://www.myhostedpics.com/images/LostOkie66/closeupof061.jpg

Oki...

What is the scope mount base that you used on your Enfield?? I can't find one to fit the holes tapped into my receiver on mine..

cheers
seafire

Tin Can I think you may be confusing the heat treatment problem that the early 03 Springfield rifles had. I don't believe either the P-14 or the P-17s had a heat treat problem. Some of them have very hard receivers and all of them had the barrels turned in very tight as already mentioned. Many of the ERA Enfields that I have sporterized required a carbide bit to drill the receiver ring. The Rem & Win are hard but you can drill them with a normall HSS drill bit. Most damaged receivers were probably caused by not machining a relief groove in the barrel just ahead of the receiver ring prior to removing the barrel. I believe PO Ackley tested a number of military actions with excessive overloads to see which were the strongest.In those tests the ERA action failed earlier (receiver ring broke) than a Rem action. The Rem action never did fail it gave or bulged to the point the action couldn't be opened. The loads used to destroy these actions were likely over 100,000 psi,far beyond what any sane person would load. Because the ERA action had failed before the Rem the Rem & Win actions were considered more desireable. I have seen several ERA actions that have been built into sporters in heavy mag calibres and they handled thousands of heavy loads with no problem

I used "heat treat" unwisely- I was referring to the cracks in the ring that can appear when de-barreling, but also, I see mentioned frequently that the Eddystones have to be watched for some problem.


but ya cleared that up, above

quote:

quote:
Oops, lets try that pic again

that's some nice filing.

another question-

is the bolt handle on a 14/17 low enough/angled enough to clear a scope?

Seafire, both my enfields have leupold mounts. This particular mount has one hole at the rear. It has been enlarged to take a larger screw. The same size as the single hole left from the rear sight. Actually provides a very stable mount as tested by the 35 Whelen.

Tin can. answer is yes, the original bolt handles will clear a low mounted scope. I happen to like the ole dog leg handle and still have them on both my enfields.

Tin Can Oki is correct ,the Enfield bolt handle will clear . However if you re-barrel to a hard kicking calibre that dog leg bolt handle will come back and bang your knuckles on your right hand when you fire it. The bolt handle should be modified to come down and slightly swept back

Tin Can Oki is correct ,the Enfield bolt handle will clear . However if you re-barrel to a hard kicking calibre that dog leg bolt handle will come back and bang your knuckles on your right hand when you fire it. The bolt handle should be modified to come down and slightly swept back.

Snowman-

Kinda like this?

I was wondering, why wouldn't a bolt handle straight down like you see on most Mauser bolt handle retro-fits work as well?

I have a fondness for the original bolt handle myself; however, I have hands the size of 12 pound hams, a straight replacement works best for me, and I like the look of them, too. The work in the photo above is very good, I could force myself to own one of those...

Does installing a speedlock kit to convert the action to cock-on-closing nullify the use of the original safety?

tin can; I have to agree with you, would take a little persuasion but I would force myself to take a bolt handle like the picture.

Not sure about changes to cock on close, I have three bolt guns and all three are cock on close so I see no reason to change. I consider myself conservative, my friends just call me cheap, but thats ok, as long as I don't get called late for supper.

Tin Can & Lost Oki-

The picture above is my .300 H&H on a M-1917 action. This one has a Wisner 3 Position Model 70 type safety. Said safety nullifies the original safety and changes the action to cock-on-open.

While the bolt handle is subtlely swept-back, I would like to try an Enfield with the bolt handle re-done in the straight down position.

It's amazing how far a thread can go from its original posting. TC - if an action has ERA (Eddystone) or RE in an oval (Remington), it's a P14. The M1917s were all marked on the ring with the full name of the mfr. above the s/n. The "heat treating" legend was never substantiated with regards to ring cracks, but most if not all of the cracked Eddys & Rems had been rebarreled. Someona asked about the safety working with a cock-on-open conversion -- the two that I did worked without mods. During the heydays of Enfield conversions the scope mounts seen most often were the Redfield JR-30 bridge mount and the Weaver 2-piece bases (both #11 if the bridge is like a Rem 30). Buehler, G&H and others were available. That's a beautiful job on the Enfield action that 30Cal posted; looks like the P14 mag box.

Bud W

30 Cal That is a beatiful handle on your action and yes that is exactly what I was was talking about. You could do the bolt handle comming straight down but it would mean reaching forward just a bit more. This would tend to slow down the recycling of the action. The slight swept back is a compromise.