looking for opinions on the 1917 action. I hear that A-square built their rifles around these. are they rugged? quality? are there things that should be done to them to make them better? do they have inherant problems?

Well, I like them, particularly for the larger cartridges as they are about 1/2" longer than Mausers and Springfields. I prefer the Remingtons, as they don't have the large hole under the rear sight to fill in, but that really isn't that much of a hassle. Some of the Eddystones are supposed to be brittle, so you should check the hardness on these actions. They are a very rugged action, semi-Mauser in design (controlled feed, claw extractor), and were the American frontline rifle in WW1. They have about a 20% edge in lug shear and bearing areas, according to Otteson ("The Bolt Action, Vol 1"). They are a cock on closing design, using a Springfield type cone breech, with a rotating safety suitable for scoped rifles. The standard bolt will clear most scopes as well, but it's kind of ugly. the rear sight guards have to be milled or ground off to achieve a sporting rifle. The bottom metal should be replaced or straightened and rewelded, depending on which cartridge you're chambering for. The cock on closing feature can be changed to cock on opening, if you prefer (there's a kit). The ejector spring, which is a leaf or blade type, should be replaced with a coil for reliability. All of these changes were done by the factory (Remington) when they went on after the war to produce civilian versions (Model 30, 30 Express). A-square used these action for all their large cartridges, and it was more than capable. I have rifles in 450 Ackley, 375 Weatherby, 35-378 Weatherby, 338-378 Weatherby and 416 Rigby in various state of completion built on these actions and no problems so far. Good luck. - Dan

It's basically my favorite action for most any type of shooting.

They're getting harder and harder to find, especially the Win and Rem models. It seems the Eddystone's are a bit easier to find. The Eddystone's have a much harder metal that is definitely hard to machine compared to the others and some would say it's more brittle than the others and not as safe. The Win & Eddystones requiring milling an oval piece of metal to fill in a hole in the rear bridge area. The Rem doesn't have this hole. I'm not sure what the hole was for really.

The biggest problem you'll hear about is milling off the "ears" and getting down to where you can mount scope bases, if desired. Also, I've heard about problems with cracked receivers when people have improperly removed, or attempted to remove, the extremely tight barrels. Some don't like the cock on closing design although I think there's a way to modify this feature. I know that it's a two position safety that locks the trigger and bolt, but I'm not sure about the sear. Anybody know about that? Anyway, that's just one advantage of the Mauser design.

They have a wonderful reputation for toughness. The receiver threads are square which a machinist won't like but the end user sure would like. The barrel tenon that you would cut for this action is bigger than any other I'm aware of for a potential sporting rifle. I like that just because it leaves more metal on the barrel's chamber area. No data on that one, just an anecdotal preference.

Regarding strength, my gunsmith has a story about a reloading error he made relative to an Enfield years ago. He managed to reload a round for his rifle after inadvertantly charging the case with pistol powder. Upon firing I guess the stock came apart in numerous pieces, I'm not exactly sure how the barrel did, but the action withstood what was sure to have been a high pressure "event." My gunsmith was just fine, it was apparently quite loud, and he even went on to use the action again with no problems.

I'm pretty busy today so I may add any other thoughts that come to mind in a later post.

Reed

They're good actions but require a lot of gunsmithing to make a nice custom rifle. If you can find a Remington M-30, much of that kind of work will already be done. Assuming you can find one at a reasonable price, which may be a challenge, you'll probably be better off.

Lots of good info here.
They are a gunsmith's delight. So much to be done. I would not recomend the cock on opening kits. They leave you with a 5/16" firing pin fall. It just isn't reliable. If you replace the trigger with an over ride type it simple won't fire! The best plan is to leave it alone. Second best is extensive welding and re-engeneering to to make it a proper cock on opening type.
Throw away the bottom metal and make new like the M-70 style. Leaving the rails makes the stock to wide and boxie.
Take the ears off in a horizontal mill.
Your best bet is to get a P-14 drill rifle. Maybe $100 these days and has everything you need. I bought six, years ago, for $30 each. Lots of good fun with that purchase.
Background info, the locking lugs are set at an angle. That feature moves the bolt head forward as you close the bolt. It is like a small reloading press!! Great feature, messed up ammo goes in fine!! It is a very well thought out design. I belive that with windage ajustable sights and the cock on opening feature there would be few complaints with the M-17. Such a fine rifle may have even stalled the odoption of the Garand. Glad they didn't do that!!

[This message has been edited by scot (edited 05-17-2002).]

If I were building a 505 Gibbs thats what I would use. Lots of work and expense to convert but do make a fine rifle when done properly.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

My second game rifle was a sporterized P-17 with the standard 30/06 barrel. I bet there was $600 in labor in that rifle after the previous owner (a tool and die maker) had done most of the work and even made a really nice trigger from scratch. It had the ears off, the floor plate straight, cocked on opening and had a stock with a nice pistol grip made from the military stock.

So after my dad bought if for me for about $50 (that's when $50 was worth maybe $300) we found that it had excessive headspace! So dad made a spacer from shim stock and rivited it to the bolt face. This worked just fine but the rifle was really too heavy for that regular cartridge.

My check book does not have all that much money in it but there is plenty for another rifle. I would just buy a new or used one that's ready to go. But I am not a tool maker. I am also too lazy to do the work.

I don't think that I would pay much for a sporterized P-17 when I can still buy old M-70 shooters.

Not much I can add here that hasn't been said well by others. Hell for stout action. Anyway you slice them you will end up with a heavy rifle. My FIRST rifle was one of these critters and I did everything in the book to it, including firing some loads that would have probably taken lesser actions apart. When I finally traded the thing off I counted 8 empty .30 cal gas check cans, signifying 8,000 rds of cast had been launched down this barrel and that doesn't include probably half that many jacketed! They are one tough gun. The cock on the down stroke thing, I got so used to it that rifles that cocked on the up-stroke felt funny to me. My /06 weighed 11.5 lbs scoped and restocked. But I wouldn't be afraid to put about anything on them.

Would love to have a good military one to play with!

------------------
A well placed bullet is worth 1,000 ft/lbs of energy.

It is not so much that the action needs to be heavy. It is that most are afraid to cut off enough metal! You can make a trim rifle out of one. It will not be a six pound flyweight but you can get in the eight pound range. The Model 720 action is actually a few ounces lighter than a Pre 64 M-70. Remington actually left some metal that I usually remove, so I mine are lighter still. Look better too, if I do say so. It is one of the more under appreciated actions. Enjoy.

Regarding weight, my 308 Norma is probably my lightest Enfield based rifle and with a Hart barrel of unknown taper/contour, a Fajen thumbhole walnut sporter, Leupold 3.5-10 w. Weaver rings it weighs in at 10.5 pounds on a lab grade scale.

God do I love that rifle. When I think about which one I'd grab for any number of reasons, that's the one. It's also the first "decent" rifle I ever owned. I guess I'm a "dance with the one who brung you" kind of guy.

Like my gunsmith says, if you can't carry a 10 pound rifle for hunting you can't drag out a 200 pound deer. I learned that didn't apply to the 300 pound whitetail I shot two years ago...I could barely move that sucker by myself.

Anyway, here's a vote not to get lost with the crowd advocating light rifles, I think the advantages of that extra weight (overall strength, recoil reduction) outweigh the drawbacks. For most normal people, a lightweight rifle in a heavy caliber is such a pain in the shoulder that they rarely do more than get it sighted in. For short range shots with plenty of time that's maybe no big deal. When things get testier it could make a difference...that lack of practice. I KNOW what my rifle will do at a variety of distances and that makes me much deadlier with that rifle.

Sorry for the rant...pet peeve I guess.

Reed