Why are the 1917 preferred for big bores? Is it only the longer length of the action?

I ask because when I pulled the barrel on a 1917 last night I was surprised to see that the front ring walls were thinner than on a VZ24. OD is about the same so the barrel shank on the 1917 has thicker walls for the same size chamber. This allows for a larger chamber so I guess this enters into it also?

Am I correct here?


Thanks, Rob

WIDER .. longer is nice, but the width to make them stagger feed... they are LOTS more work

Thanks Jeff, anyone specialize in them? I'd like to have this action evaluated to see if it's a candidate. It's not mint condition, some pitting might disqualify it.

Rob

IMHO
winchesters are best, remingtons, then eddystones.. but I have used them all. pitting under the wood doesn't matter, creacking around the recevier front ring does.

Specialize in them? Tip Burns does good work. LEAVE the safety alone... you can take or leave the bolt handle... i posted pics on how to remove the barrel fairly easily, ... i find these to be nice when beadblasted and blued.
jeffe

I don't have one, but IIRC one has to like the cock on closing if one doesn't change the safety.

The 1917 Enfields are substantially heavier making them more suitable for the DG rounds. However the cost to rework them is a bit much.....it'll make a M-70 Classic in .375 H&H action seem cheap.

My personal prejudices say to not rework the Eddystones...only the Remingtons and Winchesters and then convert to cock on opening and replace the bolt handle.

Jim Kobe did a lot of this for me years ago and it was a fine action.

They make nice custom guns and I see you already have one BUT...

You can probably get your money back plus some by selling it on one of the auction sites, then buy a Remington Model 30 or 30S for a couple hundred more and STILL come out way cheaper that sporterizing an Enfield.

In addition to what's been said, all the M1917s (and the P14s) used the same 5% nickel steel alloy. I once compared the total bearing area of the locking & safety lugs on the M1917 and 1909 M98 and found the Enfield's to be greater. To save some labor, you might consider fitting the forged bottom metal from an M1903... makes for a trim stock. Converting to cock-on-close will shorten lock-time.

Bud W

I think that it is actually Remington that are best, they had the best heat treating and that is why you sometimes are fortunate and find ones without the duckpond milled out between the rear sight ears. that was a relief cut into the receivers to prevent warpage of the bridge during heat treating. Remington got rid of it once they got the heat treating practice right.

In regards to why they are more suitable than a standard length mauser they also have enough meat that they can be taken and opened up to the rear to fit the larger cartridges. A lot of good work can be done on them. As far as expense goes, it is more than a mauser, but if you are going whole hog on a custom it isn't really going to make a difference I don't think. only if you are going budget.

Red
PS
If I had a but load of money I would have a whole safe of custom 1917 remingtons in various calibers. I love them.

There are ~27 pages in MacFarland's book "Introduction to Gunsmithing" on how to sporterize a 1917 or pattern '14 Enfield.

The amount of work I see on those pages is intimidating to me, and I just walk past the old Enfields at gunshows.

i just had a 1917 eddystone turned into a really nice .416 taylor... bottom line was close to $2600... the action was less than $150 of it... i could have used a springfield 03a3 for around $200, a 1909 argentine for around $250 or a m70 crf for $500... i like the eddystone, the huge 2 position safety... will i change anything on it??? yep... it's going back to tip for the cock-on-opening addition and some work on the magazine follower... other than that, it feeds great.....

Sorry, I don't buy the folktales about the heat-treating; the receiver cracks showed up on those Edddys & Rems that had been rebarreled with the Hi-Standard and Johnson barrels. There's no good reason to believe there's any meaningful difference between original Rem, Win or Eddys altho parts interchangeability on some Wins is suspectal. I also don't buy the duckpond theory although I've never been able to find a reason for it other than to lighten the gun (like the recess in the bolt handle knob). In any event, this came to us from the Brits, as the P14s had them too. My M1917, built in Aug 1918, doesn't have it. If the work is daunting and the prices too high, buy a used Rem 30 Express and rebarrel it. All the grunt work has already been done!

Bud W

Rest assured that duck pond is there for a reason. Remington changed a process that allowed them to forgo the duckpond. Something the other makers did not do.

The Rem is prefered because it lacks the bathtub and is easier and cleaner to recontour.

quote:

Remington changed a process that allowed them to forgo the duckpond

not before they made mine...

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

Remington changed a process that allowed them to forgo the duckpond

not before they made mine...

Like I said, changed, not started out with.

BSA converted many of these to sprting rifles and the "duckpond" was filled in. Additionally on some a flip-up peep sight - like that on the BRNO ZKK - was fitted where the "duckpond" was.

Do you have an opriginal source for the claim about the heat treating? I suspect that it was actually omited to speed up manufacture, just as SMLE Enfields after 1916 have the recesses omitted on the sight protector ears.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

Remington changed a process that allowed them to forgo the duckpond

not before they made mine...

Like I said, changed, not started out with.

I posted that as a lament, not a challenge

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by tin can:

quote:

Remington changed a process that allowed them to forgo the duckpond

not before they made mine...

Like I said, changed, not started out with.

I posted that as a lament, not a challenge

Gotcha! Thanks.

The real reason for the bathtub was to minimize warpage. Later Rem figured out how to omit the tub and not warp the receiver by changing their process.

Ummm....the bolt handle hollow was not a lightening feature any more than the duck pond was, it had to do with manufacturing. Just as the CZ550's have a hollow bolt handle.

you can fill the duckpond, but it is very difficult to totally disguise this. I thought that was what had been done on my 35 whelen AI barreled Remmy until I talked to a gunsmith friend that specializes in enfields, he was a great source of information on the differences between them. I don't have an original source on the heat treating, although I am sure he does somewhere.

I have a 1917 winchester in 458 win, that I didn't have finished but am going to sell off and have a 416 rigby built on a 1917 remington instead.

Red

New here,good to read the threads. I have worked on many 17's and 14's and consider them worthwhile only for large or long cartridges because of the work involved. I am finishing a Rem 30 in 416 Rigby. This one feeds ok using a follower and spring from a Ruger 77 416. I would like to hear from any of you who have worked on converting these actions to the Rigby sized rounds and your experiences in getting them to feed with total reliability. IMHO Rem 30's best followed by Rem 17 because of solid bridge but Win's machined a little better, Eddystone P14's OK but many E 17's too hard and brittle. Love to hear any responses.

Friends-

I have the metal work completed on two Remmy M-1917's (both by Dennis Olson). Now granted, when I purchased the actions, both actions already had the "ears" removed. But, in my analysis, I have not found them to be any more expensive than re-working a mil-surp mauser (I know I am going to get flamed for this). Most of the work that one would do to make a quality custom rifle out of a Mauser, you will do to an Enfield. The only thing that I see as different is the "cock on opening" conversion and if you change the safety and use a safety like Ed LaPour, you will do that anyway.

So, what am I missing?

I also have an Eddystone P-14 that Tip Burns is converting to a .338 Winchester Mag.