I'm building a p-17 into a 416 Taylor and tryng to decide on barrel length. Should I go for a lighter taper in 23-25 inches or a bull barrel in 18-20 inches? In either case I would like the gun to weigh around 9 lbs. At this time no specific purpose for the rifle other than just want to have one.

quote:

Originally posted by Tamid:
I'm building a p-17 into a 416 Taylor and tryng to decide on barrel length. Should I go for a lighter taper in 23-25 inches or a bull barrel in 18-20 inches? In either case I would like the gun to weigh around 9 lbs. At this time no specific purpose for the rifle other than just want to have one.

The "M17" as in U.S. Model 1917, has a receiver that is damn near 9 lbs by itself. If you want to keep the gun around 9 lbs with a stock and scope, then you need to consider a lesser contour like perhaps a #3.

And if you go with the shorter barrel don't shoot it near any dry grass.

I'll try...

i would suggest to you, that unless you are doing your own work, OR want the peep sight (not a bad thing, just reshape the ears a little) that the enfield is a TOUGH place to get started from.

But, the advantages aren't bad.
1: GREAT safety, right there
2: it's wide enough, and easy enough to alter the mag, to make it feed good
3: with a "pot bellied" bottom, you can probably get 4 and change down

the question on barrel length is purely one of your desired velocities... if you want 2350, then the 23 will be plenty, if you don't care about 2150-2200, a 20" stout barrel CAN shoot very accurately,

Me to get a 9#? i would go with the lightest 416 barrel I could talk shilen/douglas into making, a barrel band sling, a banded front sight, and use the enfield rear, just to make a low buck boomer. if you used the AB unthreaded, you will wind up with a fairly heavy contour, and therefore total gun package.

assuming you are looking to make a knock around rifle, contact skaggs or kobe for the barrel, boltface, and feeding.

jeffe

Just because no other marm has chimed in uninvited...a true magnum length cartridge is a piece of cake with that action, 3.7" boxes are $15 from Numrich. Why not go with a 416 Remington or similar? Mor power if you want it at lower pressures, factory round. I like the Taylor, built one myself, but their value seems to be when they're made on a standard lgth. action.

I'll second what Snowcat said, but go one better.

The P-17 action you are working on (and I have one myself that I smithing now) is a true magnum action.

It's the wrong action for your 416 Taylor, not that you can't do it, but it's easy enough to purchase a smaller, lighter action that will accomodate your standard length cartridge.

Since you are going to use this action anyway, why not go with the 416 Rigby itself?

The 416 Taylor was meant to nearly duplicate the 416 Rigby, but for hunters who didn't want to spend the big $$$ to get a (scarce) magnum action.

Rigby brass is pretty darn reasonable these days, and I'll bet your resale value on the Rigby version will be nearly double.

I can't see it costing you any more money to do the Rigby vs. the Taylor.

Garrett

Thanks for the comments guys but I'm afraid I have somewhat mislead you. The action for the 416 Taylor is actually a P-14. I'm saving my P-17 for a 6.5-06. Anyways the thread was getting slightly off topic as the 416 Taylor is a fix. My question really pertains to the advantages/disadvantages of a 23-24 inch barrel over a 18-20 inch barrel? Thanks again for any comments/suggestions.

you are taking actions meant for great things, and making midgets out of them. A standard length Mauser action is a better choice for what you are contemplating.

Rich
DRSS
NRA Life Member

Although the description "P-17" has come into common useage, it is incorrect. "P" is the British military designation for "Pattern" as in Pattern 14 Enfield. The "17" is a US rifle, and as Malm correctly points out above, the proper US military designation is M-17, for "Model" 17. May be splitting hairs here but we shouldn't be perpetuating the incorrect useage.

I had the "P17" conversation on Sunday with a long-time gun parts dealer at our local gunshow. You'd think that someone who was in the business would know better. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to get; a lot like mispronouncing "Leupold" as "Leopold". Leopold has a great wilderness area but he didn't make scopes.

John,
To the list of perpetually mispronounced names, you can add Hornaday for the correct HORNADY.

quote:

Originally posted by Tamid:
Thanks for the comments guys but I'm afraid I have somewhat mislead you. The action for the 416 Taylor is actually a P-14. I'm saving my P-17 for a 6.5-06. Anyways the thread was getting slightly off topic as the 416 Taylor is a fix. My question really pertains to the advantages/disadvantages of a 23-24 inch barrel over a 18-20 inch barrel? Thanks again for any comments/suggestions.

Since you are building the Taylor, you are not attempting to maximize velocity. If you were, you would at least be building the 416 Remington if not the 416 Weatherby, both of which will fit into that action.

Since you are not attempting to maximize velocity, I would suggest a 19 inch standard contour barrel.

Addressing your question, due to the size and weight of the action the longer barrel is going to give you better balance I believe. I have a 1917 in 35 Whelen AI with a 26" douglas tube, balance is great, it swings out well and makes shooting easy.

I would only go with the shorter barrel, which will affect NOISE and velocity, if I were doing a more compact rifle and weight was a factor. Not going for that with the Enfield.

Dont' sweat comments about not using the enfield for shorter than giant cartridges, it is your action. BUT, remember they are damn expensive to customize, I think that is the biggest reason to use them for giant cartridges, if you are dishing out the money anyways might as well.

Red