It has been my understanding that there were problems with the 1917 Enfield that were taken care of with the Clarke Eye Shield. Can anyone inform me as to exactly what that problem was supposed to be, if the risk is small or otherwise, and if the use of a device such as the Clarke Eye Shield is recommended. Thank you.

quote:

Clarke Eye Shield

Not exactly sure what you are referring to but the eddystones were not heat treated to the same spec as the other manufacturers. But it's still a good rifle none the less.

quote:

Clarke Eye Shield

After searching, the only hits I received were for your queries elsewhere on the subject, and in Kieth's book, "Gun Notes"- none of which give a hint as to what the "Clark Eye Shield" is.

Curiosity has the better of me- can you describe the device, if it is a device, and does it have anything to do with diverting escaped gas from the shooters face? The shroud on a 14/17 Enfield lacks the flange (as does the '03) that is on the '98 shroud.

Thanks.

I never heard of the eye shield either..on Eddystone...It was my understanding that Eddystone's were made by Remington??

I can remember when Eddysones were considered extermely unsafe "They shatter when dropped on concrete"...etc.

For the life of me I cannot understand where these rumors start

IIRC Eddystone was indeed owned or at least controlled by Remington.

Part of their poor heat-treat rep is due to the left-hand rifling twist. WOW, you say, where did THAT come from?

Well, the 1917 barrels originally had left-hand twist which would tend to unscrew the barrel when fired. To ensure a good solid thread/shoulder lockup, the barrel and receiver were mounted in opposing chucks and socked together under power. As you can imagine, this provided quite an abrupt shock-load to the shoulder surfaces.

Apparently the Eddystone heat-treatment wasn't quite as good as that at the other arsenals, because smiths would occasionally find minor cracks at the front of the 1917 receiver rings at the shoulder and these cracks were or at least seemed to be more numerous on the Eddystone examples.

This is urban legend recounted to us at Trinidad by our machine shop instructor Bill Prator, who worked for Ackley and at the Ogden Arsenal before becoming an instructor. He also had some interesting stories about working with Elmer Keith at Ogden....

I believe the eye shield was an aftermarket item offered back in the heyday of the 'sporterizing' craze. IIRC it was basically a flared piece of steel that surrounded the 1917 bolt sleeve at about the same location as the Mauser's, but I don't recall the attachment method.
Regards, Joe

So basically a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

Gun rumors spread faster then then political scandal. Guns blowing up, weak actions, case hardening. It just kills me what flies for fact.

I thought it was a device to keep gases out of your eyes if needed.
Butch

quote:

So basically a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

You'd wanna explain that to Herr Mauser??

The Clarke Eye Shield came on the market, I believe, in the 50's. My memory is that there was a problem concerning the firing pin coming rearward. I think it was not a gas issue. Apparently, one must be ancient to even remember the device, let alone the condition it was supposed to remedy. Perhaps the NRA would have an answer. Will try them.

I'm building a 458 Lott on an Eddystone. It shot out two -06 barrels when I bought it from a friend. Came with an old Bishop walnut stock that I bedded for him about ten years ago. I have all the confidence in the world in the action. But I've been know to have a drink or two and been married three times, go figure.

Didn't Dakota arms use 17 enfield action for their DGRs? I'm going on with the project, it's a solid platform for a DGR.

A-Square used P14s/1917s for their proprietary cartridges, IIRC they also used them for the actual cartridge development which would have involved pushing the pressure envelope somewhat. Apparently they didn't encounter any problems.

I believe the problem with the striker coming back into the shooter's face is unique or almost unique to the 1903 Springfield design. The M54/70 Winchester, an outgrowth of the 1903, corrected this problem to a great degree. The eye shield may have been developed for the 1903 originally and then was adapted to the 1917 for increased sales, to fix a problem that didn't exist. I thought it was for gas protection but I've been wrong before.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
IIRC Eddystone was indeed owned or at least controlled by Remington.

Short history of Eddystone:
http://www.scott-duff.com/Eddystone.htm

Contemporary account:
http://books.google.com/books?...%20remington&f=false

Bruce

Another instance where Tom Burgess being alive would provide us all with an answer, I guarantee he'd know.

more to the point, for gas management, doesn't the lapour side swing safety for enfield have a flange?

Red