I have a Winchester-made P-17, been thinking of having it rechambered for Something Really Big and Hairy. What's the largest/most powerful cartridge this action will stand safely, and who might be a Good Man to talk to about such a build?

Are you saying 1917 Enfield? I'm not familiar with a P17. How about a 600 Overkill?
Butch

YES, Pattern 1917 Enfield, built by Winchester, 30-06 in caliber.

This is often a source of confusion. I believe the Pattern part of the name is tagged to the Pattern 1914 Enfield for the British 303 while the MODEL 1917 is for the 30-06 so you have a M17 Enfield.

P14 = 303 Brit
M17 = 30-06

There were minor differences in the actionin as far as the P14 was for rimmed round while the M17 was for the rimless round so the bolt face is different for a start.

Von Gruff.

www.canyonsportingarms.com tip's building a .505 gibbs on a remington 30 action... civilian version (sort of) of the m1917... i have a .416 taylor on an enfield m1917...

quote:

tip's building a .505 gibbs

Others have done it as well.

IMO the bolt diameter of the 1917 Enfield is too small for this round and yes...it's done...

The largest I'd consider on this action is the .458 Lott or the .470 Capstick. Both on the .531 magnum headstamp and .375 H&H length brass.

Both of these are way way beyond any kind of recoil I'm interested in!

Jim Kobe did a lot of the work on mine years ago and I'd ask him without hesitation if you wanted one of these!

Making an 1917 Enfield do this is a helluva lot of work.....have lots of cash regardless of who does it!

Buddy has one in 30-378 Wby Mag 1-14 twist straight barrel Shots 110 or 115 grain bullets at near 4K FPS
Vaporizes a five gallon bucket of water like a .220 swift will a ground hog

Come on butch, you know what the guy meant!

Okay, a couple of things, the enfields are awesome, my favorite action (of course I should qualify that, favorite action I have owned, theoretically a Satterlee is my favorite action) with that said I want to throw a couple things out there.

Yes, 505 gibbs doable, no reason not to, as suitable as most off the shelf actions out there....

-you probably for the money or less can get the CZ in 505, I only mention it because it's true, not because I don't completely understand wanting a custom to your own tastes

-the winchesters have the "duckpond" between the ears in back, if the ears haven't been cut off yet consider having the gunsmith use them to attach an integral rear base

-IMO the enfield safety is it's best feature. of every safety I've tried it is my most preferred and the one I find most comfortable in the field. If I had tons of money I'd have a dozen 1917 Rem or Rem 30 customs, every one would have original safeties. so DON'T CHANGE IT!

-The enfield is massive, but not STRONGER because of it, I'd have no worries doing any normal cartridge since I load them to standard specs. but if you want high pressures, or load hot, I'd say just get a modern action made with the modern metallurgy.

Dennis Olson, he's an enfield guy (not limited to that, but there are some gunsmiths that hardly ever see an enfield in their shop). I sent mine to him on recommendations here, I called the day it arrived to make sure it got there and we were on the same page with what it needed. He'd already worked on two that day! that made me feel good. I haven't gotten it back yet, but talked to him a couple times since it left (I send the check tomorrow to get it back) and feel comfortable recommending him without reservation. He usually is pretty tight lipped on the phone, but when he does open up, he's a kick! I really like him.

Go enfields!

Red

model 1917- no us rifle is pattern whatever, thats the british designator for the p14 ,, yeah, it matters

600 overkill
550 gibbs
577 trex
550 mag
585 nyati
550 express

and then most any little ones

Red - I know, this is picking flyspecs ... though i'd like to correct a misconception

the enfield is NOT "massive" .. it's long and wide, but NOT physically linearly having more mass than the m98 ... once you strip the action, i feel its rather lightweight ... its just longer and wider than a m98

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

the enfield is NOT "massive" .. it's long and wide, but NOT physically linearly having more mass than the m98 ... once you strip the action, i feel its rather lightweight ... its just longer and wider than a m98

I've notice this on my brothers rifle It's not that much larger then a M98 and not so much as to be immediately noticeable unless they were side by side.

But it is a good action to stuff those really big rounds in. Takes a Mag length case with relative ease

I guess I should have used a different word since "mass-ive" does imply more mass, hence more weight. I meant dimensionally so probably should have used a different word so it couldn't be analyzed like that. von gruff's post was spot on.

Deleted everything else I just wrote after realizing I'm just real irritable right now and don't want to step on toes.

Red

Red,
I was being overly picky ... sorry if i bothered ya ...

Gentlemen, I said P-17 simply because that IS how these rifles are COMMONLY referred to. NOT out of ignorance or carelessness. It's listed so in all the U.S. Army data I've ever seen on it. U.S Rifle, Pattern 1917, etc. I also LIKE this action better than any other bolt I've owned, or shot, which includes Remington 700's, S.M.L.E.'s, and Weatherby's, as well as the M70 and the M77mkII. I also realize that the Monster calibers would be cost-prohibitive, and I've never shot anything bigger than a .375 H&H. But I WANT to. I may just leave the Old Girl as she is, and buy the 750-dollar Ruger Number 1 in 450/400 Express. MUCH cheaper, plus I COULD make some Cash if I decided to re-sell it. As well, the Boss Lady may see this as Grounds For Divorce, which is O.K., too. Two Birds With One Shot, and all that. Thanks much,
KY Jim

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:


the enfield is NOT "massive" .. it's long and wide, but NOT physically linearly having more mass than the m98 ... once you strip the action, i feel its rather lightweight ... its just longer and wider than a m98

I believe it is quite a bit heavier than the 98. By "quite a bit" I mean more than 10%.

Jim,
yes, its frequently incorrectly called something its not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield_rifle



Jason,
coulD be .. with ears and sight still in place .. i'll weigh a rounded 17 to a stock cz in the next couple days. stripped ones, of course

Jim Wisner has shown details of just exactly how to alter the Enfield/Rem 30 to take the 505. Judging by my many years' experience with Jim's many fine products, I'll go with HIS opinion any time.

By the time you get through cutting & splicing all the knobs and nooks of the receiver, you can make it weigh pretty much whatever you wnat it to weigh. It's still big, though.
Regards, Joe

Curiosity got to me so I went and weighed some actions.
Scale used was an old postal scale that goes to 25lbs and graduated in oz. Maybe not as accurate as a new digital scale, but, here is what I got. All actions were weighed complete.

M1917 Enfield (2 examples)= 53oz.
M1917 Enfield (rear bridge contoured to fit Rem. 700 bases) =47oz.
Standard M98 = 44oz.
Yugo intermediate 98 = 43oz.
Mexican mod 1910 (2 examples)= 43oz.
Turk standard length large ring small thread
(3 examples) = 46oz.

Anyway, there it is. A contoured enfield is not that much heavier than a standard 98.

Roger

quote:

Originally posted by Rojelio:
Curiosity got to me so I went and weighed some actions.
Scale used was an old postal scale that goes to 25lbs and graduated in oz. Maybe not as accurate as a new digital scale, but, here is what I got. All actions were weighed complete.

M1917 Enfield (2 examples)= 53oz.
M1917 Enfield (rear bridge contoured to fit Rem. 700 bases) =47oz.
Standard M98 = 44oz.
Yugo intermediate 98 = 43oz.
Mexican mod 1910 (2 examples)= 43oz.
Turk standard length large ring small thread
(3 examples) = 46oz.

Anyway, there it is. A contoured enfield is not that much heavier than a standard 98.

Roger

Interesting test.....could I ask you to please repeat this test weighing the receiver only...
No bolt, no bottom metal!

On my scale I couldn't determine much difference between the standard 98, Mexican 1910, and intermediate Yugo totally stripped receivers. All came in at approximately 14.5 oz.

The totally stripped Turk receiver was 16 oz on the nose.

The Enfield receiver with the contoured bridge weighed 18 oz. totally stripped except for the safety.

The unaltered Enfield receiver was 24 oz. totally stripped except for the safety and rear sight (and spring).

I would also like to see this done with a more accurate scale.

Jeff, how accurate is your scale?

Roger

I used a P-14 action for a .450 Ackley Mag and shot it for years in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is still doing duty in the "Saskabush" (Saskatoon) area.

They are plenty sturdy enough for that round which MAY be a tiny bit hairier than the Lott. I know I have fired it numerous times from the shoulder with 90 grains of 3031 and the 500 grain Barnes "Original" bullet.

That is a severe load, which destroys the brass for further reloading on the first shot, every shot. Wasn't safe in my rifle and would probably destroy most others.

(That's what Murphy's mom tells me anyway and she's not overly protective of her son, the law-giver.)

roger, mine is just a postal .. though i am suprised, and Jason is right, the enfield is a bunch heavier than the 98

OK, I found a more accurate scale for the lighter weights.

All receivers totally stripped:

Yugo = 14.75 oz.
Mex. = 15.25 oz.
98 = 15.50 oz.
Turk = 16.00 oz
Contoured enfield = 18.00 oz.
Stock enfield = 22.00 oz.

Roger

Jason,
you are right.. unless the safety weighs 1.5 oz ... the enfield is more than 10% heavier .. but its also longer and wider!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jason,
you are right.. unless the safety weighs 1.5 oz ... the enfield is more than 10% heavier .. but its also longer and wider!

If building something that warrants an Enfield that 10% is a blessing.

Sometime back Harold Wolfe was going to send an Enfield out for a "destruction test"(I guess the proof houses will load a receiver until it goes?). I don't know the outcome, but Harold believed that the Enfield would prove to be stronger than the Mauser, IIRC.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
Sometime back Harold Wolfe was going to send an Enfield out for a "destruction test"(I guess the proof houses will load a receiver until it goes?). I don't know the outcome, but Harold believed that the Enfield would prove to be stronger than the Mauser, IIRC.

Please refer to Ackley's Handbook and the blowup tests shown there. Pretty conclusive evidence that the Enfields and Mausers are comparatively weak when compared to other actions. Also please refer to the photo of the SHATTERED pre-64 M70 receiver, it's apparently comparatively weak also, at least when loaded to catastrophic levels. A comparison to the 1903 receiver destruction tests shown in Hatcher's Notebook will also prove informative. It's quite evident that the later 1903s are stronger than most others tested including the Enfields and Mausers.

IMO the Enfield is plenty strong but using the flat breech of the P14 would make it even safer. The cone breech, as opposed to a flat breech, provides a much straighter shot for any escaping gas to rush to the rear with more velocity and more pressure. The 2 right-angles of the flat breech provide a more convoluted gas path and thus more time for the pressure to subside before encountering the shooter's eyes. A small point perhaps, but the multiple right-angles of the Mauser and Remington 700 gas paths are the key to their safety when a case head fails.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Jason,
you are right.. unless the safety weighs 1.5 oz ... the enfield is more than 10% heavier .. but its also longer and wider!

If building something that warrants an Enfield that 10% is a blessing.

Sometime back Harold Wolfe was going to send an Enfield out for a "destruction test"(I guess the proof houses will load a receiver until it goes?). I don't know the outcome, but Harold believed that the Enfield would prove to be stronger than the Mauser, IIRC.

Spot on.....if your talking "BIG BORES" more weight isn't an issue.

regards
S&F

One of my 1917's is a custom 550 Gibbs (necked up 505), and the other is a 577 Gibbs (necked up a little more with a belt swaged on).
You will want to find a P14 bolt if you go big. They were in .303 British, and the rimmed bolt head is larger in diameter.

PM me and I'll send you some pictures.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

As well, the Boss Lady may see this as
Grounds For Divorce, which is O.K., too. Two Birds With One Shot, and all that. Thanks much,
KY Jim

HA!! that was good

Red

to be clear, the bolt lugs allow one to face the boltface a bit more open and still have something holding the shell, other than tinfoil... the bolt is nto larger in diameter, there's just more surface area due to the lug positioning.

shortandfat posted this great pic
m17 on left, p14 on right

Because of that long left lug I was able to put
my 700HE 3.25" in Enfields and mine are stronger
that WIN, Mausers, Springfield, as I make a
third evenly bearing, super heavy, locking
lug on the heavy bolt handle base
where it fits in the cutout.Ed

Curses! Foiled AGAIN! The Ruger was already Gone. But I expect it'll be back soon. Many guys hereabouts want one of the bigger rifles UNTIL they pull the trigger on it once or twice. And few if any read MUCH, so they aren't Clued In to proper techniques. That stock seemed Short to me, so I thought I'D put a thicker pad on it and so AVOID black eyes and cheek. Locally such guns are bought purely as Gross Displays of Wealth, like the 600-dollar-apiece 20-inch rims popular on cars these days. Status symbols, IOW. But, being Hillbillies, we can't allow ANY gun we buy to go UNshot. And in a day or two, the 'Damned CANNON' is back at the gunshop. Got my .300 just that way, lol.
Back On Topic, I was having a Hard Time trying to decided which cartridge for the 17. A Medium bore, High-energy cartridge, probably a .45 of some sort. Having to have a proper stock would add greatly to the expense, of course, even with merely Field-Grade wood. Maybe even a .470 Nitro. I never realized just how MUCH Detail there is in building a rifle until I began thinking about this project....