Would it be at all worthwhile for me to re barrel my 1917 in a different caliber. I want a fast 6.5(06 imp or 284) for targets and deer. I have a 1917 sitting around that i never shoot, it's already been bubbaized and now has a weaver 2.5x. Would this be a suitable platform for a 6.5'06 improved or am I trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear?

Personally I love the action, I took my 1917 in .35 Whelen AI out shooting yesterday and it makes me happy every time. I like the safety on it, very comfortable for my hand. If the gun has already been sporterized it is something I would do. (starting from original with them is too costly to make sense).

Red

Obviously, from my nickname, you see where I stand on this subject.

Go for it. I have a target rifle on a '17 in 6.5x55 and another one in .308 which shoots consistent 1/2 m.o.a. groups. The .308 is interesting because my gunsmith welded a piece of steel in the magazine area to make a single shot out of it, and installed a Remington 700-style recoil lug.

I've also got a .300 Winchester Magnum on a Remington '17 action with an E.R. Shaw barrel that is very accurate.

I'd say try it. You might want to contact Boyd's for an inexpensive (but thoroughly adequate) stock. You also might want to contact Dayton-Traister for the speedlock kit, which contains a trigger and cock-on-opening conversion. Gun Parts Corp. also has an excellent coil-spring ejector for a couple of bucks that is well worth having.

If you do decide to install a Remington 700-style recoil lug, you will need to rout out a section of your stock and bed it accordingly. You should also then probably leave the existing recoil lug "hanging free" and use it simply as a place to screw the action into the stock.

MLC
It would be a great and easy project. My mentor/smith is nuts about 6.5x06... he's got more than I have 358winchesters...

if you want it done turn key, send it to pacnor, and call dave at ch4d... and get ready to spend $600, blued, dies, and brass... and shoot the hell out of it
jeffe

I have several that are very accurate if I'm on. Some of those have had a plate welded into place to convert them to single-shot (more rigid). I even have a BR rifle based on an Enfield...shot a 1/2 inch group at 200 yards in gusty winds this past weekend and it's averaging right around 0.2 inch groups to date when I'm not load developing.

Some things about this action that are good: it has square grooves and the threading is deeper than any other action I'm aware of meaning more contact between the barrel and the receiver. Of course that makes it a bit more difficult to find a gunsmith to chamber and thread a barrel for you. It has a pretty good reputation for being strong, especially the Rem/Win, not so much the Eddystone (too hard). It's long so it can chamber a large number of case lengths. Timney does make a trigger for the action although a drawback is that you can't put some of the higher end triggers on this action. I like the fact that it's CRF and has a strong ejector whereas some may not want those features.

Some drawbacks: many gunsmiths won't or don't know how to work with this action to get it's full potential (see square grooves above as well as the difficulty of prep with milling ears, etc.). All but the Rems require a piece of metal be milled to fill in the hole on the rear receiver which is required for mounting scope bases. The dogleg bolt is best straightened, especially if you're going with a heavy hitter.

Personally I think the action choice is somewhat secondary as long as you're going to bed the action (whatever it may be), float the barrel, install a good trigger, and do a good job chambering a GOOD barrel, just to name a few tasks.

P-17, I'm curious why you added the Rem recoil lug and took the Enfield's out of play?

Good luck.

Reed

I bought one last night, or at least committed to buy it friday when I get paid. My gunsmith knows what I like so he told me when he took in a 1917 Win. I took a look at it last night, some pitting on the floorplate and triggerguard, stock is oversize so there is room to trim it down to something serviceable, rear hole is only partially filled. The important things are done though, bottom metal straighted to sit flush in bottom of stock without the drop down, ear ground off, drilled and tapped with base installed (weaver I think), Dayton-Traister speedlock and trigger. $125 :-) If I am careful and do most of the work myself I can get it done someday without too much money I hope.

Good luck with your project, whatever you decide to do.

Red

I'm curious about the Boyd's stocks -- are they for flattened bottom metal, or the "pot-belly" original style? And how does this affect the magazine box depth? Could I shave the bottom of a pot belly stock down and re-inlet the triggerguard without having to cut down the mag box?

Todd

Pot belly style, but they can be trimmed down. - Dan

I'm also very partial to 1917 Enfields with the model 30 remingtons being as close to perfection for a big bore as you can get. They are alot of work, but well worth it. Rebarrelling to 6.5-06 should be a snap assuming you can find a smith who can cut square threads, cone a barrel and mill in an extractor cut properly. Thats a heck of alot more work then screwing in a Brownells M-700 barrel. Try Dennis Olsen. He knows Enfields. -Rob

Rod,

What is the model30 Remington? I have gabs in knowledge about the size of the grand canyon. As of Friday I will have 3 1917's, all Winchesters I think, what is the difference between these and the model 30?

Anybody know what the hole in the rear ring is for and what the best way to fill it is? Whatever smith originally did the work on my 1917 .458 really knew what they were doing, you can't tell there was EVER a hole there.

Red

Red,

The Rem 30 was produced by Remington using actions they had previously manufactured for the military. With the end of the war they were no longer needed and Remington "sporterized" them and produced the Rem 30 in a variety of calibers. I suspect that if you search this site you will find some previous discussion on the Rem 30. I finally put my hands on one last fall and I really like it...it won't be for sale with ME as owner.

Regarding the hole, I'm not quite sure what the "function" may have been as the Remington's the only one that didn't have it while Eddystone, essentially a Remington plant produced the Enfield with the hole. Of course the Winchester has the hole. It seems like many folks consider the Winchester the best of the three Enfields...as far as I'm concerned the Remington is the best as it doesn't have that damned hole. As far as what to do to fix it, one must mill a replacement piece within just 1 or 2/1000 of an inch and then set with Loc-tite. Loc-tite is extremely strong when used within those tolerances.

Good luck.

Reed

CH4D is a die company.

Lilja is good but so is Hart, and Shilen...as well as many others. I suggest you go with the one YOU feel has the best policy should anything go awry. Warning, some are better than others. You may also want to pay attention to what they recommend for break-in. Some recommend special steps while others say "have at it."

Make sure whomever you speak with on gunsmithing has experience cutting threads for the square grooves, as well as the other things mentioned...coned bolt, extractor groove.

If you don't feel you're finding much there just let me know and I'll clue you in to my gunsmith. I don't like to give his name out much as he's semi-retired. He has years of experience with Enfields and could very easily do the work for you.

Additional stocks to consider would include the Microfit which can be had pretty cheaply ~$125 for laminate, http://www.rifle-stocks.com/ , and you can also consider Wenig which turns out a stock that is for all intensive purposes identical to the old Fajens...because they used to work for Fajen and bought a lot of the equipment when Fajen went out of business: www.wenig.com

Let us know should you have any other questions.

Good luck.

Reed

Reed,

could you post a picture of the model 30? I can't seem to find one anywhere. I am going to bet that my 458 is a Remington and I just don't remember correctly, cause otherwise I can't see how the smith coult have gotten the rear hole to totally disappear.

Red

Further to all of these questions and comments, let me post some of my impressions about these actions. I got started playing with them a few years ago when I bought a Remington '17 with the ears milled off at a gun show for $50. The point about finding a gunsmith to work in it is well taken. I went through many queries to different gunsmiths before I lucked out and found one locally, a semi-retired gunsmith named Fred Bardua, who has since become a good friend of mine. In fact, of all those actions he's worked on for me, he's barely charged me anything; his generosity has encouraged me to pursue target shooting and reloading where I might have found the costs prohibitively expensive. He's a true friend, but one of the last few of the generation raised on playing with these actions.

We decided to experiment with the Reminton 700-style recoil lug on my .308 for three reasons:

First, the existing recoil lug is pretty small for such a massive action. It works, to be sure, but you can't deny that the 700-style lug has greatly more surface bearing area, which theoretically means that it will anchor the action better and more consistently under repeated recoil, shot after shot.

Second, when building a target rifle with a long, heavy barrel, that washer-type recoil lug provides greater support to the barrel shank than simply relying upon the threads. It effectively lengthens the receiver by its thickness (usually 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch). Many actions are successful without that extra support on the shank, but it certainly can't hurt.

Third, and most importantly, many people argue that putting the main action screw into the recoil lug indudes stresses on the lug in different directions. The general principle is that the recoil lug shouldn't "bottom out" in the stock and shouldn't have any contact on the front or sides. This is doubly true in a Mauser-type system in which the main screw that holds the action to the stock goes through the recoil lug as well. By using the 700 system, you can separate the functions of recoil lug and action screw.

Has all this made a huge difference to my .308? I can't say for sure, but it certainly hasn't hurt. Like I said, it was an experiment, and it seems to have worked very well indeed.

Now on to stocks: The Boyd's should be a dandy, but as it comes from the factory, it is designed to accommodate the traditional "belly" of the P-14/17. Another stock option is to contact Richards Microfit (http://www.rifle-stocks.com/). These guys apparently make stocks for the straightened action as well as the "belly." I've never used one of their stocks, but it will probably be the next one I buy.

Regarding triggers: I've tried both the Timney and the Dayton-Traister, and I prefer the latter. You might prefer the Timney, I don't know. Actually, the nicest trigger I've used so far was Fred's modification of the issue trigger with a couple of setscrews and honing stones. He transformed it into a single stage trigger that breaks crisply at 3 pounds. I use this on my 6.5x55 target rifle with a heavy stainless Gaillard barrel.

You might want to consider the entire Dayton-Traister "Speedlock" package that contains everything you need to transform the action into cock-on-opening with a single-stage, adjustable trigger and a shorter striker fall. Otherwise, you can try the Gun Parts Corp. cock-on-opening conversion that only works with the original military trigger, or the Dayton-Traister trigger. While you're at it, order the GunParts Corp coil-spring ejector for a couple of bucks. It makes a difference.

Finally, there was some discussion about the Remington Model 30. Check out Frank DeHaas's book "Bolt Action Rifles" for more information. The Model 30 was Remington's competition to the Winchester Model 70 and its precursor, the Model 25, I believe. By all accounts, it was a much more nicely finished action than the military '17 but many purists think the Pre-'64 Model 70 is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Actually, the Rolls Royce of Enfield actions appears to be the Remington Model 720 that succeeded the Model 30 for a few years in the 1940s. Apparently, only a few thousand of these rifles were ever sold, compared to hundreds of thousands of Model 70s from the same era. By all accounts, however, that 720 was about all anyone could ever ask of a fine hunting rifle. This rifle was way too expensive to make, and Remington needed to stay competitive, so Mike Walker designed a new action that was much cheaper and easier to manufacture. It was based on a round receiver with a washer-type recoil lug sandwiched between the barrel and the receiver, and the rest, as they say, was history.

http://www.serveroptions.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=37;t=000151

My kind of thread...a lot of good stuff. Hopefully the link above will direct you to photos of my Rem 30. If not, go to the gun collecting forum and make sure you display more than the standard 60 days. At that point you should see 3-4 pages of threads instead of 1. I think I found it near the top of the 2nd page.

As for the milled piece, a really good effort will tend to disappear into that hole so I'd say it's still in doubt.

I'd sure like to find one of those 720's. I know this, everyone that gets their hands on that Rem 30 just fall in love with it almost instantly. They just don't make them like that anymore.

If the FN Mauser isn't the best factory sporter ever made then the Rem 30 or 720 must be.

Thanks for the good info guys, I hope you find my input useful.

Reed

For anyone interested, a Remington Model 30 Express (with pix) is currently listed on AuctionArms.com (not mine!).

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?ItemNum=4381755

A wonderful wonderful gun. And such worksmanship and quality once was normal US factory standard - not "custom shop".

They don't make'em like this anymore - alas :-(.

Carcano

"The important things are done though, bottom metal straighted to sit flush in bottom of stock without the drop down....."

Straightening the guard can make the distance between the screws to long, be carefull. Also, loose the bolt release button and clip slots. Also loose the dog leg bolt handle while you are at it. If you want to get real crazy, add a longer tang and thumb safety, like the Ruger m-77. These things are a tinkerer's dream. : )

The original bottom metal is ugly. Consiter using a M-70 style floor plate. The frame around the box makes for a boxie stock. You can use the trigger guard bow and the existing floor plate. Remove the box frame and make a new piece for the front guard screw and hinge. Add a hinge and latch to the floor plate. I set up my latch to be right in fornt of the trigger, like a M-700 blot release. It makes a much more streamlined job. You will need a stock without bottom inletting.

[ 05-30-2003, 19:50: Message edited by: scot ]

A good strong action. As late as 1980 a surprising number were still in use in Canada in DCRA full-bore (high-power) competition.

There are several versions of the M-30 Remington. If you shop for one, try to find a "late" one (1932, '33, or so). Had a better shaped stock.

If you like rimmed cartridges or belted magnums, look for a P-14 instead. Same rifle, earlier version. Chambered for .303 Brit originally. I used one to build .450 Ackley Mag. Worked great. Wish I had it back.

P-13 was even earlier, but chambered for Brit .276 round that was killed by onset of WW-I.

If you build a big thumper on one, you might want to silver solder or otherwise attach a lug to the bottom of the barrel about 6-8" in front of the receiver. Then, with both action and barrel lug glassed into the stock, you don't have to worry about recoil damaging or compressing the stock.

AC

[ 05-31-2003, 00:42: Message edited by: Alberta Canuck ]

Oval hole, Wash basin, bathtub, duck pond , Top of bridge P 14, P 17 and hidden under clever disguise in M30 AND 30 S Remington factory rework of the "Enfield" rifle.

This cut was mandated to minimise distortion and warp caused in heat treat by the un equal cooling of the Massive bolt diameter to spring flat cross section bridge top versus the much machined lower section when the heated part was quenched to result in hardening the bridge end. Remington had solved the problem by quenching first in a higher temperature medium, then a second quench at normal temperature. Ultimately the factory received permission to eliminate this extra work in the interests of wartime increase in production, sometime in 1917.

The various M30's and the 720 also were made from parts that were either rejected as complete rifles which did not meet gage for MILITARY specs. Such things as the rear sight pivot between the ears being skewed off to one side or too much buffing on the ring to where the stamped hand guard retaining ring slipped around loosely.
It was far easier to put the rejects in storage and catch up with them later. This storage plus continued production into march of 1919 without official War Dept. notice to cease production left over 50,000 worth of parts to make that many rifles. U.S. Congress didn't authorise payment or settle up with Remington until they went into receivership and were bailed out by Du-Pont (under gentle pressure from the War Dept, which was concerned that The U.S. would be minus an arms maker with a proven production record and very large facilities to boot) The various historians have had to use scanty info about this but there were congressional hearings which detailed Machinery, tooling and finished articles unpaid for, when those of the leftward tilt started to worry -with committee hearings- about the big getting bigger. In 1919 we had troops in Siberia to guard the humanitarian aid being sent there to feed those trying to escape the armies of what became the "workers paradise". Not knowing how involved the U.S. might become in this and other trouble spots may have been why the contract was allowed to continue.

Of the more than 100 Rem 30'w I have examined over the years, Repair station, Rebluing for a network of dealers etc., There were at least a dozen where you could see that the duck pond had been filled with a block, and that usually welded around the edges of the filler piece. It was easier to find on those where the guide rib had been fitted to the bolt because you could see the outlines in the slot for the rib inside the bridge.

Did not find any traces on the 720 of the bridge having been filled. Those that I reworked into something else seemed to have oversized threads in the recoil lug, and tapered in diameter. Why, turned up on those that I ground to true the contour and or mill the feedwell out for something bigger. If you look at the side flats at the bottom you will notice that these flats appear to have been machined in one setup at the bridge ,another at the ring end and the third in between. A drilling and tapping fixture using these for a reference could easily skew the front hole off to one side or the other ,particularly if there was a chip involved between the clamping surfaces.. This could explain why I have found the front screw off to the side by as much as .025 from central to the bolt bore. This did not affect the fit up of the front strap or the trigger guard. Same principle as the 70 Win.

Lend lease and shipments to the Republic of China required a stock of spare parts. Remington had quite a few that would pass military specs, and almost got even in the process of selling them to the Govt. You could buy replacement receivers through the DCM after WW II and specify maker. For $ 5.00 Plus Railway Express charges. I got 5, All of them serialed beyond the accepted top number and with original bluing. Most of these replaced Edystones with cracks. Sigh. Wonder what a virginal blued Rem Receiver with a number beyond the accepted tally would be worth today.

Remington could have machined the parts at the same type of expense as Winch, because they still had lots of new cutters. Their idea was to get under Winch by at least $20.00 and sell more.
Thus the 722 & 721.

Excellent information.

I looked carefully yesterday at my whelen while cleaning it. I could not see any evidence of that pond, none at all. The marking are gone on the front ring, or I can't see them under the base, so I am guessing it was a Remington? I am going to look at my other 1917 as soon as I get a chance to see if I can see the borders of the hole in it. I love learning the history of these things, thanks System98 for that last post.

Red

In terms of ID, you may try looking at such things as the bolt release, the safety, the bolt, etc., for any letters such as "E," "W," or "R."

These represent Eddystone, Winchester, and Remington respectively and while a hodge-podge may not help id, a preponderence of one letter may indicate the make of the action. I might add that with refurbishment this is not considered conclusive but should be a decent indicator.

Good luck.

Reed