This past month there have been several topics about the Model 1917 Enfield. Here's another. Many years ago I acquired in trade an Eddystone 1917 Enfield. It had the rear sight wing guards(ears) milled way down in the receiver. (This was apparently part of an amateurish sporterizing attempt, whioh included a new sporter stock. However it is fairly accurate.) I put the calipers to it and there is only about .045"-.050" of metal left. Apparently, it is enough to hold together, for, I have shot a number of times years back, with no untoward results. I have heard both pro and con about suitability for conversion to a sporter, i.e. it being a less desireable Eddystone. Years ago, I took it to a local well known and respected gunsmith(last name of Sutfin, now deceased) and he said he could convert it to .375H&H, no problem; he discounted the bad rap about the Eddystone. At the time, I never followed through with the conversion. With three little kids such expenditures were not in the budget. Many years later I took it to another gunsmith and he would not touch it; told me I should just keep it as is and keep it as a "loaner". ( I know that he has serious concerns about anything smacking of potential liability issues.) I still have it and after seeing the postings here I am again thinking about doing the conversion. However, I do have a concern about the thin metal left at the rear of the receiver, where the milling was done. Can that area be safely built back up? I do not have a clue why so much metal was removed. It may have been done to accomodate the Williams peep sight it carries. Could this action be safely converted to .375H&H, or .404 Jeffery? How cost effective would it be?

The bad rap Eddystones got was from some of them cracking through the front ring. Your action could be Magnifluxed to see if that has occured on your's but, from what you've described, that probably is not the case.

As for building up the rear bridge, it can be done as many of the more capable smiths make "Squarebridge" Mausers out of military 98's. The only possible concern is putting too much heat on it and warping it. I think most of these guys make a piece of metal to follow the contour of the rear bridge and then silver solder it in place. I think that could be done without warping it. The rear bridge itself has nothing to do with the primary safety of the action and it's primary function is to retain the bolt when drawn back.

What you are talking about is a lot of money to do this project when you might be better off buying a Model 70 Classic in .375 H & H and have no worries about it's integrity.

Depending on how it looks, you may want to consider replacing the receiver as 1917 actions are fairly inexpensive. Thin metal on the rear bridge is on no consequence as it's main function is to hold the bolt in line and provide a place to mount a sight or scope, and unless its too thin to do this you don't really have a problem.

quote:

Model 1917 Enfield

Are those known as 'Enfield’s'? Is that what I know as the Pattern 17? (Springfield nomenclature using the year of adoption). I've only every known them as P-14's (in 303) and P-17's (in 30-06) - that's in my part of the world, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

Model 1917 Enfield

Are those known as 'Enfield’s'? Is that what I know as the Pattern 17? (Springfield nomenclature using the year of adoption). I've only every known them as P-14's (in 303) and P-17's (in 30-06) - that's in my part of the world, anyway.

That's the Commonwealth nomenclature. P-17 is slang in this part of the world but Enfield Model of 1917 is more correct here.

Thanks for that, tiggertate. I learn something new every day from these forums. Is the Lee Enfield No.4 commonly called 'SMLE' in the U.S.? (That's what I have seen it referred to). I call the L.E.No.1 MkIII, the SMLE and the L.E.No.IV, the No.4. The No.1 MkI being the LMLE. Sorry for digressing here!

Speaking of Eddystones...I too, feel they have been given a BS rap...after all, they were made by Remington, I understand...Does anyone know of definitive studies on these variants?

I can't speak for all here but in my neck of the woods we call them the Mk 3 and the No. 4. We see far fewer of the other variants except maybe the No. 4 Jungle Carbine (always called the "Jungle Carbine" or the No. 4 Ishpore which we assume is a 308 unless otherwise specified.

quote:

or the No. 4 Ishpore which we assume is a 308 unless otherwise specified.

Now I am really deviating! I suppose some folks just call any Lee Enfield with an ugly butt and fore-end an SMLE - they are, after all, both 'Short Magazine Lee Enfields'. The Ishaporean gun in question was a Mk3! They were already building Mk3's when the Indian army decided it needed to standardise its cartridge to 7.62 (the 7.62 was its machinegun cartridge), so they decided to use modern steel (4140 I believe) to upgrade the Mk3 to 308. It had a 'square' magazine and altered extractor, otherwise, it looked the same. It was from this or another forum that I recently, first heard about it. (Information available on the 'net). Oh, the Jungle carbine is the No.5 - same action 'though.

quote:

"Can that area be safely built back up?" Could this action be safely converted to .375H&H, or .404 Jeffery?

I believe the answer is yes to both questions. Since the receiver bridge is not subjected to anywhere near the stresses the receive ring gets, I see no objection. Just keep the heat in the rear portion of the receiver. Don't let the ring get hot. (Most Eddystones that have cracked rings were cracked when the barrel was removed using the wrong method!)

As to whether converting an ex-military action to a sporter is cost-effective or not, I guess it depends on the number and type of alterations to the action you have to pay for.

If you intend to do all the work yourself, it might prove reasonable, if you don't count the value of your own labor....

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

Model 1917 Enfield

Are those known as 'Enfield’s'? Is that what I know as the Pattern 17? (Springfield nomenclature using the year of adoption). I've only every known them as P-14's (in 303) and P-17's (in 30-06) - that's in my part of the world, anyway.

Roger! We call them "1917 Enfields", maybe incorrectly. But that name distinguishes them from 1903 Springfields. The 1917's were never made at Springfield Armory....

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I can't speak for all here but in my neck of the woods we call them the Mk 3 and the No. 4. We see far fewer of the other variants except maybe the No. 4 Jungle Carbine (always called the "Jungle Carbine" or the No. 4 Ishpore which we assume is a 308 unless otherwise specified.

Tigger, P14 and M1917 "Enfields" bear no resemblance at all to the rifles you are talking about. Those #3's (SMLE) and No. 4's are "LEE-ENFIELDS", and their actions with the 10-round detachable box 10-round magazines bear NO resemblance whatsoever to the dual-lug, front lockup P14/M17's. These latter are actually modified Mauser actions, having dual opposed front locking lugs. They are larger and more massive than the M98 Mauser. The only feature they in common with the Lee-Enfield is that both the P14/17 and Lee-Enfield cock when closing the bolt, rather than when opening it.

The P14/M1917's are very strong actions, capable of handling any modern, high-intensity cartridge that will fit in it. This is very different from the SMLE's!!