M1917 finish question (pics of rifle now added)

[Claven2]

I picked up an Eddystone M1917, still in cosmolene this week. Bbl is a 10-18 date. Every part down to the smallest detail is Eddystone and there is no obvious evidence of it having served outside the US. (i.e. no evidence of red paint, no C-arrow markings, bolt still un-serialized, etc.) No import marks and came out of a collection in Canada that was put together at least 30 years ago.

Now the odd part. bbl bore is about perfect and wood looks pretty original, all the ancillary parts (magazine, bottom plate, bolt, sight, bands, etc.) are either nicely rust blued (rear band and bolt) or parkerized with that nice aged USGI "green" look (bottom metal, front band), but the barrel is parkerized over sandblast or coarse bead blast and the action has been blasted, parkerized and is coated in some sort of thin paint that looks a lot like black parkerizing but is in fact a dull, matte paint - similar to what you see on original M1903 Mark I pedersen-device rifles. It's wearing off in a few of the high points (rifle has been issued but not abused).

Is this blasted, parked, and painted finish 1918/1919 era US applied, inter-war applied, a WW2 re-finish, or evidence of service elsewhere?

IMHO having collected British arms extensively, it is not suncorite and looks exactly like parkerizing but is in fact a coating overtop parkerizing.

I'll try to post pics next week as it's apart for de-greasing. I also have to replace the front action screw bushing. When the rifle was last assembled in service, the busing was actually crushed against the receiver and not all the way through the stock to contact the front tang of the trigger guard. It's like someone used a bloody big screwdriver to torque the action into the stock and crushed the busing. It had proper contact bedding, but it bothers me, so I'll replace it and fit a new bushing.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Bruce McAskill]

WW2 rebuilds were parkerized. Not sure about the coating unless a dried form of preservative maybe.

[Calif-Steve]

Eddystone did not beadblast and then parkerize anything. At the end of the production run, late 1918, they were parkerizing rifles, but no beadblasting. It wasn't necessary as the rifles were white and ready for parkerizing. Sounds like a re-finish of some sort.

[SPAD 124]

I've read that Eddystone started parkerizing around October 1918. Before that Eddystone rifles were rust blued. The greenish parkerizing would come from a later WWII rebuild. It's possible to find rearsenaled M1917s with different park colors. I have a October 1918 Eddystone receiver with dark parkerizing, almost black, and a October 1918 dated Eddystone barrel that is in greenish WWII park (really light grey that has been oiled for a long time). Given the difference in park colors I suspect my barrel was left over from WWI, parked in WWII and mated to the October 1918 receiver in a WWII rebuild.

[Chuckindenver]

both Eddystone and Remington used phosphate coatings.. starting in Sept 1918, they shot peened them, rather then sandblast finished them..the bare finish with have a brighter finish, then sandblast. and gives the parkerizng a darker color, original parkerized rifles with have a mix of blue and phosphate parts,.bolt, screws, pins, trigger ect will be blued, the action, barrel, bands, and trigger guard assembly should be phoshate.

[Claven2]

OK, well here are the pics now that I found time to over to my buddy's house and finish degreasing the action and re-assemble (he has a parts washer and it makes cleaning cosmolene off metal EVER so much easier. I still detail strip the action to clean the recesses and check for parts wear/breakage, but parts cleaners = good stuff.)

You can real see around the rear sight ears that the finish (which looks like very dark green parkerizing) is really some sort of applied coating. Paint stripper doesn't touch it. Also, some parts of the underside of the receiver are clearly NOT coated and are a black phosphate finish. The barrel is blasted (or shot peened?) and parked a dark greenish. The bottom metal is parkerized, but not blasted. The bolt is blued (cocking piece in the white). Safety retainer block is blued, as are safety, rear handguard retainer, front sight, and the non-polished parts of the rear sight. Both barrel bands are parked, but not blasted. Same for buttplate.

Every part is E-marked. Not mixed-maker parts anywhere. (as an aside, the Kerr is a WPG repro)

[Chuckindenver]

looks like its been sandblasted before to me..you can see it on the reciever edge pic. and along the sight ears.. i belive that rifle was originally a parkerized rifle, but has been rebuilt, it does have a replacement bolt..S on the handle..the couple i have seen were iron phosphate coated rather then manganese.. and were very dark, so dark you cant see the annealling on the front and aft of the receiver.
guard screrws, safety, bolt assembly, buttplate screws, and other wood screws, front sight, rear sight, rear sight spring. and pinion screws, follower, and spring, floor plate latch, and pin. bayonet lug screw, should be blue..

[Claven2]

Hi Chuck, the parts you listed as "should be blue" appear to be on this rifle.

I agree that it was liekly sandblasted at some point, certainly the barrel was and probably the receiver under the "coating". The bolt might be phosphated over a smooth finish, or it might be blued. In the pics it looks greyish, but in-hand it looks dark black. It is definitely not a blasted bolt though.

Do you think the "coating" on the receiver could be iron phosphate?

[Patrick Chadwick]

You can real see around the rear sight ears that the finish (which looks like very dark green parkerizing) is really some sort of applied coating. Paint stripper doesn't touch it. Also, some parts of the underside of the receiver are clearly NOT coated and are a black phosphate finish. The barrel is blasted (or shot peened?) and parked a dark greenish. The bottom metal is parkerized, but not blasted. The bolt is blued (cocking piece in the white). Safety retainer block is blued, as are safety, rear handguard retainer, front sight, and the non-polished parts of the rear sight. Both barrel bands are parked, but not blasted. Same for buttplate.

IMOH, you can forget all discussion about what finish Eddystone applied when. The finish on this rifle is not consistent. Both on the wood (which looks like it has been varnished) and the metalwork it looks as if the newer finish has been applied over a rough surface.
Now it just so happens that I am in a very good position to make a comparison, as my best competition service rifle is a 100% Eddystone which is numbered 1299xxx with an 11-18 barrel. Kicked around the arsenals on the outside, but with an as-new bore. It most certainly does not have the hodge-podge of finishes one can see in these photos, and the number is absolutely straight and even, which does not appear to be the case in the example in the photos.

I think this is a rifle that was left in a corner, developed a lot of surface rust, and was then sandblasted etc by John Q. Bubba. Who missed out patches that are not normally visible. Not an original finish, and not an arsenal refinish of any kind.

But that is, of course, just my opinion!


Patrick

[Chuckindenver]

naw, its a GI Finish, hard to tell, but not likely iron phosphate..not dark enough