My First M1917 and I have a barrel question

Brought home my first M1917 yesterday. It was manufactured by Eddystone and based on the serial number it was manufactured in the fall of 1918. The barrel has a fairly clear J.A. stamp on it. Then below that the ghost of a flaming bomb stamp can be seen if you hold the gun just right. I was hoping to see a barrel date below the flaming bomb but I see nothing but what looks like "turning" marks from barrel manufacturing. I guess my question is did Johnson Automatics date their replacement barrels? I was thinking it was a requirement.

The gentleman I bought it from said that during post war arsenal rebuilding it may have been sand/bead blasted off before being re-Parkerized. As evidence he showed me other marks on the receiver which he said were rather faint he thought because of prep work before refinishing. Maybe I have two questions, If weapons were refinished by an arsenal would they have removed so much metal as to make the stampings faint? I have not had a chance to take any pictures yet but the whole rifle looks refinished, the stock was stripped, and then I think a polyurethane coat was added (the stock is very shiny). The price however, was just too good to pass up and no permanent damage was done as in Bubba modifications to the stock or action. So thoughts on J.A. barrel dates and might they (military rebuild program) have aggressively sandblasted the metal before a repark? I see no stamps on the receiver or stock that I would typically associate with a rebuild.

JA barrels were not dated. WWII replacement barrels.

Well that makes me feel better. It is a two groove and in very good shape.

I have one and its one of my better shooters.

More a 1903 Barrel with the right threads for a 1917.

I re-load it the same as I do a 1903 type.

The 5 groves like a different powder and bullet combo in mine.

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

Just a heads up Banjo,

Although the likelihood of finding one is probably extremely low, some re-barreled Eddystones had issues with hairline cracks in the receiver where it meets the barrel.

In C.S. Ferris's book " United States Rifle Model of 1917 " page 167 he wrote a paragraph titled Eddystone Sales Prohibited. The Columbus [Ohio] Army Service Forces Depot sold the Model of 1917 rifles. The Ordnance Supply Officer there recommended on May 14,1947 to the Chief of Ordnance that no Eddystone rifles be sold. They had a lot of complaints from people who had there guns polished and blued. These were all re barreled rifles in Army inventory. The Army finish did not show the cracks so they could not tell a good receiver from a bad one. Original barreled rifles were OK. Re barreled rifles could crack under the stress of re barreling. Remington and Winchester did not have this problem.

Like I said, the likelihood is very small, but you should closely examine your receiver under magnification to make sure. You might have to apply a penetrant and wipe to see if any "bleeds" from a potential crack.

Any chance for some pics?

First I am not a gun smith, but I do follow probably the most respected and prolific 1917 Barrel replacer since WWII in Chuck in Denver is his moniker, I believe Warpaths something is his business (he does this for a living and a LOT of 1917s. )

What we have is the equivalent of an unban legend before we had them on the internet.

The basis of that is the 1917 was a prolific contributor to being a Sporter conversion.

Not having the right tools could lead to a cracked receiver. It would be Eddystone, Remington of Winchester.

As the US Arsenals had the right tools, few if any of those were the cause. If they did they probably pitched it.

Over the years a lot of barrels got replaced by home amateurs as well as smiths not equip0ed with the right tools.

You hear about over torque on Eddsyones. Impossible as they used a witness mark, it was right or it was not and all mfg of the 1917 used the same mark.

So yes any barrel change rifle should be inspected, that applies to all of them, not just 1917s.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banjo1928

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banjo1928

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

---

I doubt there was significant differences, the throat to the original 1917 barrels used a more slope type, 1903 were more square.

I totally agree RC, and like you said it's still a good idea to check.

I did end up avoiding rebarreled eddystones when I was searching for a 1917. There was a sporterized RIA barreled eddy on GB and I wanted to snag it up since it's pretty rare. But their reserve was way outta my price range for a sporterized rifle. I've watched it be relisted about 10 times and don't think it will ever sell. I've seen high bids on it at 450 and still didn't break the ice.

My Remington with a JA barrel is one of my most accurate military rifles
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...78f7033a-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtoms

My Remington with a JA barrel is one of my most accurate military rifles
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...78f7033a-1.jpg

---

I have heard that the JA barrels are very accurate!