Rockwell test

I have 3 actions. Two Winchesters and an Eddystone. I put them on the Rockwell to test the Hardness. The two winchesters tested 42 and 45 RC.
The Eddystone was a 19 RC.
What does that mean? I thought the Eddystone was supposed to be hard and brittle. I'm afraid to shoot it. It would cost the same as a new action to have this one heat treated by that outfit in Salt Lake.
Help old guys

wow.
got some info mixed up for sure i bet.
the M1917 is only surface hardened, and is made with 3% nickle steel, and very strong. second to none id say, maybe the Jap 99.
dont know were you got the info of the Eddystone being brittle, but its in error.
why would you ruin good receivers by having them heat treated?? then they will be unsafe, once heat treated, they have found it cant be reheated.
id be happy to take that Eddystone off your hands, and shoot the dog snot out of it.
the 17 is a very soft receiver, and bends easy, but very very strong.

was 3% Nickle, Remington & Eddystone were carbon steel???


((FACT CHECK, aisle 13!))

Chuckin:
Thanks !!!!
It was explained to me that the Eddystone broke because it was brittle. I expected the Rockwell reading to be off the charts. (If indeed they were "hard"). So if your not scared, I'm not. Next time I come over the hill I'll let you stand next to me while I shoot it; at the governors office.
Bill

bb1, you are confusing the '03 Springer with the '17 Enfield. Single heat treated, carbon steel '03 receivers were brittle, could and did break. Oh, and I highly recommend not shooting at the governors office.

All M17 rifles were produced with 3.5% Nickel steel which is why they are so popular as a wildcat platform. This was carried over from the spec's of the P14 Rifle and was followed by all three manufacturers.

No. I'm not confused. The Eddystone has a long and well earned reputation for cracking. Usually when the OEM barrel is removed. The Winchester and Remington don't seem to have this problem. The breakage does not seem to be confined to the M 1917. The P-14 are breaking too. However I have an ERA chambered to 340 Wby and have had no problem with it.
I have read a lot of stuff where the techniques of manufacture between Springfield and Enfield are switched. That hasn't anything to do with my Rockwell test.
thanx
BB

I think you'll find Chuck in Denver disputes that information as well.

Do you mean about the cracking? Or rather That they don't crack?
I wasn't really gonna shoot at Ritters office. I paid for it.

have you actually seen a cracked 17 or 14 receiver??of just Net info??
i have rebarrel, more then a few 17,s in my day,
and have only found one to be cracked, and not from rebarreling, i posted pictures of said receiver a few weeks ago.
it was cracked likely from a case head failure.
ALL 1917 and P14 receiveres were 3 1/2 % nickel steel and surface hardened, in the same way.
none failed from heat treatment, some have failed from bore ubstruction, or other issue.
however, if somone were to try and heattreat a surface heatreated receiver likely it would turn brittle, as has been the case with reheat treated 03,s
as compared to NS 03 receivers, that are only 2% nickle steel, and much harder, the 17 is much stronger, and has a thicker ring, then the 03,
however.
you can blow anything up, if you try, its how they handle a failure.
the 17 and NS 03 was made to peal away like a bannana, not shatter like glass.
read Hatchers note book, youll look at this and low number 03,s different.
Mr Hatcher has blown up more 17,s 1911,s and 03,s then anyone, so id bet he would know the facts:}

Like I said.....:o I've personally read a lot of bad internet information on this rifle. I wouldn't have known any better had I not invested a small amount in a good book and sought alternative sources of information.

Most of it isn't intentional, it just isn't "completely" accurate which leads people to draw incorrect conclusions.

HK:
No, I haven't seen one cracked. Nor do I know anyone who has seen one. I've read about it so many different places, and was told by so many 'smiths, I beleived it.
I beleive you guys. I built a .416 Rem on one of the Winchesters. I want a .458 Lott on another. No plans for number 3. Thaanks again

some one told me this once.
if you say it enough times, write it down enough times, it will be true.. fact or fiction.
The gunbrabbers have been singing that one for a while:}

id look for another Smith if you have one working on a 17 that doesnt really know its ins and outs, not many will truly know 17,s or care for that matter.
i found it strange that new Smiths right out of the school of trades, have no clue how to take a 17 bolt apart let alone remove the barrel.
or how to take a Smith & Wesson wheel gun apart.
but boy they can sure work around a AR 15!!,
asked this kid why they didnt cover early bolt action rifles???he told me they were informed that anything over 30 years old would be unsafe,and they should not work on them.
hmmm, just about every modern bolt action rifle made is a copy of some sort of military bolt action rifle made from 1917 to 1965, id think youd need the know the basics first, and understand how they work, and what they are made of, before you can turn a wrench on anything.
in my opinion, the M1917 and P14,s are by far stronger, and safer then any bolt action rifle built today. they may not be as pretty, but will surely give you safe and tough use for many many years.
though it is possible to blow any rifle up.
if you took a Remington 700. Winchester M70, Savage M110, Browning BBR , Ruger 77ect, made withing the last 10 years, and tested it against the 17, Jap 99, NS 03 springfield, K98, all the new commercial rifles would fail long before the old out of date military rifles, chances are, the 99, and the 17 would be the only ones left standing so to speak.
if you ever get a wild hair, pick up a copy of Mike Dehass bolt action rifles, and read it end to end, he covers just about every bolt action rifle made until the mid 1980,s youll be supprised, at what some of these new rifles are made from.
dont shy away from those 17,s you have, use em, and enjoy them.

Chuckin:
It's too bad like you don't like my 'smith. It's me. I build rifles on P-14's mostly. Some 1917's and a few Mausers. K98s and Turks. All the pro's I know shy away from Enfield rebuilds. It is more cost effective to start w/ a 700. I don't care about the money. I just like working in my shop and building shooters. I always start with DP or mismatched stock.
I get advise anywhere and anyplace I can. The trick is to recognize and disregard the idiots. Sometimes are real problem. Thanks for your coaching.
Bill

never said i didnt like him.
i just advise to find one that knows 17,s.
had he known them, a rockwell wouldnt had been needed:super:

Found a photo in "Custom Rifles" by Jeff Cooper (1959) page 79, that shows a custom 1917 built by Buehler for the 505 Gibbs cartridge. Buehler built rifles like this to test his scope mounts and use to advertise in the American Rifleman with photos of these rifles