I was recently given my grandfathers (passed away) 30.06. It appears to be an Enfield, but I cannot find reference to the markings found on it. Can you help me understand what the markings are? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Printable View
I was recently given my grandfathers (passed away) 30.06. It appears to be an Enfield, but I cannot find reference to the markings found on it. Can you help me understand what the markings are? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
It is a M1917 "Eddystone" a variant of the Pattern 14.
---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 PM ----------
The markings would be located under the scope mount, three companies produced the M1917 between 1917 and 1918/19 Remington, Winchester and Eddystone.
The rear sight has been removed (along with the base).
It is a factory-sportered US Rifle, caliber .30, M-1917, known on this side of The World's Longest Undefended (except for drones, radar, satellite imagery and a million cops) Border as a P-17.
It is, essentially, a Magnum Mauser action and it is chambered for the relatively-wimpy .30-'06 cartridge. This rifle appears to be one of the ones that the US kept in storage and did NOT give to Britain during the Second Global Nastiness, as it has the late-model Ordnance eagles on it. The original rifles from the Great War did not have this marking because it hadn't been invented yet, so your rifle was rebarreled during WW2. And here is where it gets to be fun: the original barrels on the P-17 used Enfield rifling (5 grooves, 5 lands, equal width lands and grooves, deep grooves... and it was left-hand twist) but the WW2 replacement barrels are supposed to be RIGHT hand twist, 4 grooves, Mauser type rifling. Enfield rifling lasts five-eighths of forever but it doesn't really like boat-tailed bullets; Mauser rifling lasts about a quarter as long but it really likes the boat-tails.
The sporterising work was done in England after WW2, so it is likely that the rifle ended up there during the war, but possibly as a surplus bulk-sale after the war. Many of these (including one of mine) were made up into super-nice sporters and yours is the best grade except for the VERY top grade, the semi-custom which is the one I have (it was a gift). Yours is a LOT nicer than the plain-Jane grade.
Fifty years ago, a rifle such as this would have sold for over 100 dollars. Fifty years ago, I was earning $28 a week in a bakery. They were NOT cheap by any means.
Are they any good? I don't know how good they are. Mine prints nicely on an old-style silver 5-cent piece (or a threepenny bit or an original half-dime) at 50 yards, using the 1960 steel-tube Weaver K-4 that came wth it. And it has the original 1918 Enfield-rifled barrel. You have the old-style Redfield mounts and a much better scope: VERY classy. And you have the later barrel, too.
As to manufacture, they were serialled from the factory but your photo doesn't show the original factory number and code. Don't despair! All major parts (and most small parts) were also factory-coded, W for Winchester, R for Remington's Ilion plant and E for Remington's plant in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. There is a certain amount of 'maker-snobbery' that goes with these rifles, some holding the Remington is better, some that a Winchester is better, both sides looking askance at the Eddystones. In truth, they all took the same Proof test when they were made.
You have a Very Nice Toy, friend. They really don't come much better as to quality.... and it will flatten anything in North America or Europe if you can out the bullet where it does the most good.
.
1. I just wondered why. This side of the pond we call them M1917s.Quote:
Originally Posted by smellie
2. Second, how have you worked that out from the pix?
How? Colour of the wood, white-line spacers and the distinctive fore-end tips. Every one I have seen (so far) has been done by BSA, Parker-Hale, Churchill, Whitworth or some other English shop. Most American reworks hav an entirely different "look" to them. I would really be surprised if it doesn't have BNP marked on it.
They were sold in our local hardware stores when I was a kid, always behind a glass window because they were just so very expensive (double the price of a new '94 Winchester, almost as much as a Model 70) and were too high a quality to get breathed upon by ordinary folks. And they ARE a beautiful rifle, no mistake. Mine is not for sale, will not be for sale.
I suppose the P-17 designation could be just Canadian. I do know that my Dad was told it was a P-17 when he carried one, guarding the (unbuilt) Brandon airport where the CATP was to train hundreds of pilots only a year hence. He was supposed to be on an instrument course at the time, but the Air Force had managed to lose him. So had the Army, which had him listed as AWOL from the Militia in Edmonton (Alberta, no England). It is a common designation here among the ones who served in the Canadian forces in the Second War and was supposed to have the official blessing of the Department of National Defence.
Hope his helps.
.
Looks like a good old Bishop stock from Warsaw, Missouri on a Model 1917 rifle. The eagle head/number is an inspection mark rather than a proof. The flaming ordnance bomb was used extensively as an inspection mark.
1. Not protected by a million cops but by US Custons agents and Border Patrol and not even a million of them...even if Obama keeps that promise
2. not a "wimpy" .30'06 and not really a magnum mauser type reciever. Just a larger dia barrel were it counts and high(est?) quality materials
3 Dis agree on the pros and cons of right hand twist vs left hand twist as it related to barrel life and boat tail bullets, and they also could have come with two groove rifling. Most "wear and tear" on origional rifling wether was origional or replacement barrels came from poor storage, black powder blanks and murcury primers.
4. I cant tell how it was determined that this rifle spent time in England Most(all?) rifles sent to England had British military proofs on them and certainly all that were released to civilians must have had civilian proofs on them and stamped "not English Make" on them?
I could be wrong
Read Ferris's book . Its facinating
Mike is absolutely right about the British commercial proofs. Any firearm sold commercially had to go through one of the British proof houses (London or Birmingham). A good case in point is all the firearms Lend-Leased to England. Unless they were marked with the British broad-arrow property mark, they were not marked at all until they were released by the government for commercial sale. The requirement for NOT ENGLISH MAKE was dropped from the Proof Act of 1955. Even British military rifles released for commercial sale had to go through the proof house.
One thing I have learnt in this business of long-range identification is: never say Never and never say Always.
Sweeping statements are hazardous - someone always pops up to demonstrate the exception.
And I take Smellie's remarks as being light-hearted, not deadly serious.
So guys, please take the following also as being light-hearted, not deadly serious;)
Obviously not true if they were exported without being offered on the open market in GB. Germany has truckloads of British rifles that were imported wthout British civilian proofs. In fact, (avoiding the N word) I have not yet seen an Enfield here with Britísh civilian proofs. They usually (avoiding the A word) have an German proof+date stamp, caliber marking and importer's mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Peppers
The "white line" look on hunting rifles is common in Mauserland too. IMOH it does not provide any indication as to the country where the work was carried out.
My P17... (OK, it doesn't say P17 on the receiver. But it doesn't say M1917 either. What it does say is "U.S. Model Of 1917". So those who get uptight about P17 had better refer to it EVERY TIME as "U.S. Model Of 1917", otherwise they are no more correct that I am)...
... which is what everybody (oops, that should be "most people":red face:)
calls it here, and if anyone complains, I shall get cutesy and call it "Eddy"...
... is covered in little eagles and several flaming bombs. To attempt to date it from the styling of the stamps would, I think, require a hands-on investigation. And Eddy :lol: is all-matching as-good-as-new-internally-but-kicked-around-the-arsenal from November 1918 and all correct as per Ferris.
You should always (sorry, read "as a rule":red face:) check with Ferris before making statements about the P17 / M1917 / U.S. Model of 1917 /American Enfield / thing with the long barrel that uses (in my case) 50 gn of N140 to push a moly-coated Lapua boattail down that lovely long barrel to emerge with a velocity and precision that outperforms most others.
As to wimpy 30-06: My U.S. Model of 1917 :D is now having a long rest, since my right shoulder is FUBAR (please consult Peter Laidler on the Enfield forum for an explanation of this important British technical term) and I will not be able to shoot the big bangers again until ... I don't know when, if ever :(
Which is why I am frustrated and taking it out on this keyboard and now want to thank you all for reading this far and leave you with this thought:
DON'T TAKE IT ALL TOO SERIOUSLY :):):)
and wish all forum menbers a pleasant Sunday, and may your shoulders stay healthy:thup:
Patrick (temporarily limited to shooting .22s) Chadwick
The U.S. collector's market is full of weapons Lend-Leased to England, and they have British proofs even though they were exported to the U.S. The M1 Lend-Lease rifles are a good example. They were not offered for sale on the British market, but came straight to the U.S. when released by the British Government. Same on the 1911A1 pistols. Any firearm made in a country without a reciprocal proof agreement with England was required by British law to be proofed before it could be sold, period. Not to say that some circumvented the law, but it was not legal. Even British military small arms released by the Government for sale had to be proofed.
The M1917 Rifle is an accepted shortening of the "U.S. Model of 1917". It is not a P17 and never was.
Eddy? Don't forget the "Winny". Cutesy.
I just wanted to wake you all up on this dreary Sunday morning:D
Normally I am correct with designations etc, and definitely not cutesy, but sometimes one just gets that "what the hell does it matter" feeling.
OK now, weather cleared up, and I am so glad I avoided the N and A words :o
- it is always more complicated than you think!
I had forgotten that the import regulations differentiate as follows: guns with a recognized civil proof need not undergo re-proofing.
So my Enfield No. 8s have the BNP civil proofs and did not need a new proof when imported.
But my No. 4 Mk2 from the very late (if not last) UF55A batch has the good old crossed pennants, but no civil proofs.
Yes, I did remove the handguards to check on the barrel.
No, I am not going to take the perfectly bedded system out of the stock to see if there is anything underneath!
And this rifle has, consistent with the regulations, a dated German proof mark and ".303 Brit" stamped on as well.
Johnny, you have made me curious now. Several shooters of my acquaintance have rifles from this batch, and those I have handled all appear to have been imported by Frankonia around 1970. Hence my use of the word "truckload".
I shall check any Enfield that I can over the next weeks, and report back when I feel I have seen enough.
Patrick
Please do Mr Chadwick. I enjoy examining small markings and things such as this myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
I'm very sorry to hear about your physical limitations and hope it's temporary.
I've been through the same with spine problems/surgeries and couldn't fire any of my milsurps other than M1 carbines.
Mostly, I only wanted to let you know that I tremendously enjoyed reading your upbeat post this morning! (It made my day) :thup:
Yes! We do sometimes take ourselves too seriously - in many ways!
(and sometimes just come across that way in the unique world of 'posting')
Best regards,
~ Harlan
You could call it Remmy also.
I was amazed at the description of the rifle from those three poor pictures.:nono:
To me it's a 200 to 250 Dollar Bubba Rifle.:eek:
My two pennies
I assumed it was an m19179(p17) because of all the US DofA inspection stamps. I cant tell from the reciever.
what do they call bubba'd rifles in England?
I think Ferris's book goes into the evolution of all the designations and why it was called the p17.
mine is an m1917 eddystone, it aint a mauser and it aint a enfield, teadrinker!
Mike, a useful British technical term is FUBAR. Which is an abbreviation of F..... Up Beyond All Recognition.
Same evolutionary source as Bubbared, which I take to be a disguised version of "bu..ered".
I.e. for use when one wishes to remain polite, but feels VERY strongly that something has been spoilt by cack-handed incompetent clueless pig-headed bloody-minded fools who shouldn't be allowed to touch a paper bag, let alone anything more complex.
I think that should suffice to give the general idea. Sometimes "Oh dear!" is just not adequate.:D
back to the OP,s rifle, i dont see any British or other lend lease type markings, only standard markings from the US military use, rifle looks like any other sporterized 17 done back in the 1950,s by any gunsmith, likely a good shooter, and very strong.