1917 Enfield Headspace Problem

Hello Everyone,

I just purchased a 1917 Enfield (Eddystone) that looks pretty good for 92 years old (made in Jan 1919). It was rebuilt in WWII and has a High Standard 4-groove barrel that is beautiful. My only problem is when I got it home, the bolt will close on a "No-Go" gauge. So I have a headspace problem. Now my question is this: anybody got a bucket of 1917 bolts laying around collecting dust? I'm hoping to find someone with several bolts so I can maybe find one that fixes my headspace problem. Anybody offer to help?

I called Springfield Sporters on Monday asking if I bought several bolt to check for one that will work for me (correct headspace), would they accept a number of bolts returned (that I couldn't use) and give me a refund. The guy who answers the phone says all bolts are made alike and that the barrel needs to be removed and a new thread cut and the barrel rechambered. Well that's great, I mean that could work. But that would be some big bucks. I ended the conversation because this guy wasn't going to help me. I followed up with an email to Springfield Sporters explaining what I need but no answer yet.

I guess I just wnated someone to listen.

Thanks,
Terry

Here is some informtion on measuring headspace on a M1917. I would not worry as long as it will not accept the "Field" guage.

M1917 Headspace Measurement
In past posts I have seen several discussions concerning measurement of headspace in a M1917. This has been the subject of continuing discussion for a number of years. Excessive headspace of M1917’s was discussed after WWI when the M1917 was released for sale and again after WWII when the M1917 was again released for sale. The M1917 bolt lug design differs from the M1903, M54, M70, M98, etc. Rather than trying to discuss it as an amateur, I researched the matter and found the opinion of an expert. Remember that after WWI Remington used “left over” M1917 action to create the various versions of the Remington Model 30 rifle. The bolt and receiver of the M30 with cosmetic modifications duplicates that of the M1917. The question arose when an attempt was made to measure the headspace of a Remington 30 using a cartridge and some metal shims. Using this method it was determined that the headspace of a Remington 30 was excessive. The rifle was returned to Remington and was found to be well within spec. The following is a letter from the Works Superintendent of the Remington Arms factory. This information comes from “The Dope Bag” appearing in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN magazine for February 1934, p 32. I quote as follows”
“A review of the correspondence between yourself, Mr. Hadley, and others Indicates that your method of headspace measurement is with a cartridge or dummy cartridge and shims of known thickness. In view of this procedure of headspace measurement, we wish to call to your attention to the locking cam arrangement of our Model 30 as compared to the locking cam arrangement of the Springfield. Figures which are given below are approximate but are sufficiently close to demonstrate the comparison.
“In the Springfield the bolt lugs ride the locking cam having a lead of 1.5” per revolution, through a swing of approximately 37 degrees, after which the flat rear face of the bolt lugs contacts the flat face of the locking shoulders of the receiver.
In the Model 30 the bolt lugs ride a lead cam having a lead of 1.5” per ‘rev’ through a swing of only 20 degrees, after which the ‘cam-cut’ rear faces of the bolt lugs contact the locking cams on the locking shoulders of the receiver and move through of a swing of approximately 70 degrees on these locking cams, which have a lead of 0.14” per ‘rev’. The power of the locking cams on the Model 30, as compared to the locking cams on the Springfield may be said to be in the ratio of 1.5 to 0.14; that is the power of the locking cam on the Model 30 is 1.5/0.14 or 10.7 times as much as the power of the locking cam on the Springfield. In other words, on the Model 30 rifle to close the bolt against resistance requires a force approximately one tenth of that required by the Springfield
“This proposition may be stated in a different manner as follows:
“The Springfield has a lead cam of 1.5’ through a swing of 37 degrees and no locking cam.
“ The Model 30 has a lead cam of 1.5” lead operating through a swing of 20 degrees and then a locking cam of 0.14” lead operating through a swing of 70 degrees.
“In the Springfield the bolt swings through approximately 37 degrees on a 1.5” cam to get to the limit of full forward linear travel. The remaining swing of the bolt in the closed position to its closed position is on flat surfaces of bolt lug and receiver and there is no forward travel after completion of the 37 degree swing
“In the Model 30 the bolt swings through approximately 20 degrees on a 1.5’ lead cam and then through 70 degrees on a 0.14” locking cam to get to the limit of full forward linear travel.”

There is further discussion in which Mr. Brown states:
“We believe the power of this locking cam to be an advantage in the use of the gun, since it provides considerable power to close over a cartridge which may be mutilated or too long. We believe also that the locking cams on the Model 30 permit easier opening after firing.
H.A. Brown”
* I realize that this is a long discussion, but I think that it points out how incorrect headspace measurements can be made in the M1917/M30 type of action. The bolt should be stripped and only light finger pressure exerted when measuring headspace.
Hope this is informative

Interesting post Cosine26!

What it boils down to is that the rear faces of the locking lugs are not perpindicular to the rotational axis. So your gage works only when the bolt is fully closed. Quite unlike most other actions.

All of the info in post #2 is spot on.

You are correct. These quotes were from Remington experts when the M1917/Rem30 action were in production.

I meant to specify YOUR comments, actually.

You are probable okay as is. First of all, as already stated, the bolt needs to be stripped to check the headspace, Second not all gauges are the same. I have an Eddystone that closes on a Forester No-Go but will not close on a Clymer NO-GO. It will not close on a Field Gauge from either company. For old military arms, a Field Gauge should be used, especially on M1917s which are known to be a bit loose in the headspace department.

Benoin03, the huge camming power of the M1917 action is capable of squeezing the gauge into the chamber without the user realizing what has happened, resulting in a spoilt gauge and a totally unconcerned M1917! Quite possibly, the rifle is perfectly OK, but the gauge is now FUBAR.

Please search the forum, this topic has been covered before.

:wave:
Patrick

ok,,, lets back up a little...first, dont let a customer service rep, give gunsmith advise, doubt he ever has had a 17 apart in his life, let alone rebarreld one, or he wouldnt be answering a phone, more to that game then turning the shoulder back.
to check headspace on any cock on closing bolt action..
remove the bolt from the rifle.
remove cocking assembly from the bolt.
remove extractor from the bolt.
slide the bare bolt back into the rifle, set a No Go gage into the chamber, slowly close the bolt..
when you feel the gage resist...STOP!
it passed..
if it closes easy, with no resistance..it failed.
try again with a Feild Reject.
it it then fails that gage..you have an issue.
most likely its a worn bolt....however.
1917 and P14,s are 3.5% nickle steel and only surface hardened, after years of service, most of these surplus rifles saw time as honor guard rifles, or JR ROTC trainers ect, so the bolts been worked and dry fired a a million times, the locking lug ways...on the inside of the receiver ring gaul through the surface hardening, 17,s and 14,s use a NS bolt as well, like metals dont like to wear against each other , and thats the sticky feel you get...if indeed your ways are worn through, your rifle is pretty much a done deal..
the worse part of this....you can only check those wear points with a barrel removed.
i have had a couple with this issue, out of 100 or so 17,s iv rebarreled. a new bolt and barrel will buy some time, but sooner or later that fresh bolt will set back as well.
now that being said..
hears what i would do..
buy a box of factory ammo...{not GI} and fire the rifle, check the fired case for signs of headspace issues, cracking, splitting ect. measure the case just before the case head, and compare it to a new factory round, if its a lot larger...stop. dont shoot it again..
if your case looks good, shoot through the box of 20, stopping each time to look at the case, if they all look ok, and no changes..your ok.
heres the second common 17 issue.
many 17,s that i have worked on with the same issue, have had over sized chambers, either the reamer they used was out of spec, worn out, or loose. or poorly done..anyway.
no real way of fixing this issue other then a new barrel.
if you have an over sized chamber, it will never pass headspace...
the only time iv tried to fix this was a family passed down hunting rifle, i turned the shoulder back 2 turns thats over20 thousands 17,s have a square threaded barrel, not a V thread, remember, you have to turn the cone breach up as well as cut the extractor cut as well, then re finish ream the chamber..said rifle left a ring on the new case were it was over sized....it passed headspace, but wasnt very pretty.

For a good dissertation on HEADSPACE,; its meaning, definition and some effects of different headspace, I recommend reading Chapter X of HATCHER’S NOTEBOOK available on “Milsurps General Discussion’ above and downloadable as a PDF file. General; Hatcher examines the subject thoroughly and provides the results of some of his tests with bolt action rifles. He also includes some remarks by Capt. Melvin Johnson on the effect of firing ammo in semi/full automatic fire arms. Well worth the read.
FWIW

Chuck, perhaps there is a fix - although the cost may not be worth it to most users. Industrial Hard Chrome could be appplied (only) to the locking surfaces by coating the reciever everywhere but the locking surfaces before a dip in the chrome bath - couldn't it? That would seem to be a long lasting, non wearing and slick fix and could build up the surface a few thousanths, back closer to original. Just a thought. Probably not cheap, but it would prevent scraping an otherwise good rifle. CC

that might work, only issue with that on my end, is one of the only places that does real hard chrome is reaalll pricey.. i use to use them back in the day when i ran a concrete pump company. not sure they could just plate those areas though.. another way, and id thought of this before is to torch harden that area...using Mercury..but thats not real safe, not worth the health risk...unless its super rare, id just retire the action to once a year shooting..or a nice display rifle.
someplace i have a picture of a 17 with bad lacking weighs.

Attachment 28127

Thanks for the input everyone.

For now, I'll load some 30/06 brass with my old Lee Loader, just neck sizing the brass, to fire in the rifle. It's not like I'm going to fire hundreds of rounds through the gun anyway. I'll load up a 100 rounds or so, and when I get a chance, I'll fire the rifle.

This is a very informative forum and thanks for having me.

Regards,
Terry

Chuck, as I recall the process when I worked in a shop that sent out a lot of hard chrome work - there is a way to dip the part in a wax type coating, then just removing the wax from the spots you want plated, then putting the part in the chrome tank. Only the exposed spots will get any chrome. Price, well, that may indeed be a different matter. Kind of a "final option" to preserve a working piece of history. If the gun was otherwise excellent or had sentimental value, it might be worth it to some. As the saying goes, "they aren't making these any more". And the reciever would not suffer from wear, ever again! CC

one problem you would have with Hard Chroming, it wont stick attach it self inside a hole..pipe, barrel ect..not sure why, it just doesnt, i agree they dont make em anymore.
but at least in my lifetime, i doubt ill see them dry up, unless the gun grabbers get em.
then they well be worth millions...lol.

The Japanese had no problem chroming the inside of the barrels of the T-99.

Lithgow had no trouble chroming their L1A1 barrels.

thats a different procces then hard chrome plating.. id have to research it more... we used Hard chrome on the bearing surfaces of the pumps, after the wear was welded back to spec.
hard chrome, that we used had a black hue, whe had to have some of the tubing plated on inside, it was a diffrent type of Chrome. ill research it and get back to you.

not as tough as i would think, found a great post on chrome plating the inside of a barrel....very interesting...i was also educated on what {hard chrome} and show chrome is...
How to Chrome Line a Barrel of a Gun or Rifle - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Good news!

I must have been in a hurry and not paying attention to what I was doing when I checked the headspace the first time. Plus, I'm not use to handling the M1917. I was getting the rifle ready to take to a local gunsmith and check for another bolt. I decided to check the headspace one more time. The headspace is perfect. The bolt stops on the Foster NO-GO gauge with 5 to 10 degrees additional space before the (bolt) action completes the cycle. I worried much over this issue but all has turned out well. I couldn't be happier.

I have picked up an original 1917 Remington bayonet and original 1918 scabbard for the rifle. Both are in very good condition. The blade has several small nicks and the scabbard has some scuffs on one side, but all in all, they are very nice for 95 and 94 years old.

Now what to do about a sling? Maybe one of the long M14 fabric slings. Maybe that will work.

Alls well that ends well. I am truly blessed.

Terry