M1917 finish question (pics of rifle now added)

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. :eek: 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3707-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3709-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3710-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3711-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3712-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3713-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3714-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3715-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3717-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN3718-1.jpg

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..

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

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!

:wave:
Patrick

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

It's definitely NOT a bubba finish gun. For one thing, the wood is not varnished, I had just rubbed it down with a thin coat of linseed oil before taking the photos :) I can see how it looks that way with the flash glinting off the oil, but I know my gun finishes and the finish here is aged raw linseed oil 100% for certain.

As for the provenance, I know for a fact it came out of an old estate collection that hadn't been added to in 30 years. It also came completely gooped in arsenal cosmolene - even the bore, under the rear sight spring, everywhere.

I am pretty certain it IS a refurbished rifle (more than one finish, evidence of sand blasting under the park, armorer replacement bolt) - the question is whether it's a US refinish, or if it was a military aid rifle refinished elsewhere and in what timeframe (i.e. post-WW1 or WW2 era or later?).

It follows the pattern of a US refinished rifle except for what appears to be a "coating" applied over the receiver which has then seen wear and use. Actually, it looks exactly like the black paint finish on the very few original finish M1903MkI rifles I have come across - maybe there's something to that?

I should also mention, there is not a single spot of rust pitting anywhere on the rifle that has been parked over. The finish is smooth sandblast, so if there was ever any rust prior to refurb, at best, it would have been superficial surface rust.

PS: Mystery about the receiver coating (which I intend to leave intact) aside, I'm very happy with this rifle - it should make an excellent shooter and is in really nice mechanical condition.

but ...... if it was sandblasted the finish would be much smoother? looks more sanded underneath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

PS: Mystery about the receiver coating (which I intend to leave intact) aside, I'm very happy with this rifle - it should make an excellent shooter and is in really nice mechanical condition.

---

Which is surely more important than who did what when why and how to the finish - speaking as a shooter, not a collector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NRA

but ...... if it was sandblasted the finish would be much smoother? looks more sanded underneath

---

You might be thinking of bead blasting, which is a more uniform micro-finish. In-hand, it's obvious that the barrel was sandblasted, which is typical of a inter-war or WW2 overhaul in the states. It's also only parkerized (not coated with anything else) and has gone that USGI "greenish" colour with age.

The receiver is another animal. If it looks gritty, that's the coating I was referring to. In the areas where it's worn off, the finish beneath is an identical sandblast to the barrel finish.

For chuck: the bolt is an Eddystone-made part. I did a quick search and checked Stratton - didn't see any info about S-marked WW1-era bolts being replacements? I don't doubt it's true - but where did you come across that info? I had thought refurb-replacement bolts are usually either K or USMC marked? (not to be confused with the Corps).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Which is surely more important than who did what when why and how to the finish - speaking as a shooter, not a collector.

---

LOL - except that I am both, so the mystery will torture me to the grave ;)

I wouldn't be harping on it, except its provenance of having been overhauled by a military facility is overwhelming - and yet, I've not seen any other M1917's with what is obviously something applied over the park.

what would a J on the bolt handle mean?

thats an S..and its the maker of the bolt, dont rememmber that one off the top of my head..
so ill bet that at one time some one used mineral spirits to clean the rifle, and or gasoline..and removed the oil and grease..that would also make the phosphate clump up, and come off is it was done on a hot day..you may want to whipe some grease on it, and let it sit for a while, that will toughen up the finish a little better.
iv seen that before when a customer trys to get the shipping grease off a nice newly parkerized weapon. they rust up pretty fast after that.

Actually, I tried acetone, varsol and lacquer thinner on the finish to see what would happen and it didn't touch it. I think the finish is a coating over top park, not clumped-up phosphate if that makes any sense? You can mechanically remove it by scratching at it with a brass scraper. It flakes off like paint chips, but doesn't react to normal paint removers.

It's like british suncorite, but not glossy.

mine has an J? what does the J stand for?

As an aside, I just went and re-checked the rifle. The bolt handle has an Eddystone "E" stamped on the underside, so I'm not convinced "S" is a separate maker, though I am prepared to believe it maybe would indicate a replacement bolt (?)

Also, looking through a magnifying glass, the "coating" on the receiver is definitely something painted on, but more robust than common paint.

It looks to me like a fairly typical Post WWI US rebuild, except for whatever that coating is on the receiver. It likely "doesn't belong" on that rifle, but if it's not hurting anything I'd probably leave it be, just in case.

If it's got good forend bedding it will probably shoot very well. They seem to be pretty good about retaining the proper zero, too. Put the ladder sight at the known distance setting and pull the trigger on some 150gr flat based bullets doing ~2700fps and it ought to put 'em where it looks. At least they've done it much more often than not for me.

It may have a old coat of Aluma-hyde, that stuff has been around for years now. They have colors that closely duplicate Parker Rust Proofing.

Are there any Arsenal marks on the left side of the stock? Most these went through at least one clean and repair.

look guys, unless someone privately degreased the rifle, applied something, then re-dunked the rifle in cosmolene, it's as it left govrenment storage. When I got it, every exposed metal surface had trace cosmolene on it. Under the woodline, there was a thin film of cosmolene everywhere, the bolt was packed with cosmo, the bore was solid cosmo-plug and none of the screw-heads were buggered except the front trigger guard screw, where someone bunged it up a bit trying to loosen it at some point. I had to use an impact driver to get it out, it was staked well.

The stock does not have a single obvious arsenal stamp (at least not anything I recognize as such), leading be to believe that it likely was NOT surplused from the US - probably from whatever country the US government gave it to after refinishing it between the wars.

IMHO this rifle was not played with or painted by any civilian.

Did anyone ever come to a conclusion as to what this finish was? I found an Eddystone M1917 at my LGS and it's sporting the same exact look on the receiver.

Waiting to hear what that stuff is, Its tough as nails and only flakes off. Cosmoline was available off the shelf until not to long ago but I dont think its echo friendly anymore, maybe someone loaded it up for storage in the past?

Maybe been to India? Some of the Enfields that were made or rebuilt there have the same kind of finish.

FWIW, the Eddystone/Winchester/Remington I picked up this month has that same black finish that looks like paint. The stock is well used but has no stampings or cartouches. The Eddystone bolt has that old greenish parked finish. The black coating has chipped a bit near the top of the rear sight ears but all along the barrel it looks like it was applied yesterday and the stamped inspection marks are clear and sharp and the 10-18 W mark is well defined.
I've seen a lot of parkerized firearms but never anything smooth and black like this other than some brass furniture on old Mosins that had been painted, yet that easily came off.

In the hopes of resolving this thread, It sure looks like suncorite to me, which is now marketed as Suncorite 259 in the civilian world. The stuff is instantly familiar from collecting commonwealth weapons as well as US small arms, and solvents don't work because the stuff is well nigh indestructible.

Any search on the enfield forums on suncorite will instantly bring up a ton of information and if it is it would seem to imply that they have been in commonwealth service (not just Indian) and may have been serviced or rebuilt despite the lack of markings.