M1917 firing risk

I recently inherited an Eddystone M1917 and am new to military surplus firearms. It was likely last fired in the early 1980's. I have cleaned it thoroughly, the bore looks good and I do not see any obvious issues with it. My first question is, do I have a gunsmith inspect it before using it or do I just go test it? Having read a number of posts here, it sounds like finding a gunsmith familiar with M1917s is not easy. My second question is, does anyone know of a good gunsmith in or near San Diego? So if I start using the rifle, I am wondering what the risks are. What can fail and can those failures create safety hazards. I've already got friends lining up that want to shoot my M1917 so I want to make sure its safe to use. Thanks in advance for your input.

Here is a picture of my M1917.

have you broke it down and inspected under the wood line for any defects? It should be ok to shoot but just pick the friend you like least to fire it first, JK

I guess "thoroughly" was not the correct phrase because I have not broken it down completely. I'll have to think about those friends, :lol:

Avoid all risk and give it to me.:madsmile:

Oh dear, that is geographically impractical, so I'll have to give you some advice after all...

1) By all means take it to a gunsmith. If he then just sticks in a no-go gauge and closes the bolt on it, then he has failed the test - not the rifle! The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle. This topic has been covered more than once before, hence the advice you will have found to only go to a gunsmith who knows how to check M1917s.

2) Use the simple method I have described more than once on these forums to make a head clearance check. The method described is quite accurate enough for a first evaluation to decide if the rifle is potentially usable - or hopeless.

3) Even if the dimensions are OK, please take a look over on the Lee Enfield forum for a drastic case of a rifle (search for "DP") that looked OK, but had a fatal flaw in that the chamber had been drilled through, to deactivate it, but the hole had not been spiked to close off the chamber. As a result, the bore looked fine but the rifle was dangerous.

4) Which leads us to the conclusion - to be on the safe side, you do indeed need to remove the barrelled action from the stock to check for such nasties. The worst rusting of barrels is typically just below the "waterline".

5) I have fired rifles with up to 50 thou (0.050") head clearance, and the only effect has been to ruin the cartridge case. Even if a case separates, you should not experience anything more unpleasant than a puff of gas. But to be safe, wear safety glasses for the first test with live ammo.

6) The real danger lies not in excess headspace, of which IMOH, far too much fuss is made, but in slam-fire or safety-off fire. Both of these are extremely hazardous and usally indicate that the rifle has been tampered with, and may be beyond economical repair. The method of checking this has also been described. And I have come across a rifle with safety-off fire (it was subsequently scrapped) so this is not an abstract danger.

7) Find someone at a local club who knows M1917s and can go through these tests with you !!!!

I've put-off removing mine from the stock, because it shoots so well, and I heard that it was easy to assemble the handgaurds and barrel bands a tad wrong, putting pressure on the barrel.

When I first test-fired mine, I tied it to a tire with straps, and fired several rounds into a berm using a string. Then I looked over the casings for trouble signs. Also, you could wear shop goggles/glasses and leather work gloves for your first range trip.

Umm gee Ive fired all my milsurps after checking them out myself. I took some rifles to my gunsmith at first and he laughed at me. He told me if it has no overt obvious problems (loose bolt, missing parts, excessive rust, etc.) go ahead and shoot it.
I cant tell you to do that but thats what I do. The only problem I have ever had was with a M38 Mosin that had a small piece of copper fused to the chamber. It caused a split cartridge down the side. Took it back to where I bought it and he had the gunsmith ream the chamber out popped the copper. Problem solved. Good luck with your new rifle.

I have a 1917 & up to about a year ago, the last time it was shot was 1965 (47 years ago). I ran a bore snake through it & have over 200 rds through it. Got to say a very fine shooter. If it shot back in the day, it will shoot now.

Thanks for the responses guys. I will update the post when I start using the rifle.

"1) By all means take it to a gunsmith. If he then just sticks in a no-go gage and closes the bolt on it, then he has failed the test - not the rifle! The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gage down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle. This topic has been covered more than once before, hence the advice you will have found to only go to a gunsmith who knows how to check M1917s"

I hear that all the time, camming action, lots of camming action, so much camming action the rifle can crush a no go-gage. I never hear from those giving advise the difference between a go-gage length chamber and a no go-gage. Those giving advise never mention minimum length and full length sized cases. It is always "HEAD SPACE" Head space this and head space that, my world is not complicated with phrases without meaning or understanding, I measure the length of the chamber from the bolt face to the shoulder of the chamber (DATUM).

CAMMING ACTION????? What is the difference in bolt advance between the 03 and M1917 after bolt lug engagement? Then compare the bolt advance of the M1917 with the Mauser type 98???

Back to the smith in Utah, he worked with a group of petty smiths, they accused him of stretching receivers (they did not accuse him of crushing no go-gages), they did not ask him how he checked the length of the chamber with a no go-gage, had he told them what he was doing in two days they would have forgot who taught/demonstrated a different technique and or method.


2) Use the simple method I have described more than once on these forums to make a head clearance check. The method described is quite accurate enough for a first evaluation to decide if the rifle is potentially usable - or hopeless.

Again, I have a M1917 with an addition .016" added between the bolt face and shoulder of the chamber. Back to the experiment with the 06, the shoulder of the chamber was moved forward .080", it was assumed the excessive length of the chamber with a shorter than chamber case would have incipient case head separation, when the trigger was pulled, nothing, the primer ignited, the bullet left the barrel and the shooter did not have a clue nor did he understand the events that followed the firing pin striking the primer. The shooter became a fire former, the shooter formed 30/06 modified +.080" cases. His cases shortened, they did not get longer, yes by all means take the rifle to a smith, the person in the experiment was a smith, a very often quoted smith, did I leave out the part about the smith that pulled the trigger did not have a clue why the case did not fail. (Or stretch between the case head and case body)

F. Guffey

1917s P14s, cock on closing, 1903,s cock on opening, 1903,s have a 3rd of the camming pressure then a 1917 or P14
1917s are known to have bolt set back do to heavy camming pressure,and years of use,
1917s are 3.5% nickle steel and only surface hardened, and actually are very soft, compared to the 1903, though they are strong.
to correctly check headspace on a 1917, remove the cocking assembly {firecontrol} remove the extractor, insert a No Go guage, close the bolt slowly and carefully, if the bolt closes but you feel resistance on the handle, it passes headspace, if it just flops down then it failed a No Go, switch to a feild reject, and do the same test.
if it fails the field reject, it has a headspace issue.
more then likely on a 1917 if it failes a Reject gauge, its from bolt setback..you can try a new bolt, and that may bring it back to spec, or and most common on early Winchesters, it has an over sized chamber, no bolt will fix this issue.
if you keep on shooting a 1917 or any cock on closing bolt action with bolt set back with a failed field reject, sooner or later you will have a case head failure.
before any 1917 is fired, you should look it over well, look for damage, clean the bore well, if its heavy with grease, take the rifle down, and clean the grease,
have the headspace checked by someone who has experiance with 1917s or small ring Mausers, as both headspace in the same way.

Attachment 40003Attachment 40004oh,,,cam pressure is the amount of pressure that the locking lugs of the bolt, put on the locking ways inside the receiver ring.
the 1917 pictured has worn locking ways, and had bolt set back, the 1903 pictured little wear and no bolt set back.

this is case that was fired in a 1917 with bad headspace, said rifle was a =n early Winchester with over sized chamber, and bolt set back.
factory round, case head failed, blew the bottom of the stock off, fractured the trigger guard, and stuck the bolt in the rifle. shooter got away with a few stiches, and was lucky he was wearing glasses.
i repaired the rifle, and repaired the broken stock.

Chuck,

To repair that rifle's bolt setback did you just replace the bolt or is there some way to repair the locking ways? Just curious as I will be sending you my P14 for barrel replacement sometime in the future.

Stuart

no real way to fix that, the rifle in question was a grandpas gun deal, so, i turned the shoulder and breach face back, recut the extractor, with the agreement that it wasnt going to be shot on a regular basis anymore,
the bolt set back wasnt as bad as the the one i have pictured, the worse issue was the over sized chamber, that combined with bolt set back, and alot of hard use.
you can see the case, just how far back it was set.
i normally wouldnt have repaired it, some have tried to weld on the ways, and mill them back to spec, with mixed results, with the amounts of 17s and 14s available...its best to just retire the ones that are worn out.
worse part about it, the only real way to see how bad the set back is, is to remove the barrel, and look, i feel it with my finger nail to see if i can feel a ridge, and take it from that point.

Is this one of the Winchester M1917 with a serial below 5000? Didn't know they had quality problems.

yes, iv seen more then a few with over sized chambers.. im guessing, but i belive the reamer was out of spec, that they used.

" If he then just sticks in a no-go gauge and closes the bolt on it, then he has failed the test - not the rifle! The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle. This topic has been covered more than once before, hence the advice you will have found to only go to a gunsmith who knows how to check M1917s. "





"The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle"



The part that no one seems to understand is the part where the no go-gage is squeezed down, the no go-gage is .004" longer than the go-gage, the field reject gage is .005" longer than the than the no go-gage.



Back to the tacky behavior at the Utah arsenal, one smith did not use three different gages, he used one, he measured the length of the chamber in thousandths. the petty little smiths at the arsenal accuse the the one gage smith of stretching receivers (they did not accuse him squeeze-ing the gage down, because they knew the gage was 'tuffer' and had more resistance to compressing than the actions ability to resist stretch/flex) meaning the rifle would flex before the gage would compressed?



A no go-gage is not necessary, a field reject gage is not necessary, camming as in heavy camming of the bolt because it is cock on close is not necessary, back to the smith at the Utah arsenal, he knew it was not necessary to cam the bolt closed, he understood abuse of tools and guns, he was a smith he understood shop practices, he was accused of stretching receivers, he was accused of stretching all the M1917s that went through the Utah Arsenal, he had class, he did not argue with the petty little people he worked with, he was not in a contest for MR. (most) Popular person.



Closing the M1917 bolt and camming, I have never found it necessary to close the bolt with the lugs engaged, I close the bolt with the heel of my hand compressing the spring does not require bolt lug engagement, unless! someone is closing the bolt on something/anything that is longer than the chamber from the bolt face to the shoulder of the chamber, the one gage smith, understood the length of the chamber, he understood the relationship between the length of the chamber and the length of the case.



Back to bolt advance, has anyone measured the difference in bolt advance between engagement and closed on the M1917, Springfield 03 and Mauser, small ring Mauser, again, the lugs on the cock on close small ring Mauser do not contact anything because I applying pressure on the bolt handle with the heel of my hand.



Set-back is caused by a bad habit, then there is the assumption all the problems with perceived bolt set back started after the rifle left the Arsenals, I have M1917s that do not have ware on anything, I have like new M1917s, with long chambers, I off set the length of the chamber with the length of the case. Again, one has .016" added between the bolt face and and shoulder of the chamber, I add .016" to the length of the case from the head of the case to the shoulder of the chamber. One more time, I could order a bucket of bolts, I have 14 bolts, none of the bolts in the bucket or other bolts I have in other M1917s would change and or improve the length of the chamber.



Then there is the other overlooked thing about M1917s, without a barrel how far will a bolt move forward and or backward. The bolt handle is the third lug, it should be easy for someone that is familiar with the M1917 to measure the forward thrust of the bolt without a barrel, or with a barrel if they understand the question. meaning with 'a lot' of ware between the mating surfaces between the receiver and back of the lugs I would think the bolt handle would be worn also, I have no visible indication there is ware between the bolt handle and receiver.



F. Guffey

maybe your Utah Gunsmith,...will chime in... no one ever said it would squeeze down any gauge..what i said was, felt resistance on the gauge, even if it closed,
the U.S. Military is the ones who have listed how to check headspace on a 1917.
the 1917 has 22 pounds of spring loaded cam pressure, the 1903 has less then 5 pounds. and thats when the bolt is lifted to reset the rifle.
its ok...if you dont agree.. i work on these rifles daily, and these are this Colorado gunsmiths observations.
im one of the few left that will work on them.
the readers can read the posts, look at my pictures see it themselves.
its my opinion.
that any milsurps weapon be checked by a gunsmith for over all safety and headspace, before its fired. these rifles are almost 100 years old, and saw hard service, and who knows what type of use and abuse over the years..
some collectors are able to do these things them self, others are not..
use your best judgement what shooting any weapon..

"maybe your Utah Gunsmith,..."



He was not my gunsmith. He worked at the Utah Arsenal.



Patrick Chadwick
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Articles
Advisory Panel


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Sep 2008
Last On
Today @ 05:19 PM
Location
Germany
Posts
2,626
Local Date
01-25-2013
Local Time
11:17 PM
My Items for Sale
Elementary procedures
Avoid all risk and give it to me.

Oh dear, that is geographically impractical, so I'll have to give you some advice after all...

1) By all means take it to a gunsmith. If he then just sticks in a no-go gauge and closes the bolt on it, then he has failed the test - not the rifle! The M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle. This topic has been covered more than once before, hence the advice you will have found to only go to a gunsmith who knows how to check M1917s.
M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle




Patrick Chadwick said "M1917 has a huge camming action, and can quite simply squeeze a no-go gauge down to fit the chamber without requiring much force on the bolt handle". You said nothing, I will assume/assumed you agreed.



I did not agree, I do not agree, with all the lofty terms and descriptions about the M1917 being used I wanted to know just how much bolt advance there is on the M1917, I doubted anyone on this forum has ever measured bolt advanced on the M1917, and I doubted anyone on this forum has ever compared the bolt advance on the Springfield with the M1917 or compared the advance of the M1917 with the bolt advance with the Mauser. Patrick took the liberty to refer to the advance as "HUGE!" so much 'huge' closing the bolt can crush/shorten/squeeze the no go-gage.



and, I thought someone would explain the bolt third safety lugs effect on the bolts ability to move forward or back, all of this without upsetting someone or anyone.



F. Guffey