Printable View
I recently purchased a second Eddystone rifle, a M1917. It seems to be all "E" marked parts except for the barrel, a Remington 11/18 dated. It has a "SAA" stamp on the stock. I have one question in particular, what bayonet does the M17 take? I have one for my P14 but it will not fit. Thanks for any info.
They should both take the same bayonet. The only real difference is the markings. A correct bayonet for the M1917 will have US proof marks vs British marks for the P14. Do you have photo of your bayonet?
Should take the same bayonet. As said above, only markings are different.
Here's the bayonet. It fits the P14 I have but it just almost fits the M17.
Your 1917 had been plated or something. Chromed or something...? Why is it silver - gray? That's the problem. The barrel is bigger outside because of that coating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I don't know what it is. Previous owner said it was parkerized. He said it's a CMP rifle. Still waiting for the paperwork from him. It seems the ring fits over the barrel, but the button will not go over the lug.
Is the M1917 chrome or silver? That isn't Parkerizing. That's black or grayish. Is it a grey paint? I'll bet the 1917 was a parade rifle for a VFW and they chromed it. I think if you try the bayonet backwards and just try the ring on the muzzle it may still not fit. My alternate thought is did you look in the mortise slot in the bayonet butt for an obstruction?
This guys is an amazing font of information
Bayo Points 10
Same bayo used on the Winchester Model 1897 Trench shotgun
"That isn't Parkerizing. That's black or grayish. Is it a grey paint? I'll bet the 1917 was a parade rifle for a VFW and they chromed it."
Agreed with the fact that there is some kind of additional coating on the surface. but not with the "parade rifle".
Take a very slow look at the backsight "ears". The profile seems not quite right to me. Flats at the front and top (not clear) where there should be curves. I have a suspicion that these may be welded-on replacements, and the refinishing hides the joint. Bubba strikes again? I hope not.
How about a couple of close-ups of the ears - from the side, front and back, so that we can all form an opinion?
P.S. Also take a look at the foresight. The extra surface was applied over everything, without properly cleaning the metal beforehand, so it has not taken in the pits and the cross-hatching of the foresight ears, block and blade. And the front surface between the ears is just plain tatty. Not a professional job, but another hint in the direction of John Q. Bubba. It doesn't matter who did it - it looks nasty and I would strip it off!
P.P.S. In the very first photo, of the two rifles taken from the right, look at the inside of the front of the left backsight ear. Is that a weld joint?
You bayonet actually goes better with the M1917 because it has US proofs. The British proofs are struck out. It was never sent to England and was put into US service when we joined the war.
Let me know what else I should photograph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
So...it's either grey paint or chrome that's now matt finish, but I'm sure that's not Parkerizing. Have you examined the mortise slot on the bayonet to see if it's plugged? Otherwise it must be the additional material that's keeping the bayonet off the mounts.
OK, what I thought might be a weld joint was just a shadow cast by the backsight leaf.
But I would still remove the cruddy pseudo-Parkerizing - if possible!!! It contrasts violently with the "matured" wood of the stock.
Agreed, whatever it is has to go.
as i said before,.
Chrome plate, that someone sand blasted to dull the finish..
Finally...
I spoke with the previous owner. He said when he got it from the CMP it had the finish it as on it, so whatever it is has been on it for awhile.
So it likely was a VFW parade rifle because they'd get them back and dispose of them. The chrome can be glass bead blasted off, I've done lots like that. Then it could be parked and look new...refer to Chuckindenver for more info...
Is it hanging up on the muzzle or on the bayonet lug?
I know I'm bucking the trend here but I like the way it looks. I know it's not original and it wouldn't do for displaying as an example of what they should look like but take away the "bubba" factor and look at it as just a rifle and it's pretty sharp.
I agree. I like how it looks, and I feel that if it was a VFW rifle for some time, that is part of it's history as well. As long as it's a good shooter, I'm in no hurry to change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
I hadn't thought of it before but I have a Remington 700 with what appears to be the exact same finish on it. Never was able to figure out what it is. Rifle is in great shape, looks really nice and whatever it is doesn't seem to rust. Might be why I like yours so much.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8ab0b49b-1.jpg
I've thought about polishing the black off the scope mount but never got around to it. It's in 300 Savage.
sure looks like a 760...
It is Chuck...he mis-spoke... I have the matching carbine by the way. Well, almost. Mine's in .308.
I agree it has a certain amount of appealQuote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
Does yours have the same finish or were you just talking of the model? And when it comes to civilian models, I've never kept track of what they are. Didn't mis-speak, just got it wrong. It's a Remington pump to me and the clan.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Mine is Blued, I've never seen that finish on a 760. Is it devoid of blue or what? It's too early to be a stainless gun...?
I didn't find a spec of blue on it so they were thorough. I always thought of it as a grey parkerization. Tried researching it but didn't find anything. Figure it has to be an aftermarket finish. It's not like it was rusted either. Metal all looks good. It doesn't look like bead blasted chrome either. It's a mystery.
Strange. I'd love to have it hands on for a minute...
Yes, it's a strange one. The mystery deepens since the CMP left it on the rifle when they had it. It seems maybe they replaced some parts in the bolt, the only parts that don't have the grey/ sliver finish on them. The magazine follower is also blued.
@browningautorifle if you are ever in Texas let me know. I would not mind sharing it.
Slowly gathering more and more acquaintances in Texas, I might have to come down and study the Lone Star close up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikesm44
If you see in my signature line I am part of a group of collectors in Austin. We meet up pretty regularly and people bring very interesting pieces.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I have to agree with Aragorn on the chrome. I picked up one for a good price. The only part that isn't Eddy is the bolt. I ended up getting two chromed bayonets for it. One full length and one shortened.
Mine has the tightest muzzle of all my 1917s. The chrome on mine did flake off around the muzzle when I shot it.