My First M1917 and I have a barrel question

Brought home my first M1917 yesterday. It was manufactured by Eddystone and based on the serial number it was manufactured in the fall of 1918. The barrel has a fairly clear J.A. stamp on it. Then below that the ghost of a flaming bomb stamp can be seen if you hold the gun just right. I was hoping to see a barrel date below the flaming bomb but I see nothing but what looks like "turning" marks from barrel manufacturing. I guess my question is did Johnson Automatics date their replacement barrels? I was thinking it was a requirement.

The gentleman I bought it from said that during post war arsenal rebuilding it may have been sand/bead blasted off before being re-Parkerized. As evidence he showed me other marks on the receiver which he said were rather faint he thought because of prep work before refinishing. Maybe I have two questions, If weapons were refinished by an arsenal would they have removed so much metal as to make the stampings faint? I have not had a chance to take any pictures yet but the whole rifle looks refinished, the stock was stripped, and then I think a polyurethane coat was added (the stock is very shiny). The price however, was just too good to pass up and no permanent damage was done as in Bubba modifications to the stock or action. So thoughts on J.A. barrel dates and might they (military rebuild program) have aggressively sandblasted the metal before a repark? I see no stamps on the receiver or stock that I would typically associate with a rebuild.

JA barrels were not dated. WWII replacement barrels.

Well that makes me feel better. It is a two groove and in very good shape.

I have one and its one of my better shooters.

More a 1903 Barrel with the right threads for a 1917.

I re-load it the same as I do a 1903 type.

The 5 groves like a different powder and bullet combo in mine.

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

Just a heads up Banjo,

Although the likelihood of finding one is probably extremely low, some re-barreled Eddystones had issues with hairline cracks in the receiver where it meets the barrel.

In C.S. Ferris's book " United States Rifle Model of 1917 " page 167 he wrote a paragraph titled Eddystone Sales Prohibited. The Columbus [Ohio] Army Service Forces Depot sold the Model of 1917 rifles. The Ordnance Supply Officer there recommended on May 14,1947 to the Chief of Ordnance that no Eddystone rifles be sold. They had a lot of complaints from people who had there guns polished and blued. These were all re barreled rifles in Army inventory. The Army finish did not show the cracks so they could not tell a good receiver from a bad one. Original barreled rifles were OK. Re barreled rifles could crack under the stress of re barreling. Remington and Winchester did not have this problem.

Like I said, the likelihood is very small, but you should closely examine your receiver under magnification to make sure. You might have to apply a penetrant and wipe to see if any "bleeds" from a potential crack.

Any chance for some pics?

First I am not a gun smith, but I do follow probably the most respected and prolific 1917 Barrel replacer since WWII in Chuck in Denver is his moniker, I believe Warpaths something is his business (he does this for a living and a LOT of 1917s. )

What we have is the equivalent of an unban legend before we had them on the internet.

The basis of that is the 1917 was a prolific contributor to being a Sporter conversion.

Not having the right tools could lead to a cracked receiver. It would be Eddystone, Remington of Winchester.

As the US Arsenals had the right tools, few if any of those were the cause. If they did they probably pitched it.

Over the years a lot of barrels got replaced by home amateurs as well as smiths not equip0ed with the right tools.

You hear about over torque on Eddsyones. Impossible as they used a witness mark, it was right or it was not and all mfg of the 1917 used the same mark.

So yes any barrel change rifle should be inspected, that applies to all of them, not just 1917s.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banjo1928

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banjo1928

Thanks, I had read some place that the two groove was about as accurate as the others but there was a pressure difference as in lower pressures with the two groove so I guess that means there would be loading differences to be considered between them.

---

I doubt there was significant differences, the throat to the original 1917 barrels used a more slope type, 1903 were more square.

I totally agree RC, and like you said it's still a good idea to check.

I did end up avoiding rebarreled eddystones when I was searching for a 1917. There was a sporterized RIA barreled eddy on GB and I wanted to snag it up since it's pretty rare. But their reserve was way outta my price range for a sporterized rifle. I've watched it be relisted about 10 times and don't think it will ever sell. I've seen high bids on it at 450 and still didn't break the ice.

My Remington with a JA barrel is one of my most accurate military rifles
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...78f7033a-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtoms

My Remington with a JA barrel is one of my most accurate military rifles
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...78f7033a-1.jpg

---

I have heard that the JA barrels are very accurate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esu_1985

Just a heads up Banjo,

Although the likelihood of finding one is probably extremely low, some re-barreled Eddystones had issues with hairline cracks in the receiver where it meets the barrel.

In C.S. Ferris's book " United States Rifle Model of 1917 " page 167 he wrote a paragraph titled Eddystone Sales Prohibited. The Columbus [Ohio] Army Service Forces Depot sold the Model of 1917 rifles. The Ordnance Supply Officer there recommended on May 14,1947 to the Chief of Ordnance that no Eddystone rifles be sold. They had a lot of complaints from people who had there guns polished and blued. These were all re barreled rifles in Army inventory. The Army finish did not show the cracks so they could not tell a good receiver from a bad one. Original barreled rifles were OK. Re barreled rifles could crack under the stress of re barreling. Remington and Winchester did not have this problem.

Like I said, the likelihood is very small, but you should closely examine your receiver under magnification to make sure. You might have to apply a penetrant and wipe to see if any "bleeds" from a potential crack.

Any chance for some pics?

---

The problem of cracking receivers was known back in WWI. I have to find the quote from a letter from the President of the Winchester company to an US Army Ordnance Captain complaining about the quality of the steel to be used in the receivers which resulted in cracking of the receivers. The Captain responded back that the cracked receivers were being pulled from the production lines as discovered. It not to say that several perhaps hundreds slipped through due to war time (WWI) production. Unfortunately there is no follow up information during the US rebuild programs in WWII if they encountered any cracked receivers during the rebuild process. I will see if I can find the letters and quotes.

--fjruple

I thought m17 receivers were made from nickle steel which would stretch rather than shatter like the over carburized 03 low numbers to avoid similar problems when they were manufactured. The only cracked m17 receiver I have ever seen was a Remington with a JA barrel. The rifle was also subject to other various forms of poor-workmanship done outside any factory. The crack was at about 11 o'clock as would have been viewed from the front of the receiver and was easily seen by the eye alone. Winchester already may have been using nickle steel in they're other offerings by that time as well if I'm not mistaken.

There is a lot of myth about these guns and the cracking of receivers is one of the big ones.

As noted, the receivers bulge more than break, not a bad thing. But they are also gosh awful strong as they have been used to build magnum calibers as a choice due to that strength.

Chuck Moline who does a lot of these has dispelled that.

His experience is that its simply someone using improper tools to remove a barrel. As a lot of these got into civilian hands.

I had one that had been put on with a pipe wrench. Chuck uses that but he cleans up the marks. The barrel also had a thread cut off and was reamed poorly with a high spot in the chamber. I was ok as I simply wanted the stock. Casual shooter using factory ammo of some kind would not have been bothered. You could reload it fine as well. The receiver was not cracked.

Could it have been done at a deport or filed overhaul? Maybe. But they would have had the right tools and if cracked you would just take the parts off the receiver and pitch it. It would had to have been badly damaged to wind up there anyway.

Vast majority of the military barrel replacements would have been at an arsenal with the right tools. They simply did not see enough service to wear out a barrel. Combat damage to other parts yes.

The rumor is it was Eddystone that was prone to cracking, Chuck says he has seen only one I believe. The others were R or W.

Eddystones would have been the most common and the one bubba would have done more of.

I have looked at somewhere around 15 in depth and have yet to find one cracked.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by esu_1985

I have heard that the JA barrels are very accurate!

---

They are good, I don't know better than the originals which tend to have more wear on them

Thanks for all of the replies. I must apologize I ask a question then disappear. I have tons of pics and will post them this weekend. And again thank you all for the info. I had broken my leg and was having some issues getting around and you would think that would be the perfect time to be glued to the screen but not so much. Am now walking with a cane and things are much better. I will post pics tonight!

Banjo--

Sorry to hear about your injury. Get well soon.

--fjruple

Thanks yes taking down Xmas decs in January. Extension ladder de-extended dropping fat boy 12 feet down on the concrete broke my left leg in two places. No fun. This is my 1917 Eddystone. One thing I will say about a rebuild whichever arsenal that did it, San Antonio I think, did a great job. It may be a mixmaster but it is in awesome shape still had grease in every crack and crevice I'm sure its been fired but not much. I wish the stock had not been sanded and redone but there ya go. I am really pleased with it.

Nice looking rifle, looks like a bit of everything in there. Virtually a who's who of manufacturers...nice.

Thanks and yeah I think it's probably got a third of its parts from each manufacturer. Not sure about the stock, it has the "P" in a square and what looks like a San Antonio arsenal mark on the left side but no other markings that I could see that would point to a manufacturer. Almost all of my other milsurps with the possible exception of a Mosin have very dark stocks this one really stands out.

My M1917 is a 3GMK rebuild with a JA barrel. Arguably my favorite rifle. I love the Enfield-esqe action in my favorite cartridge!