M1917 Stock question/issue

I recently purchased a beautiful example of a Remington manufactured Model of 1917. The barrel is 7/18, and the rifle shows evidence of re-arsenaling, as there are various Eddystone & Winchester parts. The question I have concerns the stock, which has an arsenal cartouch and an "E" on the forestock. It appears that a previous owner removed wood from the forestock, as the barrel is free floated, from the hand guard ring all the way to the muzzle. Question is, should I attempt to reestablish contact at the forend, either with acraglass, or a piece of wood? Or, am I better off leaving it "As is". The rifle shoots well, and shows signs of being accurate, at least 2 - 3 moa. Opinions?

If it shoots leave it. Of two pristine examples of Eddystones I've seen, one being mine, there's very slight contact at the tip. Perhaps a few pounds at most.
Two/three Moa is very good for a service rifle, doubt you'll get much better.

"Never change a winning team" also applies to that tricky mix of wood and metal known as a rifle.

If the present grouping is in the 2-3 MOA range, you can reckon that about 1MOA of variation is the rifle/ammo combination (with optimized ammo), 1MOA is the limitation of aiming with a blade foresight, and 1MOA is your PWF or Personal Wobble Factor. So it will be difficult to see if any alterations produce a statistically significant improvement unless you get a good scope fitted and shoot from a rest. My Eddy also groups about 3MOA with service sights, but just about manages 1MOA with scope and rest.

I found that the biggest improvement in grouping was achieved by carefully selecting the powder charge to suit the resonance of the long barrel. Maybe this will help -

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....highlight=Eddy

Post#8 - group size halved by selecting powder charge.

Stretching an analogy to the extreme: don't pull up the plant to see how the roots are growing - try varying the quantity of fertilizer (nitro)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobinNJ

Question is, should I attempt to reestablish contact at the forend, either with acraglass, or a piece of wood?

---

Definitely not - that's like trying to correct a bent barrel by hitting it with a hammer - you have no idea how much force is required and where to apply it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarPig1976

If it shoots leave it. Of two pristine examples of Eddystones I've seen, one being mine, there's very slight contact at the tip. Perhaps a few pounds at most.
Two/three Moa is very good for a service rifle, doubt you'll get much better.

---

Warpig-- I would just leave it the way it is. The lack of contact is a good thing. To really test out the accuracy you may want to pick up a scope and a S&K scope mount and some good accurate ammo and see how it groups.

--fjruple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

I would just leave it the way it is.

---

Definitely, that's what I tried to convey. If it shoots, it shoots. Leave it be.

As far as shooting goes, whomever did that most likely did all subsequent owners a favor. Wood changes dimensions...and sometimes even direction....with changes in humidity/temp/age. While some rifles require some barrel pressure, that has to be tweaked from time to time to remain the same. The one thing you can be sure of is that 100 years after it left the factory things have moved a bit. If you are getting an honest 3MOA with it, all you can really do by fiddling with it is to take something that is spot on and make it worse.

Thank you all for your input. I agree that the floating was, most likely, done for a reason. The barrel does still contact the nose cap in the upward dimension, and has little in the way of lateral play. I just wish whoever did the fore end trimming didn't do so aggressively as there is about a 1/4" gap. I will definitely be exploring the potential benefits of handloading, as I do so with my other milsurps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobinNJ

Thank you all for your input. I agree that the floating was, most likely, done for a reason. The barrel does still contact the nose cap in the upward dimension, and has little in the way of lateral play. I just wish whoever did the fore end trimming didn't do so aggressively as there is about a 1/4" gap. I will definitely be exploring the potential benefits of handloading, as I do so with my other milsurps.

---

BobinNJ--

If you can track down the previous owner it may help to find out who did the work. The M1917 Rifle was the only rifle issued in the National Rifle matches in 1919. It a long shot.

--fjruple

I'll reach out to the store I bought it from (at a gun show 2 weeks ago), but they didn't have much info at the time, other then that it was on consignment. The stock was either a WW2 replacement or pre-war, so it wasn't WW1 vintage.

I recently shimmed the barrels of my M1917 and P14 because they weren't touching and I felt it was affecting accuracy. I made a .020 shim for the 1917 and a .034 shim for the P14. It made a big improvement on both, a 1/4" tighter group improvement for each! I had the 1917 in a sporter stock that I had glass bedded and fully floated. It never seemed to achieve the accuracy that I was trying for. It shoots more accurately now in the full military stock with the front of the barrel supported than it ever did in the sporter stock.

When fired in the sporter stock you could feel that long barrel whip and swing down to the lower right as the bullet exited the barrel. It was a strange experience that everyone who shot the rifle felt happen and this was with no front sight.

My assumption is a 26" military contour barrel is just to long to be unsupported. The original barrel is too thin for that much length. It should be supported centerline of the bore the length of the pad at the end of the forestock. The front band doesn't need to be tapped on tight, just enough to be snug.

This is my opinion, others may disagree but I have experienced the results of both firsthand and a supported barrel does work better. - Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

you could feel that long barrel whip and swing down to the lower right as the bullet exited the barrel

---

Interesting, never heard that before...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldfoneguy

I recently shimmed the barrels of my M1917 and P14 because they weren't touching and I felt it was affecting accuracy. I made a .020 shim for the 1917 and a .034 shim for the P14. It made a big improvement on both, a 1/4" tighter group improvement for each! I had the 1917 in a sporter stock that I had glass bedded and fully floated. It never seemed to achieve the accuracy that I was trying for. It shoots more accurately now in the full military stock with the front of the barrel supported than it ever did in the sporter stock.

---

Where are you placing your shims? At the fore end or the receiver?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobinNJ

Where are you placing your shims? At the fore end or the receiver?

---

Fore end.

Here is a before and after. 3 shot groups. The group on the left (should be on the top!) is the after, group on the right is before. Please ignore the marked shot that was my brother being an idiot because he was jealous that I out shot him that day.

The load was 50gr IMR 4895 behind a 150gr Sierra SPFB with a CCI-200 primer. Same load for both outings. I find the Enfield rifling prefers a flat base bullet which gives excellent results. - Bill

I have always heard that 3-4 lbs (?) of upward force of the barrel against the front barrel band would help accuracy. I don't know how you would measure it. A hundred years of compression and shrinkage can make things a little loose.