Check your M1917's for safety issues. Eddystones especially..

Guys,

All the books make a huge a fuss on the M1903 low number. But the documents paint an entirely different picture on the low numbers, than what the books state.

But what I did find, that I have never seen in any book, is there were a lot of safety issues with the M1917's. Even in WWI, Andrew from Archival Research Group found more M1917's failed than low number M1903's.

This is in a string of documents where they are inspecting M1917's to be sold to NRA members immediately after WWII. This is just the tale end of the docs where they recommend that no one fire live ammunition out of a Midvale Steel M1917 (Eddystone).

They also had substantial problems with every maker and M1917's not headspacing correctly. A lot of these rifles were sold with paperwork declaring they were not safe and they should only be used in Drill practice or in firing blank ammunition.

They did not mark these rifles in anyway as not being safe, and the paperwork on these is most likely long gone for most. These rifles are sitting in our safes as we speak...

Please check your M1917 rifle's headspace and examine it for cracks. In the docs they detail that they looked for cracks of M1's with black lights. I assume then everyone can do the same now.

Just keep a look out as everything in our books focus on only the M1903 low numbers being unsafe. Well our authors failed to warn us of problems with the M1917.

Just a heads up...



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

Interesting after all these years. I had an Eddystone myself years back...just like new and shot it regularly. Never occurred to us then that there might be problems.

I'm pretty sure this has come up in the past and is related to re-barreled Eddystones. Something about excess force being used in the process resulting in cracks. I don't think it has been suggested the metallurgy of the receivers was originally a problem as with the low number 03's.

Ridolpho

I must not have hit submit on the 2nd part.

This seems to extend way past re-barreling. I haven't seen one mention at least that this has anything to do with the ones re-barreled.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SZ6nEGph-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...w7u3ylBh-1.jpg

I always understood that they could be cracked from original factory barrel installation. I read or was told somewhere many years ago that the reason was there were hydraulic barreling machines being used with semi to skilled labor both male and female doing the assembly in wartime.

I seen a cracked m17 for sale one time. It was a Remington with a JA barrel. Viewed from the top it was cracked plain as day at about the one o'clock position on the ring and extended back nearly a 1/4". I had read in the past cracking was a problem associated with the Eddystone rifles but had also been found on the other makes to a lessor extent.

I wonder if the cracking and tight barrels could be from the way the threads were cut on the barrels. My understanding is that a certain amount of clearance needs to be apparent on square threads at both the top and bottom of the threads. If the barrels were manufactured slightly out of spec in a hurry I suppose the cracking could occur when the rifle was proofed or later on when it was placed in service.

Something else I observed after working on a few there was a gap where the extractor cut met the inside threads of the receiver. If rifles were allowed to become wet water could easily get in there and freeze but to what extent could that even happen who would know.

I don't care about cracking from a barrel install, I'm listening closely to the suggestion of metallurgy failure. First time this has been past me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I don't care about cracking from a barrel install, I'm listening closely to the suggestion of metallurgy failure. First time this has been past me.

---

I’ve been following and thinking about how to best share my thoughts on this.
Now I think I can just give a, “yeah, what he said!”

Would be very interesting to see more documents pertaining to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

more documents pertaining to this

---

I think Steve has found these in his pouring over things at the library, wish we could just nail it down. I haven't had one for years though... Still, did I miss the part where it talks about metallurgy? Cracks we got...

Attachment 101915

I remember years back Chuck in Denver commenting on the myth of the hydraulic barrel installation. I'm pretty sure there where pictures showing the barrels where installed by hand.

OK Doco, but reference the failures of the 1903s of early date...isn't that what this post was suggesting about the M1917s? Perhaps I was reading more into this than was being stated...when I look again it's pretty clear we're just speaking of cracks. Anyway, Steve will be back eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

They did not mark these rifles in anyway as not being safe, and the paperwork on these is most likely long gone for most. These rifles are sitting in our safes as we speak...

Please check your M1917 rifle's headspace and examine it for cracks. In the docs they detail that they looked for cracks of M1's with black lights. I assume then everyone can do the same now.

Just keep a look out as everything in our books focus on only the M1903 low numbers being unsafe. Well our authors failed to warn us of problems with the M1917.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve762

Just gave a quick look at Hatcher's Notebook.

---

I now have one of those here too, better consume it. Guess the cracked receivers were the whole problem then. We knew about those...

Here is a new twist to this. These cracked receivers were probably unlikely to be rebarreled.

When I was at College Park the last time, I pulled a box that was titled lend lease. I pulled it because I was tying to document the story of the Lend Lease Garands.

But I copied about a 1000 pages of this box. I have not read all of it. But I looked in it enough, that I think I found a clue to this.

Columbus Supply Depot is who sold those Eddystones that had been cracked and returned. Researching the depot online t looks like it was opened in 1918 and was a point of embarkation of supplies for WWI.

Well it looks like they had a lot of supplies leftover at wars end and they spent in between the war trying to get rid of a lot of their surplus. So with this backstory, this seems to be making more sense. I imagine it is likely these Eddystones at Columbus, were probably supplies leftover from the buildup of WWI.

In 1941, Britian received 250,000 M1917's. But I got looking and Columbus Supply Depot is listed as shipping 170,000 of them.

This is the only time I can so far, find that Columbus sold M1917's.

My hunch is now that these were not likely rebuilds. They were probably pretty original rifles that had been in storage since WWI.

Now to play Devil's advocate, it shows the US sold over 300,000 M1917's during WWII, after this 250,000 sale. These look like they were going to France, China, and Canada.

They sold 320,385 between March 1941 to June 30, 1945. But there is never a mention that the Columbus District sold any of these that I see.

I think in this 320,000 sold during WWII, these were probably in the hands of the troops at the start of the war, as the doc below states they had cleaned out all of their surplus of M1917's in 1941.

But now I think the ones that were cracked from Columbus, were probably in that 1941 shipment to Britain and returned. My thoughts now are these rifles were probably pretty original, if not even un-issued rifles

Check this out....

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...PL7RfS1h-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...HNuhL9Uh-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I always understood that they could be cracked from original factory barrel installation. I read or was told somewhere many years ago that the reason was there were hydraulic barreling machines being used with semi to skilled labor both male and female doing the assembly in wartime.

---

Brian-- I have actual seen an old film of the original barrels being put on the receivers at Eddystone and no hydraulics were used just a very large vise type fixture and very large receiver wrench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

Here is a new twist to this. These cracked receivers were probably unlikely to be rebarreled.

When I was at College Park the last time, I pulled a box that was titled lend lease. I pulled it because I was tying to document the story of the Lend Lease Garands.

But I copied about a 1000 pages of this box. I have not read all of it. But I looked in it enough, that I think I found a clue to this.

Columbus Supply Depot is who sold those Eddystones that had been cracked and returned. Researching the depot online t looks like it was opened in 1918 and was a point of embarkation of supplies for WWI.

Well it looks like they had a lot of supplies leftover at wars end and they spent in between the war trying to get rid of a lot of their surplus. So with this backstory, this seems to be making more sense. I imagine it is likely these Eddystones at Columbus, were probably supplies leftover from the buildup of WWI.

In 1941, Britian received 250,000 M1917's. But I got looking and Columbus Supply Depot is listed as shipping 170,000 of them.

This is the only time I can so far, find that Columbus sold M1917's.

My hunch is now that these were not likely rebuilds. They were probably pretty original rifles that had been in storage since WWI.

Now to play Devil's advocate, it shows the US sold over 300,000 M1917's during WWII, after this 250,000 sale. These look like they were going to France, China, and Canada.

They sold 320,385 between March 1941 to June 30, 1945. But there is never a mention that the Columbus District sold any of these that I see.

I think in this 320,000 sold during WWII, these were probably in the hands of the troops at the start of the war, as the doc below states they had cleaned out all of their surplus of M1917's in 1941.

But now I think the ones that were cracked from Columbus, were probably in that 1941 shipment to Britain and returned. My thoughts now are these rifles were probably pretty original, if not even un-issued rifles

Check this out....

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...PL7RfS1h-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...HNuhL9Uh-1.jpg

---

I would like to see the complete documents of these two sections of documents as I believe they are taken out of context. The first document appears to be discussing the availability of M1917 rifles from the inter-war years and appears to discuss the lack of war reserves and their readiness. We know the the US shipped a large number of M1917s to the UK pre-lend-lease. If you noted the shipment dates, they are a month before President Rooveselt signed the Lend-Lease Act. These rifles were not inspected and degreased by the US Ordnance Department before shipment as time and need were critical, the Home Guard who received the M1917 complained about having to clean the "grease" from the rifles and giving up what No.1 MKIII rifles they had for the greasy M1917s. While it is clear that the 170,000 rifles were shipped to the UK from Columbus. I know of no evidence of them being returned. I do know the US Ordnance Department did rebuild those that were in US troops hands and were held for Foreign Military Aid after WWII which left a lot of them available. Foreign militaries were looking for M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines not M1917s. I have been to the Columbus General Depot many times as it was later known as the Defense General Supply Center under the Defense Logistics Command. It is interesting to note that the Wright Corporation which is close to Columbus Depot did rebuilds of the M1917 towards the end of WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

I would like to see the complete documents of these two sections of documents as I believe they are taken out of context. The first document appears to be discussing the availability of M1917 rifles from the inter-war years and appears to discuss the lack of war reserves and their readiness. We know the the US shipped a large number of M1917s to the UK pre-lend-lease. If you noted the shipment dates, they are a month before President Rooveselt signed the Lend-Lease Act. These rifles were not inspected and degreased by the US Ordnance Department before shipment as time and need were critical, the Home Guard who received the M1917 complained about having to clean the "grease" from the rifles and giving up what No.1 MKIII rifles they had for the greasy M1917s. While it is clear that the 170,000 rifles were shipped to the UK from Columbus. I know of no evidence of them being returned. I do know the US Ordnance Department did rebuild those that were in US troops hands and were held for Foreign Military Aid after WWII which left a lot of them available. Foreign militaries were looking for M1 Garand rifles and M1 carbines not M1917s. I have been to the Columbus General Depot many times as it was later known as the Defense General Supply Center under the Defense Logistics Command. It is interesting to note that the Wright Corporation which is close to Columbus Depot did rebuilds of the M1917 towards the end of WWII.

---

The first document that discusses this says they were sold, and returned. I have not double checked the dates of when NRA sales resumed on the M1917 after WWII, but I have that documentation. My memory RIA was gearing up for the sales of the M1917's to the NRA members again. That is why they looked at the receivers and were asking for clarification.

So otherwise this 26,000 shipment that was returned, had to most likely be going to another country.

What are you trying to figure out from the above two documents I posted?

IT's a report that is 30 pages long and details the politics behind the shipment, how they ignored some laws and shipped them fast. It looks like they bent the rules as they weren't legally allowed to do it officially until March 1941. But they state it was an emergency under dire circumstances. So they did it. A quick looks thru it looks like it was ordered by the President on Feb 5, 1941. It was for 250,000 M1917's and 50,000,000 rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

It looks like they bent the rules as they weren't legally allowed to do it officially until March 1941. But they state it was an emergency under dire circumstances. So they did it.

---

This all incredibly interesting stuff you’re digging up and sharing. I just want to say thank you for your hard work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

The first document that discusses this says they were sold, and returned. I have not double checked the dates of when NRA sales resumed on the M1917 after WWII, but I have that documentation. My memory RIA was gearing up for the sales of the M1917's to the NRA members again. That is why they looked at the receivers and were asking for clarification.

So otherwise this 26,000 shipment that was returned, had to most likely be going to another country.

What are you trying to figure out from the above two documents I posted?

IT's a report that is 30 pages long and details the politics behind the shipment, how they ignored some laws and shipped them fast. It looks like they bent the rules as they weren't legally allowed to do it officially until March 1941. But they state it was an emergency under dire circumstances. So they did it. A quick looks thru it looks like it was ordered by the President on Feb 5, 1941. It was for 250,000 M1917's and 50,000,000 rounds.

---

Cplstevennorton-- I deeply appreciate your postings of the M1917 cracking issues. And the parts of documents on the initial 250,000 M1917s to the UK. I am just a details-type guy and like to solve "mysteries" questions about cracking issues. Have you run across any detailed studies by the US Ordnance department on the cracking issues. You have posted the results themselves via the major command letters on the issues. I am looking for details such as Serial numbers, were they part of a rebuild program with JA or SA barrels or original barrels. Have you run across any documents from the Columbus General Depot itself? I would be interested in seeing a copy of a photo copy of an original letter from Columbus. One last question have you run across any documents on the M1917 rebuild contract by the Wright Corporation in Dayton, OH. Please keep posting!!

Thanks

--fjruple

cplsteve: There is a slight inconsistency between some of these memos. The memo in post#1 (RIA) says that they can't strip and examine all ERA rifles because costs would be prohibitive. Yet the letter in post #4 (slightly earlier) quotes other documents that suggest that of 26,000 rifles "issued by the Colombus depot for sales, that about half were returned due to cracked receivers". Does this mean that 26,000 rifles were detail examined and one-half found cracked? If so, who did the examination? it would have to be a major facility and that many rifles with cracks would have been a discovery of monumental importance. I would suggest it is more likely that a spot check of a sample found some cracked receivers, perhaps all in ERA rifles and that led to the ERA rifles being returned. The later memos show a frequency of cracking much lower than that implied in the comment about the 26,000 rifles. But the frequency in the detailed exams is still troubling although lacking in specifics about the individual rifles (like were they re-barreled).

Source document studies are very important but not all info was recorded and much has been lost. A useful adjunct to this would be a forum survey asking owners of M1917's who have examined rifles in detail to mention instances of cracked receivers with details of manufacturer and whether or not the gun has definitely been re-barreled. Conclusions drawn from old documents still have to be vetted against reality. This thread (and the one on Gunboards) is leaning in the direction that original Eddystone M1917's are prone to receiver cracks whereas numerous threads from the past (based on exam of rifles) would appear to me to contradict this. The whole issue is of importance to owners of ERA rifles as a blanket determination of susceptibility to cracks might affect their value.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

Cplstevennorton-- I deeply appreciate your postings of the M1917 cracking issues. And the parts of documents on the initial 250,000 M1917s to the UK. I am just a details-type guy and like to solve "mysteries" questions about cracking issues. Have you run across any detailed studies by the US Ordnance department on the cracking issues. You have posted the results themselves via the major command letters on the issues. I am looking for details such as Serial numbers, were they part of a rebuild program with JA or SA barrels or original barrels. Have you run across any documents from the Columbus General Depot itself? I would be interested in seeing a copy of a photo copy of an original letter from Columbus. One last question have you run across any documents on the M1917 rebuild contract by the Wright Corporation in Dayton, OH. Please keep posting!!

Thanks

--fjruple

---

I have not pulled the Army files on standard rifles previous to 1946 as of right now. Except for sniper docs. I have all pulled all sniper docs from the Army back to around 1900. I have mostly focused on the Marine Corps documents, but have been branching out lately.

This week I'm at the Archives and will be pulling documents from the army prior to 1946, so maybe I will find more on this. Andrew has been digging in the WWI docs and has found evidence there might have been heat treatment problems with some M1917's.

The info from the Columbus Depot was in a report of lend lease activities that I pulled to document the Lend Lease Garands.

Thank you for the kind words. I will certainly keep a look out for this at the archives. My hunch though, they were in 1919 making the M1917 limited standard, which means it was a backup. I suspect they might have seen problems with them in WWI, but never did anything about it, because in 1919 they for the most part weren't using them anymore.

Well most sat in storage, then in WWII they were sold to foreign countries and issues with the receivers came out again.. That is my hunch.

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

cplsteve: There is a slight inconsistency between some of these memos. The memo in post#1 (RIA) says that they can't strip and examine all ERA rifles because costs would be prohibitive. Yet the letter in post #4 (slightly earlier) quotes other documents that suggest that of 26,000 rifles "issued by the Colombus depot for sales, that about half were returned due to cracked receivers". Does this mean that 26,000 rifles were detail examined and one-half found cracked? If so, who did the examination? it would have to be a major facility and that many rifles with cracks would have been a discovery of monumental importance. I would suggest it is more likely that a spot check of a sample found some cracked receivers, perhaps all in ERA rifles and that led to the ERA rifles being returned. The later memos show a frequency of cracking much lower than that implied in the comment about the 26,000 rifles. But the frequency in the detailed exams is still troubling although lacking in specifics about the individual rifles (like were they re-barreled).

Source document studies are very important but not all info was recorded and much has been lost. A useful adjunct to this would be a forum survey asking owners of M1917's who have examined rifles in detail to mention instances of cracked receivers with details of manufacturer and whether or not the gun has definitely been re-barreled. Conclusions drawn from old documents still have to be vetted against reality. This thread (and the one on Gunboards) is leaning in the direction that original Eddystone M1917's are prone to receiver cracks whereas numerous threads from the past (based on exam of rifles) would appear to me to contradict this. The whole issue is of importance to owners of ERA rifles as a blanket determination of susceptibility to cracks might affect their value.

Ridolpho

---

No, Columbus Depot did not check the M1917's before sale. It does mention that in the other lend lease files. The rifles were in storage since WWI, and were just shipped. So they did not check them. The only ones checked were the 230 that RIA had pulled and checked.

With documents, I have found it's important to put cliff notes and in order, it helps a lot to understand what happened.

Undated, but Prior to May 1947, Columbus Ordnance district had sold 26,000 M1917's. About half of this number were returned to them because of cracked receivers.

May 26, 1947 Because they have heard of the problems at the Columbus District, RIA tells Army Ordnance that they had pulled 30 random receivers and checked them. Of the 30, 4 were cracked. They basically ask Army Ordnance what do we do with them.

June 24, 1947 Since May 26, 1947, RIA had continued to check receivers and have now examined a total of 230 Receivers. Of those 18 were cracked, and 3 had cracked barrels. They are telling Army Ordnance it is too time consuming and expensive to check all of these receivers. They recommend to Army Ordnance it's better to just state all eddystones should be used for drill or blank firing only.

July 15, 1947 Army Ordnance replies to RIA that cracked receiver eddystones will be sold with a note saying they are for drill or blank firing only.

Same this is the sky is falling on CMP. My same response here.

Wow, shocked shocked that one of the primer sources on the 1917s in actually working on them was not even brought up, AKA Chuck in Denver AKA Warpath.

My take is this is not remotely solid. Nor backed up by facts.

One of the first ones was that WWI ammo was highly suspect and quality control was poor. Suddenly production went form nothing to 100s of millions of rounds. If fact bad ammo was one of the key issues with the 1903s.

Chucks experiencing is that Eddystones had fewer cracks than others. Any cracks were due to the use of the wrong tools.

We have pictures of the plants in WWI and they DID NOT use pneumatic tools.

As there is a witness mark, even if they had done so you took to to the WM and stopped.

Wrong tools and corrosion is going to make it an iffy proposition.

As for head space, these are being mis-charactrized there as well. They were battle rifles. It is standard for the head space to be long.

The biggest issue with head space is a case that is no longer usable. The Military did not care about re-using cases. They did care about them working when fouled.

There were no SAMMI specs then.

I have had something around 12 of these and I don't know how many more I have looked at. None were cracked, all shot fine.

These were commonly used as a basis of a cartridge change to larger calibers.

The steel used was Nickel Steel, not the standard steel (1903 went to that 1920 or some such). Its got more stretch.

And how many millions of P14 and 1917s were made? 5 million? How many 1903s ? there was a reason 75% of the troops were issued 1917.

So, 3 out of 4 rifles were 1917. Begin to get the picture?

I had one that had a 1917 barrel put back on (different mfg) done with a pipe wrench, thread cut and it still shot fine (they didn't get the chamber quite right) - I broke it down and sold it as was and kept the stock (nice R) - it in fact had a short head space that I got a bolt given to me that was wrong and worked in that rifle.

Any rifle that has an unsupported head has a possible problem, any mil surplus rifle has a possible issue and you need to check it out, but there is nothing specific to the 1917s let alone Eddystone that was other than one off failures that occurred.

Lets keep the rumors and innuendo out of this.

Quote:

---

Source document studies are very important but not all info was recorded and much has been lost. A useful adjunct to this would be a forum survey asking owners of M1917's who have examined rifles in detail to mention instances of cracked receivers with details of manufacturer and whether or not the gun has definitely been re-barreled. Conclusions drawn from old documents still have to be vetted against reality. This thread (and the one on Gunboards) is leaning in the direction that original Eddystone M1917's are prone to receiver cracks whereas numerous threads from the past (based on exam of rifles) would appear to me to contradict this. The whole issue is of importance to owners of ERA rifles as a blanket determination of susceptibility to cracks might affect their value.

---

Chuck in Denver has seen hundreds. I have seen 20 or so that were CLOSELY examined - none cracked . Chuck a few Rem and Win than E cracked (not sure he has seen any).

Regardless, E was better than twice the numbers of R or W. 50% chance the rifle you choose to convert or re-barrel was an E.

And they went through a process to store, how often that involved taking a barrel off even if it was put back on?

And tens of thousand were re-barrled to JA, HS or RIA in WWII.

Things to consider. The 1917 has known cracking issues from re-barreling. This report is dated 1947, post WWII and post nearly all re-barreling of 1917's. It does not distinguish from re-barrels and those with original barrels. Most were re-barreled. when I purchased my first, it was a re-barreled Eddystone and I went over it with a fine tooth comb. I also did the acetone test to check for cracks. No problems. My second Eddystone still has the original barrel. I don't recall if I did the acetone test on that one but I'm not especially concerned with it. It went through two wars with that barrel and receiver.

This seems to be getting more complicated the more I dig.

I found this today at the Archives. From what I can tell, this does seem likely to have been carried out, and then Benecia was having problems with them after.

So my take on this is, now you can possibly have original barrels on Receivers that have been technically rebarreled.

I'm not specifically looking for info on the M1917, I'm trying ot document the Garand more, but if I see something I will post it.

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nKK3lHph-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0nA7NAPh-1.jpg

A couple more because Chuck pointed out a issue with the bayonet if they did that on the gunboard forums.

SA had addressed it. But without posting the whole string of docs. SA orders BA to submit 5 for testing, and SA looks like gave them their blessing. But then the one doc above I posted from BA in March 1940, seems to show BA actually doing it, but then running into some issues after.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xgv4cD1h-1.jpg

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


Then Raritan talks about split barrels. I'm not sure how many rifles they inspected to find that many..

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...jpJOIW8h-1.jpg

I remember reading a letter from a "Remington" official complaining to a US Army Ordnance captain about quality of the steel they were getting for the M1917. I don't know if the "Remington" official was representing both Remington Ilion or Eddystone or both locations. I cannot remember if the document was from the Cody Museum, lots of M1917 documents, as they were part of the rifle production board or a foot note in one the books on the M1917. At the time I though it was interesting since the Army Captain response was to blow off the "Remington" official. As we know from experience that usually comes back to haunt us with future problems. I am deeply interested in the cracking problem and am looking in the weeds from the problem.

I'm gonna jump in with a touch of wishful thinking....
Could these barrel shortening and rechambered rifles be host to the infamous 3GM-K cartouche? That would be something!

I dont know if I will make it back far enough but I'm seeing docs that seem to imply they had the same single heat treatment as the low number M1903s.

I've seen a few very coy docs that imply that. I'm just running out of time at the archives so I dont know if I will have time to dig into the 1920s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

I'm seeing docs that seem to imply they had the same single heat treatment as the low number M1903s.

---

Let us know if that's the case, still...we've not heard of any fracturing. Quite the opposite. They're touted for their strength.

Yeah I'm not saying don't shoot them. I will shoot any low number after reading the stuff I have now. I don't see any actual difference in the docs that make me anymore fearful of shooting a low number over a high number. In fact I see quite the opposite that the heat treatment can be bad on high numbers as well. I've seen about a dozen reports now of high numbers grenading on bad ammo. One guy lost a thumb. A couple lost an eye and so on.

It's interesting because SA says not to build a magnum out of these receivers. They even state that proof rounds of 70,000 PSI are reaching the limits of what one can handle. One thing I found interesting they say they should not be used for rifle grenades, just like the low numbers. Stating that with the barrel plugged and the 40,000 PSI of the blank ammo, that is reaching the limits of the receiver.

When you read that stuff, that is the same thing they state on low number receivers. So it's just interesting that when you compare them, they speak of both so similar.

But yeah how many of these were built into magnums, when someone wrote in to ask them, SA was very firm on not doing that. That it wasn't safe.

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------

The biggest thing I see over and over on these, check the headspace. They had a substantial amount that would not headspace, so a lot were cannibalized to try to get ones that would headspace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

June 24, 1947 Since May 26, 1947, RIA had continued to check receivers and have now examined a total of 230 Receivers. Of those 18 were cracked, and 3 had cracked barrels. They are telling Army Ordnance it is too time consuming and expensive to check all of these receivers. They recommend to Army Ordnance it's better to just state all eddystones should be used for drill or blank firing only.

---

I can understand that if a barrel is screwed into a receiver by the sort of person who believes in tightening up wheel nuts until he hears a satisfying screech, then the force involved will create an enormous bursting pressure that may crack the receiver - or even initiate a crack that only becomes apparent much later.

However, I utterly fail to understand how these forces - which create an equal compressive pressure on the barrel - could cause a cracked barrel.

Could someone please enlighten me?

I did copy some WWI docs this last day as I had some time at the end of they day and couldn't make any other pulls.

I only quickly scanned and took pics of them moving onto the next box, but there were a lot of issues with barrels it seems. Like of barrels bursting.

I saw a lot of correspondence on M1917 faults and failures. It will just take me some time to read it as it was a lot of info.

It's also always jumbled together in the boxes, so you have to pull it out and put in order and read it to get the full story.

Quote:

---

I can understand that if a barrel is screwed into a receiver by the sort of person who believes in tightening up wheel nuts until he hears a satisfying screech, then the force involved will create an enormous bursting pressure that may crack the receiver - or even initiate a crack that only becomes apparent much later.

However, I utterly fail to understand how these forces - which create an equal compressive pressure on the barrel - could cause a cracked barrel.

Could someone please enlighten me?

---

What we have here is a case of excessive exuberance.

While the docs are valid historic writing, the data clearly is not.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. If all the other data shows the 1917 was reliable and had no failures, then you have to question anything that says it was not.

The 1917 was a common modified gun, lots and lots. It was used for large magnums due it its sturdy nature. Its been in the Greenland Patrol forever. The Danes made their own barrels for them they had them so long.

Chuck in Denver has worked on 100s (new barrels) and reports a few W and R cracked.

I have seen 20 Es and probably total of 30 E - R -W. None was cracked including an E that had a R barrel on it that had a thread cut off it.

The Barrels all have witness marks and those barrels have their sight slots cut out BEFORE they are put on a receiver.

So how can you over tighten a barrel that is matched t the witness mark?

Let alone the Urban Legend of Pneumai Wrnehe (all pictures show hand install)

And no you can't crack a barrel.

As someone currently considering the purchase of a P14 Eddystone is there any data/documents available that would indicate that the British or Commonwealth forces experienced similar problems with their rifles during both World Wars? I believe the only significant difference is the cartridge fired. Like the M17 Eddystone was the great supplier and produced over 600,000 of the over one million rifles made.

Thanks, this posting was very informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolo Badge

I believe the only significant difference is the cartridge fired.

---

Whether or not there's data on paper, there's differences in the rifles by manufacture, not just caliber. All parts are NOT interchangeable. All you need to do is study the forum on these rifles and read. Take your info from there.

None of them used the P14 as a first line rifle IIRC and most of the problems had been solved by then. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one, although they are a bit too long for my taste.

It seems that much is written about the problems, but few on this forum actually experienced them in shooting the P14? Like the stretchy LE actions.

The attachment may be a reasonable explanation for problems with bursting barrels.

WF Vickery writes about threading problems when fitting square threads. He wrote that the preparation of the cutting tool for (Enfield Krag and Springfield US models) must be carefully (expertly done) done and that in cutting a square thread .001 clearance should be left at the top and bottom of the thread by machining the blank .002 smaller than the bottom of the threads in the receiver and then cutting the groove of the barrel thread .001 deeper than the depth of the receiver thread.

I could see production haste could wind up having a few bad eggs in the batch and that after some time in service harmonics having a negative effect especially after proof test.

Attachment 102501

Hell yes there were failures.

They were making thousands of rifles a day with labor that came and went.

Its amazing they got anything done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjruple

I remember reading a letter from a "Remington" official complaining to a US Army Ordnance captain about quality of the steel they were getting for the M1917. I don't know if the "Remington" official was representing both Remington Ilion or Eddystone or both locations. I cannot remember if the document was from the Cody Museum, lots of M1917 documents, as they were part of the rifle production board or a foot note in one the books on the M1917. At the time I though it was interesting since the Army Captain response was to blow off the "Remington" official. As we know from experience that usually comes back to haunt us with future problems. I am deeply interested in the cracking problem and am looking in the weeds from the problem.

---

In my research I found this photo in the national archives of the heat treating of M1917 receiver at the Eddystone Rifle Plant on August 1918. Please note on the card the photo was not for public release. Enjoy

cpln has been whacked on the CMP forum by the recognized expert for his posting (John Beard)

There is no one simply more knowledgeable in the world.

cppln has then jumped into what he calls head-space and they replaced barrels on 1917s to correct ti.

That is truly insane. He uses selective document to try to prove it and all out of context as well.

When challenged to explain how 1917s got out of the factory with all the inspections required including the head space he has no explanation and the waffles.

As he has been corrected by some of the true experts and continues, you can only assume his intent is malicious. I have no idea why, it sounds like a Facebook I want attention thing.

I would not believe him if he told me the sun rose in the East.

Strange... That was quite a bunfight. Many thoughts were erased...by mods.

Yea I got suspended as I think the Mod just used a hammer and cut off and did not clean up like he said.

I have no issue with someone who presents information.

but when you do it totally out of historical sources and context and come up with a bizarre agenda and then push it, its a disservice at best to the collector community.

People buy into garage like that, they just don't know any better.

He got onto a rant about Winchesters all were bad head space.

The OP then admitted he had done the check wrong and there was no retractions from cpln, he just kept on going.

One being head spaced wrong (chamber issue) is not unheard of, but its a one off that the check catches at the build station.

Guns are not paid for until they pass the last check by the Government and they do the same head space (and all other checks - that what the stamping system is all about, its passes not just internal Winchester (in this case) but independent US government with their own gauges.

Winchester would not get paid for a rejected rifle. If there was any issue it had to be resolved. So hell now would they let something like that go. And if they tried they would be caught and eat the whole lot. Insane, no logic at all.

Usually it would be a one off where a reamer was dull, bad, a mistake in too deep or too shallow a cut. Checked, sent back for a new barrel. You would not cut threads and re0do as he contends. Its not cost effective.

So per cpln all Winchesters were bad.

He is arguing with John Beard who is to the best of my knowledge the most respected resource in the country at this time. I had a disagreement with JB once, and I did it politely. It was a view thing vs a fact. I sure did not diss him. People like that are a huge value to all of us and deserve and have earned respect (unlike cpln who deserves non and is the opposite of earned unless you want to put it in negatives)

All Eddystones are unsafe.

The guy is a menace to sane thought let alone gun history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doco overboard

The attachment may be a reasonable explanation for problems with bursting barrels.

WF Vickery writes about threading problems when fitting square threads. He wrote that the preparation of the cutting tool for (Enfield Krag and Springfield US models) must be carefully (expertly done) done and that in cutting a square thread .001 clearance should be left at the top and bottom of the thread by machining the blank .002 smaller than the bottom of the threads in the receiver and then cutting the groove of the barrel thread .001 deeper than the depth of the receiver thread.

I could see production haste could wind up having a few bad eggs in the batch and that after some time in service harmonics having a negative effect especially after proof test.

Attachment 102501

---

This seems to be the spot what causes them to burst. I've seen this mentioned several times. Mentions of cracking barrels is reported from 1917 to 1947.

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

I really don't honestly have much interest in the M1917. I'm a Marine Corps and Sniper collector. I've already spent more time researching the M1917 than I really care to do.

I think what I'm going to have to do though is get a collection of documents together and just dump them out to the forums. I think a lot of stuff needs to come out. The problem is the info on this is a staggering amount, so I have to figure out how to do this.

I think people need to read it themselves and make up their own minds on this..

But what it looks like the rifles that would headspace correctly to the 1.947 were sold first thru the NRA.

The rifles that headspaced to the 1.947 but were unserviceable because of a pitted bore or rust, were donated to the VFW for shooting blank ammunition.

The rest of the rifles with excessive headspace past the 1.497 were lumped together and liquidated declaring them with excessive headspace, and to be used for drill only. Or correct by a qualified gunsmith. In the docs they wanted to repalce the barrels but Ordnance wouldn't allow it because of funds.

I think this is why so many custom M1917's exist in different calibers.

Also new in this, it appears at the very end, they decided to SCRAP all Eddystone receivers. Now Eddystones were sold in shipments before this date but after this date all the Eddystones were all scrapped.

So it looks like they mutilated them, just like the low number receivers.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Q8lgw82h-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

I'm gonna jump in with a touch of wishful thinking....
Could these barrel shortening and rechambered rifles be host to the infamous 3GM-K cartouche? That would be something!

---

The one thing I found there was only one rebuild program of the M1917 during WWII. I forget the name of it. Wright something. Or something like that. I will go back and find the name and edit this comment to add it in. That was where the WWII Johnson barrels were installed.

Past this one rebuild of the M1917 during WWII, the only thing they ever did to this M1917's is check headspace and the ones that passed were sold first, and the ones with excessive headspace were lumped and sold at the end. They didn't want to spend any money or time on fixing them for sales.

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

What I'm truly excited about, and the reason I post so much of my research, look on this post. People are researching and posting the info they find!!!

Fjruple and Docooverboard, I commend you for posting what you found. This is exactly the intent of what I'm trying to do!

I started in the Archvies 7 years ago and I found many things that are accepted by us, are actually someone's opinions, stated as facts.

There are mountains of new available research out there. I would imagine probably only maybe 5% of the available research out there has been accessed. There are so many new opportunities to find new things. You only have to start to look. Once you start to look, you will never look at a book, or an internet expert the same.

Now if I pick up a book, which is really sort of seldom. I don't look at what the author is saying, I'm looking at the Bibliography. I want to see what their work was to get that answer, then I track down that info myself. To base my own conclusion.

If I can have any lasting effect on this hobby, that is my end goal. I want people to question, and research it for themselves. Don't take anything at face value. Find your own answers!

Quote:

---

I really don't honestly have much interest in the M1917. I'm a Marine Corps and Sniper collector. I've already spent more time researching the M1917 than I really care to do.

---

What you have no interest in is the truth. You clearly adhere to Stalin's of quoted

Quote:

---

A Lie Repeated often enough becomes the truth.

---

You just post stuff out of context and then try to divert.

So, rather than endlessly post your garbage, explain how a Winchester 1917s could get to the US Military with excess head space!
Sans that your posts are a lie (when you know you are factually wrong and you are, it becomes a lie)

You know, the ones that have not only Winchester tech inspector but a US Army inspector certifying them to all the details.

RC20.

This is the great thing about this all. There is a tremendous amount of research you can conduct on this topic at the National Archives. Including researching the production problems that they had with these rifles from the start. This includes the fact that they state they were in a rush and stuff was accepted that should not have been. It took almost a full year for them to work out the bugs of production, including the fact that many were made with oversized chambers and still accepted.

All of this info is at the National Archives and is completely free for you to access. Since it is your opinion that I do not know how to conduct research, I'm sure you will want to conduct the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I have more respect for myself and the work that I do, than to correspond with you any longer. You were banned for a reason from the CMP forums.

Good luck on your research.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

For everyone else, RC20 is putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I would suggest everyone go back and read what I have wrote.

But I won't be acknowledging RC20 anymore... I will be happy to respond to anyone else, as I have always done in the past.

cpln: As per your norm, you twist the reality into a lie.

I was suspended for a week (CMP uses the term banded)

Unlike you I am happy to own my postings

Quote:

---

CMP MOD: Gentleman I cleaned this one up because a few of you decided to derail it. Please be respectful of the OP's question and keep responses on topic. There will be no more warnings.

RC20: Then a number of other posts should be deleted as well.

As the OP answered his own issue, the correct thing to do would be to remove those other erroneous posts and close this.

---

That was for disagreeing with a moderator and politely. It was not what I posted and the moderator said one thing and did another (he did not clean up the posts, he cut it off - and there was NO note I could not post.)

You won't answer the Questions on Inspections Either. They don't just escape the factory.,

And you deliberately twist into a pretzel to suit your agenda on what happened with the 1917. You are not a researcher any more than I am the pope.

There is a huge difference in parts commonalty and out of spec. Those few Winchester that were not parts commonality were marked. They were passed as they met the test standards of the gauges. All Military Inspectors had their own copy of the same gauges.

UK in fact did not require parts commonality and those were shipped. Those did not have issues either.

Guys I'm dropping docs on the CMP if you want to check them out.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=251511

You are dumping a lame totally uneducated opinion on CMP not based on any knowledge of the 1917 but purely on "look at me, I am special"

You are also a detriment to the fire arms community where good accurate in context information is extremely important to both safe use and collecting and not spewed opinions.

People go to these forum to get knowledge from informed people not garbage.

I've posted a ton more documentation in this discussion on the M1917 on Gunboards.

This is a good read as you can make your own determination on the safety of the M1917.

https://forums.gunboards.com/showthr...51#post9883851

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cplstevennorton

you can make your own determination

---

Well, I've been using them since the '70s when I could first afford one and have had lots of vets and better shape rifles. None have given me ANY problems nor until now have I even HEARD anything detrimental about them. Other than the little about some parts needing fitting between manufacturers, they've been used for magnum rifle basis and again, never even have I HEARD of problems.

Don't need to go to gunboards for that either when we have a perfectly sound forum here. Leave that bunfight over there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Well, I've been using them since the '70s when I could first afford one and have had lots of vets and better shape rifles. None have given me ANY problems nor until now have I even HEARD anything detrimental about them. Other than the little about some parts needing fitting between manufacturers, they've been used for magnum rifle basis and again, never even have I HEARD of problems.

Don't need to go to gunboards for that either when we have a perfectly sound forum here. Leave that bunfight over there...

---

I've always respected your opinion Jim.

That is why I posted a lot of info so people can read it. It just gets to be too much time to post it on every forum.

Ok, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm exhausted ... :surrender:

I know now how it feels to watch a dog chase its tail ... :lol:

Lots of great participation and diverging viewpoints, but some folks still need to read about our forum etiquette policy they agreed to under our Terms of Service Agreement" they electronically signed when they joined. ;)

Regards,
Doug