Eddystone manufacturing methods

These are old posts I 'saved' that are worth re-posting:
(Not sure who the author(s) is/were unfortunately.)

Quote:

---

Low Serial number Eddystone-Any Problems???

Guys there is more to the cracked receiver problems than identified above. I used to work in the US Army Small Cal. Weapons Lab, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ and worked with a guy that used to rent a room from a guy that was third shift plant foreman at Eddystone. He related that there was no heat treating expertise for lack of a better description in those days. The guys in the forge room judged the correct heat by "looking" at the steel billets in the gas furnace.

That is the good news guys. Now here is some of the bad news. The guys in the forge room were paid piece rate, i.e. the more you do the more you make. Well they were supposed to heat the billets to between red and bright red and pull them out with the tongs and place them the trip hammers. Three hits first position, two hits the second position and one hit the third position.

Well the good ole boys in the forge room found that if they turned the furnace up a bit more and took the billets to white hot they could stamp the billet one time in the last position, turn out more forgings, make more money and ............... well you know the rest.

Only problem is when they went to white the steel was burned and the granular structure was not rearranged correctly to give it maximum strength. This supervisor was continually having to go in and turn the furnace down on the third shift so no telling how many thousand they made.

I am also in possession of declassified British Ordnance notes from WW1 and I have a set of Remington receiver drawings for the Pattern 14. For you technical types the material callout on the bolt is for 3% nickel steel on the bolt and 3 1/2% nickel steel for the receiver. No heat treat callouts are listed. The bolt drawing number is RE-B-10 and the receiver drawings (called the "body" )is RE-B-8

There are numerous revisions (as the war progressed) relaxing tolerances here and there.

The declassified reports from the War Production Board identify a fairly large number of catastrophic failures in the barrels from all three manufacturers. Basically if you read what I have read you would be very leary of ever firing one of these. To give any doubting Thomases a better vision of what happens read on.
Seems the barrels ( all manufacturers) wanted to split starting at the muzzle and worked their way towards the receiver.

Apparently the barrel life was only expected to be 6000 rounds as that is as far as they were QA tested.

There is page after page of QA problems identfied from all vendors. From the notes their Ordnance Board wanted to cancel the contracts and the onsite Brit Army QA guys were inspecting to SMLE standards and rejecting (if memory serves me) a very large percentage of the rifles. The only reason they did not cancel the contract was they were afraid the US would get offended if US vendors were rejected and they wanted us in the war so they took them till we entered and then production shifted to 30.06 for us. There is no reason to assume anything changed when the customer changed.

Contrary to popular belief the guys that work in the arsenals are not direct blood descendents of John Browning, John Garand, or anyone else that ever made/designed a gun. Most of the guys in the arsenals (including guys I talked to at Colt, Smith & Wesson years ago) did not even know what they were making, they were just shown a job grinding, polishing this or that and they had to make so many to get so much money and anything they can get out the door is money in their pocket. My friend told me they drained the Water Shops pond at Springfield Armory years ago and found over 500 receivers in the mud that were screwed up during production and thrown out the window.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
As indicated above it is best to relieve the built up stresses by cutting a groove in front of the receiver on this design prior to barrel removal.
Under no circumstances are gov't 03/l917/P14 barrels to be rechambered for magnum calibers. That is unless you want to lose your fingers when the barrel fails. Barrels tend to fail at the 3 and 9 o'clock orientation. Occasionally one will fail in the 12/6 o'clock orientation. Imagine this!!!!

I have seen cracked receivers upon rebarreling. Some machinists want to force receivers onto threads. Best to be able to hand screw the action all the way onto the threads to relieve any internal radial stresses from oversize threads.

I have some P14 actions and l917 actions and the barrels have come off everything after stress relieving by cutting slot in front of receiver. The actions I prefer are Rem and Win. but also have some Eddystones. Haven't seen any problems yet but then again no longer do them up in magnums (after I read the reports).
Also be advised there were two diameter strikers used in l917s. Both sizes were issued in Armorer Field kits as replacements. All the P14s are the small diameter. I chuck them up, drill them out and replace with l917 strikers with very small clearance. Generally .001" larger diameter than the striker nose when possible. I have seen P14 with excessive striker protrusion as well and have seen several pierced primers.

The good news is l917 strikers are perfect replacement extractors for the pre 64 Model 70 Winchester. They just have to be fitted.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

The Eddystone heat treat process was sometimes not very carefully done, and some of the receivers are too hard. When the barrel was installed, and tightened excessively, as was supposedly the case, the receivers sometimes developed small cracks.

When the sporterizing of military rifles was common after WWII, this cracking was usually discovered at the time of rebarreling, and the cause was attributed to the working of the metal as the rebarreling was being done.

Many gunsmiths refused to work on Eddystone manufactured rifles, although there seems to be no record of catastrophic failures, as there was with the low numbered Springfield and Rock Island 03s.

Crack detection is common in the automotive engine rebuild industry, and I suspect that any engine shop with magnaflux or one of the other crack detection processes could perform it on your rifle, and I believe the expense is not great.

---

Might also be a useful post in the Milsurps gunsmithing forum!

i have a few issues with this...
1917 receivers are 3% nickle steel and only surface hardened...
Winchester M 70 extractors or a bit too short to work on a 17 or P14.
and have a step in them like a Mauser.
at least 60ft pounds is needed to secure a crush fit with a square threaded barrel.
no more then 85lBS should be used.
avoid cutting the barrel ahead of the should for a relief cut..it will ruin said barrel.
only as a last chance should this be used...use the right tools and you get the job done..
iv yet to see a 1917 receiver from any maker with original barrel, with a cracked ring, and i see more then most.
if you eat your wheaties, you should be able to remove a 17 barrel,,man up and pull!!!
interesting post....thanks for sharing.

chuck: that dosent seem like alot of torque. heck, you need 70-90 ft/lbes to tighten the wheels on your car. thats about the max from a standard length 1/2" drive ratchet. however, after a while, the release torque required may be greatly in excess of that. very interesting topic and discussion. i have never attempted to remove an M1917 barrel and i am not disputing your data (you have more experience in this than i), just seemed like not alot of fastening torque. the thread crush would certainly prevent the barrel from loosening on its own. lately, i have only been considering M1917s which have their original barrels installed due to a chance of buying one with a replacement barrel, but a possible cracked receiver. as you mention, with properly fitting adapters and tools, it shouldnt be that difficult to remove an M1917 barrel, safely. best, john

Just remembered that I saw a P14 with the original barrel split at 9 and 3 o'clock recently. I'll have to take another look at it and repost. Personally I wouldn't be afraid to shoot mine though and they have been converted to the largest magnums without failures that I have heard of...

heres a visual.
i have a 17 barreled receiver in my 50lb receiver wrench, the handle of said wrench is in my early 1900s vintage blacksmith vise, thats attached to a home made bench out of 1/2 aromor plate 300 lbs,
i have a 26 inch pipe wrench attached to the old crusty barrel just ahead of the receiver, and a 5 foot cheater pipe over that.
i have my 225 lbs butt hanging off said pipe, and give it a pull.
POW! it comes loose, i roll around on the floor, get up and unscrew the rusted POS of a barrel..
most 17,s come loose pretty basic, but some just wont give it up.
thats why most guys wont work on them.
look at it this way.
they make a real cool wrench to tighten and remove your lug nuts, and those are sharp edged threads, they are made to come on and off time and time again.
easy to tighten up even for a 95 lb girl on the side of the road.
see if you can clamp down on a smooth round peice of steel, without buggering it up,
then turn the weird shaped receiever, without ruining it as well. and make sure you get the 2 little lines exactly matched up, as the sight picture needs to be right.
and do it with enough force to crush the shoulder {not the threads} thats what crush is.
and make sure you dont scratch, bugger, bend. mar, crack, scuff, teek or other wise leave any marks on the reciever when your done.
sounds pretty easy dont it.
FYI: the wrench that the CMP sells, and the ones on the market have a handle thats only about 15 to 20 inches long, and iv pulled the handles off both.
so i made my own.
the handle on mine is 36 inches long. weighs ove 50 pounds, and likely the handle will never pull off.
sounds easy to get 50 to 75 ft pounds to shoulder crush ,, dont it.
look at a pulled barrel from a 17. 1903 or Garand, youll see the crush in talking about.

good discription, chuck. thanks for taking the time to explain it. it seems that the real tension on the receiver/barrel assembly would be the force to upset the crush area. far in excess of the 70-90ft/lbes clamping torque. nicely put, thanks. best,john

Some info never goes out of fashion, and I just happened to come across this thread again.

Now I know why the UK laid aside 10,000 Winchester P14s for possible future sniper conversions, rather than 10,000 Eddystones or Remingtons, despite the fact that the A.E.F. in 1918 said "send no more Winchester M17s to France" due to non-standard parts.

There seems to a merging several different stories involving the Springfield Armory (the original) with Eddystone. The heat treating problem was more academic to the Springfield armory than the Eddystone plant. Eyeballing the color of the steel was a time honored way to determine the heat treating of the steel. As the WWI progressed men were drafted, enlisted or called to active duty and a shortage of very skilled workers greatly affected the ordnance industries in the US. There was always a acute shortage of workers at Eddystome as the turn over was quite high. Often from workers moving around looking for better pay as there was a critical shortage of manpower as the US geared up for the fighting. Winchester was the only company to solve this problem by bring back retirees and hiring women into their work force to fill in the gaps.

I have to agree with Chuck I believe most of the problems with the cracking of the Eddystone receivers was from the use of improper tools and inexperience workmen changing the barrels especially during the WWII rebuild programs.

The Eddystone plant was probably the best run rifle factory in the US as it was set up by Colonel John T. Thompson after his retirement from the US Ordnance department. As the US entered WWI, Colonel Thompson was recalled to active duty promoted to Brigadier General and ran the Rifle Board between the three manufacturers of the "Model of 1917" rifle. Commonality of parts between the three manufacturers was the driving force in the production of the M1917. and in the long run better production numbers were achieved. Winchester jumped the gun and produced early rifles that were not according to specification. General Pershing insisted on compatibility of the M1917 and directed that no Winchesters be shipped to AEF unless that were compatible with Remington and Eddystone. Both of whom waited until the specifications for the M1917 rifle were published by the US Army Ordnance Department.

Lets see, I knew a guy who knew a guy who new a guy that was on the far side of the moon who knew a guy that was in Triton who knew this guy who was on the 4th shift who knew a buy in the first shift and they were paid by the piece.

Real evidence would start with how workers were paid.

Something like 3 million rifles built and lord knows how many modified and the cracks are direly related to the wrong tools used in remove a barrel (that is from Chuck in Denver who has done hundreds of barrel changes on a 1917 of ALL makes )

Now that you can take to the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RC20

Lets see, I knew a guy who knew a guy who new a guy that was on the far side of the moon who knew a guy that was in Triton who knew this guy who was on the 4th shift who knew a buy in the first shift and they were paid by the piece.

Real evidence would start with how workers were paid.

Something like 3 million rifles built and lord knows how many modified and the cracks are direly related to the wrong tools used in remove a barrel (that is from Chuck in Denver who has done hundreds of barrel changes on a 1917 of ALL makes )

Now that you can take to the bank.

---

The original poster of that information referred to how the workers were paid: piece-work rates.

"The US Enfield" by Skennerton mentions the enormous turnover in the workforce at Remington, something like 100% every three months; not conducive to high QC.

QC probably got better when the M17 was being built, rather than rifles for "England", whom a fair proportion of the workforce had no sympathy for. The production rate for what was essentially the same rifle suddenly jumped 500% when the M17 came on line.

Of course, the original post doesn't specify whether the incidents referred to happened during P14 or M17 production, or both.

Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if British Govt. documents exist that document serious safety issues with original Pattern 14 production someone else would have stumbled onto them by now and been able to share them with us all. Maybe this thread should be an invitation for anyone with well documented cases of failure of P14/ M1917 rifles (in their original, un-bubbafied form) to bring them forward.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if British Govt. documents exist that document serious safety issues with original Pattern 14 production someone else would have stumbled onto them by now and been able to share them with us all. Maybe this thread should be an invitation for anyone with well documented cases of failure of P14/ M1917 rifles (in their original, un-bubbafied form) to bring them forward.

Ridolpho

---

The story is offered for what it is. Each must make up their own mind. I suspect it is largely truthful, possibly entirely so.

I haven't opened "The US Enfield" by Skennerton for some time, but you'll find he documents quite a number of defects and production problems with the P.14. I recall he mentions that those problems were of such a magnitude that consideration was given to cancelling all of the contracts for the rifle, but political needs naturally intervened.

A book worth having for those interested in the breed.

Some 60,000 of the early ERA rifles were DP'd from new. Not likely to have been done without a reason was it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The story is offered for what it is. Each must make up their own mind. I suspect it is largely truthful, possibly entirely so.

I haven't opened "The US Enfield" by Skennerton for some time, but you'll find he documents quite a number of defects and production problems with the P.14. I recall he mentions that those problems were of such a magnitude that consideration was given to cancelling all of the contracts for the rifle, but political needs naturally intervened.

A book worth having for those interested in the breed.

Some 60,000 of the early ERA rifles were DP'd from new. Not likely to have been done without a reason was it?

---

Surpmil--

I suspect that the reason for "DP" of the early ERA "Eddystone" was related to the EY designation for the MKI rifles with the shorter bolt lug. I have not seen the documentation but with the early MKI's there was a problem with reliable feeding of the rimmed .303 cartridge into chamber, not a good thing to have happen in combat and the MKI were "EY"ed and later DP. As with any history the original reason is probably lost in time and hidden in piles of old paperwork in a national archive somewhere.

Cheers

--fjruple

Replying to no one in particular:
Hatcher, in his Notebook, was quite forthcoming on the defects and dangers of the low number Springfield 1903s.
If he was so upfront about the actual standard issue rifle of the time, I have no doubts he'd tear into the 1917 if had even an inkling of a problem.
He's not the be-all-end-all on the subject but I think you get what I'm saying.

The people resource issue would have been after the US got into WWI.

The Brits simply did not demand parts commonality and therefor they would have had erratic standard of production.

Differences in mfg aside, that was a tough call. US went with commonality and lacked rifles initially in WWI (and we dug out 1903s, 1917s and made more 1093s as well as 1917 barrel in WWII!)

Personal I think the demand for full commonality initially was a mistake. Simple remedy was to mark Ws (who jumped the gun) with a star, then post star would be common. That would get you guns and so what if it failed and could not be repaired easily during training, you make enough of em it done matter.

By the time they got to combat they could issue the commonality guns and good to go.

If your gun failed in combat did you walk back and get it repaired or did you grab a dead or wounded mans gun and carry on? Sometimes things get over thunked.

One of the verified stores of WWII was that the Brits were amazed at the US having standard pre built gasket sets for their equipment (engines and all he rest and initially seen in aircraft). The Brits had what were called Artificers whose sole specialty was to hand make any gasket needed on an engine out of the raw material (head gaskets would be a bugger). Two very different approaches to mfg. Not right or wrong but during a war........

To make a consistent part, you need a reference "pattern". For each part. That acts as the master. If you use a pattern of a pattern you get variation creeping in until nothing works.

It takes very hard approach and discipline.

Brits got backup rifles and the SMLE made enough for front line combat. While the P-14 was a much better sniper rifle the SMLE is a better general combat rifle.

And the hardening process is a problem for anyone, variation in light is a touch one.

People think they can anneal cases by that look but they are so quick past the right point its impossible.

I don't even know if the 1917 was or had to be case hardened as they used the nickle mix and they may not need it (Chuck can likely answer that one)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

Replying to no one in particular:
Hatcher, in his Notebook, was quite forthcoming on the defects and dangers of the low number Springfield 1903s.
If he was so upfront about the actual standard issue rifle of the time, I have no doubts he'd tear into the 1917 if had even an inkling of a problem.
He's not the be-all-end-all on the subject but I think you get what I'm saying.

---

rcathey--

You have to look at both of these rifles separately. The P14 is not the M1917. The US Army Ordnance Department was watching closely the developments of the P14 and saw many of the problems associated with foreign contracts. The commonality of parts, lack of proper drawings, poorly written contracts and a well defined set of inspection standards were the basis for the problems with the Pattern 1914. When the US entered the war in April 1917 the US Army Ordnance knew at the time they could not produce the weapons they needed quickly. Little or no effort or planning was made to spin the production of the Model of 1903, this was a poor decision of the part of the Commanding General of the US Army Ordnance which he was quickly fired and replaced. Cooler heads at a lower level in the Ordnance Department prevail and properly executed the Model of 1917. Did the M1917 have problems, yes, all new firearms do if they are mass produced. If you look at the Model of 1917 production it was the first mass produced rifle (over a two million rifles) in a short period of time, 4 months short of two years by three major private contractors. That success would pay off in the follow on to the Great war.