Remington m17

[Patrick Chadwick]

Inspect the barrel for any holes/cracks!

Thanks for the warning! I took a good look at my Eddy, and whaddyaknow - there is a hole in the barrel - all the way down, from end to end!
Despite this obvious sign of sloppy manufacture and an inspector who must have had his eyes shut when he whacked on the flaming bomb, I have managed to come a respectable BDMP 3rd in Hessen with it. Maybe the TLC that I invested helped a little, who knows?

OK, joke over, let's get a bit more serious:

Call it B-S, scuttlebutt, codswallop, hearsay or whatever, according to which flavor of English you prefer, but nobody is helped by the retailing of unfounded prejudice and industrial fairytales that cause unnecessary worry and uncertainty for newcomers. For what follows, do not believe me, but check up with Ferris, Stratton, Poyer, Hatcher etc. as I do not claim to have a photographic memory - and why shouldn't the doubters and knockers do some checking themselves for once?

1) Even if it pains '03 fans, it was early 1903 Springfields that had trouble with cracked receivers when made, because the factory had not yet mastered the hardening of nickel steel, NOT the M1917.

2) Even if it pains Winchester fans, it was Winchester, NOT Remington or Eddystone, that had quality trouble with the first P14s.

3) Cracked M1917 receivers appear to be traceable to overstressing when inserting replacement barrels. ChuckinDenver is our resident expert for this, I believe. I see no reason to be worried about an original M1917 with original barrel in good condition, especially NOT an Eddystone.

Why especially NOT an Eddystone?
- Because when they switched over from P14s to M1917s, all 3 factories had experienced production lines with a high productivity, way out in front of Springfield, and a very high rate of parts interchangeability between factories. But Eddystone was a single product factory. They made nothing but P14s, and then nothing but M1917s, They concentrated on one product, without any distraction from other products, achieved the highest productivity of all 3 sources, and I have not yet seen any evidence (as opposed to prejudice) whatsoever to suggest that the quality was any different to the other manufacturers.

In fact I will now make an extravagant claim, and invite all to prove me wrong through documented statistics, not hearsay:

Of the 4 manufacturers mentioned, the actual order of quality and reliability over the complete production run of the rifle types mentioned was the exact reverse of popular prejudice, to wit:
Best - Eddystone
2nd - Remington
3rd - Winchester
Worst - Springfield

OK hearsay retailers. You have been challenged. Now prove me wrong with documented statistics. But don't take it all too seriously. Keep calm and keep the blood pressure down! Nobody's honor or professional reputation is at stake here! Just please check the sources before shooting me down!

I eagerly await enlightenment.


Patrick

P.S: I have never seen TLC as a parameter in any quality control documents.