New Winchester 1917- Jewel or Turd?

[Richardwv]

I would like to strongly second Pat's points and add a few of my own. The history of just about all battle rifles includes both expedient field repairs and arsenal reworks. Any battle rifle that has been there and done that (which are the ones with history....not the pristine rack queens so much sought after), reflects these replacement parts, and both wood and metal finish. To attempt to reverse or hide this evidence of use is just plain wrong and destructive to any history the rifle may have had before being "part corrected".

The only work I do on rifles beyond basic cleaning (and it amazing how many retain storage grease in barrel channels and such 50 or more years after entering civilian ownership), is to return them to safe "as issued" condition. The one exception I would see to this guideline is if damage was tied to a known historical event, where the piece has more merit as a relic of that event than as a generic working rifle.

In all but the most desperate of times Armies had standards for what was suitable for issue and what warranted rework/repair. Stocks that were partially rotted, oil soak or with splits would not have been issued, but repaired if possible and then given a new coat of whatever finish was used at the time (and no, not everyone used BLO). The odds of that repaired stock being returned to its original rifle was about zero. Stock repair takes time, reaching into a bin for new or already reworked wood doesn't. Considering the scarcity of replacement wood, owners today are to be forgiven if they repair beyond the point that would have been considered in the day. Matching wood color and grain or source of manufacture was certainly not an issue. Same for the metal, rusted and worn parts, along with accumulated filth would not have been tolerated. These would have been repaired/refinished (whole or in part) to meet minimum standards for being issued....source of parts or matching original finish be damned. To strip away this accumulated history of honest use in search of the pristine all matching rifle is a travesty against the history that people so often cite, but seem to be unable to honor.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[RC20]

Am I missing something in that you just can't file down the .045 to .030 in slow steps?

I know it messes up a .045, but if a .030 is hard to get and you can replace the.045 or the .075, making it shorter neatly should be easy and Marks-alot on the top and good (or so I think).

Thanks for all of the information and kind words. You've helped me feel good about my purchase and elightened me quite a bit. As mentioned in my first post, the front sight on the rifle was "bubbafied" in that it had been cut and had an extension with a large "bead" soldered on. The post and bead was so tall that I think it must have been designed for use with the rear battle sight (ladder flipped down) and zeroed for 100 yards. I acquired 4 "new" front sights and started out zeroing at 200 yards with a .075 front post. Rifle was hitting about 3 MOA low. Math said I needed to lower the front post by about .025 inches, so I next mounted a .045 front post. This one is still hitting a little low, at the bottom of the 10 ring on a SR-C target so I think a .030 front post ought to do the trick. I'll have to kee searching for one, as I haven't found anything shorter than the .045 for sale yet, but if I understand the book I do have, there should be a .030 size out there somewhere. I didn't care as much for windage adjustment, as crosswind gusts were about 15 mph. I'll wait for a calmer day to get that dialed in. Final 5 shot group came in at 2.25 inches center to center, but the interesting part was 3 of the five came in at 9/16ths center to center. I was shooting at 200 yards from the bench using a front and rear sandbag. Hornady M1 Garand Match 168gr. The majority of the pasters are from practicing offhand with N04 Mk1.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

"file down the .045 to .030 in slow steps"..........

The trick is that ALL of the blades are the same height, in order to maintain a similar sight picture, regardless of sight selection..

The difference between sizes is in the height of the block that sits between the blade and the mounting dovetail.

No1 Mk3 (*) (SMLE) front sights are another example of this practice.

[Patrick Chadwick]

No1 Mk3 (*) (SMLE) front sights are another example of this practice.

No surprise - they are basically the same, even if maybe differently marked! The SMLE blade block design was adopted for the P14 and then "inherited" by the M1917.


But I would NOT use the battle sight for zeroing. If you ever want to participate in competitions, then I seriously recommend that you should zero it at 100 yards with the ladder sight set one notch above zero using a central (not 6 o'clock) hold on a standard 8" black. A "tin hat" target is ideal. With a blade foresight, this is more sensitive for height adjustment than a round white sticker in the center of the black.

This way, you still have some room for correction for different loads. Zero it at 200, and you may find that at 100 you need to file the blade back up again - notoriously difficult to do!

[gtxc01]

Thanks for the thoughts on zeroing. I hope to finish getting her dialed in this weekend if the winds are a bit calmer. I may look to see if I can get a "point of aim point of impact" zero with the front sight blade heights I have as opposed to going for the six o'clock hold zero. It's no joke about needing to "file up" the front sight at 100 yards. I shot the P14 at 100 yards the first time I shot it, and had to aim in on a target stapled below my intended target! It was hitting 18 inches high at that distance. Certainly explains the conventional wisdom from the Great War of aiming for the belt buckle.

[RC20]

My brother let me shoot his Eddystone with the ladder sight that had a smaller peep hole drilled in it (JB weld).

I usually cannot shoot iron sights (even peeps on the A3) worth a hoot due the older dyes.

I got a decent group at 50 and took it out to 100. Not a good target (the Leopold old 4 square) but got a decent group with the XTP (high but a decent group).

I then shifted to a large 3 inch orange ball (still too small at that distance) but got 4 shots into it at that distance before the sun played havoc with it and my eyes again. A few outside the ring so not bad as all. A decent size black ball would have worked well I think

Oddly the hand loads had quite a bit lower than the XTP and spot on using 52 gr of 4831 with the 168 gr match (same load as the 1 1/4 group with the scoped Eddystones).

Amazed at how good a picture I had and you can adjust the height with hand loads if you are running high with the normal velocity loads (these are down around 2400 fps I think)

[Patrick Chadwick]

Amazed at how good a picture I had and you can adjust the height with hand loads if you are running high with the normal velocity loads (these are down around 2400 fps I think)

This points out a basic rule: get the optimum load for the rifle established BEFORE filing around on the foresight blade. Fiddling the load to suit the blade is the wrong way round to do it!

The ideal powder charge/bullet weight combination should be one that is tolerant of a charge spread of 0.2 gn. Which is about the tightest you can get in practical reloading, unless you want to weigh each charge on a chemical balance. I spent a great deal of time optimizing the charge for my Eddystone, and found 2 optimum charges (48 and 50 gn with Swiss N140, 168gn HPBT Sierra or Lapua).

Changing that charge so much that the POI is noticeably affected would mean using a charge that is very sensitive to tiny load changes, and would produce poor groups! The difference between best and worst group size in my 30-06 testing was a factor of 3. A 1 MOA load is a potential competition winner. With 3 MOA you can stay at home.

Optimum load first, THEN sight correction!

[Patrick Chadwick]

To strip away this accumulated history of honest use in search of the pristine all matching rifle is a travesty against the history that people so often cite, but seem to be unable to honor.

Thank you Richard for expressing my standpoint better than I could myself!