My Eddystones P1914 and M1917

[Mikesm44]

I recently purchased a second Eddystone rifle, a M1917. It seems to be all "E" marked parts except for the barrel, a Remington 11/18 dated. It has a "SAA" stamp on the stock. I have one question in particular, what bayonet does the M17 take? I have one for my P14 but it will not fit. Thanks for any info.

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.

[therno]

They should both take the same bayonet. The only real difference is the markings. A correct bayonet for the M1917 will have US proof marks vs British marks for the P14. Do you have photo of your bayonet?

[Aragorn243]

Should take the same bayonet. As said above, only markings are different.

[Mikesm44]

Here's the bayonet. It fits the P14 I have but it just almost fits the M17.

[browningautorifle]

Your 1917 had been plated or something. Chromed or something...? Why is it silver - gray? That's the problem. The barrel is bigger outside because of that coating.

[Mikesm44]

Your 1917 had been plated or something. Chromed or something...? Why is it silver - gray? That's the problem. The barrel is bigger outside because of that coating.

I don't know what it is. Previous owner said it was parkerized. He said it's a CMP rifle. Still waiting for the paperwork from him. It seems the ring fits over the barrel, but the button will not go over the lug.

[browningautorifle]

Is the M1917 chrome or silver? That isn't Parkerizing. That's black or grayish. Is it a grey paint? I'll bet the 1917 was a parade rifle for a VFW and they chromed it. I think if you try the bayonet backwards and just try the ring on the muzzle it may still not fit. My alternate thought is did you look in the mortise slot in the bayonet butt for an obstruction?

[RC20]

This guys is an amazing font of information

Bayo Points 10

Same bayo used on the Winchester Model 1897 Trench shotgun

[Patrick Chadwick]

"That isn't Parkerizing. That's black or grayish. Is it a grey paint? I'll bet the 1917 was a parade rifle for a VFW and they chromed it."

Agreed with the fact that there is some kind of additional coating on the surface. but not with the "parade rifle".

Take a very slow look at the backsight "ears". The profile seems not quite right to me. Flats at the front and top (not clear) where there should be curves. I have a suspicion that these may be welded-on replacements, and the refinishing hides the joint. Bubba strikes again? I hope not.

How about a couple of close-ups of the ears - from the side, front and back, so that we can all form an opinion?


P.S. Also take a look at the foresight. The extra surface was applied over everything, without properly cleaning the metal beforehand, so it has not taken in the pits and the cross-hatching of the foresight ears, block and blade. And the front surface between the ears is just plain tatty. Not a professional job, but another hint in the direction of John Q. Bubba. It doesn't matter who did it - it looks nasty and I would strip it off!


P.P.S. In the very first photo, of the two rifles taken from the right, look at the inside of the front of the left backsight ear. Is that a weld joint?

[therno]

You bayonet actually goes better with the M1917 because it has US proofs. The British proofs are struck out. It was never sent to England and was put into US service when we joined the war.