1917 Eddystone Advice

[Calif-Steve]

Patrick made very good points, but as best as I know the WWI plants did not swap anything. They were direct competition with each other and did no swapping. After WWI SA did a huge re-build program and many parts were swapped out in the early 1920/22 timeframe. WWII then saw parts swapping again, so "correcting" an M1917 is just fine by me.

[Aragorn243]

After reviewing the price of replacement parts, I've decided to swap out the good Eddystone stuff and leave the better non-Eddystone stuff on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to find comparable condition parts to swap with someone who needs them. $69 for a trigger guard? WOW.

So that leaves me needing a trigger guard, floor plate, and trigger. I have an excellent condition parkerized Winchester trigger guard, an excellent parkerized Remington floor plate and either a Remington or Winchester trigger, both appear to be blued.

[Dad]

The Eddystone parts I received from Springfield Sporters were either OEM or very nicely refinished.
You might try them.
Springfield Sporters, Inc.
The parts are segregated on top of the list as ERA (Eddystone),REM (Remington), etc.
Make sure when ordering to specify Eddystone parts.

D.

[RC20]

If you find a pure 1917, its a fake. I have yet to see a pure one (maybe in a museum and the ones taken off the line for presentation to various

Your gun and up to you, I don't think historic value is ruined, not a lot to start with, no one knows where parts were swapped. Barrel condition is going to drive the value anyway (as is finish)

In response to Patrick.

In fact the parts interchange delayed production by a significant time when rifles were in extremely short supply (non existent in many cases of training) It was a negative. P14s did not have that interchange capability. The exchange ability while convenient latter on overall was probably a significant negative. More guns would have also meant more spare parts and far less need to fudge them back together rather than just issue a new gun and send the messed up one to a rear area where they could be torn down, spare parts created (or new spares installed)

Factories did not swap parts, period. They came out all OEM.

Yes they did get mixed up not only in the field (where the interchange did make it easier) but all the re-arsenal work they went through did that as well.

The major feature of M1917 production was that, as far as possible, all parts from 3 different manufacturers should be interchangeable. So no US armourer fixing up M1917s would have worried much about matching E's or R's or W's. Part interchangeablilty was intended to be used to produce as many rifles as possible as fast as possible in the factory, and to keep up the maximum availability of functioning rifles in the field. Especially for the M1917, the snooty collector's attitude of "it's not all matching therefore not original" is historically incorrect. See Ferris "United States Rifle Model of 1917".

As to "history", nobody can tell now whether the parts were used in the factory, because delivery shortages required taking parts from one of the other factories, or "officially" swapped by a US armorer at a later date, or even swapped by you or me five minutes ago.

So go all-Eddy if you like. It's irrelevant for shooting anyway

[WarPig1976]

If you find a pure 1917, its a fake.

My unissued 11/18 Eddystone isn't fake. They ARE out there!!!

[RC20]

I stand corrected, correct that to any issued 1917 will not be true with all OEM components.

Unissued is pretty much the same as a museum piece, not typical thats for sure.

I have never seen one, so certainly pretty rare and I don't even know what you would pay for one, beyond my means I am sure.

Good to know there are some out there not in a museum.

[Patrick Chadwick]

In response to the response:

... In response to Patrick.
In fact the parts interchange delayed production by a significant time when rifles were in extremely short supply (non existent in many cases of training) It was a negative. P14s did not have that interchange capability. The exchange ability while convenient latter on overall was probably a significant negative. More guns would have also meant more spare parts and far less need to fudge them back together rather than just issue a new gun and send the messed up one to a rear area where they could be torn down, spare parts created (or new spares installed)

Factories did not swap parts, period. They came out all OEM.

Yes they did get mixed up not only in the field (where the interchange did make it easier) but all the re-arsenal work they went through did that as well.

If you now read my post carefully - i.e. what I actually wrote, and do not read anything between the lines:

The major feature of M1917 production was that, as far as possible, all parts from 3 different manufacturers should be interchangeable. So no US armourer fixing up M1917s would have worried much about matching E's or R's or W's. Part interchangeablilty was intended to be used to produce as many rifles as possible as fast as possible in the factory, and to keep up the maximum availability of functioning rifles in the field. Especially for the M1917, the snooty collector's attitude of "it's not all matching therefore not original" is historically incorrect. See Ferris "United States Rifle Model of 1917".

As to "history", nobody can tell now whether the parts were used in the factory, because delivery shortages required taking parts from one of the other factories, or "officially" swapped by a US armorer at a later date, or even swapped by you or me five minutes ago.

So go all-Eddy if you like. It's irrelevant for shooting anyway."

I did not claim that parts were exchanged in the factory, as I have no knowledge of that, just that it could have happened, as a high degree of interchangeability was intended. This aim was indeed a cause of delay in running up to full series production, as (if I recall correctly, but see Ferris) Winchester had some difficulty in meeting the interchangeabilty requirements.

So if you take regard of my use of words such as "should" and "could", there is no difference between me and other contributors.

Now as to another tricky word: unissued. I too have an 11/18 Eddy, in what I call, for lack of a better expression, "Arsenal mint". Naughty of me to use the word mint, I know. Suggestions for improvement will be taken seriously.

I have a couple of other rifles in this condition, which is (as far as I can tell) never used by regular troops, i.e. never issued to an individual soldier to be kicked around and dropped in the mud etc, but with a perfect interior - bore and working surfaces effectively new and a lot of dings caused by being shunted around arsenals over many decades until being sold as surplus.

So "unissued" in the sense of never leaving the arsenal, but they did, of course, leave the factory, which otherwise would have not received payment from the accepting agencies!

Mediating between RC20 and Warpig, I offer the following thoughts for discussion:

- The M1917 was a mass-production item, produced in 3 factories simultaneously.
- In November 1918 the production was reaching its end.
- So there was no need for anyone to preserve a "sample" at the factory.
- 11-18 marked rifles probably did not actually reach army arsenals until the war was over.
- As a result, they were in some (many???) cases never issued to a fighting unit, but remained in store for decades.
- Most (just about all???) will have been "dinged" by being shunted around on pallets etc.
- With a rifle in perfect internal condition, such as my Eddy, it is tempting to "improve" the exterior to match the pristine interior.
- Especially when there are plenty of people with plenty of money to pay an enormous premium for a factor that is irrelevant for shooting.

So for end-of-war production I conclude:
- "Unissued" in the sense of never left the factory - extremely unlikely.
- "Unissued" in the sense of never reached an soldier on active service - quite possible for types viewed as non-standard for future requirements.
- "Unissued" in the sense of "perfect exterior condition with no handling/transport marks - very, very unlikely.


Readers will note my avoidance of absolute words such as "always" or "impossible", despite the temptation!

Any thoughts on this?

[ArtioZen]

Patrick - you had me at "shoot. clean. shoot. clean - enjoy!"

Aragorn & Warpig, let's meet to compare dings, shine, marks and shots fired in '15 - I for one need time away from computers and such...

Just saying! (Sincerely)

[RC20]

Patrick:

As far as I am concerned Warping and I do not need mediation.

He corrected me and I am good with that, no issues being informed I am wrong.

As for the nuanced part about parts could have been interchanged in the factory seems a bit of a red hearing.

Nothing I have heard or read indicates that, the logic of production and how they went about it says not. Suggesting it to me leaves it an open question and unless there is actual evidence I would say it is closed.

As I recall only the bayonets were shared (between Remington and Eddystone)

[Patrick Chadwick]

I have no wish to cause irritation by hair-splitting RC20, so I will simply compress my argument to the essence: once parts have been swapped, maybe many years ago, it is practically impossible to say now: who? where? when? why? for mass-production items that were intended to be used, and therefore required servicing. Hence my caution about "all-original" claims, having seen a great number that were too good to be true.