Yeah I'm not saying don't shoot them. I will shoot any low number after reading the stuff I have now. I don't see any actual difference in the docs that make me anymore fearful of shooting a low number over a high number. In fact I see quite the opposite that the heat treatment can be bad on high numbers as well. I've seen about a dozen reports now of high numbers grenading on bad ammo. One guy lost a thumb. A couple lost an eye and so on.
It's interesting because SA says not to build a magnum out of these receivers. They even state that proof rounds of 70,000 PSI are reaching the limits of what one can handle. One thing I found interesting they say they should not be used for rifle grenades, just like the low numbers. Stating that with the barrel plugged and the 40,000 PSI of the blank ammo, that is reaching the limits of the receiver.
When you read that stuff, that is the same thing they state on low number receivers. So it's just interesting that when you compare them, they speak of both so similar.
But yeah how many of these were built into magnums, when someone wrote in to ask them, SA was very firm on not doing that. That it wasn't safe.
---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------
The biggest thing I see over and over on these, check the headspace. They had a substantial amount that would not headspace, so a lot were cannibalized to try to get ones that would headspace.
Last edited by cplstevennorton; 08-01-2019 at 07:40 AM.
June 24, 1947 Since May 26, 1947, RIA had continued to check receivers and have now examined a total of 230 Receivers. Of those 18 were cracked, and 3 had cracked barrels. They are telling Army Ordnance it is too time consuming and expensive to check all of these receivers. They recommend to Army Ordnance it's better to just state all eddystones should be used for drill or blank firing only.
I can understand that if a barrel is screwed into a receiver by the sort of person who believes in tightening up wheel nuts until he hears a satisfying screech, then the force involved will create an enormous bursting pressure that may crack the receiver - or even initiate a crack that only becomes apparent much later.
However, I utterly fail to understand how these forces - which create an equal compressive pressure on the barrel - could cause a cracked barrel.
I can understand that if a barrel is screwed into a receiver by the sort of person who believes in tightening up wheel nuts until he hears a satisfying screech, then the force involved will create an enormous bursting pressure that may crack the receiver - or even initiate a crack that only becomes apparent much later.
However, I utterly fail to understand how these forces - which create an equal compressive pressure on the barrel - could cause a cracked barrel.
Could someone please enlighten me?
What we have here is a case of excessive exuberance.
While the docs are valid historic writing, the data clearly is not.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. If all the other data shows the 1917 was reliable and had no failures, then you have to question anything that says it was not.
The 1917 was a common modified gun, lots and lots. It was used for large magnums due it its sturdy nature. Its been in the Greenland Patrol forever. The Danes made their own barrels for them they had them so long.
Chuck in Denver has worked on 100s (new barrels) and reports a few W and R cracked.
I have seen 20 Es and probably total of 30 E - R -W. None was cracked including an E that had a R barrel on it that had a thread cut off it.
The Barrels all have witness marks and those barrels have their sight slots cut out BEFORE they are put on a receiver.
So how can you over tighten a barrel that is matched t the witness mark?
Let alone the Urban Legend of Pneumai Wrnehe (all pictures show hand install)
As someone currently considering the purchase of a P14 Eddystone is there any data/documents available that would indicate that the British or Commonwealth forces experienced similar problems with their rifles during both World Wars? I believe the only significant difference is the cartridge fired. Like the M17 Eddystone was the great supplier and produced over 600,000 of the over one million rifles made.
I believe the only significant difference is the cartridge fired.
Whether or not there's data on paper, there's differences in the rifles by manufacture, not just caliber. All parts are NOT interchangeable. All you need to do is study the forum on these rifles and read. Take your info from there.
None of them used the P14 as a first line rifle IIRC and most of the problems had been solved by then. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one, although they are a bit too long for my taste.
It seems that much is written about the problems, but few on this forum actually experienced them in shooting the P14? Like the stretchy LE actions.
The attachment may be a reasonable explanation for problems with bursting barrels.
WF Vickery writes about threading problems when fitting square threads. He wrote that the preparation of the cutting tool for (Enfield Krag and Springfield US models) must be carefully (expertly done) done and that in cutting a square thread .001 clearance should be left at the top and bottom of the thread by machining the blank .002 smaller than the bottom of the threads in the receiver and then cutting the groove of the barrel thread .001 deeper than the depth of the receiver thread.
I could see production haste could wind up having a few bad eggs in the batch and that after some time in service harmonics having a negative effect especially after proof test.
Last edited by Doco overboard; 08-28-2019 at 09:01 PM.
I remember reading a letter from a "Remington" official complaining to a US Army Ordnance captain about quality of the steel they were getting for the M1917. I don't know if the "Remington" official was representing both Remington Ilion or Eddystone or both locations. I cannot remember if the document was from the Cody Museum, lots of M1917 documents, as they were part of the rifle production board or a foot note in one the books on the M1917. At the time I though it was interesting since the Army Captain response was to blow off the "Remington" official. As we know from experience that usually comes back to haunt us with future problems. I am deeply interested in the cracking problem and am looking in the weeds from the problem.
In my research I found this photo in the national archives of the heat treating of M1917 receiver at the Eddystone Rifle Plant on August 1918. Please note on the card the photo was not for public release. Enjoy
PM
Originally Posted by cplstevennorton
