Check your M1917's for safety issues. Eddystones especially..

[RC20]

cpln has been whacked on the CMP forum by the recognized expert for his posting (John Beard)

There is no one simply more knowledgeable in the world.

cppln has then jumped into what he calls head-space and they replaced barrels on 1917s to correct ti.

That is truly insane. He uses selective document to try to prove it and all out of context as well.

When challenged to explain how 1917s got out of the factory with all the inspections required including the head space he has no explanation and the waffles.

As he has been corrected by some of the true experts and continues, you can only assume his intent is malicious. I have no idea why, it sounds like a Facebook I want attention thing.

I would not believe him if he told me the sun rose in the East.

[browningautorifle]

Strange... That was quite a bunfight. Many thoughts were erased...by mods.

[RC20]

Yea I got suspended as I think the Mod just used a hammer and cut off and did not clean up like he said.

I have no issue with someone who presents information.

but when you do it totally out of historical sources and context and come up with a bizarre agenda and then push it, its a disservice at best to the collector community.

People buy into garage like that, they just don't know any better.

He got onto a rant about Winchesters all were bad head space.

The OP then admitted he had done the check wrong and there was no retractions from cpln, he just kept on going.

One being head spaced wrong (chamber issue) is not unheard of, but its a one off that the check catches at the build station.

Guns are not paid for until they pass the last check by the Government and they do the same head space (and all other checks - that what the stamping system is all about, its passes not just internal Winchester (in this case) but independent US government with their own gauges.

Winchester would not get paid for a rejected rifle. If there was any issue it had to be resolved. So hell now would they let something like that go. And if they tried they would be caught and eat the whole lot. Insane, no logic at all.

Usually it would be a one off where a reamer was dull, bad, a mistake in too deep or too shallow a cut. Checked, sent back for a new barrel. You would not cut threads and re0do as he contends. Its not cost effective.

So per cpln all Winchesters were bad.

He is arguing with John Beard who is to the best of my knowledge the most respected resource in the country at this time. I had a disagreement with JB once, and I did it politely. It was a view thing vs a fact. I sure did not diss him. People like that are a huge value to all of us and deserve and have earned respect (unlike cpln who deserves non and is the opposite of earned unless you want to put it in negatives)

All Eddystones are unsafe.

The guy is a menace to sane thought let alone gun history.

[cplstevennorton]

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.

Attachment 102501

This seems to be the spot what causes them to burst. I've seen this mentioned several times. Mentions of cracking barrels is reported from 1917 to 1947.

[cplstevennorton]

I really don't honestly have much interest in the M1917. I'm a Marine Corps and Sniper collector. I've already spent more time researching the M1917 than I really care to do.

I think what I'm going to have to do though is get a collection of documents together and just dump them out to the forums. I think a lot of stuff needs to come out. The problem is the info on this is a staggering amount, so I have to figure out how to do this.

I think people need to read it themselves and make up their own minds on this..

But what it looks like the rifles that would headspace correctly to the 1.947 were sold first thru the NRA.

The rifles that headspaced to the 1.947 but were unserviceable because of a pitted bore or rust, were donated to the VFW for shooting blank ammunition.

The rest of the rifles with excessive headspace past the 1.497 were lumped together and liquidated declaring them with excessive headspace, and to be used for drill only. Or correct by a qualified gunsmith. In the docs they wanted to repalce the barrels but Ordnance wouldn't allow it because of funds.

I think this is why so many custom M1917's exist in different calibers.

Also new in this, it appears at the very end, they decided to SCRAP all Eddystone receivers. Now Eddystones were sold in shipments before this date but after this date all the Eddystones were all scrapped.

So it looks like they mutilated them, just like the low number receivers.

[cplstevennorton]

I'm gonna jump in with a touch of wishful thinking....
Could these barrel shortening and rechambered rifles be host to the infamous 3GM-K cartouche? That would be something!

The one thing I found there was only one rebuild program of the M1917 during WWII. I forget the name of it. Wright something. Or something like that. I will go back and find the name and edit this comment to add it in. That was where the WWII Johnson barrels were installed.

Past this one rebuild of the M1917 during WWII, the only thing they ever did to this M1917's is check headspace and the ones that passed were sold first, and the ones with excessive headspace were lumped and sold at the end. They didn't want to spend any money or time on fixing them for sales.

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

What I'm truly excited about, and the reason I post so much of my research, look on this post. People are researching and posting the info they find!!!

Fjruple and Docooverboard, I commend you for posting what you found. This is exactly the intent of what I'm trying to do!

I started in the Archvies 7 years ago and I found many things that are accepted by us, are actually someone's opinions, stated as facts.

There are mountains of new available research out there. I would imagine probably only maybe 5% of the available research out there has been accessed. There are so many new opportunities to find new things. You only have to start to look. Once you start to look, you will never look at a book, or an internet expert the same.

Now if I pick up a book, which is really sort of seldom. I don't look at what the author is saying, I'm looking at the Bibliography. I want to see what their work was to get that answer, then I track down that info myself. To base my own conclusion.

If I can have any lasting effect on this hobby, that is my end goal. I want people to question, and research it for themselves. Don't take anything at face value. Find your own answers!

[RC20]

I really don't honestly have much interest in the M1917. I'm a Marine Corps and Sniper collector. I've already spent more time researching the M1917 than I really care to do.

What you have no interest in is the truth. You clearly adhere to Stalin's of quoted

A Lie Repeated often enough becomes the truth.

You just post stuff out of context and then try to divert.

So, rather than endlessly post your garbage, explain how a Winchester 1917s could get to the US Military with excess head space!
Sans that your posts are a lie (when you know you are factually wrong and you are, it becomes a lie)

You know, the ones that have not only Winchester tech inspector but a US Army inspector certifying them to all the details.

[cplstevennorton]

RC20.

This is the great thing about this all. There is a tremendous amount of research you can conduct on this topic at the National Archives. Including researching the production problems that they had with these rifles from the start. This includes the fact that they state they were in a rush and stuff was accepted that should not have been. It took almost a full year for them to work out the bugs of production, including the fact that many were made with oversized chambers and still accepted.

All of this info is at the National Archives and is completely free for you to access. Since it is your opinion that I do not know how to conduct research, I'm sure you will want to conduct the research yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I have more respect for myself and the work that I do, than to correspond with you any longer. You were banned for a reason from the CMP forums.

Good luck on your research.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

For everyone else, RC20 is putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I would suggest everyone go back and read what I have wrote.

But I won't be acknowledging RC20 anymore... I will be happy to respond to anyone else, as I have always done in the past.

[RC20]

cpln: As per your norm, you twist the reality into a lie.

I was suspended for a week (CMP uses the term banded)

Unlike you I am happy to own my postings

CMP MOD: Gentleman I cleaned this one up because a few of you decided to derail it. Please be respectful of the OP's question and keep responses on topic. There will be no more warnings.

RC20: Then a number of other posts should be deleted as well.

As the OP answered his own issue, the correct thing to do would be to remove those other erroneous posts and close this.

That was for disagreeing with a moderator and politely. It was not what I posted and the moderator said one thing and did another (he did not clean up the posts, he cut it off - and there was NO note I could not post.)

You won't answer the Questions on Inspections Either. They don't just escape the factory.,

And you deliberately twist into a pretzel to suit your agenda on what happened with the 1917. You are not a researcher any more than I am the pope.

There is a huge difference in parts commonalty and out of spec. Those few Winchester that were not parts commonality were marked. They were passed as they met the test standards of the gauges. All Military Inspectors had their own copy of the same gauges.

UK in fact did not require parts commonality and those were shipped. Those did not have issues either.

[cplstevennorton]

Guys I'm dropping docs on the CMP if you want to check them out.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=251511