Menu
Yes, it is true that some M1917 rifles had hair line cracks in the receiver, and most of them were made by Eddystone and rebarreled during WW2. I don't know the cause of this, maybe the threads, receiver heat treatment, or how tight they were screwed on???
- Eddystone 1917 Serial Numbers808519
- Eddystone 1917 Serial Number 1333510
- Model 1917 Rifle Serial Numbers
Usually the cracks were never noticed until the receiver was polished and blued for sporterizing. I have never heard of one of these failing due to the cracks, but most likely when the cracks were noticed, the receiver was decommissioned. This is one of those things to be aware of, but not to worry about too much. It is pretty rare.
![Numbers Numbers](/uploads/1/2/4/3/124343726/219913755.jpg)
This is the first M1917 I've owned and am interested in the manufacturer's markings on the parts. Not sure wher to look on the parts, but so far I have found the following: Safety: E Bolt Sleeve: E Bolt Body (on underside of handle): N5 Bolt Stop: E The cartouche on the stock appears to be 'S G M' in a box.
The box appears to be a bit longer than these letters so there could be another letter that is being obscured by a ding. Where can I find documentation on the various manufacturer's marks for the parts and what would be original for this rifle ((SN 378xxx)? Depends on the make of your rifle. E is for Eddystone, R for Remington, W for Winchester (the maker is next to the serial number on the chamber ) You have several Eddystone parts on the rifle.
If you look at the end of the stock just under the muzzle you may see one of the three letters pressed in the wood, this mark indicates the manufacturer of the stock. It's common to find a mix of parts from different manufacturers on rifles that have been repaired or rebuilt. The mark on the stock may be a US inspector stamp applied when the rifle was inspected at a repair facility. Or it may be applied by an allied government as many M1917s were sent as aid to the Allies. Pictures may clarify the stamp. Hope this helps. The rifle is an Eddystone.
Where on the bolt would the manufacturer's mark be? I'll try to take some pictures later. I'm in the middle of a remodeling job and am not sure how to use the macro feature on my camera. After looking more closely, the N5 is indeed NS. Also just found what may be a rather large W on the under side of the bolt handle closer to the handle knob, so the bolt is probably Winchester. Is the Winchester W sans-seriff?
Did Eddystone make their own bolts or did they use Winchester bolts?
There have been a very small number of M1917 receivers with small hairline cracks found in them. Often they went unnoticed until the receiver was polished and blued. The large majority of them were of Eddystone manufacture and had WW2 replacement barrels. But then, Eddystone made the most M1917's of the three makes, so odds are they will have more problems found. Nothing to really be too concerned about.
Just be aware of the potential problem and inspect the rifle thoroughly before purchasing. It is a very rare problem. I live about 4 miles from where the old Eddystone Arsenal was. It's not in Philadelphia but in Eddystone, PA which is in Delaware County.
You can guess how many M1917's are floating around this area. I personally have owned aat least 2 dozen over the years. When Philadelphia Electric bought the land to build a modern powerplant they tore down what was left of the Arsenal.
Under the floor of a large shed they found many cratesd of M1917's that someone hid there. To get rid of them they gave them to the Eddystone police department who,in turn, gave them free to any qualified Eddystone resident. I bet theres still many unfired M1917's in closets in Eddystone. As to the rifle, unless its corroded and wrecked, I'd have no problem shooting it. They are incredibly robust. The reason that you see cracked receivers is that people tried to re-barrel without knowing the CORRECT way to do it. The Eddystone barrel has a flange on it where it meets the receiver.
You MUST carefully grind that flange down to the barrel diameter BEFORE you try to remove the barrel. If you do that, no problem. As to accuracy, they are as accurate as any Springfield. One fact that not too many people know is that the Eddystone M1917 VASTLY outnumbered the 03 Springfield in WW1 use. In fact it was the main arm in US service during that war. It was the rifle that should be hailed as the victor of WW1 instead of the 03 Springfield.
Sgt.York was carrying an M1917 when he did his great deed. BUT, his statue shows an 03 Springfield in his hands. (BAH!!!!!!!) In short, if you can get a good M1917.
Get it and keep it. My 2 Cents, Starting with the 03's. There was a grand total of 66 failures ever reported on failed 1903 receivers, 64 of them with the old heat treat process (SN range under 800,000). 31 of those failures were Springfield receivers, 25 Were Rock Island the remaining 8 were 'Unknown Manufacture', and a additional 2 (both Springfield) with the new heat treat process, The highest number was a Springfield with the new process SN.801548. Due to the new process and the war effort, A full investigation was never completed into a ammunition manufacturer that was delivering ammunition with the case way out of spec. (Like.240 short at the shoulder). According to Gen.
Hatcher's reports, after this ammunition was removed from service there were only the 2 additional failures (with the new improved heat treating) Thought to have possibly been a couple rounds that were still floating around. Nobody will ever know for sure. Nobody ever lost there life due to one of these failures (as commonly reported by the elite gun show 'know-it-all's). I have never herd of the M1917 having these problems (other than the rare crack). It's a rare thing to find any U.S. Service rifle with the original Barrel, As most have been through the Arsenal at least once for a full break down, check and rebuild. And the chances of the original barrel ending up on the original receiver is astronomical.
However it does happen, If the production date of the receiver and barrel are within 8 weeks of each other, it's a good chance they have always been together. Personally I have a 1903 in the 580,000 range, and I shoot the snot out of it, After reading all the reports I could find, I do beleive the failures were because of the bad ammo mixed with the hard receivers. And when you think of 64 hard receiver failures in 800,000 produced (last one reported in 1929). I have no problem 'rolling the dice'.
Read CMP's warning and get a copy of Brophy's book on the '03, it's still the most comprehensive available. The pix of the result of one of these receiver failures tell the tale better than I can. Anyway, these receivers were ordered removed from service when they came in for maintenance beginning in 1928 and this proverbial wheel has been reinvented many times since. 10% don't get the word and in addition to rifles in storage, some early receivers reamained in service. There was sound reasoning behind going to double heat treating in 1918 and more sound reasoning went into adopting nickel steel receivers about ten years later.
As for statistics regarding failures, probably none have been kept since at least WWII. Most of us don't have postgrad degrees in ordnance engineering but in this case, I'll defer to those who do. The '03 was adopted well before the Rockwell Hardness Test was developed and would probably have been of sufficient strength with the original.30-'03 case length but this case length was increased in 1906, which increased the chamber pressure of the original design. Also, hardness testing during production was inconsistent and many early receivers were found to vary widely in this regard due to human error.
During the early 20s, having a reliable means by which to test receiver hardness resulted in more uniform production, hence the preference for receivers manufactured beginning in this period. Also, to take advantage of the newer, stronger receivers, the US went to a new cartridge designated the M1 at about 1926 and this remained standard for over ten years. The M1 cartridge had characteristics similar to those of the German 7.92X57 round of WWI bot retained the '06 case length of 63 mm and produced considerably more pressure than the original 150 grain US bullet of 1906. It also had a greater effective range.
By the late 30's, the longer range was no longer sought and the US returned to the earlier 150 grain bullet weight and designated the new round the M2. We've used it ever since. Good information Horst. I have read CMP's warnings, and I have a copy of Lt.Col. Brophy book on the 1903. As well as Gen.
Hatcher's books and notes on the subject for the war department. Which will give you the SN's of most of the failed receivers, And test reports.
Not to mention the formula for the steel pre and post the introduction of Nickel. Also, A number of these early receivers stayed in service well into WWII before they were returned to the armory, And discarded. This subject always seems to open up a can of worms, That's why I did as much research as I could based on whatever credible information I could find. Considering he was actually involved during the investigation as 'Chief of Small Arms Division Technical Staff, Ordnance Department' I, for obvious reasons read everything I could find that Gen.
Hatcher wrote on the subject. Along with his official findings. Brophy's book is also filled with great information. The official policy on the matter of the 'Low number receivers' was handed down on 7 Feb. 1928, From The Chief of field services Brigadier General Samuel Hof, To the Chief of Ordnance, Which was approved a Policy.
'Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents might be somewhat more frequent.On the other hand, some of these early rifles have been used for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of these rifles of low numbers in hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifles from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, That such rifles be set aside and be considered as war reserve and the question of ultimate replacement be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped' In fact the USMC was using the early 1903's at Guadalcanal. And were the last to give them up.
As for the Eddystone. Yeah, check it over good, and shoot it! Fantastic rifles!. This one should send chills up your spine. York was supposed to have used a 1917 and a.45 auto but in the movie, Gary Cooper carried an 03. The monument to the flag raising at Quantico also shows a bayonet attachment on the Marine's M-1 carbine which also didn't happen. Do you have a listing of any serial numbers actually used by Marines on Guadalcanal?
Again, quality control in the manufacture of the early receivers varied widely in terms of heat treating, that's why it became standardized when the technology became available. Do you have a listing of any serial numbers actually used by Marines on Guadalcanal?
Again, quality control in the manufacture of the early receivers varied widely in terms of heat treating, that's why it became standardized when the technology became available. But here is a picture of Marine Raiders from the Bougainville campaign in 1944. I was able to get a close up. But still cant make out the SN. The photo archives from Guadalcanal clearly show 1903's in service, And the recommendation made by Gen. Hof clearly states not taking current 1903's out of service unless otherwise unserviceable. I agree with your second statement, As better technology becomes available, it becomes implemented.
Why wouldn't it. Very cool pix! The only 03s listed on the raider TO&E beginning 24 Sep. 42 were 4 with telescopic sight per battalion. Otherwise their TO small arms were M-1s,.45s and BARs.
I saw some of these scoped 03s in individual chests at an armory at mainside, Camp Lejeune in 1963 or 4 and all were made from 03A1 National Match rifles with 8X Unertl scopes mounted. Beyond that, I didn't know enough about Springfields at the time to tell much more. Anyhow, the last raider unit was disbanded in Feb 44 because the concept was no longer included in PTO war planning. The Marines in the pix would most likely be grunts but these are still great photos.
Eddystone 1917 Serial Numbers808519
Also, with the exception of service troops and some others, the M-1 had become the main Marine Corps battle rifle by mid 1943. We were still being issued the same ones (after several rebuilds) until we got the M14s in late '62. Thanks Horst. This is actually a documented picture. We might disagree on the concept, history and documentation of the low number 03's.
But going back to the OP's original question on the M-1917 I think we can both agree they are really great rifles. ( I have two Eddystones one with a RA barrel and another with a HS barrel, As well as a Remington that seems to be original with a correct barrel and receiver date). Either way, it's easy to get passionate about these arms, And our personal experiences with them.
I also have a number of Garands. But the M-14 is the king of the hill for me (barely edging out the Garands). I only have one Springfield M1A, But I am looking for another within my budget.
Seems when you pull them up and get that sight picture on target. It's like spending time with one of your best friends.
My mistake, 1 November 1943, the first wave of the assault force moved ashore on Bougainville. The initial landing was made by the 3d Marines, 9th Marines, and 2d Raider Regiment. Your right about the date of Feb. All the Raider battalions were brought together at Guadalcanal.
However, the Marine Raiders were dissolved in February 1944 and re-designated the 4th Marines – the start of its conversion into a regular Marine infantry regiment. The picture is on file with the Marine Raider Museum, Camp Barrett Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia. Great discussion, But it looks like you and I are the only ones following rabbit trails on this thread. I greatly respect your knowledge and passion. But I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on a few things. Anyone notice how a thread that started about the safety of the Eddystone M1917 ended up being hijacked into a long discussion about 03 Springfields and other off the point stuff?
Free html search and replace. Understanding going in that html is in a different language class may clue you in to the causes for why your query in a particular case may be getting unwieldy.
Honestly, in the past 40+ years of shooting military rifles, if I got a dollar for every thread that went on about 'low number Springfields, I could buy that new car I always wanted. It just won't go away. I think that at the site of the old Springfield Armory there should be a big bronze statue of a low number Springfield along with an inscription attesting to all the human brain power gone to waste hashing over this urban legend.
The only thing good about it is all the low number springfields that suckers sold me cheaply when they were afraid to shoot them. I guess thats a good thing. Oh, anyone notice the M1A failures that have raised their ugly heads? This could be the start of something big! The intentional mislabeling of photos in wartime was and remains common practice. Back to the thread, the prices of '17 Enfields have lagged for some time but current asking prices seem almost within the realm of a comparable 03A3, which has a much higher demand. Most decent examples I run across are former VFW and Legion rifles in need of new barrels because they were used firing corrosive blanks for decades.
Eddystone 1917 Serial Number 1333510
To an older shooter, the Enfield has a more user friendly rear sight when compared with the '03 Springfield and this could account for their increasing popularity. Other than original non-Avis barrels and stocks, there are plenty of '17 parts available so they should be around for a long time to come. Yep, the Model 1917 was hell for strong, both the action, and as a club! I don't dispute it strength, quality, reliability or accuracy. I own a nice original Eddystone and a Remington.
But it's just so much damn heavier than a 1903. It's longer, and ergonomically, it doesn't fit me as well as the 1903. Despite being lighter, the recoil from the '03 doesn't affect me like the recoil from the '17. And like many, I don't care for the cock-on-closing either.
![Numbers Numbers](/uploads/1/2/4/3/124343726/447729399.jpg)
I don't like peep sights on the '17 (or '03A3) for target work either. Maybe from staring at the lines on micrometers and verniers and dials on machine for over 30yrs, but I can shoot better with those fine thin blade front sights on an '03 or my Krag. It's the targets I can't see real well.
I just picked up a really early, unconverted/unmodified Eddystone P14 (serial number 10xxx) and it has a few strange stamps on it I was hoping someone can help me out with. Everything on it seems to be Eddystone marked with the typical 'E' but the trigger has a strange E inside of a triangle where the normal E would be stamped. Also, the sear and the side of the front sight have a weird E or flat bottomed W. Also, on the side of the receiver rail there is a strange stamp where the normal Broad Arrow would be. Here are some pics. The only thing it is missing is the front volley sight arm, screw and washer.
Any idea where to get the correct front volley sight parts?? Thanks, Eric. The E markings were applied by the manufacturer, but all the other markings were stamped by inspectors or viewers, the Broard Arrow was an acceptance stamp, so maybe this rifle did not pass final acceptance, and something else was stamped in place of the Arrow. I know problems were encountered with the inspectors failing large quantities of these rifles, and so the British sent over a couple of trouble shooters to try to iron out these problems, maybe this rifle was re-inspected, passed, and the original marking cancelled, as this is a definate British cancellation stamp. Insectonator zombie mode hacked all guns programs.
I am looking for information about the p17 eddystone. I remember hearing that certain serial number rifles have weak recievers. Would be helpful I'm relying on memory,so this is not Gospel.
I understand that the rap against the Eddystone is that it is Brittle. Tha means that an overcharge will erupt and cause greater damage than a soft receiver that will merely expand and release hot gas. This does'nt concern me.I have no problem with my Eddystone. It s a possible problem with Hot Rod Handloaders. I believe you're confusing the 1917 Enfield with the 1903 Springfield. There were some early 1903 Sprgfld actions that were hardened by case hardening at both the Springfield Armory and the Rock Island Arsenal.
The rifles were manufactured with WD 1325 steel, which had a carbon content of.20 to.30, i.e. 'low carbon' steel. It was easily machined, but not near hard enough for use in a rifle with two locking lugs that were supposed to take a backthrust of approx. So the rifle receivers and bolts were case hardened. I have an exact description of the process, but it is rather involved, so I won't bore you with it.
Needless to say the rifles mfg. With this process were fine for use with normal pressures, but were not going to stand for alot of hotrodding from handloads. The pressure 'problems' came to light in the 1920 National Matches at Camp Perry when some competitors were using a popular motor lubricant called Mobilubricant to coat their cartridges. Seems that this product increased the ease in chambering and extracting cartridges, thus increasing the speed at which one could manipulate the bolt during rapidfire stages, so it became the 'hot ticket'. It also raised pressures to the breaking point in alot of these actions, thus giving some of these 1903 actions a bad reputation. The serial numbers of the rifles involved are below 285,507 for Rock Island, and below 800,000 for Springfield Armory.
After 800,00 the actions were double heat treated using a different method that would decrease brittleness, and after serial number 1,275,767 the receivers/bolts were made from a Nickel steel alloy. After # 285,507 at Rock Island, all were made with Nickel steel alloy. A 1903 of the lower numbers would be fine to use with factory ammo or mild handloads, but be advised that hot loads are not recommended. The 1917 Enfield was made with the double heat treatment steel, and did not suffer the same problems, if you want to characterize this as a problem. I believe you're confusing the 1917 Enfield with the 1903 Springfield. There were some early 1903 Sprgfld actions that were hardened by case hardening at both the Springfield Armory and the Rock Island Arsenal.
The rifles were manufactured with WD 1325 steel, which had a carbon content of.20 to.30, i.e. 'low carbon' steel. It was easily machined, but not near hard enough for use in a rifle with two locking lugs that were supposed to take a backthrust of approx. So the rifle receivers and bolts were case hardened. I have an exact description of the process, but it is rather involved, so I won't bore you with it.
Needless to say the rifles mfg. With this process were fine for use with normal pressures, but were not going to stand for alot of hotrodding from handloads. The pressure 'problems' came to light in the 1920 National Matches at Camp Perry when some competitors were using a popular motor lubricant called Mobilubricant to coat their cartridges. Seems that this product increased the ease in chambering and extracting cartridges, thus increasing the speed at which one could manipulate the bolt during rapidfire stages, so it became the 'hot ticket'.
It also raised pressures to the breaking point in alot of these actions, thus giving some of these 1903 actions a bad reputation. The serial numbers of the rifles involved are below 285,507 for Rock Island, and below 800,000 for Springfield Armory. After 800,00 the actions were double heat treated using a different method that would decrease brittleness, and after serial number 1,275,767 the receivers/bolts were made from a Nickel steel alloy. After # 285,507 at Rock Island, all were made with Nickel steel alloy. A 1903 of the lower numbers would be fine to use with factory ammo or mild handloads, but be advised that hot loads are not recommended.
Model 1917 Rifle Serial Numbers
The 1917 Enfield was made with the double heat treatment steel, and did not suffer the same problems, if you want to characterize this as a problem. Miike The low numbered Springfields were MUCH worse.Bad enough to be withdrawn from service. As I recall,at least one rifle failed with a regular service round. The Eddystone Enfield is not unsafe;POAckley tested one,without any comment.
It did fail before the Remington Enfield,though. I agree with all of you fine folks and you are correct about the low numbered Springfields having the heat treatment problems. The 1917 rifles often did have the barrels installed with hydraulic tools. My local gunsmith was unable to remove a barrel from a 1917 receiver.
These are fine rifles. All the best. Gil Highly subjective and non-scientific, but hen cleaning the grease off these old guns, tend to give the metal work (without wood attached) a dunk in gasoline.do keep well away from flames please.and watch it evaporate arround the reciever and barrel breech. Usually these old guns carry a good number of scrathces that can disguise a crack, so just a visual check isn't quite good enough. Not real scientific, and not definitive for cracking, but if ther is a crack it will absorb more gas than the smmoth metal, and as the thin layor on the non-craked area evaportaes, the crack sill has some seeping out, so it stands out as a thin wet line. Can also have it checked for cracks by a magnetic process (magnaflux?).old process, and I'm sure there are mor modern ones at use today, but it still works.some of the big time hot-rod shops have the ability; one local racing boat shop is colse at hand.
Strong magnetic field, spray with fine iron based powder in a carrier, will collect at the cracks. The simplist and best nondestructive testing for cracks in metal is the Dye Penetrant method. Welding supply shops generally carry these kits. Steel is wiped clean with a degreaser and allowed to air dry. The dye is applied (spray, usually and red in color), allowed to set (penetrate) for a specified amount of time, then wiped off. A developer (whiteish color) is sprayed and allowed to set.
The developer draws the dye from any crack or hole that retained the dye after the surface was wiped off. If the results are to be retained, a fixer is sprayed on and allowed to dry, which will keep the dye from wicking to the rest of the developer. Kragman71, When were the low numbered Springfields withdrawn from service? Nicotine & Tobacco Research. They were being manufactured through 1918 with the case hardening procedure, and had been issued to our troops through WW I.
![Eddystone serial number charts Eddystone serial number charts](/uploads/1/2/4/3/124343726/505882008.jpg)
The reputation that the Springfield holds was made using the low numbered receivers. That's not to say that there were some surveyed as being unfit due to wear and tear, but the majority were sold through the DCM to civilians, and I can't see the government doing that if they were that dangerous. According to my research there were only six instances of the old receivers coming apart, and almost the same number of newer double heat treated ones, with no recorded fatalities in any of them. Jack copied a bunch of stuff from Hatcher's Notebook about the Springfields, it's in here somewhere. Suffice to say, when you can smack one with a hammer and it shatters, you have a problem. All's well till a primer pocket leaks or a case head splits, then you the makings of a grenade.
The moly-greased round theory was somewhat debunked in a Precision Shooting article, don't have it right now, but Ranch Dog does. Bad ammo one year at the national matches, and grease got the blame, per the people who selected the ammo (surprise). I wasn't there, so can only say the article is well-written and makes sense. Got a 1917 Enfield, as well. Great rifles, a bit big and heavy. Kragman71, When were the low numbered Springfields withdrawn from service? They were being manufactured through 1918 with the case hardening procedure, and had been issued to our troops through WW I.
The reputation that the Springfield holds was made using the low numbered receivers. That's not to say that there were some surveyed as being unfit due to wear and tear, but the majority were sold through the DCM to civilians, and I can't see the government doing that if they were that dangerous. According to my research there were only six instances of the old receivers coming apart, and almost the same number of newer double heat treated ones, with no recorded fatalities in any of them.,MIKE, Thanks for the reply. It gave me an excuse to revisit 'Hatcher's Notebook'. On page 222,he mentions the experiments of the Springfield Armory Board.
I) The low numbered receivers are not suitable for service 2) There was no known way to make them servicable 3)It was impracticable to reheat treat these receivers 4)The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped You are right;no rifle was returned simply because it was low-numbered. The Chief of Ordinance decided to no longer issue these rifles and to remove them from service when they were returned for any repairs. Kragman71, Looks like we're both correct. I pulled out my copy of Hatcher's Notebook, and found the same notes from the board, as well as the determination of Brigadier General Samuel Hof to the Chief of Ordnance in which he recommends pulling the low numbered rifles when they came in for service, and keeping them as a war reserve, as well as not reissuing low numbered receivers to the troops. He also recommends that the receivers be scrapped when they were turned in for repair at the depot. There is a discrepancy between Hatcher and Crosman on the number of blowups attributed to the low numbered receivers. Hatcher says 33 Springfield made receivers burst in 13 years, and 24 Rock Islands in the same period.
Crosman claims 6, but doesn't say where he gets those figures. The injuries reported were as follows: Loss of eye 3 Serious injury 3 Severe injury 3 Slight injury 27 No injury mentioned 25 Definite report of no injury 7 There were no fatalities, and the use of shooting glasses would have prevented or reduced the severity of the injuries. As for the aforementioned 1917 Enfield, the receivers and bolts were made from 3 1/2% Nickel Steel, so should be plenty strong for any reasonable.30-06 load, as well as various other chamberings of equivalent cartridges.
I have a plain but charming Winchester M17 converted action in a classic styled walnut stock in 300 Win Mag as my main Sambar rifle. The previous owner bought it as a bare action, fitted a Timney trigger, had the ears milled off and the rear ring machined to fit Winchester Model 70 bases. The barrel is a 26' semi target profile so it is heavy but plenty accurate for a big banger.
Fitted with the Limbsaver pad it really is a joy to shoot considering the proportions of the bang! I modified the feed lips to accommodate the longer length to shoulder of the 300 case, but it will still hold and feed 30-06 rounds. The bolt face was opened up, so at least with this bolt it will stay a magnum. It is a little heavy for the terrain I hunt but the action is strong and positive in every way and the safety is such that I am happy to carry it cocked and locked all day. I will see if I can dig up some photos.