1917 Eddystone

[Hudgehog]

Just picked a nice one up today from one of my local pawn shops, I have been waiting on it to come off of pawn for some time now. I have several 1903's and 1903A3's in my collection and I am not so sure I don't like the M1917 better. I may change my mind once I get to the range, but for some reason it just feels better...

 

[TACC1]

The images I found, showed a really nice job of finish
on metal and stock. Were the Eddystones generally better
built? I'm a complete novice on '03's, only got to shoot one
once, a lifetime ago. Was pretty impressed, though.
TACC1

 

[LVSteve]

The popular rumour is that the Winchester built US M1917s were the nicest. I don't entirely buy it. The same was said of the Winchester P14s that were the only P14s used as sniper rifles by the UK. Allegedly the Winchester guns were a bit more consistent, but the factory were shockers for not following requested engineering changes, preferring to do things "their way". This resulted in parts compatibility issues that persisted into the M1917 production.

The only thing to look out for on Eddystone M1917s is they seem a bit prone to receiver cracks when rebarreled as many were in WWII. The popular story is that the original barrels were put on rather tight using a machine. This was not the practice at Winchester and Remington.

 

[2152hq]

I think the Remington made and marked rifles are better finished than the Winchesters.
Winchester marked rifles will always get the top money because of the name.
'Matching' parts are simply marked 'E', 'R', or 'W' including the stock (right on the end of the nose) to indicate manufacture. No serial number matching. The Brits often serial numbered the bolt to match the rifle after the fact on guns sent to them.

The Eddystones generally have the #3 rating among the 3 makers. But they all function just fine and are capable of excellent accuracy. They are much more pleasent to shoot for most people than the 1903 due to the extra weight and stock configuration.
Really an over size action for the cartridge, either in 303 or 30-06.
I had several of them and should have kept the nice CMP Remington I picked up at an OGCA show in Cleveland for $90.
A great cast bullet shooter too.


The Eddystone receiver cracks from removal of very tightly torqued bbl assemblys usually show themselves on the bottom of the receiver ring. It's thinest there.
Take the bbl'd action out of the wood if inspecting.
I've only ever seen 2,,both Eddystone actions that were rebbl'd w/sporter bbls. But that's 2 too many if you were shooting the things and didn't realize it.
The US Military re-bbl'd & rebuilt many of them between the Wars. Hi-Standard (HS) and Johnson Automatics (JA) are common replacement Military bbls on the rebuilds and will be so marked and date stamped on the bbl on top, back of the front sight.
I'd still check it for cracks.

I bought an Eddystone as issued military rifle when I was a freshman in HS for $15 from a classmate.
Transaction done at school and I walked home w/the rifle.
Suburbs, no case,, just sling carry over my shoulder. No problems. Can't imagine that now.

 

[bishopm14]

I've got a 1917 from each maker, and I've owned an 03A3 in the past. No doubt I would take the '17 if I had to fight with a U.S. issue bolt rifle. Better sights and higher capacity do it for me.
Nothing inherently wrong with Eddystone's, they were the most prolific manufacturer of 1917s so they suffer from being more common. Winchester jumped the gun, and began building 1917's in .30-06 a month or two before the government had even finalized the specs for the model. This led to parts interchangability issues, and finally a blanket order for Winchester produced rifles to be held stateside for training and not go overseas with troops to the war zone.
This, along with Winchester's shenanigans producing the Garand during WWII, make me not a huge fan of theirs.
Frankly, I like my Remington 1917 the most, but that is only personal preference when comparing a trio of ninety-six year old rifles.

 

[Hudgehog]

I've got a 1917 from each maker, and I've owned an 03A3 in the past. No doubt I would take the '17 if I had to fight with a U.S. issue bolt rifle. Better sights and higher capacity do it for me.
Nothing inherently wrong with Eddystone's, they were the most prolific manufacturer of 1917s so they suffer from being more common. Winchester jumped the gun, and began building 1917's in .30-06 a month or two before the government had even finalized the specs for the model. This led to parts interchangability issues, and finally a blanket order for Winchester produced rifles to be held stateside for training and not go overseas with troops to the war zone.
This, along with Winchester's shenanigans producing the Garand during WWII, make me not a huge fan of theirs.
Frankly, I like my Remington 1917 the most, but that is only personal preference when comparing a trio of ninety-six year old rifles.

Are your's refinished parks or original blued finish? The one I picked up today is re-parked, but has what appears to be the original barrel based on the date stamp? I want to get a Remington Model as well, I bid on one for awhile on gunbroker awhile back, original blued gun, but got too rich for my blood.

 

[bishopm14]

Are your's refinished parks or original blued finish? The one I picked up today is re-parked, but has what appears to be the original barrel based on the date stamp? I want to get a Remington Model as well, I bid on one for awhile on gunbroker awhile back, original blued gun, but got too rich for my blood.

A mix. The Eddystone is parked with original barrel and correct parts. It was the first 17 I bought, and I think it is someone's decent restoration project. The Winchester is blued but has a WWII High Standard barrel, which is shot out. I have a barrel on order for it from the CMP. Someday it will get rebuilt into a shooter.
The Remington is blued, in great shape, and as far as I can determine, all original. Of the 1917's, it is my prize.
Some very late production Eddystone's were supposedly parked from the factory, but I would guess the odds of me finding one of those are pretty slim. I simply assume parked=rebuilt.
Top to bottom, Remington, Winchester, Eddystone.

 

[Hudgehog]

Awesome collection, I will be in search of one of the Remington models next and will finish up with the Winchester, unless an opportunity arises for the winny first.

 

[LouisianaJoe]

I have an Eddystone that was made in 10-18 a month before the Armistice. It looks almost new. Is is parked and that was started at the factory in late 1918.

Something that you will want to know before you shoot it. They were battle sighted at 450 yds. It will shoot 5-6" high at 50 yds. If you flip up the rear sight, You can adjust the sight to shoot from around 50 yds up. For my rifle shooting Greek M2 Ball, I found that putting the rear sight a bit above bottom put me on at 50 Yds.

 

[Cyrano]

I have a mixmaster that was reworked in Canada for WWII. It has a Remington (4 digit SN!!) receiver, Winchester bolt and barrel and Eddystone stock. It's blued, as the Canadians reblued theirs rather than park'ing them. It also has the Broad Arrow within a C stamped into the stock.

 

[2152hq]

Don't pay extra for the M1917 w/a bolt (handle) boldly marked 'USMC'.
It's a replacement bolt body made for the gov't by the United Shoe Machinery Corporation.
Perfectly proper replacement bolt,,but nothing linking use or issue to the US Marines.
The bolts are WW2 era re-build replacement parts.

More than a few unknowing people have paid extra for that 'special' marking.

About the only small part that seems to break with some regularity is the ejector spring. A small flat spring, some are a bit too brittle and give it up and crack. Pick up a spare if the opportunity presents itself. Store it in the trap in the butt stock till you might need it.

 

[gjamison]

My wife has all 3 1917 manufacturers in her collection. I have shot all of them and also her 03, far and away the 1917 is the better rifle.

 

[Stevie]

I bought a Eddystone M1917 made in 1917 a few months back myself.

Mine is a mix of pieces literally a Remchester. The barreled action and bolt are Eddystone(but not the goodies inside the bolt...these being Rem)...buttstock is Winchester...rest is a mix of Rem/Win/Ed parts

Shoots great..a smooth working and feeding action...good sights...Col. Culver has a cool article on the M1917 here

http://www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf

 

[jdlii]

Mine had a 1918 marked barrel and is an Eddystone. A friend of mine and I decided to test the accuracy of our U.S. Military bolt action rifles and our Garands at the 200 yard line on our local KD range using Lake City ball ammo.

We were shooting in our high power rifle garb and using service rifle slings. With ball ammo, all of the rifles would "hold the black" but the best performance of the day went to the Enfield.

Shooting from the prone position, my last five shots consisted of three 10's and two X's. The fifth shot drilled the spotter in the X ring. It's a keeper!

 

[Hudgehog]

I bought a Eddystone M1917 made in 1917 a few months back myself.

Mine is a mix of pieces literally a Remchester. The barreled action and bolt are Eddystone(but not the goodies inside the bolt...these being Rem)...buttstock is Winchester...rest is a mix of Rem/Win/Ed parts

Shoots great..a smooth working and feeding action...good sights...Col. Culver has a cool article on the M1917 here

http://www.odcmp.org/503/rifle.pdf

Thanks for the link, very good read and history on my new purchase, may not be a rework after all, as the barrel is a 1918. I will do some more research on it...

 

[jdlii]

Mine has a 1918 marked barrel and is an Eddystone. A friend of mine and I decided to test the accuracy of our U.S. Military bolt action rifles and our Garands at the 200 yard line on our local KD range using Lake City ball ammo.

We were shooting in our high power rifle garb and using service rifle slings. With ball ammo, all of the rifles would "hold the black" but the best performance of the day went to the Enfield.

Shooting from the prone position, my last five shots consisted of three 10's and two X's. The fifth shot drilled the spotter in the X ring. It's a keeper!

 

[brucev]

I have been shooting U.S. military surplus rifles for 30 years. I've always loved the 03 and 03-A3. But, in my experience, the 1917 is a better rifle. No it doesn't handle like a hunting rifle. It handles about like a M-1 as to weight, etc. The sights are superior on the 1917, much more useable, much better battle zero, much easier to acquire in poor light, much more rugged. The 1917 is a little heavier, but not enough that I've ever particularly found it a matter of concern. I have always appreciated that extra bit of weight when firing long strings from the prone position. Both the 1917 and 03 needed a higher comb, a shortcoming that was addressed with the 03-A1. The aperture rear sight of the 03-A3 reflected the realities of combat recognized by the British around WWI. Though not easily windage adjustable, the 1917 rear sight is extremely easy to adjust for elevation, etc. Some say the 1917's cock on closing action is a hindrance, but I've never found that to be the case. The dog-leg bolt is not graceful, but it works very well. The bayonet as designed as well as it's mounting is a better design. It is more robust and fits tighter w/ little if any rattle, etc.

 

[sigp220.45]

I love my Eddystone! I also have an 03A3, but the 1917 has a tough-guy appeal about it.

 

[mkk41]

Have an Eddystone and Remington (the Eddystone plant was actually operated by Remington).

Shown are two good books for those interested in these rifles.



Me , I prefer the 1903 Springfield. The 1917 is long , bulky and heavy compared to the 1903. The stock either fits ya or it don't.

It did have better battle sights and an easier to use safety.

It is said to break ejectors often. Any Winchester 1917 with a circle/star mark on the left side of the receiver was one of the earlier ones alluded to as not meeting parts interchangability and were not to be sent overseas.

OTOH , they can be extremely accurate as barrel bores were held to tighter dimensions. There were a few official attempts at making sniper rifles out of them.

A bunch of them got shipped to other countries as military aid.

The big strong action was popular with wildcatters and custom rifle makers. Many early Weatherby's were made using 1917 actions. And tens , if not hundreds of thousands were made into sporters by other gunsmiths. Some beautifully , some not so well done.

 

[SmokewagonSD]

I have a 1903 Mark I (the model made for the Pederson device), and one of the last 1917's sold by the CMP. The '03 is prettier but the 1917 is the better shooter.