Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/13/2013 8:50:33 AM EST
Hey guys - so I have a chance to purchase a 1917 Eddystone and I don't know enough about them to know if this is what I really want. Pictures are here

I know that the sling is wrong, obviously, but is there anything else that I need to look out for? I'll have a chance to check out this rifle in person later today, and if anyone could give me some highlights, I'd really appreciate it.

That all being said, what should I be looking at pricewise?

Posted in a different forum as well, but just looking for the info :) Thanks!
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 9:05:23 AM EST
Looks like a real nice example. Check and see if it has been rebarreled. Many were after WWI and the Eddystone rifles can develop receiver cracks if they have been rebarreled.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 9:09:47 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MVolkJ:
Looks like a real nice example. Check and see if it has been rebarreled. Many were after WWI and the Eddystone rifles can develop receiver cracks if they have been rebarreled.
View Quote


Is there any specific thing on the barrel I'm looking for to see if it's a rebarrel job?
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 9:18:44 AM EST
Look near the front of the barrel behind the rear sight....if it has a WW2 date, its been rebarreled...

A lot of these weren't stored well between the wars, and at the start of WWII many were overhauled, and had their barrels replaced...

You fail to mention price...it all depends on what you have...WWII rebuild mixmaster with good bore is one thing.

If its an original, unmessed with WWI rifle (all parts are E marked for Eddystone, original barrel, all blued finish, etc) it will be worth a lot more...

Also check the bore...many were given to VFW/Legion posts at some point, and were shot with corrosive ammo and usually not cleaned...and have sewer pipe bores. That REALLY effects the price. Friend of mine had a nice Winchester 1917, but bore was horrible. Couldn't get rid of it, basically had to give it away for around $300....

If you want it for your collection and don;t care, no biggie, but be aware. I never even look at the bores of a rifle I am putting in my collection, the parts and markings are much more important to me...
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 9:19:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 9:20:54 AM EST by 1srelluc]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By F1restarter:


Is there any specific thing on the barrel I'm looking for to see if it's a rebarrel job?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By F1restarter:
Originally Posted By MVolkJ:
Looks like a real nice example. Check and see if it has been rebarreled. Many were after WWI and the Eddystone rifles can develop receiver cracks if they have been rebarreled.


Is there any specific thing on the barrel I'm looking for to see if it's a rebarrel job?


If memory serves it's mainly the ones with a Johnson Automatics (JA) replacement barrel. I don't remember who did the work. Too much torque on the barrel.

I have a RIA barrel on my Eddystone M1917 and it's just fine.

Just do a search for cracked M1917 receivers and you should find all the info you need.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 9:22:33 AM EST
Thanks all - I don't know on price yet...that's something to be worked out, so there's that. I'll be looking at this rifle later today so I'll be checking out all the extras. From what I was told on it, it is original, but that's just from the pictures and the word of the guy I'm dealing with - shouldn't be an issue, but we'll just have to see :)
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 11:13:23 AM EST
It's very difficult to determine conclusively from those pictures, but I'm leaning toward that rifle having been completely refinished. When the 1917s went through the re-arsenaling process after the war, almost all the bolts were replaced with newly produced Winchester-marked bolts, which were parkerized. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority.

The problem I have with that rifle is, though it's entirely possible to find rifles that weren't rearsenaled, that doesn't APPEAR (again, hard to tell from the pictures) to be the original WWI-vintage high polish blue, particularly on the picture showing the side of the receiver. This is even more of a stretch, as it's very small in the image, but the eagle's head on the top of the receiver looks like it may have some dishing around the edges, which can be another sign of having been buffed/refinished. Now, again, that all may purely be a matter of lighting and angle with those pictures, but I'd look very carefully at the rifle with an eye towards it being refinished.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 11:56:31 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
It's very difficult to determine conclusively from those pictures, but I'm leaning toward that rifle having been completely refinished. When the 1917s went through the re-arsenaling process after the war, almost all the bolts were replaced with newly produced Winchester-marked bolts, which were parkerized. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority.

The problem I have with that rifle is, though it's entirely possible to find rifles that weren't rearsenaled, that doesn't APPEAR (again, hard to tell from the pictures) to be the original WWI-vintage high polish blue, particularly on the picture showing the side of the receiver. This is even more of a stretch, as it's very small in the image, but the eagle's head on the top of the receiver looks like it may have some dishing around the edges, which can be another sign of having been buffed/refinished. Now, again, that all may purely be a matter of lighting and angle with those pictures, but I'd look very carefully at the rifle with an eye towards it being refinished.
View Quote


Thanks for the info man - I'll be headed into town later today to take a personal look at the rifle and see what info I can gain off of it. We'll see!
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 12:34:57 PM EST
Also maybe ask the owner to show you that it ejects shells properly. My friend bought an Eddystone a few months ago that wouldn't at all because that piece was broke. Just a thought
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:08:03 PM EST
M1917s are fairly easy since almost all the parts were marked by the manufacturer. E for Eddystone; W for Winchester or R for Remington. If it's a mix of parts the price should be adjusted accordingly.

On the receiver cracks...Eddystone used machinery to torque the barrels on. If the old barrel wasn't relief cut before wrenching, the receiver might crack at the ring. Very few have been seen but they are out there.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:17:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SurplusFan:
Also maybe ask the owner to show you that it ejects shells properly. My friend bought an Eddystone a few months ago that wouldn't at all because that piece was broke. Just a thought
View Quote


This is a very easy fix. I had to do it with my Pattern 1914. It shouldnt affect the price too much, but I would still check it out if you can.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 2:28:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
. When the 1917s went through the re-arsenaling process after the war, almost all the bolts were replaced with newly produced Winchester-marked bolts, which were parkerized. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority.
.
View Quote


Source for that? I've read the books on the P17's (just for our nomenclature Nazis), and don't recall that bit. I find it doubtful that parts produced by the company that had the most problems with Model of 1917 interchangeability (Winchester), would be the go to overhaul parts. United Shoe Machinery Company (USMC) was the only maker of replacement bolts for the 1917 as far as I remember.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 5:05:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bishopm14:


Source for that? I've read the books on the P17's (just for our nomenclature Nazis), and don't recall that bit. I find it doubtful that parts produced by the company that had the most problems with Model of 1917 interchangeability (Winchester), would be the go to overhaul parts. United Shoe Machinery Company (USMC) was the only maker of replacement bolts for the 1917 as far as I remember.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bishopm14:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
. When the 1917s went through the re-arsenaling process after the war, almost all the bolts were replaced with newly produced Winchester-marked bolts, which were parkerized. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority.
.


Source for that? I've read the books on the P17's (just for our nomenclature Nazis), and don't recall that bit. I find it doubtful that parts produced by the company that had the most problems with Model of 1917 interchangeability (Winchester), would be the go to overhaul parts. United Shoe Machinery Company (USMC) was the only maker of replacement bolts for the 1917 as far as I remember.


I don't remember a source off the top of my head, as it was while I was researching my own 1917 and going through a number of different resources. My bolt, along with many others I've seen, is marked with the "W" on the underside of the bolt handle, and as I recall, the parkerized replacement bolts were made by Winchester prior to WW2. You may be correct, but that's what I remember finding when I was looking into them.

At any rate, regardless of manufacturer, all the pre-WW2 replacement bolts were parkerized, which is what is relevant to the OP.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:24:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:


At any rate, regardless of manufacturer, all the pre-WW2 replacement bolts were parkerized, which is what is relevant to the OP.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
Originally Posted By bishopm14:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:
. When the 1917s went through the re-arsenaling process after the war, almost all the bolts were replaced with newly produced Winchester-marked bolts, which were parkerized. That isn't a hard and fast rule, but it applies to the vast majority.
.


Source for that? I've read the books on the P17's (just for our nomenclature Nazis), and don't recall that bit. I find it doubtful that parts produced by the company that had the most problems with Model of 1917 interchangeability (Winchester), would be the go to overhaul parts. United Shoe Machinery Company (USMC) was the only maker of replacement bolts for the 1917 as far as I remember.


At any rate, regardless of manufacturer, all the pre-WW2 replacement bolts were parkerized, which is what is relevant to the OP.


I'm not catching how the finish of the replacement bolts is pertinent. Many 1917s went through refurb after WWI and were parkerized during the process. If you find a Remington or Eddystone rifle with a parkerized Winchester bolt, it likely just got swapped in during a rebuild or cleaning party.
I'm at work right now and can't reference the booksl, but I don't recall Winchester being a source of post war replacement parts.
Link Posted: 12/13/2013 6:42:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2013 6:43:32 PM EST by sjuhockey10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bishopm14:

I'm not catching how the finish of the replacement bolts is pertinent. Many 1917s went through refurb after WWI and were parkerized during the process. If you find a Remington or Eddystone rifle with a parkerized Winchester bolt, it likely just got swapped in during a rebuild or cleaning party.
I'm at work right now and can't reference the booksl, but I don't recall Winchester being a source of post war replacement parts.
View Quote


My point is that if the rifle had been refurbed, which would explain the finish on the rest of the rifle which, to me, doesn't appear to be the original high-polish blued finish, it should have a parkerized bolt. It was my understanding that the vast majority of, if not all, refurbed 1917s received replacement bolts.
Link Posted: 12/14/2013 5:23:01 AM EST
Obviously the sling should not go through the stacking swivel. The fact that the owner had it set up that way means that he wasn't too familiar with the gun. This could be a red flag for other problems.

As others have said, check for a Johnson Automatics (JA) barrel and a broken ejector. (The rebarreling could have caused a receiver crack.) Another thing that some bubbas did to the these rifles was to gouge out the barrel channel in the stock to make the barrel "free floating." You might get a nasty surprise when you take the barreled action out of the stock (happened to me).

Link Posted: 12/14/2013 6:47:57 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:

It was my understanding that the vast majority of, if not all, refurbed 1917s received replacement bolts.
View Quote


Now that you state it like that, your understanding is wrong. Bolts got swapped around in the 95 or so years since these rifles were made. Foreign use, U.S. arsenal rebuilds, etc. But replacement bolts were not an automatic part of the deal.
Link Posted: 12/14/2013 7:35:01 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bishopm14:


Now that you state it like that, your understanding is wrong. Bolts got swapped around in the 95 or so years since these rifles were made. Foreign use, U.S. arsenal rebuilds, etc. But replacement bolts were not an automatic part of the deal.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bishopm14:
Originally Posted By sjuhockey10:

It was my understanding that the vast majority of, if not all, refurbed 1917s received replacement bolts.


Now that you state it like that, your understanding is wrong. Bolts got swapped around in the 95 or so years since these rifles were made. Foreign use, U.S. arsenal rebuilds, etc. But replacement bolts were not an automatic part of the deal.


Hm, alright, interesting. I had read somewhere that when the government rearsenaled the rifles leading up to WW2, that part of the procedure was replacing the bolts.
Top Top