Posted: 5/11/2005 2:18:31 PM EDT
|
Some of you may remember when I posted about finally finding and buying a clean 1917 Enfield. Mine is a great example of this weapon. I have seen many in museums that are not anywhere near as clean. Here it is:  The problem is that, like almost all examples of this rifle, the bore is pretty well shot. This rifle was manufactured and used during the days of corrosive primers, and the users usually didn't wash the bores with soapy water as required before oiling for storage. This played havoc with the rifling. I cleaned mine as best I could, but looking down the bore would make you want to cry. The only way one of these rifles will have a good bore is if it was either never shot or it was properly cleaned (not likely), or if it has a replacement barrel. Mine has the original. Well, I loaded up some 147 gr Military Ball Spitzers, just like the original loading and went to the range. It didn't shoot "groups", it shot "patterns". Some of these patterns were 12 to 18 inches at 50 yards. I even noticed a couple of side-ways holes that indicated the bullets were tumbling. So, I then decided to try a different bullet, a Hornady 165 grain Spire Point. Here's a pic to compare them.  The one of the left is a standard 147 grain military ball. The one on the right is the Hornady. Notice the longer "bearing surface" of the Hornady. This was what I was looking for in a bullet. This might give the shallow rifling a chance to make a "purchase" on the bullet and stabilize it. Time to go to the range. The Hornady bullets with the longer bearing surface shot into groups of 3 to 4 inches at 50 yards. That's not too bad for 56 year old eyes. Just goes to show that if you handload, you can solve some accuracy problems.  |
|
Good job. I have been told by some guys who are way more serious about putting their holes where they want them that although bt bullets in theory should work "better", unless the range is real long a flat base bullet is less "fussy" about the load behind it . In other words a flat base bullet is generally more forgiving when handloading and will have an acceptable level of accuracy over a wider range of powders and velocites. These guys aren't the usuall gun club know it alls but are the guys who have put in their time and have "been there,done that" . |
Good eye. I moly-coat most of my rifle bullets. I find that it sometimes helps accuracy, but mostly, it makes clean-up easy. There is no copper-fouling when you use moly. And, as you can see, I tried to wipe most of the moly off for the pictures. It's messy, but you can shoot 100 rounds without any fouling. |
There's some good advice.  Believe it or not, I have read of guys shooting .30 caliber bullets through a .270 bore, without any mishap. Boy, it makes me cringe to think of that rifle swaging those 30's to 27's. I bet he was lucky. |
| I slugged my 1917 and found it has a .311 bore. Not surpizing as the Pattern 14 had the same bore. I use .311 diamter bulletes in my Winchester 180SP, and 174 Mk Sierras. I put on a Parker Hale back sight made for the P14. I use it on the National Match course, 200, 300 and 600 yards. I would also look at the crown, it it doesn't have the steps wher the lands and groves meet, it is a funnel and squirt the bullets everywhere. A recrown job would help. |
You are correct that there are bullets with even longer bearing surfaces. For instance, I have some Sierra 190 grain spitzers that are nice and long. The problem is that this rifle was designed to fire 150 grain bullets (147 Ball). I might try the 190's, but I expect that they will be too heavy for the rifling twist for this rifle. I would need a faster twist to stabilize the heavier bullets. But I might as well give it a try. 
|
Its not the weight.. Its the barring surface to stablize. If you can give me the twist rate I can give you the optimal length of bullet you need.  I have also found in my playing and reading. Is that the boat tail only comes into play when the round goes subsonic. Intill that time it dont make a rats ass diffrence (except bearing length). Hmmm I might have a p17 barrel here. Ill run the twist when I get to the shop tonight.
|
Moly should be a good choice on a barrel thats a bit rough, after a few rounds the moly fills in the imperfections in the bore. |
I'll give them a try. I am surprised to hear that that heavy of a bullet is optimal. It was designed to shoot 147 gr, Ball. Oh well, we'll see. |
I lapped the bore when I first cleaned it. I used JP Bore Paste and a bore brush with cotton wound between the bristles. It got a lot of ugly "stuff" out of the bore, but it is still as rough as a corn cob. Oh well, that is part of the fun of experimenting with old rifles. They are pieces of history and it is a pleasure to make them shoot again.
|
Sorry I didn't reply. You are correct. I read "Precision Shooting" magazine and those guys are the best of the best. They often find that "flat Base" bullets will give better accuracy, at least at 100-400 yards. Way out there, the boattail bullets can be an advantage. I have shot at 600 yards with my .308 Accuracy International, and the Sierra #2200M, 168 gr BTHP, is the bullet for that range. |
Very impressive. You must have a decent bore. Great shooting.
|
OP, I shoot a varaiety of milsurp rifles in matches, including the 1917. Despite being designed for bullet weights in the 140-150gr range, I and many others have found that they typically do better with heavier bullets. Regardless of bore condition. One guy I shoot with who uses the 1917 shoots the 190 SMK and that thing is a hammer. |
Thanks for the information. I have some 190 gr Sierra BTHPs. I'll load some up and see what happens. Is this a great sport or what! |
|
Speaking of the fine M1917, Precision Shooting had an article on the use of one in Arizona, some guy took out some drug dealers using one at about 800 yards. The M1917 had its rear sight replaced by a BAR rear sight, which has fine increments in adjustment. There is some guy out there who makes custom BAR rear sights for use on the M1917.
|
Many thanks! I usually depend on my buddy Tman to do the photo work. I taught him everything he knows. All kidding aside, we have learned how to catch some interesting photos. All it takes is a good 4.0 Megapixel camera and some luck.  |
Yesterday at the range, we were discussing the sights on the 1917. The front sight is very "fine". It is a little difficult to see clearly, with these eyes. But at the time of the development of this rifle, that was considered a big positive trait. They thought it allowed "fine" aim and improved marksmanship. One thing for sure, there has never been a rifle with better "protective wings" for both the front and rear sights. |
|
I used to shoot in local DCM and CMP shoots every wednesday night. Likel most people I started on a Garand. Many shooters moved to M1A's or various AR's. I'm the only guy who 'graduated' to a Remington 1903 Nothing is more fun than running the rapid portions of the shoot with a bolt gun and a stripper clip..... I did find that in my case I never got decent accuracy with the 147-150 FMJ. Most are boat tailed bullets, with the short bearing surface. A flat based 150 alwasy did better for me, and I suspect bearing surface as well as more support withing the case neck may have helped. Like you, I had better luck with heavier bullets.... A long throat in teh rifle can make this problem worse.... For what its worth I've almost NEVER had decent luck with the 147 in anything. The bearing surface instide the case neck (if you use crimp cannelure) is VERY short. I prefer to have one full caliber of bullet bearing surface inside the neck if I can swing it. A flat based 150 helps in this regard as well. |