1917 Eddystone. .308 or really .311?

I

Idaho 45 Vaquero

New member
Howdy All,

My main hunting rifle is a sporterized 1917 Eddystone. My father built the rifle and did excellent work: fancy stock, engraving, trimmed down action. He left it in the original .30-06 clambering. About minute of angle accuracy, with the right hand-loads.
I have taken 8 mule deer bucks with that rifle.

Now, for the interesting part. Through experience, my father found that my 1917 rifle as well as his 1917, and my uncles 1917, all shoot poorly with normal 30-06, (.308 diameter bullet). We instead hand-load with .311 bullets, such as the same bullets typically used for the .303 British cartridge. It is difficult to measure the groove to groove diameter with calipers because the 1917 Enfield's have an odd number of lands (5 If i'm remembering correctly).

Historically, the US was producing the .303 British P-14 rifle to supplement the British in WWI, prior to our formal entrance into the war. Once the US entered WWI, they modified the design slightly and chambered in it 30-06 for our US use. Did the US (Eddystone) just leave the barreling machines the same? Did the 1917 Eddystone really have a larger diameter of .311 such as the British .303? If you notice the 1917 has odd number of grooves (as done with many British rifles) as opposed to the usual even numbered (American) 4 grooves.

I know that some in World War I gave the opinion that the Springfield 03 was more accurate than the 1917 Enfield, and this never made sense to me. The Springfield is great, but they both have solid locking actions that are similar to a Mauser. Did the US government just have the wrong bore diameter for the .30-06 cartridge?

Sharpe in "The Rifle in America" commented on this slightly and seemed to give the impression that the .30-06 1917 was really .311 and not .308. Peter Pulling mentioned in a couple of his writings on sporting rifles that 1917 sporters shot more accurately when re-barreled. Julian Hatcher seemed to deny this idea of the US putting the wrong barrel diameter on 1917 Enfield in his book "Hatcher's Notebook. "
 
"Did the US (Eddystone) just leave the barreling machines the same? Did the 1917 Eddystone really have a larger diameter of .311 such as the British .303?"

No and no.

They did leave the rifling the same (5 groove), but the bore and groove size were changed to the .300-.308 standard for the .30-'06.

But all barrel dimensions (like all other dimensions) are subject to tolerances, and in mass production even those can be "stretched" when the goal is get as many rifles into the hands of the troops as possible. The M1903 Springfield was designed and first manufactured in peacetime, in an era when Army Ordnance placed a high priority on target shooting accuracy, not on combat use. (The M1905 sight is a perfect example of a target shooter's dream and a combat infantryman's nightmare.)

Jim
 
Barrel ID's aren't measured with a calipre. If you have one, they're measured with an inside micrometer. Otherwise, you slug the barrel by hammering a cast .30 cal bullet or suitably sized lead fishing sinker through the barrel, preferably from the chamber end, with a 1/4" brass rod and a plastic mallet, and measuring the bullet with a micrometer.
If you're using a .311" bullet and not having issues from using the wrong bullet, the barrel is very likely shot out.
A .308" bullet will rattle down a .311" barrel causing extremely poor accuracy. Pattern 17 rifles aren't noted for bad accuracy.
"...1917 sporters shot more accurately when re-barreled..." A new barrel would do that.
 
no, they are 308 diameter. your barrel is likely shot out quite a bit and 311 just does a better job of contacting the rifling at this point. those rifles were used in 2 wars and sent to a lot of different countries to serve overseas... odds are, it's been shot... a lot...
 
Thanks all for the info,

Quote: "They did leave the rifling the same (5 groove), but the bore and groove size were changed to the .300-.308 standard for the .30-'06. " That's pretty much what Julian Hatcher said in Hatcher's Notebook
.
I meant an inside micrometer (not a digital one), not caliper for measuring bore.

The rifling looks deep enough, and even.
If the barrel is shot out, I'm gonna keep using it for it as long as it shoots as accurate as it does. Gets the racks as well as any new rifle. I tend to use long heavy 180gr. and 215gr. round-nose bullets in it for best accuracy.

Is there any root source for information besides Julian Hatcher's writings?
 
Well friends,

Don't mean to open a can of worms, but the more I read dissenting opinions from other forums and books that I'm referencing the more I'm beginning to think that some 1917's could have been made with .310-.311 bore diameters. I'm gonna gather up all the 1917 specimens I can and see if there is a production date correlation. I called up a guy who knows that his 1917 is .308 but his rifle has a 4 groove barrel, just like a Springfield. I know of four 1917's now with five groove barrels where the owners prefer the use of .311 bullets.

I need to try pushing some lead through the barrel for more definite measurement. If the barrel is shot out, the grooves should be shallow and rounded. They don't appear that way at all to the naked eye, on my rifle. Rifling is quite sharp and deep. I want to make sure. I've seen quite a few shot out barrels before and it doesn't quite look like that, (my father has about a couple dozen or so in the corner of his machine shop)

Here's what I'm wondering? A possibility: "The way barrel boring machinery was designed in the WWI era would probably not be adjustable. One very well might have to make an entirely new size of boring tooling for the machinery. If the Americans wanted to make new size tooling it would probably be more cost effective to totally scrap the British 5 groove design machinery and make 4 groove machinery in America. I sort of doubt the British had time to help make British style tooling for the US with bore diameter they aren't that used too. But why was the 5 groove rifling continued? Because, the US government doesn't mind cutting corners every once and a while, perhaps?

My problem with the age old Julian Hatcher take on the subject is that it's the opinion of a US Ordinance officer, during that specific time in the US Ordinance department. "Of course they don't cut corners.";)

I might of done it now. ;)
 
At the Eddystone factory, ca. 1917. "Boss, the changed the order to make a million 1914 to 30-06 - but we got a million barrels in 311 on order." "No problem, lets call it fouling-resistant grooves and use them up".
 
The SPECIFICATION for the 1917 is .300" bore, five .005" deep grooves - a .310" groove diameter if you have a 5 point micrometer for your slug.
Lands and grooves are the same width which led Col Hatcher to conclude it is actually "tighter" than Springfield rifling .300/.308" but with grooves three times as wide as lands.
By that standard, a WWII two groove barrel is tighter still.

SAAMI specifies the rifling plan for each cartridge but also has a minimum bore-groove cross sectional area so as to avoid tolerance stacking and to allow for off brand barrels.
 
Many M1917's were rebarrelled in the WWII era with barrels made by Johnson and others. AFIAK, those were all four groove barrels since by that time no one was using five groove barrels.

The decision to continue use of 5 groove barrels for the Model 1917 made good sense; it is a lot easier to change boring and rifling machines to a new diameter than to change the number of grooves or the pitch. Note one point, though. The Pattern 1914 barrels and Model 1917 barrels differ in more than just the bore and groove diameters; they are not interchangeable, so no one decided to just stick some leftover P14 barrels on 1917's.

Jim
 
If you are getting 1" groups with tailored handloads and have killed several deer with it, its not "shot out".

It may not match proper specs, but its not "shot out"...
 
May want to try 165gr bullets

i have a WWII refurb with the 2 groove JA barrel and it is a serious sewer pipe, God awful pitting BUT with 165 gr Hornady interlocks it is scary accurate. Since the bore is so nasty I thought that the leade may be worn so a 165gr bullet would have more bearing surface. I won't even say how small of groups I have shot with it because most readers would call BS on it. The bonus is that this rifle of mine was inspected by none other than Elmer Keith. It has his cartouche on the stock AND I paid only $100 for it.
 
I won't even say how small of groups I have shot with it because most readers would call BS on it.
Click to expand...

Most readers? None of those readers would believe what Elmer Keith was accused of. It did not take him long when looking at something.

Then there is that 'power camming' effect of the M1917.

The Pattern 1914 barrels and Model 1917 barrels differ in more than just the bore and groove diameters; they are not interchangeable, so no one decided to just stick some leftover P14 barrels on 1917's.
Click to expand...

I have a P14 with a red and white strip around the receiver/stock that is chambered to 308 Norma Mag, I have another P14 that is also painted with the red and white stripe that is a 30/06. Both barrels came from M1917s.

F. Guffey
 
Last edited:
"I have a P14 with a red and white strip around the receiver/stock that is chambered to 308 Norma Mag, I have another P14 that is also painted with the red and white stripe that is a 30/06. Both barrels came from M1917s."

I will say it again, the two barrels breech up differently. Of course barrels can be swapped by altering them, but as they come, they are not the same, caliber aside. The 1917 has a cone breech, like the M1903, while the P.14 has a flat breech appropriate to a rimmed cartridge. And the bolts are different and not interchangeable, so that minor detail would have to be taken care of as well.

The receivers are not the same, either, so changing a P.14 to .30-'06 would require work on the magazine well and feed lips. Again, it can be done, but that is not the same as saying the receivers are the same.

Jim
 
The bonus is that this rifle of mine was inspected by none other than Elmer Keith. It has his cartouche on the stock AND I paid only $100 for it.
Click to expand...



Heavy Metal 1, I have an Elmer Keith stamped M 1917. The chamber is .016" longer than a minimum length case or put another way the chamber is .011" longer from the shoulder/datum to the bolt face than a go-gage length chamber. The Elmer Keith rifles with long chambers are not rare. I form 280 Remington cases to 30/06 cases by adjusting the die off the shell holder .014" off the shell holder when forming/sizing, that give me the magic .002" difference between the length of the chamber form the shoulder to bolt face and the case shoulder to the case head.

F. Guffey
 
then there is the 'case head protrusion', the case head protrusion on my M1917 is less than the case head protrusion on my Mausers. My Mausers have a case head protrusion of .110 plus head space 'clearance'. All of my Springfields and M1917 have .090" at the extractor cut.

F. Guffey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top