Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Picked one up and it is the first one I have owned, Its a Eddystone serial number 1,300xxx all parts look to have an "E" except the barrel witch is a "R" 1-18 date, could this barrel be original? The bore is pitted with sharp and clear rifling, I hope it shoots OK! TIA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
the barrel was originaly on a remington rifle , there are folks who sugested that eddystone and remington swapped parts but thats not so they left the factory all matching but parts were intended to be interchangable on US rifles , the bbl is correct vintage of the wwI issue , there were JA , HS , and RIA replacements made in the WWII era refurbs
they also left the factory without cartouch so if your stock has one it will tell where it was refurbed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
More then likely the barrel was never on a Remington 1917 but was made as a spare and was put on post WWI when all the 1917s were refurbed and stored for war reserve. Barrels were one of the most common replaced parts on rifles of the WWI era due to the corrosive nature of the priming used and poor cleaning/storage at the end of WWI. All the manufactures made spare barrels.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
2,513 Posts
A serial number in the 1.3 million range is up near the end of Eddystone's production run. It would probably have left the factory with an 11-18 dated barrel. Chances are it never made it overseas suring WW1.

All 1917's left the factory, as far as is know, with with barrels matching the rest of the rifle as to manufacturer. As has been stated, though, all the manufacturers produced spare barrels, and when one needed changing afterwards the armorers didn't care which factory it came from. A civilian gunsmith would care even less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
The barrel swap does sound like something done after manufacture. I have yet to see any credible evidence that Eddystone and Remington Arms plants had any relationship regarding the exchange for parts. Yes, they are the same corporate entity but I suspect the thought that parts were being moved between plants emanates from the WWII US M1 carbine program and is being applied, with some hope, to the M1917 program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
This post brings up an interesting question...

The books and conventional wisdom indicate that a "correct" rifle would have matching parts from the same manufacturer. Once the rifles were in the field though (and certainly after they went through re-arsenal repair), would you think that the armourers would really care that they matched like parts up? Should we expect to find rifles with all matching parts? Why wouldn't the armourers just detail strip the rifles, throw all the parts in a bucket of cleaning solution and then reassemble them -- in other words, why wouldn't a mix-master M1917 be "correct"?

My rifle has a Winchester barreled receiver (bbl date 6-18 matches the S/N manufacture date of 6-18 so its probably the original barrel). The balance of the parts on the rifle are mostly Eddystone with a few Remington's thrown in for good measure. The stock is a little strange -- it has the characteristics of an Eddystone (based on details in Ferris' book), but the fore-tip has a "LT" stamp on it with the "T" being larger than the "L" and centered. There is a small "V" below the left side receiver rail and a "5V" under the buttplate. There is no arsenal cartouche.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
2,513 Posts
Indeed.

I've got a couple of non-reworked, near mint, all original parts Eddystones and Remingtons. But I've also got a Winchester (4/18 dated) very much like the one Kragluver describes. The barrel date and serial number on the receiver are correct for each other, and the bolt, wood, and all "major" hardware is Winchester. But, there are a smattering of Eddystone parts. Lower swivel, bolt stop, rear sight.

So, totally original? No. I'm sure it left the factory 100% Winchester. The thing is - and I've been collecting US military for 40 years, so I think I've got a pretty good eye - the rifle "looks" right. It's not a mint piece. It shows some honest use and finish wear. The kind of condition that, not that it could ever be proved (and probably isn't), almost looks like a bring back. In fact, in some ways it's the favorite of my 17's, because it looks like it could have been "over there", like somebody actually did use it in the trenches.

Now, for all I know, those Eddystone parts were put on in the 1950's, and the rifle looks the way it looks because somebody kept it in his barn. But I'm not about to write it off as a parts gun just because it's picked up a few stray Eddystone parts along the way.

One reason, BTW, I think Eddystone parts that tend to show up on rifles made by the other manufacturers, more so than the other way around, is simply that Eddystone made the most rifles, and spare parts were produced as a percentage of parts production for finished rifles. Most spares will tend to be Eddystone parts.

As far as the stock Kragluver describes, I used to have (sold it a couple of months ago) an arsenal reworked Winchester that had a stock with typical Eddystone characteristics, along with mostly Eddystone parts. The foretip, though, was marked with a number 7 instead of the typical Eddystone "E". I was never quite sure what that meant, although I suspect it could have been an Eddystone subcontractor or supplier, with the first time the stock was on a rifle being when it was used on a re-work.

Surprisingly interesting rifles, 1917's, once you get to know them. Good to see them finally coming into their own, in terms of collector interest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Excellent points regarding the proliferation of Eddystone parts. They made 2X more rifles than either other manufacture.

Chances are, my rifle was put together by a collector some years back from parts. The metal finish is parkerized (and in very good shape), so it definitely went through re-arsenal back in the 20's or so. The wood shows plenty of "dings" and has a well-done repair near the toe next to the butt swivel. With a manufacture date of 6-18, there's a fair chance it saw action in Europe -- who knows? There are no foreign country marks or re-import marks anywhere on it, so it doesn't appear to have left the US unless it was carried overseas by a Doughboy. I wish these rifles could talk:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
ill agree the bbl could have been a spare - i didnt mean to sound like they were out there switching bbls between rifles ,
the rest of the posts hit it on the head , there really are very few [if any] that are intact as they came out of the factory , the parts got mixed and switched in service , the rifles with matching bits are most likely a combination of luck and someones having made the effort , it doesnt deminish the rifles its a nice thing to see so manty with factory parts back in place , i though am not stuck on perfection [at least for now] having a correct stock/bolt/reciever/bbl combination is a great piece in my book , other bits is another plus , all parts would be very nice
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top