Gunboards Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

I Have ONLY Seen "Blown Up" P-17 Rifles, never a "Blown Up" '03.

Jump to Latest
4.3K views 28 replies 11 participants last post by  Milsurp2.0  
S
#1 ·
While everyone knowledgeable about '03 Springfield Rifles are aware of the "Low Number Rifles Problem," nothing is ever said about P-17 Enfields.

My Cousin, a U.S. Army veteran of World War II, mentioned to me that while he was in Basic Training, his unit was issued P-17 Enfields. He also told me that three of those rifles "Blew Up" on the Rifle Range. He didn't remember any other specifics, except three of the rifles did blow up.

I have personally seen two "wrecked" P-17 Rifles. One was on display at a gun shop in Athens, Georgia years ago and another at a gun show. I never found out why both rifles had blown up, i.e., it could have been defective hand loaded ammo, something lodged in the barrel, etc.

Are there any issues with the P-17 that is not widely known that would cause their receivers to fail?
 
#2 ·
The P-17 does not exist. It is in fact a M1917. A common misnomer.
To answer your question,yes,there was a manufacture that had problems with some receivers that failed. They have been long pulled and destroyed but were out there in WWII. Some collectors may have rifles that could be a safety problem if they are from the batches that were deemed 'bad"
The P-14 and M1917 is a very strong rifle and can be converted to a variety of magnum calibers and is still done to this day.
 
D
#4 ·
I believe "Hatcher's Notebook" might discuss this a bit. There is a book on the M1917 Enfield (written by Ferris I believe: forget the name) which discusses more. (C. S. Ferris: United States Rifle Model of1917). Although I haven't heard of problems with blowups, but rather with cracked receivers typically after they were rebarreled.
My recollection is that problems arose with Eddystone receivers rebarreled in World War II. A few were observed with cracks after the war on sales to civilians through DCM. I don't recall hearing anything about military identifying the problem with blowups: details on that would surely be interesting. The barrels are screwed on very tightly and the heat treatment might not have been the greatest on emergency footing on a new facility. If I remember, Ferris indicates DCM stopped releasing Eddystone receivered M1917s. Although some cracks were supposedly seen in Remington (Ilion) and Winchester rifles as well.
I recall reading in gun press that A-Square would not build their rifles on Eddystone receivers as a result of this, and that they magnafluxed all their rifles for cracks before selling them.
Again, I don't recal hearing of blowups, but rather cracks in the receiver. The nickel steel used in the action is supposedly more elastic than the "ordnance steel" used in 03 low numbered receivers. Am also not sure if the problem was seen in the Pattern 1914 (British .303) receivers or just US ones. Of course, only US rifles would have been released by the DCM, and don't know if A-Square used both types of receives (US and British) or not.
 
#5 ·
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?294871-M1917-Remington-or-Winchester-Quality
What I read about many years ago was that the receiver "ring" could crack when the barrel was removed and then replaced on certain M1917 makers.
I do not remember if it was Eddystone or Winchester where this is more prevalent. As long as your rifles receiver ring is not cracked,I see no reason to worry about it. There are photo's on the web of the "crack" and how to spot it. It is not common today to find a rifle that is cracked.
 
S
#8 ·
I think rapidrob explained it pretty well. The early eddystone used a more brittle type of metal and it was prone to failure when they rebarrel those receivers. It's the early 1917 ones that are prone to that. Other than that, i think m1917 has one of the more robust and strong receiver in all of milsurp out there. Lots of enthusiasts in the 70-80s love to sporterize the m1917 because of that, and sadly, that is why its harder to find original m1917 nowadays.
 
S
#9 ·
I don't know if this is internet BS but have heard that the barrels on the model of 1917 rifles were screwed on by means of a hydraulic machine. Having never seen such a machine can anyone confirm or deny this?. I have a couple actions from rifles whose barrels were done for regarding rust and corrosion. Stuck them in a lathe and cut a ring fairly deep just in front of the receiver ring and mounted the action on a steel block and basically screwed them off using a pipe wrench. Frank
 
#10 ·
Your method of removing the barrel is correct for the M1917. Remove the stress at the ring and the barrel unscrews with "normal" effort.
I know that Eddystone used a large "Ships Wheel" type barrel setter where a large amount of torque could be applied. I know of the hydraulic method as well but I'm not sure it was used on the M1917. One of the experts on this rifle will chime in with the facts.
 
#11 · (Edited)
wow,
first,..nothing but a pair of hands, tools and eyeballs were ever used to barrel up a 1917..that is a fact...and yes, i can prove it.
second.
all 3 makers of the 1917 used steel from the same place, midvale steel, all were 3.5% nickle steel, and surface hardened,
yes, i have seen 1917s with crack,, have pictures of some as well.
however.
iv seen all 3 makers with cracks, mostly Winchesters..
all the cracks are in the same area, and are from using the wrong tools, or not using the right tools in the correct way, or loose tools when removing or installing a barrel.
have i seen a {blown up} 1917?
yes and no, i have had a several 1917s that have suffered case head failure, stocks were trashed as you can guess, bolts were fine, actions were fine.
all that i have seen {blown up} were winchesters, as well as early ones.
with some research, i find that early winchesters had some over sized chambers, after seeing how they were chambered, i can see why,
iv seen some with the bolt face modified by the military to cure this issue.
another common and death for the action , is bolt set back.
do to the amount of pressure of the locking lugs the bolt wears away the heat treatment of the locking weighs..
that will effect headspace in a bad way..
ill post a video of 1917s being barreled in 1917 1918...and again. show that the only machine used to barrel a 17 is a man.
 
#14 ·
heres some pictures of cracked actions.. {i have a few more}

first one {eddstone} was cracked like most others iv seen, and heres my assesment as to why..
second was likely cracked from being in a fire or heavy rust,, its a Winchester
on action wrenches, the V cut that mates with the round top of the action has a step..most people dont know what that step is for, so they just assemble, tighten, and use the tool.
that step mates with the step on the right side of the receiver ring,
if you flip the step to the wrong side, and tighten the tool, or use with it loose, it likely pushes in and cracks that area, shown.
the 2 other pictures are bolt set back, if you look close you can see the bright spots..how i guage them, is a dental pick,
if i can feel a step or edge, then chances are its through the surface heat treatment..
hope these pictures help you understand some of the missleading information thats floated around for years..
some are facts, and some are stretched BS.. lol
 

Attachments

#16 ·
to answer if iv seen blown up 1903s? yes,..more then a few,,
matter fact i own a couple that have been destroyed.
both Single and double heat treat actions.
keep in mind, ANY weapon can and has failed, how well it handles a failure is the big question.
the 1903 and the 1917 both have a cone breach, they both have a country mile of unsupported case head hanging in the wind while being fired..
poo poo happens..
 
D
#19 ·
I have a Japanese Type 44 receiver which is cracked. This is same receiver as the Type 38 which was the stoutest action in PO Ackley's military action destruction test.
For its day, the original British .276 round for which the P14 action (which was the M1917 action) was developed was high intensity. The P14/M17 action has always been accepted as a strong action. But....there were lots made under rapid conditions with a semi-skilled work force at least during part of their production and nothing manmade is perfect.
 
#22 ·
The vid does in fact show the barrel was torqued hydraulically. This answers that question. The photo I have in my archive with the ships wheel barrel torque device looks to be later on by the workers dress and there is no caption telling what is going on or where it may be.
Thanks for posting the vid,good info.
 
#23 ·
the barrel is being installed by hand with a clamp, and wrench, the wheel you see is used to straighten the barrel,
the discription of the videos is a guess by the hosting site, example, they have a short of a WW1 1903 Sniper firing his rifle,,,
and it says, Troop firing a rifle thats all
 
#24 ·
Not the overhead wheel with the three fingers that straighten the barrel. This is an all together diff device. I will try to dig it out and post it.
In the vid you clearly see he uses a hand wrench the steps on the hydraulic peddle and torques the barrel into the receiver.
 
Gunboards Forums
posts
5.9M
members
138K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, makes, models, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
The Collector's Forum - Mosin Nagant HQ Firearms Of The Rising Sun The Lee-Enfield Forum The K98k Mauser Forum RKBA Forum