Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

1917 Eddystone 30-06

bambambam
A buddy just had one of these stolen
out of a customers car.(he has a towing
service).Need help with value if possible.
I know this may not be much to go on,but
thought I'd give it a shot.Thanks

BW

IT'S WHAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THEMSELVES THAT MAKES THEM AFRAID.
0

Comments

10 comments

Date Votes
  • bambambam
    I have a teacher that has one of these rifles here at school.

    I haven't had a chance to research this model yet, & have never heard of it until he brought it up.

    Are there anything specific about these guns that made them a good or bad gun?

    I've looked at them on the auction side & they apear to me to be a version of an Enfield.

    Thanks.
    0
  • Spider7115
    Eddystone was a Remington factory in Eddystone, Pennsylvania. The US Model 1917 was patterned after the .303 1914 Enfield.
    0
  • rufe-snow
    Need quality close up photos for accurate identification and valuation.

    Link below gives instructions for posting photos.

    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=259294


    At one time original 1917 Eddystone's were quite common on the collectors market, and didn't have much value. So many have been bubbaed and sporterized over the years, that the ones in original unaltered military configuration have substantial value.
    0
  • Spider7115
    Model 1917 Eddystones are more common than Remington or Winchester marked ones and worth a bit less. Winchester is the most valuable.
    0
  • sandwarrior
    quote:Originally posted by bambambam
    I have a teacher that has one of these rifles here at school. We were discussing it after he learned about my firearm lust.

    I haven't had a chance to research this model yet, & have never heard of it until he brought it up.

    Are there anything specific about these guns that made them a good or bad gun?

    I've looked at them on the auction side & they apear to me to be a version of an Enfield.

    Thanks.


    Here's how it went down. The British wanted a more powerful round than the .303 due to going up against the South Africans and their mostly 7x57's. So, they came up with the .280 Ross, which was too powerful for the Lee-Enfield action. Wanting a Mauser type action anyway, they came up with the Pattern 13 to accomodate the Ross Rifle. Even the Mauser action was not up to handling sustained fire with the Ross cartridge. On the eve of WWI (figuratively speaking, not literally) it was decided that the Mauser action would be easier to mass produce and better all around than the Lee-Enfield. (many historians dispute this last piece of my statement). In any case, since the British war machine ramped up to full capacity, yet still needed more rifles, they needed someone else to build them. They came to America and contracted with Remington and Winchester to build the Pattern 14 rifle. Which was a scaled down, modified Pattern 13 build, to accommodate the .303 British. Remington then bought Eddystone to help facilitate the building of more of these rifles. When the U.S. entered WWI we didn't have the capacity to build enough rifles for us! Rather than attempt to re-tool for the 1903, it was decided to modify the Pattern 14 rifle to the U.S. Model of 1917 which accommodated the .30 cal U.S (30-06). And that is your rifle. One of just over a million made by Eddystone. Remington made just over half a million and Winchester made just under half a million.
    0
  • nononsense
    sandwarrior,

    quote:Even the Mauser action was not up to handling sustained fire with the Ross cartridge.

    I would like to see the substantiation of this statement. Somehow I find this to be in error. Hopefully it's not Chuck H.... The .280 Ross is rated at 47,000 PSI and I've built dozens of rifles with larger cartridges, significantly more powerful than the Ross. Even the bloody Brits were known for using Mausers as dangerous game rifles chambered for the the most powerful cartridges available. The .585 Nyati was originally built on a Mauser.

    Best.

    ADDED:

    I read the term 'sustained' and realized the significance of the term but I still disagree that the Mauser and any other 'action' would fail. However, the concept of sustained fire under combat conditions will always be benchmark for torture testing firearms.

    It's unfortunate that so few rifles were actually completed before Hermann Gerlich passed away. He was never able to get the manufacturing of the rifles or the ammunition up to speed for commercial sales. The ammunition was all hand loaded and pricey even for the early '30s

    Here is a quote from an article in Rifle Magazine as a .pdf:

    "On the 28th of August, 1929, the British government, after an
    Executive Committee meeting in the War Office, approved the
    purchase of a Halger-Gerlich High Velocity Rifle, caliber .280.
    It was further recommended and approved that tests for pressures,
    velocity and accuracy be carried out by the Chief Inspector of
    Armaments, in conjunction with the Chief Inspector of Small
    Arms, and that the Chief Superintendent, Research Department
    examine the ,280 ammunition.
    Due to the limited output of Halger rifles and ammunition, even
    the British had to wait more than a year before Halger H.V.
    Magnum No. 143 was delivered with a supply of .280 cartridges."

    http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri96partial.pdf

    Best.



    bambambam,

    Here is a shot of both sides of the rifle in question:

    m1917enfieldus3006.jpg

    These were legendary rifles not only for the role they played in warfare but from the extended use by custom gunsmiths for dangerous game rifles. Far too many were ruined by folks who took exception to the sight 'ears' on the rear bridge and ground them off.

    We would grind and step them to become custom sight bases for scope mounts, thereby eliminating the removal and utilizing an existing element.

    These actions were also oversize when compared to standard length actions. We could fit some of the biggest cartridges used for dangerous game but we usually had to manufacture new bottom metal.

    There is lots of information about this model, just use a good search engine and enjoy!

    Best.
    0
  • bambambam
    He showed me some pictures of the gun on his Iphone. It looks just like the pix nononsense posted.

    I'll get some more info on stamping to see the maker. He said it was in the serial range of 60,000 series IIRC.
    0
  • Hawk Carse
    The .280 Enfield 1913 is not the same as the .280 Ross, which was a Canadian development for the straight pull Ross rifles.

    The round that a normal rifle could not handle was the .280 Halger which was the Ross case considerably overloaded in a '98 Mauser action. They could not be sold in England because they would not pass proof
    0
  • sandwarrior
    Folks, some clarification and corrections are needed to make my last post a little more understood.

    Here is an e-mail I sent to nononsense (because for some reason my internet would not let me log onto the forum) with a correction, it is the .276 Enfield not the .280 Enfield:

    Since my internet seems to have failed me, sort of, ( I can't get onto the forums) I'll explain. The Pattern 13 of which I said was the .280 Ross, was indeed the .280 Enfield .276 Enfield, which the mistake was later pointed out. The point is the rifle would not handle the sustained fire with that round. It's really the case of too much round, rather than not enough rifle. Too much heat and too much pressure are going to cause an issue no matter what platform those two factors are overdone in. Such as firing as fast as you can load and shoot for two minutes. The barrel gets extremely hot and extractions become difficult. Then, cookoffs start to happen. It wasn't a case of the action failing, though. That will be clarified when I can get back on.

    I understand where you're coming from though when an arbitrary statement like that, as it can be misconstrued that the P-14 and U.S. Model of 1917 aren't strong enough to handle even the toughest of cartridges. They are. Just not in sustained fire like you would subject a military action to in testing, or in the extreme, combat. The decision to remain with the .303 was, in fact, a good one. And with us, the 30-06.
    FWIW, our M-60's of my day and even the M240B of today's army have failed when used too much in a 'sustained' situation using M80, 7.62x51 NATO.

    -me
    0
  • steg
    quote:Originally posted by us55840
    Had one made by Remington in Eddystone factory but it was stolen.

    Cops recovered it, had it fumed for prints then refused to return it because the fuming made it TOXIC so had to be destroyed. I called it BS but still screwed. [xx(]

    You are correct that the cops story is BS. Fuming is done with a form of acrylic glue, and once the gun is aired out, there is nothing toxic about it. The fumes do not penetrate the wood, only affect surfaces.
    I suggest you consult a lawyer and file suit in small claims court for the value of your gun. To make sure of your case, notify your local newspaper(telephone the editor) and your local TV news. The cops and DA will pay you just to shut you up!
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?