1917 Eddystone
I'm looking for some information on value.I have a 1917 Eddystone that was lend leased to Canada but not sure if it was WW1 or WW2.It has the red paint around the forearm the stamp "C" with an arrow through it and also the letters PWOR on the stock which stands for"Princes of Wales own Regiment". They were loaned to Canada to protect against invasion. Since it never saw action it is in remarkably good condition.Some of you are going to tell me to include pictures but I have not mastered that ability yet.Metal is pristine wood is excellent no cracks or large dings.Based on my description can you give me a ballpark value? I don't want to sell it because of it;s unusual history but I would like to know it's value Thanks
0
-
I was given 2 eddystone rifles 95% condition are they worth anything ?are they 30-06cal.?Thanks for any info.
dickgal57@hotmail,com0 -
Any of the slings you mentioned could be "correct" for the gun. They were issued with the M1907 or 1917 sling during WW1. As reissued during WW2 they could have has any of these and the later styles. Any of these will work for CMP competition. 0 -
Thanks Ammo guy, that sure simplifies it for me. Regarding Ammo would the Greek surplus 30-06 be ok for this weapon? Any pearls of wisdom about 30-06 for this application? 0 -
the greek ammo is very good, if your rifle has 5 grove rifling you might want to 'slug the bore' (not easy to measure w/5 lands/groves!) a lot of those had .311" barrels left over from the British P-14 production. 0 -
Thanks Mike Wiskey. I had no idea what you were talking about "slug the bore", so had to look it up. Found this reference on the CMP forum, which is a rather enlightening pictoral and explanation, however it does not explain how to mike a 5 groove slug. I presume there is some magic formula?
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinSlug.htm0 -
Well, there is, if you have the right V block and micrometer, but it doesn't really matter.
In the first place, .30-06 is loaded with .308" bullets, period.
You could handload some with .311" bullets meant for 7.62 Russian but I doubt it would make much difference.
In the second place, according to Hatcher's Notebook the 1917 5 groove .310" barrel actually has LESS cross sectional bore area than the 4 groove .308" Springfield. He said there was a good deal of misunderstanding about the barrel specs and that the 1917 did not have .303 barrels.
I will leave it to Mike to discuss the use of actual left over P14s.
why so many different land and grove patterns and twist rates?
Like any other engineered product, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The US plan goes back to the 1892 Krag, four wide grooves, 10" twist for a 220 grain bullet at 2000 fps. It worked well enough for the .30-03 and .30-06 that there was no need to change. The Enfield, 5 grooves no wider than the lands, was designed to resist erosion by the hot Cordite .303 loads. No reason to change the style, just reduce the diameter a bit when converting from P14 to 1917.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Hawk Carse
Well, there is, if you have the right V block and micrometer, but it doesn't really matter.
In the first place, .30-06 is loaded with .308" bullets, period.
You could handload some with .311" bullets meant for 7.62 Russian but I doubt it would make much difference.
In the second place, according to Hatcher's Notebook the 1917 5 groove .310" barrel actually has LESS cross sectional bore area than the 4 groove .308" Springfield. He said there was a good deal of misunderstanding about the barrel specs and that the 1917 did not have .303 barrels.
I will leave it to Mike to discuss the use of actual left over P14s.0 -
Thanks Hawk, that kinda simplifies it for me, although raises the question; why so many different land and grove patterns and twist rates? I presume more is better snd shorter twist rates impart even more spin? 0 -
"I will leave it to Mike to discuss the use of actual left over P14s.'.....I don't have any 'hard' facts to this, just what I've been told over the years and my own observations. Logicly the three plants that mgf. the p-14 were 'tooled up' to product .311" barrels, and they do shoot quite well with .308 bullets. The same as Argentine m-1909 mausers that were rechambered to .30/06 from the original 7.63x53 mauser. I have worked with a bunch of m-1917's and all with 5 grove barrels seam to have 'loose' bores. When these were rebuilt for ww-2 they used 2 grove .308 barrels (most I've seen were by High Standard). 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MIKE WISKEY
"I will leave it to Mike to discuss the use of actual left over P14s.'.....I don't have any 'hard' facts to this, just what I've been told over the years and my own observations. Logicly the three plants that mgf. the p-14 were 'tooled up' to product .311" barrels, and they do shoot quite well with .308 bullets. The same as Argentine m-1909 mausers that were rechambered to .30/06 from the original 7.63x53 mauser. I have worked with a bunch of m-1917's and all with 5 grove barrels seam to have 'loose' bores. When these were rebuilt for ww-2 they used 2 grove .308 barrels (most I've seen were by High Standard).
Then by implication from what you and Hawk said "loose bores", the 1917 Eddystone in 30-06 would not be as accurate as say a 1903 Springfield, 303 Enfield, or two groove 308?0 -
All I know is what Hatcher said... and my copy of Hatcher's Notebook is not at hand. From a Google, though:
"We retained the Enfield form of rifling, but changed the bore and groove dimensions to suit our own bullet diameter of .3086 inch. To accomplish this we changed the bore from .303 inch to .300, and made the grooves .005 inch deep instead of .0058 as in the .303"
Cartridges of the World would be a big help.
The .30-06 is named for .30 caliber (bore measurement, not groove or bullet diameter) adopted in 1906.
It is not that there is no system of cartridge nomenclature, it is that there are several and you have to know which one you are dealing with at the time.0 -
Sorry to sound so ignorant, but why do they call it 30-06 if it's really .3086? Is there a shooters bible you would recommend that might explain all these nuances? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments