U.S. Rifle M1917

[AMCHornet]

I have a sporterized U.S. Rifle model of 1917, also known as the American Enfield. It is a Winchester manufacture, date 1918, with it's original 5-groove barrel and chambering in .30-06. The barrel was cut to 21 inches, sights removed, scope mounted, and stock replaced with a short fore end sporter stock, all in the 1960's.

The problem I have is it won't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm talking one foot groups at 100 yards. I've slugged the barrel and its hard to get an accurate measurement because the five groove design places a groove and a land directly opposite of each other, but as far as I can tell it has a .303" land diameter and .311" groove diameter, which is NOT what a .30-06 should be. That is too big. That is identical to .303 British from the British P14 Enfield that these U.S. rifles were based on. I can place a .30-06 bullet in the end of the barrel and see that it just barely catches the lands without much bearing surface. The barrel looks beautiful inside. No evidence of wear, nice and shiny, sharp grooves...

Has anybody here seen or experienced this? I don't think the .30-06 of 1918 used a different diameter projectile than .30-06 of today. It just seems insane that the U.S. Army would send boys into battle with this kind of inaccuracy.

[steelbuttplate]

It seems a .308 bullet would be a tight fit in .303 lands. What should a 30-06 slug ? Mosin bullets are .312 in a .311 bore ?

[Junk Yard Dog]

They didn't, the 1917 was an accurate rifle. Is it possible your rifle was built from spare parts using a British P-14 barrel? When the British rifle was adopted to US service one of the changes was the chamber and rifling of the barrel to accommodate the .30-06 cartridge. One thing that most needed to be done with these rifles before they could be sent out as lend lease during WW2 was a new barrel being installed. Likely whoever built the sporters out of these in the 60's had the same problem of corroded bores. If it was Bannerman modifying a .303 barrel to work for .30-06 would not be the most odd shit I have seen on their creations. If they hadn't cut back the barrel it would have had the date and US bomb on the end of the barrel before the front site, or not if it was a .303

[AMCHornet]

The chamber is marked with the U.S. ordinance bomb and Eagle head.

From Hatcher's notebook:

"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."

[Junk Yard Dog]

Don't know, whatever the reason you will have to live with it. Cast bullets maybe?

[awalker1829]

I just acquired an Eddystone 1917. Stock is good and the gun hasn’t been sportered. Seller reported that it has a new CMP Criterion barrel, so it has been rebuilt but is legal for CMP matches.

[Ironnewt]

Don't know, whatever the reason you will have to live with it. Cast bullets maybe?

Buddy has one that's very similar. Best accuracy with cast bullets. Check out "Cast Boolits" website

[awalker1829]

Could be possible that it’s a P14 barrel with forged 1917 marks. The fact that it got chopped up makes everything suspect. Cheapest option would be to load cast bullets. Other option is to take a new 1917 barrel and put it on. The 1917 was a very accurate rifle and was state of the art for that era. In fact, it was such a good weapon that the US Army did seriously consider making the 1917 the official service rifle. The change was never made, but it was considered.

[Junk Yard Dog]

There were some issues with the wartime (WW2) rebuilds having cracks appear in the ring after new barrels were installed. I think it was traced to a lack of chasing the threads in the receiver before forcing the replacement barrel on. Wartime rush, sloppy work.

[etprescottazusa91]

The one redeeming quality about the Pattern 17 was that it was accurate. The issue you are describing is probably best fixed by selling the rifle, unless this is Uncle Bill or Grandpa Jones old standby rifle, why keep it when it does not shoot straight and probably never will? If you draw a tag are you really going after deer or elk with a chopped Pattern 17? I purchased a Pattern 14 out the door down here in the valley for $200.00 a while back and did not even want the thing, my point, is this rifle really worth your time and money?

[Junk Yard Dog]

The one redeeming quality about the Pattern 17 was that it was accurate. The issue you are describing is probably best fixed by selling the rifle, unless this is Uncle Bill or Grandpa Jones old standby rifle, why keep it when it does not shoot straight and probably never will? If you draw a tag are you really going after deer or elk with a chopped Pattern 17? I purchased a Pattern 14 out the door down here in the valley for $200.00 a while back and did not even want the thing, my point, is this rifle really worth your time and money?

OK, you just totally distracted me, the question being, why would you blow two hundred bucks on a rifle you didn't want? There's lots of things in this world I don't want, and I am not paying for any of them.

[etprescottazusa91]

The one redeeming quality about the Pattern 17 was that it was accurate. The issue you are describing is probably best fixed by selling the rifle, unless this is Uncle Bill or Grandpa Jones old standby rifle, why keep it when it does not shoot straight and probably never will? If you draw a tag are you really going after deer or elk with a chopped Pattern 17? I purchased a Pattern 14 out the door down here in the valley for $200.00 a while back and did not even want the thing, my point, is this rifle really worth your time and money?

OK, you just totally distracted me, the question being, why would you blow two hundred bucks on a rifle you didn't want? There's lots of things in this world I don't want, and I am not paying for any of them.

I hit a pawn shop after almost a year, a Winchester manufactured Pattern 14 that had been $450.00 was now marked down to $300.00 and was on sale that day for $250.00 The owner pointed it out, I looked it over, handed it back and thanked him. The shop owner told me that he thought I would jump right on $250.00 and asked why I passed on it. Told him it was good deal, just not the rifle for me, non matching bolt, a little rougher than I would like. If I'm going to tie up money in something like that it really needs to be a super deal so I can use it as trading stock when I find a nicer one. Owner asked if $200.00 "out the door" made it more a rifle I could use, I said, yeah.....and told him to hand me a 4473

[awalker1829]

There were some issues with the wartime (WW2) rebuilds having cracks appear in the ring after new barrels were installed. I think it was traced to a lack of chasing the threads in the receiver before forcing the replacement barrel on. Wartime rush, sloppy work.

Could well be. Remember that the Pattern 1914s didn’t have interchangeable parts due to the wartime rush either. The British Army did not discover that until the rifles were delivered and just made do as they could not afford to stop production to fix the problems.

[awalker1829]

There were some issues with the wartime (WW2) rebuilds having cracks appear in the ring after new barrels were installed. I think it was traced to a lack of chasing the threads in the receiver before forcing the replacement barrel on. Wartime rush, sloppy work.

The British Army also had initial issues with the wrong ammunition being used in the 1917s. They ended up painting a red band on the buttstock to mark the 1917s from the 1914s. Problem was that the 1917 could chamber a British 303 cartridge with injurious results IIRC.

[AMCHornet]

It's been in my family for fifty years and was entrusted to me as an heirloom. It's not going anywhere. I don't need it for hunting or anything like that, it would just be nice if I could actually hit something with it. There are definitely things I can do as many have suggested. I was mostly just wondering if anybody else had experienced this problem on the 1917 or if it was just me.

So far I've only shot 150 grain projectiles with it. I have some heavier ones to try. Perhaps the longer bearing surface will help. I might look into how the action and barrel are mating with the stock too. Beyond that we will see.

[etprescottazusa91]

It's been in my family for fifty years and was entrusted to me as an heirloom. It's not going anywhere. I don't need it for hunting or anything like that, it would just be nice if I could actually hit something with it. There are definitely things I can do as many have suggested. I was mostly just wondering if anybody else had experienced this problem on the 1917 or if it was just me.

So far I've only shot 150 grain projectiles with it. I have some heavier ones to try. Perhaps the longer bearing surface will help. I might look into how the action and barrel are mating with the stock too. Beyond that we will see.

Answered my question, it was somebody's rifle so yeah you have to keep it and try to fix it now.

Usually accuracy suffered from the way the barrel was floating over the stock after both were cut, bore diameter issue was something I had not heard of before. Side note, cast bullets normally work horribly with rifle calibers, I can't even imagine loading lead bullets in 30:06 sounds like it's been done though.

[AMCHornet]

I fixed some of the stock inletting, shimmed up the receiver to the stock, and sanded the barrel channel out to float the barrel.

Son of a gun shoots 1.5 MOA now on cheap Remington soft points.

[DJEinConcord]

I have a sporterized U.S. Rifle model of 1917, also known as the American Enfield. It is a Winchester manufacture, date 1918, with it's original 5-groove barrel and chambering in .30-06. The barrel was cut to 21 inches, sights removed, scope mounted, and stock replaced with a short fore end sporter stock, all in the 1960's.

The problem I have is it won't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm talking one foot groups at 100 yards. I've slugged the barrel and its hard to get an accurate measurement because the five groove design places a groove and a land directly opposite of each other, but as far as I can tell it has a .303" land diameter and .311" groove diameter, which is NOT what a .30-06 should be. That is too big. That is identical to .303 British from the British P14 Enfield that these U.S. rifles were based on. I can place a .30-06 bullet in the end of the barrel and see that it just barely catches the lands without much bearing surface. The barrel looks beautiful inside. No evidence of wear, nice and shiny, sharp grooves...

Has anybody here seen or experienced this? I don't think the .30-06 of 1918 used a different diameter projectile than .30-06 of today. It just seems insane that the U.S. Army would send boys into battle with this kind of inaccuracy.

Get a new Criterion barrel.