Indians For Guns

If I am correct, the Eddystone factory was set up by Remington to fulfil a military contract.

A dealer told me that he is expecting to get a sporting rifle by Eddystone in .30-06 in a practically new condition. Can this be correct or is the rifle likely to be converted from a military action to a sporting one?

You'd be lucky if you managed to get one like the dealer described. These are amongst the most rugged actions and pretty accurate as well. Besides, the aperture sight installed can make it a jolly good choice for big bore competition. In fact I used one a couple of decades ago and managed to be a renowned shot.
Good luck
Marksman

Thanks for the information Marksman.

Were these in a sporting action or a military one?

Regards.

The actions are same except in some where a bit of alteration is done to the bolt to accommodate mounting the riflescope closer to bore axis. My preference still is the typical Dog Leg bolt though.
Marksman

Everything you wanted to know about the Eddystone plant

Two rifles were built at the Eddystone plant: The P14 (Rifle, .303 Pattern 1914) and the M1917 (which is the US modification of the P14, therefore it is in .30-06 caliber).
What you would be looking at is a sporterized military rifle. Depending on the quality and effort put into "sporterization process", the value might go up anywhere from about $150-$200 and up. Unless the sporterization was done by a famous gunsmith, it isn't worth spit. That is not to say that it is a bad rifle but keep in mind that it is almost 100 years old. Bore condition should be carefully checked.
Unaltered miltary rifles would be worth significantly more.

As for your dealer talking about new condition, Eddystone ceased operation in 1919

Two Rivers would be the guys to talk to about values on this.

In case you were wondering about the integrity of these actions, the videos circulating on the net of the 577 Tyrannosaur that often puts people on their butt is built on one of these.

There is little doubt that it is a "sporterized" military rifle. A picture would help identification. The "dog leg" bolt handle is already as low as can be, bolt handles were altered for cosmetic reason when the action was used for building a sporter.

Sporterized M1917s were available in two versions in Pakistan in the 1950s, one with the original sights and cut-down military stock; the other with the rear sight milled off, and an open sight installed on the barrel. Don't recall if the stock was a cut-down military, or a replacement. I presume that these rifles were available in India as well.

These P14 and M1917 actions were used by Holland & Holland and other British makers to build some very fine custom rifles. As well as run of the mill hunting rifles, such as by Vickers. These rifles are not normally in the original .303 or .30-06 calibers.

Of the three makes of these rifles, Winchester, Remington, and Eddystone, the Winchester action is considered the best for quality of heat treatment. The Remington action is a bit softer, the Eddystone tends to be unpredictable, from quite soft to too hard and brittle.

As to its value, India and the rest of the world are on different planets in this respect. In the US a sporterized Eddystone M1917 would have little value. Yet in original condition it would be worth considerably more to collectors, regardless of make.

Not only can they be modified into a sporting rifle, they were so modified -- by Remington. Remington offered the Model 30, the Model 30S, and finally the Model 720, all of which were the P14/P17 action modified for sporting use. The original design was British, and the rifle was intended to replace our old friend, the SMLE, but ww1 intervened.

Basically, the action is similar to the M98 Mauser, with a number of modifications. The action is longer and stronger than an M98, and one of its chief advantages is to be able to take LNG cartridges, like the .300 and .375 H&H magnums, without being weakened. For an M98 to take these long cartridges, metal must be removed from the feeding ramp in front of the magazine to allow the longer cartridge to work through the magazine port. This ramp also serves as the point that the lower locking lug on the bolt rests.

In the old days, when Roy Weatherby was making up rifles for his wildcat cartridges (which used the full length case of the .300/.375 brass), magnum Mauser actions were not easily available after WW2 until Brevex of France began to offer them. S M98s were sometimes modified to accept these long cartridges and bolt setback could occur.

The Enfield action is long enough that it can be modified to accept the long H&H cases without a loss of strength.

If you research the Remington 30, 30 S, and 720, you will get a good idea of the sort of custom rifle that can be made up on an Enfield action. The Model 720, in particular, is a favorite of mine, however few people have actually seen one. Very very few were made before Remington converted to WW2 production, and many of those that were made went to the Michigan State Highway Patrol. But they are truly lovely rifles.

I'm not very knowledgeable on this action.

Tim and Two Rivers, I have a question for you.
Just to be clear; if it says "Eddystone" on the action, then it was converted from a military rifle (as opposed to one built as a sporter from scratch)?
If it says "Eddystone", then the action was built in 1919 or before?

If it says "Eddystone," then yes, it was made for the military and sporterized.

One thing ought to be noted regarding the Eddystones: they were often looked down upon, because a very few of them developed cracks. The problem here was the same as was associated with some US Krag rifles, and with 1903 Springfield rifles made by Springfiled and Rock Island arsenals in the serial number ranges called "single heat treat."

The issue here is that the receivers were heat treated and were very hard, as well as somewhat brittle. The cure for 1903 Springfield rifles was the "double heat treatment," which hardened the surface to a lesser depth, but left the underlying metal tougher. Later in Springfield production, receivers were changed to a nickel steel alloy. Te double heat treatment receivers are preferred, because they have the strength of the nickel steel, but the surface hardness that allows the bolt to glide over the tough surface. They double heat treat actions thus do not feel "sticky" compared to the later nickel steel actions.

Back to Eddystone, that plant also used a heat treatment that made the steel more brittle than those M1917s made by Remington at Ilion and by Winchester. Usually, collectors here in the USA will prefer a Winchester action, but I do not think that they are superior to the Remington Ilion manufactured guns. Winchester has that name cachet and people will pay a little more for it. Then again, those are collectors, not people buying an action for building a sporterized rifle.

If you want to check for cracks, you can immerse the action in gasoline and wipe dry -- come back and look at it in an hour or so and if cracked, some of the gasoline caught in the crack will seep out after it has been wiped. This is a method, but how conclusive it is, I cannot say. Generally, receiver hairline cracks are a result of gunsmiths removing or over tightening a replacement barrel. This was not a common occurrence and if the Enfield has the original barrel, and that barrel has not been removed, I wouldn't worry about this supposed issue.

Timmy is mentioning looking for cracks. A very easy and quite sensitive way to find cracks in metal is to wash the metal part off with alcohol, and then coat with oil. Then wipe it down, first with a dry rag and then a rag dipped in alcohol, and then after all that use a foot spray with talcum powder in it, it will coat the item and after 30 minutes inspect it. If there are any cracks the oil will migrate into the powder and make it quite apparent.

Mark wrote:Timmy is mentioning looking for cracks. A very easy and quite sensitive way to find cracks in metal is to wash the metal part off with alcohol, and then coat with oil. Then wipe it down, first with a dry rag and then a rag dipped in alcohol, and then after all that use a foot spray with talcum powder in it, it will coat the item and after 30 minutes inspect it. If there are any cracks the oil will migrate into the powder and make it quite apparent.

As 007 would say, Mark, "That's a neat trick!"

Thanks!

Thanks friends
Today i learned the method to check cracks in metal.really very informative.thanks once again.

xl_target wrote:I'm not very knowledgeable on this action.

Tim and Two Rivers, I have a question for you.
Just to be clear; if it says "Eddystone" on the action, then it was converted from a military rifle (as opposed to one built as a sporter from scratch)?
If it says "Eddystone", then the action was built in 1919 or before?

Yes on both accounts. Only Remington build sporters. With actions modified from leftover war time production.
P14 rifles do not have the factory name spelled out. They are marked "WA', "RA", and "ERA".

Eddystone did not use a heat treatment or steel differing from those used by Remington or Winchester. Eddystone lacked the experienced workers and sometimes overheated the steel when forging receivers. Just as had happened with Krags and Springfields at the arsenals.

Eddystone did not use a heat treatment or steel differing from those used by Remington or Winchester. Eddystone lacked the experienced workers and sometimes overheated the steel when forging receivers. Just as had happened with Krags and Springfields at the arsenals.

I have heard people say that Eddystone used an inferior grade of steel as well, but I do not believe it. I haven't looked this up in Hatcher, but I'm sure he would have something on this, and that it would be that the steel used was specified in the manufacturing contracts.

The heat treatment had to do with heating the metal to a given temperature, and the temperature was gauged by the color of the hot metal. Thus, it was a subjective exercise, not an objective one (such as actually measuring the metal temperature with an instrument would be).

One could note that this was the science of metallurgy at the time, and there is a point to that, but the weapons produced by other major countries did not suffer the widespread problems that were suffered by US produced arms discussed in this thread.