Recently had this rifle passed down to me...I added the T16 Weaver for test firing...Is the action a worthy action to say have a Pac Nor SS 35 Whelen barrel screwed on it..what 'ya think ?

Since it is already sporterized, absolutely.
Now then, is it a Model 17 (.30-'06) or Pattern 14 (.303 British)?
If '06, then I'd suggest at least the .35 Whelen or maybe the 9.3x62 because it is a big action. If .303, then a standard belted mag, or maybe one of the new slick-cased Ruger chamberings (Rim diameter .532 or thereabouts?), again, because it's a big, heavy action.

Sorry.....yes 30-06

Go for it. IMO these actions are a waste on standard lenght rounds but dang there strong. I have 1 in 30-06 and another in 416rem(both winchesters). If I keep the '06 it will be a bigbore soon.

I dont deal with eddystones all that much but I do have a receiver (eddystone) where the smith tried to take off the bbl and cracked the hell out of it. makes a nice paperweight

The cracking issue is the one to be careful of with the Eddystones. I have an ex-range rifle bought for a later bigbore build, before placing a fresh barrel on I'll have it tested for cracks. If clear ... you can build close to anything on them! The actions are heavy though, so it suits a big bore better than a smallbore ... maybe a 358Norma rather than a 35Whelen but there's extra expense in opening the boltface and massaging the feed rails.
Cheers...
Con

i have been sitting on a remington and an eddystone for years now, is magnaflux a sufficient way to check for cracks?

I think a dye ckeck will work, but I'd dicuss that issue with a metallurgist first.

There shouldn't be a cracking issue unless you re-barrel, and only then if the smith tries to crank off the barrel without cutting some relief in the chamber area just in front of the receiver. Those barrels are cranked on TIGHT. I read in DeHaas that dunking the receiver front in gasoline will tell the tale visiually. Seems any cracks will hold a little gas that will leak out after surface gas has evaporated (IIRC) ...

Or in some cases, no reason to get technical, they just plum stand out

Terrific actions to build a long magnum rifle on. Too big and heavy to build a short mag or anything 30/06 based upon. The one custom I have that is built on a 1917 is for a wildcat 340 based upon a 8mm rem mag case necked up to 338. These make terrific 300 and 340 Wby's, 7STW or Ultramag, 375 anythings, 416 Rigby's, 458 Lotts etc. If your want is for something 30/06 sized or a short ('06 length) Magnum i.e. 300 Win, 7mm rem mag etc. you will be a lot happier with the final project if you start out with a Mauser clone, Ruger model 77 or a model 70 action. DEFINATELY worth building from, for a biggie round.

Thanks for the reply's, both actions have had the barrel taken off before i owned them, i was thinking of building a 375 h&h and a 458 lott on them, just havent done it yet.

Great fits on both counts. Report back when completed!

Those actions have some of the best ergonomics ever, even if that dog leg looks a little odd. The safety is superb. But that little leaf ejector spring MUST be replaced with the ol' coil spring trick ...

Agreed on the spring replacement. Mine also has super duty 'speedlock' firing pin spring, cock on opening conversion from Dayton-Traister, And a trigger from the same company. I might be upgrading that trigger mechanism now that I am bringing the rifle back into regular use after being in the back of the safe for a couple of years. Seriously considering having the receiver built up to a double square bridge contour as the last modification.

i HAVE A Rem model 30 express. I can tell you when I get the dough together that acxtion is getting built into something bigger. It is currently in 35 whelen

safariman, will the dayton-traiser cock on open work with a timney trigger, or do you have to use a dayton?

Sorry, I dont know the answer to this but I THINK they will work together OK. I hoe they will as I hope to go with a Timney or Canjar trigger but not if I have to go back to cock on closing system.

I have one in 375 H&H AI. It is currently a single shot as I have not found a longer mag box yet. I have read about cutting and making the existing mag box longer. One day I will do this if I can't find one.

Cowboybart - A Remington model 700 box is long enough and is what I am using in my 340/8mm rem mag wildcat model 1917. Easy to find, fits well into the 1917 reciever with minimum of fuss and you save some weight as well.

WOW How easy can that be . Thanx for the tip

Do I use a Rem follower also??

That military trigger can be honed to a fare-the-well ...

I did and do. Must keep in mind that my 1917 has been trimmed down in the middle from a 7 round capacity to the more normal 4-5. Only when this has been done wil the remmy box and follower work but in my rifle they work well.

I see that Bell and Carslon make a stock for the 1917. do you think this stock should fit my Rem model30 without any problems?

It should, but a great classic action like yours deserves good wood! Boyds stocks has good options and that is what mine is wearing. A Boyds JRS classic.

safariman,
By trimming are you talking about bottom metal that's been cut and straightened? If so ... and a Rem700 magazine box will be all that's required ... I'm tempted to swim the Pacific and give you a bloody big kiss. That's a fantastic tip on getting a H&H length magazine box in there on the cheap!!
Cheers...
Con

Con,

Yes, that is what I meant, but I almost did not post this confirmation as I am pretty sure that I do not want your lips anywhere near me!!

Geez safariman,
No need to get personal and nasty I'll strip a magbox from one of my Rem700 and see how it fits into a sporterised M17 with straightened floorplate and how much work is needed to get it in there. I can see a 'big' M17 in my future ... it's a bit boring as a 30/06!! Many thanks again for a great tip!!
Cheers...
Con

The M-17 box has thick locating tabs at either end.They really only just take up length.The Gunparts replacement magnum box uses sheet metal.In an old book on sporterizing,the gunsmith used corner pins for locating the box. It's worth while adding shoulder strips for feeding when modifying the box.For my 358Norma I had Bill just turn the back U around.But I was just looking for a more usable 300WM length than 3.340.

It is criminal to waste those huge old actions on such mundane small calibers such as the .416 Rem and 458 Lott, those are std. length action calibers, and anyone making a 06 out of one should be gilflurted and stringhaultered! ...

A good Rem M-30 or 1917 Enfield should be no less than a 500 Jefferys or 505 Gibbs, something big and mean that will loosen your bicuspids and make you wet your pants, now thats a real gun!:)

Ray, My retinas work better when they're attached!!

My stock is already set up for a drop magazine. I want to keep the extra capacity of the mag. Who can do the work of cutting and turning the ends of the mag box around?? How many H&H rounds will fit in the military drop mag box??

If it were me I would send it to Jim Rector in La Grande Oregon. Jim is a great metalsmith who does not charge an arm and a leg and who loves big guns. Builds wickedly wierd stuff like .585 Nyati's

He has my FN action for upgrading the safety to a Gentry 3 position and he did some of the work on my CZ 550 416 Rigby that I wrote about in African Hunter. He also did some of the metalsmithing on a .458 Lott Mauser that currently resides in Zimbabwe. Ross Seyfreid uses him a lot and I have run into Ross at Jim's shop several times. Jims phone number is 541-963-0521. Tell him I sent you and said hello.

The B&C Carbelite is for the drop magazine of the 1917 Enfield.

If you have straight bottom metal as the remington 30 does you need to rasp and snd it down to fit as I did with my 308 Norma.

I don't cre for the stock though. It reminds me too much of an A-Square and i like the lines of a classic stock more.

I put the Enfield back in the wood stock it came out of.

MPI makes anice classic fibreglass stock for a Remington 30S/ Enfield. Otherwise the JRS works but they tend to be awfully heavy when combined with a 1917.

I've got 2 of them, a Remington M17 in 450 Ackley Mag and an Eddystone in 500 Jeffery. The Jeffery wears a Boyds laminated stock and the Ackley is currently getting a Richards Microfit stock put on it. I think they are a great action, the Ackley of mine has a cock-on opening kit, beefed up main spring, custom bolt handle, Timney trigger and fits 4 in the mag as well.
One of the better action in my opinion for big calibres.

DC

500Jeffery, do you have any pics of your rifles you might want to post? This is starting to get me motivated to do something with my Model 30 express. SL

"MPI makes anice classic fibreglass stock for a Remington 30S/ Enfield. Otherwise the JRS works but they tend to be awfully heavy when combined with a 1917. "

Agreed that as they come from Boyds they can weigh a lot BUT, that is a GOOD thing with any .450 or 500 caliber rifle. My two JRS stocks have been slimmed down a bunch from original and the grip area opened up to a more open classic configuration. My 1917 in 340 has a barrel contour that matches a Winchester featherweight so all together is not a heavy rifle at all. The Boyds laminated Walnut brown stocks when trimmed down a bit then stained dark walnut and checkered and finished in a gloss or semi gloss look and feel - and work - great.

Have always wondered why the 1914/1917 Enfield action was made so gigantic, my limited understanding is that originally the Brits planned to adopt a big 7mm, something like a .280 Ross perhaps, that required a long action. This was around 1912-13. Then WWI started and they altered them for the .303, that was the 1914, and then when the US came into the war we started making them in '06, as the 1917. I have never come across the specs for the original 7mm but as the Brits would have adopted it if not for the start of the war, it must have been a fully developed cartridge and at that size a powerhouse.

From:
http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/1917enfield/1917.pl?noframes;read=10914

It has often been stated that the .276 Enfield, the cartridge for which the British Pattern 1913 rifle was designed, was similar to or identical with the .280 Ross. That statement has appeared in print and has been blindly repeated over the years. But it is not true.

The .280 Ross is a long, tapered, cartridge, with a case length of 2.59" and a cartridge overall length of 3.5". The .276 Enfield has a case length of 2.35" and a COL of 3.23", shorter than the .30-'06, and only about 0.17" longer than the .303 British.

While the English designers may have wanted to duplicate or exceed the ballistics of the .280 Ross, they did not use the same cartridge, or even one "similar".

Where the .276 Enfield is distinctly different from the .303 is its base diameter. It has a rebated rim, with a base diameter of .525" and a rim diameter of .515". So it is not a long cartridge, but is a fat one, though not as fat at the base as the .280 Ross.

The large base of the .276 Enfield meant that the Pattern 1913 magazine had to be large to accept five rounds; the result was a distinct "belly" on the Pattern 1913 rifle. That space came in handy when the rifle design was changed to handle the rimmed .303 British, and renamed the Pattern 1914. When the rifle was again converted, this time to .30-'06 as the U.S. Model 1917, the magazine was found to accept six rounds of the thinner, rimless cartridge, though the rifle was always referred to as being five-shot, and was loaded with the standard M1903 five round clip.

So, in brief, the .280 Ross and the .276 Enfield have almost nothing in common except bullet diameter.

From:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/UKcarts.jpg

SLDuck,
Happy to post some pics, will have to wait until the Richards stock is fitted to my 450 Ackley, then I'll post some.

DC

bcp, thanks for the clarification, leaves me with two questions: (1) what were the ballistics of the Brit .276?
(2) if the cartridge was that , why was the 1913/14/17 receiver made so long?

vigillinus-
Cartridges of the World, 10th edition, gives the following info about the 276 Enfield on p.332:

Bullet weight: 165 grains
Muzzle Velocity: 2800 fps

The text describing the .276 Enfield states bullet diameter is 0.282 inch, and that weights of experimental bullets ranged from 144-190 grains. The summary table of cartridge measurements lists diameter as .284.


I'm also puzzled by the size of the P13-P14-M1917 action. Another question is why the British contracted with the Americans to produce the P14, rather than the Lee-Enfield.

--Bob

I wonder if the length was for potentially seating a very long, pointed 190 grain bullet at regular depth in the case instead of seating it deeper.

Bruce

165 grains at 2800 is a power load by 1913 standards and not feeble today, equals a .280 Rem and is not far behind a 7mm Rem Mag, equals or exceeds the M1 long range '06 load of the 1930s which was, I think, 172 grains at 2650 and was too hot for the M1 Garand and a terrible kicker in the short stocked 1903 Springfield. It would have been difficult to teach millions of inexperienced recruits to handle it.

vigillinus et al.-

Some pretty knowledgeable people hang out on some of the surplus rifle forums dedicated to British arms.

The Enfield action was made large to accommodate the experimental rounds with which the British played before the troop trials with the 276 Enfield. Some of these were considerably longer than the .276 Enfield; at least one was just a couple of millimeters shy of the length of the 375 H&H case.

The reason the British contracted with Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester for the manufacture of the P14 rather than the SMLE seems to have been that manufacturing tolerances were less strict for the P14. The British thought that Americans would be more likely to meet the P14 standards.

Thanks for raising the question.

Here are a couple of links that can be pursued about the questions:
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=3367

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?t=51352

--Bob

Would have been a top flight open country hunting load for Africa, somewhat surprising that H&H or Rigby did not take up on it after WWI.