I dont really care for them but might be able to pick up a Eddystone at a good deal.
Besides barrrel wear what do I need to look for?
Thanks
Printable View
I dont really care for them but might be able to pick up a Eddystone at a good deal.
Besides barrrel wear what do I need to look for?
Thanks
Bill,check the receiver ring,as some that were rebarrelled were so tight,that the ring cracked when removing old barrel.
My friend has a 1917 and he told me about the receiver cracking too. The only other thing was the ejector spring breaking.
Orlando,
I'm far far from being an expert but here's some of what I know about them:
The parts will be marked with either a R or E or W for the three makers (Remington, Eddystone and Winchester).
Many of them were rebarreled during WWII so check to see if the barrel is from one of the original makers or if it's a WWII rebuild barrel.
-wg
From what little I have found out about it so far its a Eddystone with worn finish. Comes with pitted bayo , nice original sling.
Has original 6-1918 barrel, all marked parts are E
I may take a drive and go look at it. Not sure why as they have to be the ugliest looking rifle ever made
I agree with you. To me they are butt ugly. But the one I have is fun to shoot. Just remember there's no windage adjustment on it so you gotta use Kentucky windage.
I am familiar with that one. Looks like a good deal even though the stock is sanded.
I have to agree that They are Very Ugly,but After shooting mine I grew to Love it.Every Milsurp collector needs one.
Ryan
Only a good deal if I can get it for under $500.00Quote:
Originally Posted by dogboysdad
PM sent.....Quote:
Originally Posted by dogboysdad
That sounds a little pricey if it has a lot of wear on it. And for some reason, Eddystone's seem to be valued less than the other two manufacturers. I just bought an excellent Winchester with an almost brand new replacement bbl on it for $600 on the CMP forum.
This rifle is all Eddystone as far as I can tell with original barrel and finish with a 16" bayo and leather sling. I made a offer under $500.00 and he declined.Blueing is worn but I really think its worth the asking price I just dont want one that bad
See if it is blued or parked. If it has been parked its a ww2 rebuild.
Mack
As I stated earlier it has original finish ,worn but original blueing
Sorry Orlando,
Missed the 2nd page of the thread due to the new format. If you can find one in your price range they do grow on you. I had pics of mine on the old forum. I like shooting the 17 better than my 03-a3 which went bye bye to get my Garand.
I have to respectfully dissagree with you guys, a 1917 in good shape is a beautiful work of art! I'm debating wether to buy one or save the money to pay property taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
I for one actually like the way the rifle looks. The action on the rifle is real smooth. Many also hate the look of the British Lee-Enfield rifle.
I have a all Eddystone 1917. It was one of those VFW turn in's the CMP was selling a couple years ago. I really do not like the looks of it, I bought it because that day at the NS it was the best looking rifle in the racks and I could not leave empty handed. Anyway, the rifle is a POS. The barrel has been neglected, has shot a lot of blanks and all that. It shoots about 5 Minutes-of-Barn, so it't not accuarte either. I'm also not a big fan of the cock-on-closing way the bolt works.
I'm not sure why I have it.
Anyone have a nice 03A3 for sale?
If I have one complaint it is the whole cocks on closing thing. However if i wanted to I could change that. My next statement will get me in trouble, but I have ben there before.
I love my 1917! In every way a superior firearm to the 03. Just remember more 1917's went to war in WW1 then did 03's. Let the yelling begin. Remember no matter what hollywood says Sgt. York used a 1917!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACT .
I can certainly see some advantages over the 1903(recoil being one),but I don't care for the rear sight w/no windage adjustment.I wouldn't get rid of mine,that Fugly beast has grown on Me.Quote:
Originally Posted by axemurderer
The 17 is a much better battle rifle than the 03. The sights on the 03 are really only good on a range while the 17's are good for battle in the trenches.
Mack
PM me if you are serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7
I take it you didnt get the rifle I was talking about in the begining of this post??Quote:
Originally Posted by dogboysdad
From a guy that works on them, I hate them. I find them to be a giant piece of #$!&. The assembly and disassembly, serious takedown is what I'm talking about, is a joke. The looks of the rifle are terrible, they feel terrible in my hand, there's absolutely nothing sexy about them. I'd take an 03 any day over the 17 just because I find it far simpler.
So how do you really feel Tim????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Great unless I'm talking about or looking at a 1917.
I agree, they are the ugly duckling
I picked up a sporter winnie on sunday. With a weaver k scope and a new barrel for 300.
1917's tend to be as or more accurate than 1903's, easier to sight due to the rear peep being close to the eye ,cheaper than 1903's and yes not very attractive. but beauty is as beauty does. I picked one up the last time cmp had them (early 2009 -a gift to myself on return from Afghanistan) and this one has only a fair bore and doesn't shoot well. my brother has one with an excellent bore and he can get groups out of it out to 200 yards that rival his winchester model 70 national match. You do have to look for cracks in the reciever ring if they are a ww2 rebarrel.