I don't have one, but will they chamber a .311 bullet? If so, that might improve accuracy.
My dad's did before I had to set the barrel back 2 threads (.2 inches). I did not have a reamer at that time and Mr. Kleinguenther did the rechambering for me. Now it does not chamber an .06 cartridge with a .303 bullet. I bought a 303 throating reamer, so all I need to do is ream it and I can put this one back in service and use 303 bullets. Just need to get around to it.
I bought another sporterized 1917 many years ago and it had been rebarreled with a JA (Johnsons Automatic) barrel with 2 grooves and standard 308 dimensions.
Those rebarreled with Johnson Automatics barrels or others were done in the early days of WW2. IIRC, I saw one with a High Standard barrel (HS?) and a year mark. Quite often, the 2-groove barrels shoot better than 4-groove barrels made during the same time. 50 % less room for error.
Mine (JA 2 groove) is still the 26 length and with a 4 X scope shoots a 1/2 high by 1 1/2 wide group with 150 grain match hollow point boat tails. I have used the target bullets for everything. 1 shot kills on coyotes and pigs running at almost 300 yards. Even the 500lb+ pound Mr. Pig was dead before he hit the ground.
Not sure how accurate my Dad's (.311 barrel 24 inches long) was with the 150 grain 303 bullets. I suspect the 303 bullets not being match grade would not have been as accurate. I guess I can find out by finding a "roundtoit" and reaming the throat and loading some cases.
I have a U.S. Model of 1917 rifle, that I am restoring and haven't taken to the Range yet.
It is a parts 'mixmaster' with a Winchester Bolt, a Remington Receiver, and a 'mint' Remington Barrel, dated January/1919.
This KCA discussion got me curious, so I did a Lead Slug of the bore, today.
The barrel has five groove rifling and the front-half of the bore is 'tighter' than the rear-half.
As someone else stated, the odd number of grooves places a land opposite a groove, which makes measuring the slug a bit trickier.
In fact, there are two ways that I used to measure the slug diameter and with different results:
1. Measuring from the middle of the land 'impressions' to the middle of the opposite groove 'impression' gave diameters varying from .306" to .308".
2. Measuring the slug across opposite outside 'corners', (that are formed where the land & groove impressions meet), gave a consistent .311" diameter.
If I was shooting cast bullets in this barrel, I guess I would try .311" or .312" diameter slugs.
With 'jacketed' bullets, I'll stick with .308" projectiles. I imagine, they will be 'reshaped' by the rifling and seal the bore.
My previous experiences with Pattern 1914 rifles and Model of 1917 rifles showed them to be very accurate rifles, if the bores were good and the triggers were 'clean'.
I have high hopes for my 'project' Model of 1917 rifle, as a shooter. The trigger 'tuned-up' nicely.
I need to complete some 'Stock Repair & Restoration' work, before hitting the range.
This page from Hatcher's Notebook may be helpful to understand the US 1917's barrel dimensions, which are not the same as British .303's and are actually a bit "tighter" than those of the Krag and M1903.
1917bore Hatcher.gif (174.71 KiB) Viewed 10331 times
BR I'm also in the process of trying to restore a M1917. The sporterized or "Fraudulent Imitation" Winchester 1917 was purchased by a friend who asked me if I could restore it back to its military configuration. At first it seemed like an easy proposition but upon further investigation it simply was not the case. Besides needing a replacement stock I also discovered that the barrel had been shortened. Unfortunately, my friend had assumed that the barrel had not been tampered with because the original/correct front sight had been wedged back on the barrel. Closer scrutiny would revel that the barrel measured 23 1/2 inches, the muzzle crown was incorrect and the barrel was missing the ordinance bomb/barrel manufacture date (usually located behind the front sight). Bottom line is my friend's restoration project quickly increased in cost! Replacement stocks and barrels are not as affordable/attainable as they used to be. However, I have found online, a 2 grove WWII replacement barrel made by Johnson Automatics still in it's wrapper. Not sure if I want to purchase it because my friend is set on having only Winchester replacement parts. Guess I'll hand it back to him and tell him "Here ya go buddy...let me know when ya gets your replacement parts!"
BTW: The shortened barrels bore is in very good condition. I could turn it into a snub nose Model of 1917 Tanker or Philippine Constabulary Rifle! Yea that's the ticket! I thought I read about those little know M1917 rifle versions on the internet...must be true!
A 'Bantam' Winchester model 1917 would be pretty cool!
Removing a 1917 barrel requires a lot more torque, than removing a Krag barrel, and will risk cracking the receiver-ring.
It is often recommended, to lathe turn a groove into the barrel, where its 'shoulder' crushes against the receiver-ring, to ease barrel removal.
'MooseNugget' is 'spot on' about the increased cost and difficulty of finding parts to assemble a restoration project.
'Parashooter' - Thanks for posting Hatcher's interesting observations on model 1917 and 1903 rifle bores.
Per Hatcher, the U.S. manufacturers reduced bore dimensions from the Pattern 1914 (.303) barrel to make the Model 1917 (.30-06) barrels.
It appears that Model 1917 barrels were intended to shoot .3086" diameter bullets.
(FWIW: Post-WW2 vintage M-2 bullets, that I have, measure close to .309" diameter).
I have some gluing and stain matching to do on my 'project' Model of 1917 rifle.
It is a post WW1 'rebuild' that a previous owner altered, by cutting the stock, discarding the handguards, and removing the 'wings' from the front-sight.
I gave up on trying to find a nice replacement stock, because they sell for "stupid" amounts of money.
Judicious shopping, allowed me to assemble missing metal and wood parts (mostly Eddystone).
Careful stoning of sear engagement surfaces, turned a crappy trigger-pull into a nice 'let-off'.
My initial goal changed from having an all "WW1 Remington" to just assembling a decent looking 'mixmaster shooter'.
(The truth be told, I am a 1903 and 1903A3 'Springfield' man)!
I was at the Michigan Antique Arms Collector's show on Saturday with my dad and my son. Saw a few 1917s, but unfortunately, they were priced a little toooooo far out of reach for me right now. It will have to remain a desired rifle!
