Krag Collectors Association Forum

I was sitting here at the Home contemplating why Melissa Steinbaum keeps giving me the cold shoulder. Sure. She is the butt of a lot of my shenanigans. Like the time we were at the Piggly-Wiggly. The check-out lady asked me how I was and I looked her in the eyes and said "I keep hearing voices". Melissa proceeded to blurt out "Oh, Shut up"! I didn't even look away from the lady and said "There it is again"! It is a mystery.

But back to the M1917. So I have a couple of them I got from the CMP going on twenty-five years ago. I took one out to the range up on Look Out Below Creek. It had a good pattern at one hundred yards. I got two Mallards and a Teal with it this past season.

So I went to the complex, tunnel 3b, room 162 and dug out the other one from the pile. Good thing I put that narrow gauge track in four years ago, saved twenty-five minutes of walking.. I broke out the Dewey rod, 3 in 1 oil, and a brush and started to scrub it out. The last time I took this '17 out for a spin was around 2004. The barrel was choked black with carbon when it came from the CMP. I must have wore through a couple dozen brushes back then. Even tried to shoot the crud out with a few jacketed rounds. Never did strike bear metal. But tonight was a bit different. I spent something like fifteen minutes on it with the oil and I am beginning to see rifling in the first five inches in from of the throat area.. Couldn't see it before tonight. Hope springs eternal.

I'll let you know how many ducks I bag after this big freeze breaks.

Culpeper

.

I never noticed the stamping on the receiver but something happened to the original stamp that they had to strike a 17 and an E to it.

Anyone out there ever see this on other rifles?


.

I always liked the M 1917 rifles. Thought they were a far better battle rifle than the '03. Rugged, with good sights, far better than the original '03. Back when they were common, those made by Winchester were thought best, then Remington. Eddystone made were less desirable. I've seen them with a missing piece of the left receiver wall, but accepted for service. Lots of all 3 were rebarreled in WW2. Is the barrel bent on that specimen?

I don't think it is bent. If mammary, er, memory serves me right this one shot fairly well but that was back in 2004. I am getting reacquainted with it to see how she shoots.

Is your 'other' Eddystone, model of 1917, a rifle that was chrome-plated?
It appears rather devoid of metal finish.
The rather large 'shot-group suggests, to me, that there may be stock-bedding issues?

I respect the Model of 1917, but, even when the rifle weights are similar,
a model 1903 Springfield handles more to my liking and fits me better.

EDIT: Nope. I took the rifle out of the wood for the first time ever. It would appear someone buffed the finish off the old girl. That would explain the dull silver look. Imagine my surprise. Just the end of the barrel and the receiver was touched. The rest of the barrel is normal. Dang. EDIT off

Yup. This one is chrome plated. Not bright and shiny. More like dull silvered. I am still drawing black patches from it. Naturally the barrel is a pitted pipe from lack care by veterans groups and corrosive blank ammo. I'm not certain I will ever get it spotless clean like a new barrel but I've got all the time in the world at the moment.

What do you suggest about the bedding issues for the first Eddystone?

I have a special affinity for the '17s. Had a favorite great-uncle who served in a National Guard division, the 37th, during the first Great War. They were in the center of the line in the Meuse Argonne offensive and then were pulled off and sent to Ypres for the final couple of weeks of the war. He was a crumpy old guy who didn't put up with dumb people's crap. And if his sister in law (grandma) didn't like him very much then he couldn't have been all that bad. I told myself when I grew up I would be just like him. Here I be.

I wonder if boiling water could break more carbon out of the bore...