doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Springfield receiver on Gunbroker.

Vall, about 20 years ago, I worked for a firm that made custom bullets for African-type rifles. We used an Eddystone P-14 fitted with a 50BMG barrel cut off at the breech and rechambered for .510 Wells as a test rifle. The rifle had an issue P-14 stock minus the military hardware and fitted with a thick recoil pad. The Wells cartridge is a blown-out 460 Weatherby. I shot it many hundreds of times at velocities in the 2200-2450 fps range doing quality control work. The loads burned about 100 grains of 4350. Never any problems and it was quite accurate with the issue rear sight and a front post mounted on a ramp. IIRC, barrel length was about 45 inches.

At the same time, we used a Cogswell & Harrison Magnum Mauser in .404 Jeffery as another test rifle. With heavy loads, the stock came completely apart at the pistol grip. Receiver struck me on the right cheek and ear as the front part of the rifle whizzed over my shoulder. Left me with bruises but that's all. But for my grip on the forend with my left hand, my injuries might have been worse. That was a failure of the wood in the stock, not of the action.

I saw the Eddystones with the oddly shaped receivers about the same time. They had a low spot on the left wall just behind the receiver ring. Each low spot was slightly different in shape. A low spot in that location had nothing to do with clip loading. I think it was poor quality control.

As we have moved on to the P17 another issue with them is receiver ring cracks. One cause may have been too hard of an action and a tight barrel. I have seen a few over the years and most of them were in the as issued state. de Haas points out that all makes can have the cracks and says it mostly happens when re barreling as many of the barrels ave very tight. He also feels it may be to bad heat treating of the receiver.

Also, when the US made over the P14 they went with the cone breach rather than the P14's flat barrel face. I have not seen any cracked P14's but also have not worked on or seen as many in general.
Cheers,
Laurie

I still have five low-numbered 1903’s actions that I could experiment with this summer. I just don’t know what if anything I can do with them that would be new or useful information. The “soft case is a danger” was also addressed by A.L. Woodworth and found not true. It’s easy to blow-up any rifle and that’s not what I’m trying to do. Any new ideas that you would like to see carried out?

fallingblock said "Also, when the US made over the P14 they went with the cone breach rather than the P14's flat barrel face."

I had my high number ‘03 barreled a couple years ago to 35 Whelan and during the process I asked my 'smith if it would be feasible to fit the barrel with a fat face instead of the conventional "cone". He indicated that he would not do it because it would not be as strong. I always assumed the "cone” configuration was to aid in feeding and it would actually support the case better if it was faced off like a Mauser. Was there something I was not considering by considering a flat face installation? Terry H.

Well I don't know anything about blowing up guns of any variety, but I do know the US Enfields have probably been used in more extremely powerful calibers than most milsurp guns, with huge success. Never seen or heard of one blowing up without someone messing up, or trying to blow it up.

I think (cannot find my copy) that in Dunlap's "Gunsmithing" from about 1950 there is a description of squaring off the breech of 1903s and M70s.

The squared-off breech face is a relatively uncommon alteration but is eminently feasible and actually IMO can be A LOT safer than a cone breech done by an amateur or careless workman. There are several areas that invite a mistake by the unwary, specifically the measurement of the cone depth and the cutting of the extractor notch. The flat face is also a lot less work and IMO makes the action somewhat safer as well if gas release occurs, due to the right-angle turns as opposed to the angled ones of the cone.
Regards, Joe

I happen to know that JD has a very nice LN '03 that has cracked just behind the bolt stop (seems a previous owner had read about the hammer test for Low Number actions). Everything else about the action looks almost new. It would make an excellent candidate for Mr Petrov's study. Perhaps a trade would be worthwhile?

Jerry Liles

email sent, Joe

In the May-June issue (#99) of the Rifle Magazine, there are 2 articles about a man destroying several springfield actions and an M1917 Enfield by tapping on them with a small wrench, a small plastic hammer, and a 10 inch screwdriver. A high number action (808,792) was also accidently mixed into the bunch. It shattered just like the low number actions. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

I bought my first '03 when I was 12 years old, since it was 5 dollars cheaper to buy a low number rather than a hi number I bought the lo number. (besides then I didn't know the difference.) I sold it several years later after putting a couple thousand rounds through it, mostly lighter reloads. Headspace was at maximum (I don't know what it was when I got it.) The '03 is my favorite action to use for bolt actions and has served me well.

I wish some one using modern technology could test some of the old receivers and the newer ones. I don't wonder too much about the nickel steel versions, they were always hard to drill and tap.

Also included in the article was pictures of one of the so called STRONG m1917 Enfields.

Also some information on Sledgely springfield built rifles. Interesting reading, even scarey. Am I going to quite using '03's, NOPE. They are just nice even if they are old-fashioned. Bill