"E" on receiver ring?......

[fguffey]

The Eddystone receivers where subject to cracking, when building the Remington and Winchester M1917 was/is the preferred receiver, when using the Eddystone it was any one's guess when using Roy Dunlap as a resource.

F. Guffey

[dave]

Eddystone was run/owned by Remington. It was not an independent maker. The name was Eddystone Rifle Plant, Pennsylvania, originally owned by Remington and later sold to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. Eddtstone made 1,181,908 rifles, more then half million more then the original Rem. plant or Win.

[dave]

If barrel were too tight then it would have to do with the mfg process and not a torque spec. I.e. the barrels are lined up to a witness mark, you meet the mark. If more torque used to get there than there should have been then something in the barrel machining or the receivers would have been out of spec. Same end result to break loose of course and as they cranked out many thousands a day as long as they lined up it might have been expedient to continue.
.[/QUOTE]

During manufacture process the barrels are not "lined up to a witness mark". That mark is applied after the barrel is fitted and headspaced, so if removed for some reason and reinstalled it goes back where it was when made. A new barrel would be torqued, head spaced and then marked to match the receiver mark. It also tells you the barrel has not been moved since properly fitted/headspaced.

[mhb]

During manufacture process the barrels are not "lined up to a witness mark". That mark is applied after the barrel is fitted and headspaced, so if removed for some reason and reinstalled it goes back where it was when made. A new barrel would be torqued, head spaced and then marked to match the receiver mark. It also tells you the barrel has not been moved since properly fitted/headspaced.[/QUOTE]

That is incorrect: new and replacement G.I. barrels for both M1903 and /A3 and M1917 rifles do, in fact, have a witness/draw mark on them as manufactured. The purpose was/is to insure that, when the barrel is drawn-up to align the witness marks on both barrel and receiver, the sights will be properly vertical and the extractor cut in the barrel shank will align with the receiver raceways and the extractor.

mhb - Mike

[RC20]

The Eddystone receivers where subject to cracking, when building the Remington and Winchester M1917 was/is the preferred receiver, when using the Eddystone it was any one's guess when using Roy Dunlap as a resource. F. Guffey

As Chuck in Denver has not weighed in I wil as I dislike spreading of rumors.

Some of you may not know Chuck and while I do not personally my brother has done business with him and I have followed his posts
He is a gun smith who specializes in work on Mil Surplus, 1917s included.

http://criterionbarrels.com/warpath_vintage_llc

He has never had an issue with an Eddystone 1917 as he uses the right tools. Wrong tools, bad results (with all guns). He has done a lot of them. I forget the numbers but its no small number.

It may be that due to the larger number of the Eddystones they got messed with by bubba more often and hence the reputation

I will take an active gun smith with his breadth of work over a "source" any day of the week.

[RC20]

Eddystone was run/owned by Remington. It was not an independent maker. The name was Eddystone Rifle Plant, Pennsylvania, originally owned by Remington and later sold to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co. Eddystone made 1,181,908 rifles, more then half million more then the original Rem. plant or Win.

I have looked at the Remington Eddystone relationship a great deal and still come up confused.

What I can say is that Baldwin Locomotive had a plant at Eddystone and built other non locomotive buildings, one of which was a Rifle plant, the other(s) for ammunition.

As near as I can reconstruct from Ferris and other writing said rifle plant was setup and equipped by Baldwin Locomotive (and I am guessing on WWI speculation and or in discussion with Remington) and then Remington formed a separate entity for the contracts to build the Pattern 14 and then the Model of 1917 in that plant. There seems to have been little if any direct Remington involvement and Eddystone was represented at the government meeting with their own representative.. Further there is zero evidence of any collaboration between the two plant, i.e. the rumored trading of parts.

My take is Remington knew they would not need that plant after WWI and did not want the capacity so it was a move of convenience, they had the British (initially) contracts and then maybe the US contract (depends on Midvale Date of buy)

Per Ferris, Midvale Steel then bought out the Remington of Delaware entity at a contradictory date, Jan of 1918 or April of 1917. I do not know which is correct but the following ref indicated it was even earlier in that Remington sold out its interest in Remington of Delaware in November of 1916.

http://www.remingtonsociety.com/rsa/journals/Eddystone

The Pattern 14s had their own designation for the plant, i.e. ERA.

Regardless I have yet to read anything that said Remington did anything more than sub contract to Eddystone the manufacture of rifles and that there is some contradiction in who setup the machinery as Ferris reports it was Baldwin and the Remington article seems to indicate Remington (both agree it was managed by Baldwin) and I tend to think it was Baldwin who did and set it all up as Remington was extremely busy re-doing their Ilion operation though that is speculation on my part.

It would appear to be a convenience for Remington to have taken the opportunity that and there are reports the British supplied the machinery though I am skeptical in that regard as they really had none as the Pattern 13 had never gone into production in quantity.

That Remington then sold out that interest (Remington of Delaware which was Eddystone) also indicates they were too busy to manage it.

Possible support for Baldwin doing the machinery is they managed it and I am not sure they could have if they had not been involved in the install and setup as they knew (at the time) anything about making rifles. Maybe good management and the use of experienced rifle plant managers (i.e. Col Thompsons involvement as well)

[tmark]

I don't know about the E on the receiver ring but I can sure say I know why a lot of my test papers in school came back with that E at the top!!!!!