Keyhole cause(s)

[Merc]

I'd say your friend got away pretty cheap if that's all he spent although a gunsmith charging a client for broken tools is unusual.

Over-torqued barrels did happen occasionally at Eddystone and some barrel removals resulted in cracked receivers. I don't know if the problem of over-torquing barrels happened at Winchester and Remington but it's possible.

You'd think pitting that's bad enough to cause keyholing would be visible with a bore light.

Update: According to C.S. Ferris' book "United States Rifle Model of 1917" (page 167), the problem of cracked receivers occurred only on Eddystones when being re-barreled. Ferris said over-torqued barrels due to improperly placed index marks were probably at fault.

Merc

[Hecklerusp45]

Let us know how she shoots with the new barrel.

[John Sukey]

Eddystne barrels were installed using a pnuematic wrench rather than a hand operated barrel wrench

[Merc]

Eddystne barrels were installed using a pnuematic wrench rather than a hand operated barrel wrench

The gospel truth according to the Internet: The torque wrench was invented in 1918 so you figure the first working torque wrench probably hit the market by 1919 or 1920 which was much too late for the Eddystone assembly line. The pneumatic torque wrench was invented in Germany in 1980. (Look it up.)

So, measuring the right amount of barrel-receiver torque during the few years that the M1917s were being built was a SWAG. You can understand how the E barrels got over-torqued if indeed they used a pneumatic wrench.

The E receivers have held up well without cracking throughout the war, in the hands of shooters like us and sitting around for 90 plus years, at least until someone tries to unscrew the barrel.

Merc

[PhillipM]

The gospel truth according to the Internet: The torque wrench was invented in 1918 so you figure the first working torque wrench probably hit the market by 1919 or 1920 which was much too late for the Eddystone assembly line. The pneumatic torque wrench was invented in Germany in 1980. (Look it up.)

So, measuring the right amount of barrel-receiver torque during the few years that the M1917s were being built was a SWAG. You can understand how the E barrels got over-torqued if indeed they used a pneumatic wrench.

The E receivers have held up well without cracking throughout the war, in the hands of shooters like us and sitting around for 90 plus years, at least until someone tries to unscrew the barrel.

Merc

I never have understood how a barrel that is tightened to an index mark could be over torqued, be it machine or otherwise.

[steved66]

Too many guys give up on a "poor" shooter that keyholes the target at 25-50yds, and take the easy way out and rebarrel the rifle. You end up with a big bill and a rifle that is no longer an original piece of WWI history. I had the same problem with my Eddystone. Couldn't hit the 2' x 3' target frame at 50yds with M2 ball ammo. Military tolerances on barrel specs are a bit looser than a civilian gun, ensuring the rifle will fire in less than ideal conditions (dirty bore, dirty rounds put into the chamber, etc). Couple that with pitting throughout its length, a high velocity, FMJ M2 ball round (.308) will rip right through a .310 bore without engaging the rifling. The result will be the knuckle ball / keyhole round. The cure: mic the bore to get its true diameter then make up some low velocity rounds pushing an oversized lead bullet (ex. a .311 bullet for a .310 bore). Another load that worked for me uses a .303 British Spitzer bullet (.312). I get tight groups at 50 yds with both the low velocity/lead bullet load and the 303 British Spitzer bullet. I'm not saying I'd win a military bolt action rifle match, but shooting tight groups at 50yds and ringing the gong at 100yds with a rifle that retains it's original 1918 barrel - albeit putted from breech to muzzle - is much more rewarding to me than hitting consistent 10x bulls-eye with a new Criterion barrel and $300 less in my pocket.

[PhillipM]

Military tolerances on barrel specs are a bit looser than a civilian gun

I'd love to see documentation about wartime loose tolerances be it Jeep motors or rifles. I've never seen any.

[Merc]

I never have understood how a barrel that is tightened to an index mark could be over torqued, be it machine or otherwise.

C.S. Ferris' book "United States Rifle Model of 1917" mentions the problem of over-torqued Eddystone barrels on page #167 and says improperly placed index marks were probably at fault.

Merc

[Sunray]

Same thing that causes key holing with any rifle or firearm. Undersized bullets, oversized barrel and, sometimes, excessively low velocity. Pitting itself doesn't, usually. Some pitted barrels shoot just fine. Mind you, really bad pitting means the barrel is oversized from rust.
Like Merc says, charging a client for broken tools is unusual. Also an indication of a lack of skill.

[steved66]

I'd love to see documentation about wartime loose tolerances be it Jeep motors or rifles. I've never seen any.

Bolt Action Rifles by Frank De Haas, p. 104 (about the British Enfield)
"Manufacturing tolerances for both rifles and ammunition were generous during the war, which in no way affected the rifle for military use."

The Springfield 1903 Rifles: The Illustrated, Documented Story... by William S. Brophy, p. 175 (about the development of the M1903-A3)
"Common in instances where it is necessary to fabricate parts of working mechanisms to close tolerances, both facilities mentioned found it difficult in certain instances to manufacture the finished components to the required dimensions shown on the revised drawings.....Resulting from this condition, a number of requests for liberalization of tolerances, originating with the reference facilities, were forwarded to the Office, Chief of Ordinance for approval."

The M1 Garand: World War II, by Scott A. Duff, p. 101 (regarding the development of the M1C sniper rifle)
"It was also discovered that the tolerances permitted by the engineering drawings were impacting the overall accuracy of the piece."

Not wanting to give up on my keyholing M1917 Eddystone, I spent hours searching the Net on how to gain accuracy from the M1917. I found many posts from guys who slugged their bores and found diameters ranging from .308 to .310. I found the same comments about bore diameter variance when researching the best handloads for the 30-40 Krag, which sometimes mic'd as large as .312. In the end, we're talking about 97-98 year old rifles that have had countless rounds run through bores that range from mint to sewerpipe; so, one guy's M1917 will put M2 Ball ammo into the 10-ring at 100 yds and another guy's will keyhole at 50 yds. With some persistence and a good reloading outfit, chances are if you try the right variables you can find a load that will hit the mark, saving you money on a new barrel and keeping whole a piece of US military history.