Rebarreling a US-1917 Remington 30-06 IMP to .338 LaPua Mag

Basque1

Basque 1
Minuteman
Dec 7, 2020
18
7
Rockland County NY
Gents:
I have a US-1917 Remington which I would like to re-barrel to to .338 LaPua Magnum, can this be done safely I am aware of the action modifications, the questions is, is it safe? I am fully aware of the all the modifications needed for the action, do not want a detachable mag maybe a 3 rd capacity 1 in chamber to make it 4.
I rebarelled a CZ- 375 H&H to a 416 Rigby and it was a great shooter.
I know these US-17 actions have been used for numerous heavy hitters , I have one in pristine condition as a 30-06 Imp that I want to use for this conversion vs buying another rifle to cannibalize the action. Any suggestions?

Tks
Basque 1
 
Bolt face is the wrong size, and I do not think you have enough meat there to take the 338 bolt face. 338 ultra mag or similar magnum bolt face would be a better pick.
the other issue will be cartridge OAL, but I am guessing this will be a single feed rifle anyhow?
 
Bolt face is the wrong size, and I do not think you have enough meat there to take the 338 bolt face. 338 ultra mag or similar magnum bolt face would be a better pick.
the other issue will be cartridge OAL, but I am guessing this will be a single feed rifle anyhow?
Ok I will have to consider that as a problem problem... Well single feed from its own magazine or do you mean single shot ?
Tks
 
On the same subject 416 Rigby rifles were built on Enfield P-17 and the BRNO actions instead of the Magnum Mauser action. Both the BRNO and the Enfield P-17 actions are in turn based on the Mauser 98 rifle. The .338 LaPua Mag is a necked down 416 Rigby cartrige.
 
No such thing as an "Enfield P-17". There's a Pattern 14 Enfield in 303 we built for the brits, and a US Model of 1917 we built for ourselves in 30-06.

Yes you could do it, as an exercise in novelty perhaps, but beyond that the build would be ill advised in 2020 with all the other much better options available to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTH1800
Wrong. The truth is that our main battle rifle in the War to End All Wars was a long, heavy, unglamorous piece of machinery that was actually designed by the British—the U.S. Model 1917 Rifle, more commonly called the P-17 Enfield.

I wouldn't go larger than the 06 as a lot of P-17's had questionable heat treating.....


It used to look like this:
i-2ZdW3LF-XL.jpg


And mine looks like this now in 30-06.
i-XXsWVFw-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Basque1
Love these rifles US-17, you can run a D-10 Caterpillar over them and they will still work. That been said, I fully understand that there are new technology actions now that can fulfill this bill without any problems.

I do not like the Remington 700 long action and the push feeding, I am more comfortable with CFR actions i.e. the Mausers and the Pre 64 Winchester actions. Not fond of Ruger's casting and then machining the cast.

I spoke to McGowen Rifle Barrels, who have done extensive work for me in the past and they seem to be comfortable with the project and I am sure they are not going to put themselves on a limb. I want that action magnafluxed before the job is done and then if done I want them to test fire them before I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomrider
NO, you are wrong, as is everyone else that inappropriately mixes the labels of the two rifles. Regardless of who designed it, the Brits called the rifle in 303 one thing consistent with their naming conventions and the yanks called the 30-06 one consistent with the naming conventions of US rifles.

The names, bolt faces, magazine followers, stripper guide, and stripper clips are different, one to accommodate rimmed 303 British cases and the other to accommodate rimless 30-06 cases.

I've got one of each, side by side, and have competed in vintage matches with them. P-17 is mixing of the two countries' terms; Using the term Enfield associated with the 30-06 rifle is incorrect, as that's the Limey term. Calling them an Eddystone is incorrect. Yes that factory in PA made some of the rifles, but that name is not part of either country's naming conventions.
 
I have a gorgeous Neidner in 30-06 still with the dog leg bolt handle (which I love) and a heavy bull barrel--a real tack driver. I also have this other Remington US-17 Action on 30-06 Imp that I want to convert to .338 La Pua Mag. not counting tw other action that I built one Winchester and one Eddystone. They are fantastic actions. Today's technology might be great but these actions were memorable and still are.
 
Out of interest before I ramble, is it still an original cock on close? Most that have been sporterised are cock on open in the modern fashion. Also, how are the lugs and locking surfaces? I would thoroughly check it prior to jumping to such a large magnum. Perhaps a rechambering to 300PRC? Lapua brass for the PRC and no belt is a bonus.

Out of the M17’s; The Eddystone is rumoured to sometimes be inconsistent in their heat treatment - usually discovered upon attempting to unthread the original barrel. Apparently this may also not be a heat treatment issue, but due to the torque applied when the rifles were made. If the barrel is not relieved prior to unthreading the action will crack.

Winchesters are the most desirable as they do not have the voids found under the rear sight ears once milled off, they also made less.

A Remington will be fine, particularly if it’s already been desecrated by being sporterised.

And as for P14’s, their bolt face is already quite similar in size to a standard magnum bolt face, but would still require fettling of the feed ramp etc.

As has already been covered off, it should be fine to be modified into a 338LM if it is properly inspected for setback etc. But, unless you’re attached to the rifle (which is understandable), I would look at something more suited as it’s going to cost a reasonable amount to modify it to feed the 338LM reliably.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Basque1
From Field & Stream:

The P-17 Enfield
By David E. Petzal
March 2, 2015

As we all know, the Doughboys of World War I made the Kaiser dance with that quintessentially American bolt-action, the Model 1903 Springfield. This included Sergeant Alvin York, who won his Medal of Honor with an ’03 and a Model 1911 Colt. Right?

Wrong. The truth is that our main battle rifle in the War to End All Wars was a long, heavy, unglamorous piece of machinery that was actually designed by the British—the U.S. Model 1917 Rifle, more commonly called the P-17 Enfield.

In 1910, as a result of having the hell shot out of their troops by the Boers, who were armed with Mausers, the British redesigned their Short Magazine Lee Enfield, which was chambered for the old, slow, .303 cartridge. The new rifle was called the P14, and it was chambered for a radical new .276 cartridge with nearly 300 fps more velocity. It was a longer, heavier rifle than the SMLE, but it had a superior aperture sight, protected by two “ears” on the receiver, fewer parts, and easier disassembly.

But then in 1914 came World War I, which everyone assumed would be over in a few months at most, at which time all concerned could go home for tea and medals. When the initial slaughters were over, the British realized that: a) they would have to raise a huge standing army and b) they did not have nearly enough rifles to equip their soldiers. So they retained the .303 SMLE as their main rifle and contracted with American manufacturers to turn out P14s in the meantime. But as it turned out, Britain produced enough SMLEs so its troops could die in the tens of thousands suitably armed, and cancelled the American contracts for the P14.

Then, in 1917, came our turn, and as the world has learned, when it comes to unpreparedness in getting into a war, no one does it like the good old USA. We didn’t have enough troops, or uniforms, or campaign hats, or gas masks, or rifles. Especially rifles. Only the Springfield and Rock Island Arsenals were producing ‘03s, and they could not possibly turn them out in time to arm the 4 million men who were being called up.

And then someone remembered that we had factories already tooled up to produce P-14s. They weren’t chambered for the .30/06, but that was easy to fix, and by the time the war ended, we were cranking out 10,000 P-17 Enfields a day.

And they were good military rifles—very robust and very accurate. Their main drawbacks were weight—9.3 pounds unloaded, 11.1 pounds with sling, bayonet, and oiler—and length. The barrel was 26 inches long, total length, 3 feet, 10.25 inches, and when you fixed the Model 1917 bayonet with its 16-inch blade, the thing was almost useless in the confines of a trench.
 
Out of interest before I ramble, is it still an original cock on close? Most that have been sporterised are cock on open in the modern fashion. Also, how are the lugs and locking surfaces? I would thoroughly check it prior to jumping to such a large magnum. Perhaps a rechambering to 300PRC? Lapua brass for the PRC and no belt is a bonus.

Out of the M17’s; The Eddystone is rumoured to sometimes be inconsistent in their heat treatment - usually discovered upon attempting to unthread the original barrel. Apparently this may also not be a heat treatment issue, but due to the torque applied when the rifles were made. If the barrel is not relieved prior to unthreading the action will crack.

Winchesters are the most desirable as they do not have the voids found under the rear sight ears once milled off, they also made less.

A Remington will be fine, particularly if it’s already been desecrated by being sporterised.

And as for P14’s, their bolt face is already quite similar in size to a standard magnum bolt face, but would still require fettling of the feed ramp etc.

As has already been covered off, it should be fine to be modified into a 338LM if it is properly inspected for setback etc. But, unless you’re attached to the rifle (which is understandable), I would look at something more suited as it’s going to cost a reasonable amount to modify it to feed the 338LM reliably.
Thanks so much for the extensive and accurate reply. I agree wholeheartedly that Eddystone would be out of the question. This is a cock on close action, it is a Rem, however, the ears have been radiused out. I am not emotionally attached to this rifle and I am willing to part with the 30-06 Imp and upgrade to .338 La Púa Mag. Definitely I want to have it magnafluxed and properly vetted before embarking on this. Will keep you all posted as to the outcome. Thanks all.
 
Considering A square used that action for the .577 TRex I’d safe your safe with a 338 lapua. With all the options out there now on 338s I’m not sure why you would go through the trouble but to each their own!

Let’s see pictures when finished! Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basque1
Thanks so much for the extensive and accurate reply. I agree wholeheartedly that Eddystone would be out of the question. This is a cock on close action, it is a Rem, however, the ears have been radiused out. I am not emotionally attached to this rifle and I am willing to part with the 30-06 Imp and upgrade to .338 La Púa Mag. Definitely I want to have it magnafluxed and properly vetted before embarking on this. Will keep you all posted as to the outcome. Thanks all.

No worries, I’m a big fan of the rifle. Would love to see the end result of your project!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basque1
IIRC Art Alpin of A-Squared hogged out 1917s to take huge magnum cartridges like the .577 Tyrannosaur. My opinion is that I would go with modern steel instead of a century old relic.