What Military rifle was this 300 WIN MAG Sporter built from?

[tomtomz]

I have an idea what this was built from.

Take a guess and help me out in the identification of this fine 300 WIN MAG long shooter.

[AtlLaw]

When I looked at the results they were unanimous!     I says to myself "Self..." nobody had a doubt on that one!     Then I realised I was the only one who had voted...   
 
Sure would like to see a pic of the bottom metal.  All in all this is a strange job.  There's a lot of expensive work done here and there and some things you'd expect to be done haven't been!   

[mechanic]

Well, Richard I musta voted second and the same as you.  We gonna' either be 100%, or embarassed.
 
Ben

[jmayton]

I've added to the unanimity.  I like the bolt handle, but the ear removal is a bit odd.

[briarpatch]

I went different.

[Thebear_78]

Definately a p17 enfield

[AtlLaw]

I went different.

Well, ahem!  It's rather elementary my dear Briarpatch... 
 
Actually, every rifle on the list is a 98 Mauser derivative so we have to make some assumptions here.
 
M-98: This is a generic term but since there are 2 other M-98's listed, 2 others that were known favorites for custom rifles in the 60's, we must assume this category covers all other military 98's that were imported during that time frame.  Eliminate them; no thumb cut out in the side rail.  No need to look further...
 
Argie:  We must assume he is referring to the M-1909 Argie.  Probably one of the best, most sought after 98's...  Nope.  Still a military Mauser.  No thumb cut.  Also the 09 had great, and distinctive, bottom metal.
 
FN:  We gotta assume the OP means the commercial FN since the basic M-98 would be covered above and, like the commercial FN, this action doesn't have the thumb cut out.  But there is a myriad of little details that just ain't right.  The rear bridge being the one that jumps out at ya!  All in all this is a large, overbuilt action and the FN was positively svelte compared to it!
 
Notice I didn't even mention the bolt or safety!   
 
Remington:  But speaking of bolts and safeties, of course the Remington style bolt shroud jumps right out at you.  For this and other reasons, like the safety, is why this choice is the only viable alternative to the M1917.  Especially since you will remember that Remington's first entry into the bolt action rifle world, the Model 30, was nothing more then a (very) slightly modified 1917 action.
 
Matter of fact, about the only difference, besides the bottom metal, which is why I wanted a picture of it, is in the area of where the rear sight "ears" used to be.  Without going into long, tedious detail, suffice it to say there are enough indications that this is a modified military action (M-1917) rather then one produced, albeit by the same manufacturer (Remington), for the commercial market (M-30).
 
Don't try to argue, I am... as always... right!   
 
 

[Mikey]

M1917.

[tomtomz]

Some good guesses. I've been told that this is a 1914 Enfield updated and built by
Remington as the M1917 which the USA produced to arm soldiers
for WWI.

The action is longer than my Large ring Mausers, which makes it ideal
for conversion to 300 WIN MAG. It has a 26" custom barrel, medium heavy profile.

The bolt is huge. The safety is strange to me, and may be aftermarket.

With that nice 4-16x56 optic, it is a real nice shooter weighing in at 9.5 lbs.
It is not a bruiser  as some predicted it to be, though the muzzle flash
is very visible in the scope.

[tomtomz]

Above the S/N it is stamped RE which I can't decide if it means REmington made
or Royal Enfield.

Bottom metal looks like a 98 Mauser, except that the trigger plate screws are 8"
center to center.

[jmayton]

tomtomz, here's mine:




Notice the different bolt handle (mine's original) and the different ear removal.  Mine's now a 338-06 and has become a great shooter.  Many of these actions were sporterized and sold commercially.  They were originally 30-06 and were built to supplement '03 Springfields on the battlefield.  It's an Enfield because of design, but were manufactured by Reminton, Winchester, and at least one other I can't remember.  I've also read that this is actually the rifle that Sgt. York used (rather than the Springfield).  AtLaw will correct any errors in my assessment here.

[AtlLaw]

WELL!!!  I don't have to stand by and be insulted!!      You lucky I be eat up with the Christmas Spirit or you'd be in a heap a trouble boy!    Now listen reeeeeal close, hear!?
 

Some good guesses.

I don't guess... 
 

I've been told...

My Daddy always said believe nothing you hear and half what you see.  Seems like you put a lot of stock in what you were "told."
 

that this is a 1914 Enfield...

There is no such thing as a 1914 Enfield.  It is the British P (for Pattern)-14.  Similarly there is no such thing as a P-17...
 

updated...

Only if you consider the modifications required to enable the rifle to fire a rimless cartridge an "update."
 

built by Remington

and Winchester and Eddystone...  Someone else can fill you in as to the relationship between Remington and Eddystone.
 

as the M1917

even a blind pig finds an acorn once't in a while...
 

which the USA produced to arm soldiers for WWI.

No, we already said they were produced by Rem., Win. and Eddystone.  None were made at the US arsenals as they were involved in producing the M1903 Springfield.

The action is longer than my Large ring Mausers,

Another acorn!  Probably because you made this observation yourself rather then being "told!"
 

which makes it ideal for conversion to 300 WIN MAG.

Actually the 300WM was designed to function through a standard length action, like the M-98.  The longer M1917 action is suitable for H&H Magnums.

The safety is strange to me, and may be aftermarket.

I won't even begin to address this!      Okay... "may be aftermarket" is WRONG!
 
No no, don't thank me... I feel it's my duty to eliminate all the misconceptions in the world!      And I didn't even charge you!   
 
You can tell it's near Christmas!  Everybody lettin me pontificate away! 

[jmayton]

Eddystone.  Thanks.  Just couldn't remember the other manufacturer. 

[briarpatch]

I bow to you Richard and crawl away with tail between legs. If you was a woma...... no lets not go there......   
<=====  Somewhere washing mouth with gasoline and squirting alcohol in eyes.

[AtlLaw]

 

[Cottage Hill Bill]

What are the markings on the receiver ring? It is an M1917. there is no such thing as Royal Enfield. The British arsenal was the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF). All of the Pattern 1914 rifles were made in the US at Reminton's Illion factory, Remington's Eddystone factory and Winchester.  From what I can see yours is from the Ilion factory, but better pics of the receiver ring markings would confirm.

[1911crazy]

I guess'd the P17 mainly because i'm not familiar with the receiver and thats the one in the list i have no info on.  I handled one once but never bought them.  An older collector was turning his p14 / p17's in.  I went for the svt-40 for $300, the fn49 luxenborg '06 for $399 and the fn49 egy 8mm for $270 at the time.  I should of grabbed the bolt actions too.  Stupid me.
I been out of the loop for too long.

[tomtomz]

What are the markings on the receiver ring?

There is a marking "RE" just above the serial number.

[Darreld Walton]

Can't make out exactly what is roll stamped onto the forward receiver ring in the photos provided.  I have to mention, though, that more than a small number of Pattern 14's have been converted to cartridges with the H&H 'magnum' dimensions, as there are no bolt modifications needed because the bolt is set up to function with the larger .303 Brit rim.  Magazine mods are about the same as for the 17, very little fiddling with the rails to get the rounds to feed, and depending on how the mag is modified, it can store five 'magnum' cartridges with no problem.
When I have them modified, I have the rear bridge cut so that the front and rear receiver rings match the same profile as a 700 Remington.  Using two piece bases, and a fairly long bodied scope, it works out great. 
Other things I like to do to these is to remove the pad that sits under the flat spring on the bolt stop, cut the spring, and add a piece of material to give some tension again, and also pull the flat spring ejector out, and replace it with one with a coil.
I leave the safety alone on these, and although they look odd, they function great.  As to the bolt handle, I cut the ball off the end, heat and forge the bolt handle 'straight' from the first bend out.  That gives it a fair sweep, then I taper the end, so that I can push the ball all the way onto the taper, and weld it back on.  Gives just about a perfect length, plenty of clearance for a low mounted scope, and I've yet to get dinged by the bolt handles from recoil.
Also, after I've removed the spring pad from the bolt stop, I recontour that portion of the rear bridge to remove the hole that the pad uses to anchor, give it a nice contour, and quit fiddling with things after that.
One rifle that I did, I installed a side safety Timney trigger for an 03 Springfield on it, but then, after it was on, remembered that the stud on the front of the sear on the original trigger engages a slot in the bolt to keep the bolt from rotating out of battery when you fire the piece........
Whatever mods you make to one of these, it still ends up being a beast of a rifle, and you might as well go for .338 Winchester or larger.  On a 17, I like to turn 'em into .35 Whelens.

[S.S.]

British P14 or the later American Version. 99% sure.
Would have been a pretty valuable piece if left original.