Help identifying this BSA 30-06 rifle

Your rifle started life as a WWI P17 (Model of 1917) made in USA - either by Remington, Eddystone or Winchester factories. BSA bought gazillion of them when they were surplused - ran through their heat treat ovens to anneal the receivers - milled off the rear sight ears - drilled and tapped for scope bases and aperture sight, installed their round plug into the "duck pond" and stamped their trademark there. Yours is the first that I have seen with three scope base holes on rear bridge - somebody added one?? I have at least a couple of those BSA conversions here - as previously posted on CGN by others, much of the "hard work" to convert them to a hunting rifle is already done. I read somewhere that BSA re-heat treated the receivers after they were finished the modifications - so the receiver would have 1950's heat treat - not from 19-teens. I would think for an elder one like that, the bore condition is really important about value or what to do with it. There were at least three contractors during WWII rebuilds of those rifle - High Standard (HS), Johnson Automatic (JA) and one other - that made replacement barrels - many of those "new made" barrels were surplused after WWII - will screw on exactly to that receiver, if the existing bore is toast.

Of the ones here. BSA did a thorough job to polish off the original maker's marks from the receiver - they stamped on their own serial number to the receiver and to the bolt. The various small parts like safety lever, trigger, cocking piece, etc. might still have the original makers marks, but more than likely, they are all mixed up in the same rifle. Was a thing in those USA WWI rifles - virtually every part except coil springs and screws will likely have a "eagle head" (military inspector acceptance mark) and a letter - "E", "W", or "R" to show which factory (or sub-contractor) made the part.

A Enfield P17 - as per USA Instructions from WWI - was designed as a "controlled round feed" rifle - but was also made with ability to "single feed" - so is reasonably desirable by many for conversion to hunting rifles. It is a "#### on close" rifle, though - some feel that is correct - some feel that is "wrong". My Dad carried a P17 since he "farmer sporterized" his, in 1948.

Thinking - that third hole on receiver bridge - might be that funky BA thread hole that accepted the screw that held the flat spring for the rear sight assembly - the scope base holes added by BSA would be the front and rear ones. I think Parker Hale was a common scope base and ring maker that had been used in those days on those rifles.

That I know of, BSA sold their P17 conversions in at least five "grades" - "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E" - not sure that I have ever seen a listing of what, exactly, was different, one grade to another. They also made some with "new" barrels - is one here - either a "D" or an "E" grade - chambered in 270 Win.
 
Last edited:
Hi 91_Civic -

Potashminer gives a very good description of the origin of these BSA rifles. BSA did an excellent job of sporterizing these rifles.

I have owned 6 of these between the P14 303 Brit versions and the M1917 30-06 based versions.

They are probably one of the most robust, stout, and bulletproof actions ever made. All that I have owned shoot extremely well. In the book 'Bolt Action Rifles' by Frank de Haas and Wayne Zwoll, they mention that they are made with 3 1/2% Ni steel forgings. The receivers tend to go purple with age, they look pretty cool. These actions have been converted to shoot heavy magnum cartridges with no issues.

If there is a weak point, it's the bolt stop/ejector spring, which is a steel wishbone type spring. These can break with age. Marstar used to have them in stock, not sure if they still do. I've seen several with small ballpoint pen springs stuffed behind the ejector blade to maintain pressure.

IMHO, they are grossly undervalued, even in today's ridiculous gun market prices. They are a bit heavy and clunky, but almost unbreakable. Great engineering and construction.

Cheers
 
Hi 91_Civic -

Potashminer gives a very good description of the origin of these BSA rifles. BSA did an excellent job of sporterizing these rifles.

I have owned 6 of these between the P14 303 Brit versions and the M1917 30-06 based versions.

They are probably one of the most robust, stout, and bulletproof actions ever made. All that I have owned shoot extremely well. In the book 'Bolt Action Rifles' by Frank de Haas and Wayne Zwoll, they mention that they are made with 3 1/2% Ni steel forgings. The receivers tend to go purple with age, they look pretty cool. These actions have been converted to shoot heavy magnum cartridges with no issues.

If there is a weak point, it's the bolt stop/ejector spring, which is a steel wishbone type spring. These can break with age. Marstar used to have them in stock, not sure if they still do. I've seen several with small ballpoint pen springs stuffed behind the ejector blade to maintain pressure.

IMHO, they are grossly undervalued, even in today's ridiculous gun market prices. They are a bit heavy and clunky, but almost unbreakable. Great engineering and construction.

Cheers

"Weak point" - for sure - picture below:

B5F14AD5-B7BB-46AA-AC91-103673BA779E.jpg

Can see on left is serviceable ejector for 303 British P14, then serviceable ejector for 30-06 P17 - then four for the P17 with the spring broken off - as removed from various rifles that I bought. On right is a type that used to be made and sold by Numrich - is a wider body than the originals - has two saw cuts to hold the coil spring in place. A real curiosity for an otherwise very well designed battle rifle - I suspect that tiny leaf spring breaks off after a few shots / cycles of the bolt, or else lasts for years??

In my limited experience with them. If that spring breaks off - does not "tie up" the rifle - it still feeds, chambers, fires and extracts just fine - might need to roll the rifle to the right to get the fired case to fall out of the receiver - versus the fairly enthusiastic "ejection" that normally occurs when working the bolt hard.
 

Attachments

  • B5F14AD5-B7BB-46AA-AC91-103673BA779E.jpg
    B5F14AD5-B7BB-46AA-AC91-103673BA779E.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 372
Last edited:
IMHO, they are over valued, heavy and clunky. Post 3 is chock full of good info.

That's the great thing about Gunnutz, plenty of different perspectives!

I guess I was comparing these P14/M1917 actions to others of similar vintage. For instance, what a plain round-receiver Mosin Nagant sells for these days as compared to a nicely sporterized BSA P14 or M1917 which is easy to scope and feeds, fires, extracts, and ejects well, and is normally very accurate. Most sell in the $200 to $400 range.

Best not to name any other similar era rifles, that only tends to get fans riled up!

Cheers Gents
 
There are better options for hunting rifles, but as a military bolt action rifle they are as close to perfect as you can get.

They have the very strong Mauser action combined with the long radius Enfield peep sights.

These rifles are totally underrated!
 
Last edited:
guntech, as much as I respect your "opinion" (I have a similar opinion about Savage bolt actions) I don't agree with it.

Remington made a modified version of that action, the Model 30 "Express" Remington

Neither of these models were manufactured in large numbers. Likely for the reasons you state but they were also very expensive when compared to Winchesters, Savage, surplus firearms etc.

When they're done well, they can be and are veritable dreams to carry in the field. They balance between your hands when shooting offhand or prone and make for a very stable platform.

I like them and regret selling my Model 30 Express chambered for 30-06

They have a very good safety as well, again IMHO
 
Last edited:
Some of the .303 ones, retailed thru Parker-Hale.

ECGaIJ.jpg
 
Mk VII - as per those pictures in Post #12, this P17 conversion with 270 Win barrel would have been a Model "D" - although someone replaced the "fish eye" sling swivels with some "Uncle Mike's" type Quick Release ones. FYI - this BSA 270 Win barrel has a boss on it - what the rear sight is sitting on - similar to some of the pre-64 Win Model 70 rifles. Unlike the made-in-1955 Model 70 that is here, there is no evidence of a screw coming up through that BSA stock, into the bottom of that barrel "boss".
 
Your rifle started life as a WWI P17 (Model of 1917) made in USA - either by Remington, Eddystone or Winchester factories. BSA bought gazillion of them when they were surplused - ran through their heat treat ovens to anneal the receivers - milled off the rear sight ears - drilled and tapped for scope bases and aperture sight, installed their round plug into the "duck pond" and stamped their trademark there. Yours is the first that I have seen with three scope base holes on rear bridge - somebody added one?? I have at least a couple of those BSA conversions here - as previously posted on CGN by others, much of the "hard work" to convert them to a hunting rifle is already done. I read somewhere that BSA re-heat treated the receivers after they were finished the modifications - so the receiver would have 1950's heat treat - not from 19-teens. I would think for an elder one like that, the bore condition is really important about value or what to do with it. There were at least three contractors during WWII rebuilds of those rifle - High Standard (HS), Johnson Automatic (JA) and one other - that made replacement barrels - many of those "new made" barrels were surplused after WWII - will screw on exactly to that receiver, if the existing bore is toast.

Of the ones here. BSA did a thorough job to polish off the original maker's marks from the receiver - they stamped on their own serial number to the receiver and to the bolt. The various small parts like safety lever, trigger, cocking piece, etc. might still have the original makers marks, but more than likely, they are all mixed up in the same rifle. Was a thing in those USA WWI rifles - virtually every part except coil springs and screws will likely have a "eagle head" (military inspector acceptance mark) and a letter - "E", "W", or "R" to show which factory (or sub-contractor) made the part.

A Enfield P17 - as per USA Instructions from WWI - was designed as a "controlled round feed" rifle - but was also made with ability to "single feed" - so is reasonably desirable by many for conversion to hunting rifles. It is a "#### on close" rifle, though - some feel that is correct - some feel that is "wrong". My Dad carried a P17 since he "farmer sporterized" his, in 1948.

Thinking - that third hole on receiver bridge - might be that funky BA thread hole that accepted the screw that held the flat spring for the rear sight assembly - the scope base holes added by BSA would be the front and rear ones. I think Parker Hale was a common scope base and ring maker that had been used in those days on those rifles.

That I know of, BSA sold their P17 conversions in at least five "grades" - "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E" - not sure that I have ever seen a listing of what, exactly, was different, one grade to another. They also made some with "new" barrels - is one here - either a "D" or an "E" grade - chambered in 270 Win.

Mine has 3 holes front and rear. Rearmost one and center front one looks to have been drilled later though.

Any idea what type of bases would work with these things? I've searched quite a bit but haven't found any definitive answers.
 
Page 119 of Parker Hale Gun Catalogue No. 68 (1968?) - says for BSA Models B,C,D,E - uses base block BA3 on rear and BA3 on front. Uses Low rings. Front to rear holes on BA3 base are about 0.875", from measuring them here. I believe Weaver made various bases with that hole spacing, but not sure about the height needed for those.

EDIT - what is printed in that catalogue can not be correct - the rear bridge is lower than the front receiver ring - so can not use the same base? Else would need substantial shim under the rear base? Even from pictures above in Post #12, can see the rear bridge and front ring are not the same height.

The P17 in 270 Win has got BA4 on rear and BA 18 on the front - very different thicknesses, but they appear to be close to form a flat plane with each other on their top surface - at least on left side - although the right side of the rear may require a shim, as it does appear tipped. I have not measured them to confirm their fit - was a thing, I believe from "old days" - not uncommon to shim base to make them fit to the ground mil-surp receivers - they were not always done the same, nor were they necessarily done mirror image left side and right side.
 
Last edited:
Mine has 3 holes front and rear. Rearmost one and center front one looks to have been drilled later though.

Any idea what type of bases would work with these things? I've searched quite a bit but haven't found any definitive answers.

Hi lucky07 -
I have used the following Weaver base combinations on my P14s/M1917s, either worked fine.

Frt - 53: Rear - 47
Frt - 35: Rear - 36

I think one of my older rifles had very closely spaced holes in the rear bridge, suggesting that the filled-in area with the BSA logo stamped in may not be as firm in some cases. I recall having to drill and countersink a closely spaced third hole in the base to fit the ones in the receiver.

As with the Mauser actions, the front ring is higher than the rear bridge. You may still have to shim a hair. Hope that helps.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I have a p14, not sure who sporterised it. But its got a nicely done stock with recoil pad, and roll over comb , weaver rings and a miroku 2.5x scope. At 50 yards for my sight in it was 3/4 inch. Really pleased with it.
 
I've had really good luck with accuracy with these rifles, especially the P14 versions. The 303B is a really nice shooting round with low recoil. I've only ever owned a couple of Lee Enfield No4's, but neither came even close to the P14 for accuracy.

One of my all time nicest 'rifle surprises' was buying a very rough looking BSA P14 with a cracked, sporterized original stock (probably a BSA Model B) and some rust spotting at a LGS for a very 'reasonable' price. I fit it into a Bishop walnut stock I had sitting around. First time on the range with my go to handloads, and this is the result at 100 yards after sighting in.

I guess that's why I like 'em!

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52899757641_5ac656aac1_z.jpg
 
The BSA conversions typically had two holes on the front receiver ring and one hole on the ground down receiver bridge. This was to facilitate a one piece base - typically a Redfield at the time. I've been able to use a Rem 700 one piece Leupold base on my Model D, long action as I recall. Having owned several of the BSA conversions, I can say that the rework of the rear bridge can vary from rifle to rifle, so this may require some "custom" efforts.
 
I have one of the BSA P'14 conversions, with the original stock restyled. Certainly a fine workhorse of a rifle. I bought it because it was going begging. Installed a vintage but sound scope. Shoots very well.
If someone wanted an Enfield action for a project, one of the BSA conversions would be a great starting point - rear bridge contoured, drilled and tapped for both scope mounts and an aperture sight.
 
Back
Top Bottom