Eddystone p14 action Ground down “alot” at rear

A mate sent me 2 bolts out of his parts bin to get my p14 up and running
The idea is between the 2 bolts I’ll find one with good head space for the rifle

He also sent me an eddystone action which I can put the other bolt in for another project

I noticed that the action has been ground down alot in the rear ontop if the flat bit where the sights are normally

When compared with my Winchester action on my other rifle which is nearly 10mm thick at the rear

The eddystone is only 1.5mm

I can’t figgure why this has been done? At 1st I thought scope mounting Purposes But i sat an old rail ontop and its on a massive angle so that’s not it

Anyone know why this might have been done and id the action is safe to use being that thin in the rear section??

Attachment 128701Attachment 128702Attachment 128703Attachment 128704

Front locking with extra tail lug so it should be safe no bearing metal has been removed but as to why? Winchester have always been considered the best of the p 14 17 actions so congratulations on your current choice for the rifle.

Maybe they thought they could completely grind out the hole but didn't check how deep it went and how thin it would be. Gave up with hole still visible. Seems to have been a dumb thing to do when all you are wanting to do is remove the ears and set it up for a 1 piece base or 2 single bases that line up.

When I did my P14 I filled the hole with a plug, welded, ground. Invisible to the eye. Determined the amount to come off the rear to suit IIRC modified pre 64 Win 70 bases.

Is it safe, aside from being an Eddystone, I couldn't categorically say. In theory being a front locker it should be. I cannot remember if the root of the bolt is used as a back up on a P14 and if it is whether thinning the top of the action reduces the back up, if it does exist. Gundoc to the rescue again?

In any case being an Eddystone.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

Front locking with extra tail lug so it should be safe no bearing metal has been removed but as to why? Winchester have always been considered the best of the p 14 17 actions so congratulations on your current choice for the rifle.

---

Cheers mate @Marty Henry
Im not really a 303 fan however the Winchester action was given to me for free
And it has a very good bsa sporter barrel on it (not a milsurp) so a bit of a Frankenstein but
It’s probably the best 303 barrel ive seen
Hence bothering to restore it as a bush gun
It’s only cost me like $60 in parts
And my time
So its a very cheap rifle
Most expensive part will be getting scope mount bases installed by a gunsmith

But it should shoot well as the bore is certainly very good so worth it

Here’s a photo of the p14 bush rifle
Attachment 128710
I brought the stock of here but I shorted it slightly and refinished it
Glued a 50c coin into the stock cos why not

I glass and pillar bedded the rifle into the stock aswell

So its ready to go pending a headspace check and a drill and tap jop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimmer

Maybe they thought they could completely grind out the hole but didn't check how deep it went and how thin it would be. Gave up with hole still visible. Seems to have been a dumb thing to do when all you are wanting to do is remove the ears and set it up for a 1 piece base or 2 single bases that line up.

When I did my P14 I filled the hole with a plug, welded, ground. Invisible to the eye. Determined the amount to come off the rear to suit IIRC modified pre 64 Win 70 bases.

Is it safe, aside from being an Eddystone, I couldn't categorically say. In theory being a front locker it should be. I cannot remember if the root of the bolt is used as a back up on a P14 and if it is whether thinning the top of the action reduces the back up, if it does exist. Gundoc to the rescue again?

In any case being an Eddystone.......

---

@zimmer I reckon you are on the money. at a hesitant guess I would propose it is ok being a proper front locker and the extra strength from the bolt handle recess is behind that as per MH, but I will defer to gundoc. It is still a bit silly. At the least they could've milled it flat.
I have a several of these done by BSA and I found on both of them the way they were rounded was on the piss so the scope base was canted. One quite a bit more than the other. Made a dummy up to the same profile radius and hand fitted the scope base that and finished it off on one the rifles. Haven't done the other one
If I did it properly I'd make the rifle receiver match but it was a relatively inexpensive weaver base. The screws will be on a slight angle if you know what I mean.
Suck it and see I suppose. as long as they don't come loose, F@#in' Mint!!
My big issue is how much meat there is for a decent thread for the scope mounts.
Might have to make a block up and sweat in on, along with some screws and start again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rambo-6mmrem

Cheers mate Im not really a 303 fan however

---

Is that the sort of thing you really want to admit to on here. It's sort of like admitting you like tofu, quinoa and mung beans for dinner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

Is that the sort of thing you really want to admit to on here. It's sort of like admitting you like tofu, quinoa and mung beans for dinner

---

It’s not old enough for me
On the other hand not new enough
For me it’s ether gotta be black powder
Or a very modern Calibre like creedmoor lol

@homebrew.357
How about converting the spare action to a single shot 45/70 but slower twist for 3-400gn bullets