Stevens 44

[Hooker53]

Ok folks have a question for you 44 collectors. I have what I BELEIVE is an early 44 action. IV finally got it broke down and in the idle of cleaning it up. IV been looking at that this thing for the last few days and wondering. What holds the lever and the breech block in place when ready to shoot it? Mine has no lever plunger nor lever plunger spring. Not even a drilled channel for it to reside in. Do you literally have to hold it in battery or???
Thanks for your help on this.

Roy
Hooker53

[Bent Ramrod]

It holds together by what they used to call "cramp in the link," i.e., the cumulative flex of all the linkage parts when the lever is tight against the tang and the breechblock is tight against the barrel. The same thing that gives Vise Grips their "grip," or those CabineTree mould handles their tightening, or a Ballard action the snap on shutting.

After a little wear of the parts, either the 44 or the Ballard, then your hand holds the lever shut. The linkage is still over-center, so you aren't directly holding the breech shut.

[Hooker53]

You made that perfectly understood. Thank you for explaining that and posting here Bent Ramrod. I was very afraid that the Lever Plug, spring, channel and all had broke out somehow years ago and I had a wall hanger. Ha. Now all I have to do is deside to either convert my rimfire breechblock to CF or beat the woods and see if I can find one. I think it's enough web on the top of the RF block to do that and not mill out of the firing pin channel. Thanks again.

Roy

[pietro]

Now all I have to do is deside to either convert my rimfire breechblock to CF or beat the woods and see if I can find one.

IMO, you might want to first check out what Mr. Single Shot (Frank DeHaas) had to say about converting the various RF Stevens rifles to CF.



.

[elk hunter]

IMO, you might want to first check out what Mr. Single Shot (Frank DeHaas) had to say about converting the various RF Stevens rifles to CF.

Very good advice!

The 44 is not a very strong action.

[Hooker53]

Yes, your correct. IV been running down the info on that and checking CUP for it. I don't plan a very big Cal for that action. In fact, I'm thinking something as low as a low CUP .38 Spl load for it or smaller. Just want to put it back in service with something. Thanks for all the post.

Roy

[marlinman93]

The 44 is not an extremely strong action, but they were chambered in numerous CF pistol calibers, including the .44-40! I owned one once in .44-40 and shot it quite a bit with light to medium hand loads of cast bullets. The .38 Spl. is an OK choice as long as someone doesn't run +P loads through it.
The pivoting block of the 44 and 44 1/2 don't allow for a mortise for the block to travel in. Wouldn't be possible for the action to work as designed if it had a mortise. But one of the advantages of the design is if a round is not fully chambered, the block can lever the cartridge home. There's enough lever advantage to seat a cartridge, as long as it's close and not too much resistance.

[Hooker53]

Hello Marlinman. Were those 44-40 light to Med loads with BP or smokeless? The 44-40 did pass my mind as I have a Rem #5 roller in that Cal. I have a J Stevens Arms and Tool Cat #52 Circ 1909 as well as J Grants books and if I'm not Mistaken, both were siting CUP at 30,000 for the loads in that action. I know you have to consider the diff between BP loads and smokeless but this action saw both. I know also the old guns as much as we love them, don't have the metals in them a modern rifle firing 358 mags and such but if you keep it low, you can still have a lot of fun with the old ones. Keep them coming. All good points.

Roy

[pietro]

In fact, I'm thinking something as low as a low CUP .38 Spl load for it or smaller.

While you might think a low CUP .38 Special loads is OK, you might want to consider what might happen if some innocent chambers a high-performance load, in your absence.

I considered just that, when I wanted to upgrade my .32RF solid-frame #4 Remington rolling block "boy's rifle" - so, I used a cartridge that there were no existing commercial high-performance loads made.

I hit the EASY button, and simply converted the firing pin from RF to CF so I could shoot the commercially-available (Winchester) .32 Short Colt (cartridge) in it.


.

.

[marlinman93]

Hello Marlinman. Were those 44-40 light to Med loads with BP or smokeless? The 44-40 did pass my mind as I have a Rem #5 roller in that Cal.

Roy

I shot only smokeless mild loads in my 44 in .44-40. My load was a cast 200 gr. bullet at around 950 fps.

[slumlord44]

The 44 makes a good rimfire rifle. .22 LR, .22Mag, .17HRM. Centerfire in the right caliber and right light loads are fine. Easy to create an unsafe condition if the gun ever gets the wrong centerfire ammo in it. Your choice.

[Hooker53]

I ever intended to be very careful not only with this old action but even the newer ones. I always run a load down and study it to extent before I uncover my RCBS 505. Ha. Most all of my loads for my old guns, and most of my guns are old collectsbles, I hand measure each load. Not because I don't trust the load for my gun but because I want each and every one to be the same. Plinking loads for 9 mm and stuff like that is the only loads I run through my Lyman 55 or my auto-disk. it's long and drawn out but if I get a flyer, I want to know it was the old gun or me. Lol. Having a multitude of load books on a shelf can give one a feeling of safeness. At this point of my reloading experience , I think that's wrong to do most of the time. With these old guns if you are converting one you at at the pentacal of doing something the majority of the shooting public will never do. You have to learn to run down the CUPS and compare. With this old 44 that is still not enough for me. I detect and maybe I'm wrong at this point but the CUP's arrived at between black powder and smokeless can be a deserning factor for should I or shouldn't I? Ha. It must be something that few has done with this action because so far, a yo e thats done it has not posted here.

Slumlord, a .22 mag in fhis action and project would be a fun Cal. I have a Mossburg 640 that is a lot of fun. The only drawback to me is you can'tload for it. I'v even kicked the idea around of a 25 ACP or a 32 ACP. I would love to do a 327 Fed Mag, but do t think this action would hold up to that. A 32 H&R??????? Don't know. I would think that would evenbe to much. Keep shooting folks.

Roy

[Chev. William]

Consider,if you please, chambering your Stevens in ".32 Long Colt" or even ".32 Extra Long" in CF.
This is the SAME Case diameters as The ".32 Long" Rim Fire rounds. Bullets can be 85 grain to 105 grain. Preferably Heeled design, of around .311" to .315" Maximum diameter and if fired in a .308" Groove diameter barrel do preform well. in a .311" groove Diameter barre, a little less well MOA wise.

And J. Stevens Originally Chambered both the Favorite and The Model 44 in .32 :Long along with the Model 44 in .32 Long Colt.

From many others experiments I have read that the 85 grain Hollow base bullets in .32 Long Colt reduce shooting accuracy compared to heeled bullets of the same weight. It seems the change was to put the Lube inside the case for 'neatness' rather than Improved Accuracy.

Just Something to consider.

I have Used .32 S&W Long cases Swaged down to .32 Long Colt Diameters and at about .930" maximum Case length with an Accurate Molds "311090A" bullet of .311" Driving band, .302" heel diameter and with the Lube groove in the Heel.
I load to about 1124fps out of a 22" barrel.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Hooker53]

Chev. That's the very meat I was looking for. Thank you very much for posting this info. I knew if you weighed in, it would give me a new channel of thought. Ha. I have no problem wifh heeled Boolits. You and a few ofhers got me straightned out with that on my Rem #2 Roller in .38. RF. Jacks had a CF Breech Block that fit like a glove and Montana Boolit Mould made me a combo mould with a 125 and a 150 grn cav. Iv yet to work up a good grouping with it but its still not bad with 4 grns of Trail Boss. Cant get much more than that in a case. Have a Great Labor Day.

Roy
Hooker53

[marlinman93]

As much as I love the .32 Long, and have several old Ballards I shoot it in; I wouldn't saddle myself with the hassle of forming brass or heeled bullets. Instead I'd simply chamber it for the .32 S&W Long and get cheap brass ready to load. Standard bullets, and inexpensive loading dies. You can load it to the same velocities as the .32 Long, and also not worry if someone later put factory .32 S&W in the gun and fired it.

[Hooker53]

Even more good info. Seems I have some Weighing and deciding to do. Since I have to line the barrel anyway, I could go anyway the thought strikes. Thanks Marlinman.

Roy
Hooker53

[Chev. William]

Comments:
.32 Long as built by J. Stevens, according to the Barrels I have 'slugged' run between .304" to .309" Groove diameters with most at .306" to .308" Groove diameters. The .32 Long RF and ORIGINAL .32 Long Colt CF used Soft Lead Heeled Bullets that ran between .310" to .315" Driving Band diameters.

By using his 'tight bores' he insured that bullets fired from his barrels swaged to fit tightly in the bore/groove dimensions. Other manufacturers seem to run toward .313" Groove diameters with some indication of Leading and deteriorated Accuracy (according to contemporary Books I have read from the 1890-1900 era).

If you are relining your rifle please consider the above as a recommendation for a .308" groove Diameter Liner of more than era Twist rates. I am having a 'takeoff' .308 Win. Barrel cut back and fitted to my Stronger Model 44 action. That is a 1:12 twist nominal.

Yes, i am probably 'over stabilizing' the bullets I fire but it also is mostly Moot as my range firing is typically 110 yards or less due to problems getting my target frames out to longer ranges, then retrieving them at the end of a session.

this twist would also Stabilize heavier bullets if I decide to try longer ranges when the opportunity presents itself. And I don't have to worry some future owner of the rifle will 'mistakenly' chamber a .32 S&W Long+P+ round with Problematic results.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Hooker53]

Well. After reading a lot of info on this action, at this time, I think I'm gonna go with a 25-20. Some were chambered in this and even 25-20 smokeless at the end of production. It's o e of my Fav's and have some of the most casted. Olds for this sooooo. Only makes sense. This could change since I have plenty of time for thought before I start on it. Thanks for all your input.

Roy
Hooker53

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I'd probably settle for a converted or replacement breechblock and the original chambering. Originality is worth keeping if it does you no real harm, and although someone in generations yet unborn could still do himself damage by irresponsible loading of the .32 Colt rounds, you wouldn't have met him halfway.

There is a possible difference between the .32 Long Rimfire and the .32 Long rifle introduced in about 1900. The original .32 Rimfires, Long and Short, were heel bullet rounds which corresponded perfectly with the Colts. But they changed to inside lubricated in different ways. The Long Rifle adopted a smaller bullet which probably corresponded closely to the .309 grooves I found in a table of 1909 in Colonel Brophy's book on Marlins. It was hollow-based for expansion in older rifles, and either-way interchangeability was probably possible without grave loss of accuracy.

That isn't the case with the .32 Long and Short Colts, however. They changed to a .299 inside-lubed bullet, probably to keep the brass thicker. This won't work in the .32 rifles. In fact it probably worked rather badly in revolvers of the old bore dimensions, but with a close-range pocket pistol, probably few people noticed.There was never a .32 Short Rifle, so owners of rifles chambered for the Short were left without a centrefire that would work.

I've been told that Stevens diameters for the Favourite were .2985 land .314in. groove, but I have slugged my own late Favourite at .303 and .308. So it may be that Stevens made a similar transition to Marlin.

[Hooker53]

Hello B in S. the orig chambering is 25 RF. that's why I was trying to stay with the smaller Caliber. If I went 32, I would have to line it. I think if decided to line it, I would be enticed to go. 22 LR or .22 Mag. Don't think it would take. Uh of an adjustment to the present block to stay RF. I have awhile before I get to this one so will roll all the info around before deciding. Thanks as always for your info.

Roy