My Rifle Action

[Artful]

Outstanding post - thank you for sharing your Marvelous creation - So you have a lathe to thread on and a milling machine? How many hours to produce this without engraving?

[dverna]

Very impressive.

Thanks for sharing

Don Verna

[jmorris]

Very, very nice.

[45stomp]

Outstanding post - thank you for sharing your Marvelous creation - So you have a lathe to thread on and a milling machine? How many hours to produce this without engraving?

Lathe, yes.
Milling machine, no.....but I did use(borrow) one for this action.
Hours?? I didn't keep track. Keeping it simple might be possible to build in about 3 weeks. The engraving alone will take more time than that when all's said and done.

First one was built without a lathe or mill. I used a drill press, files, chisels, hacksaw, and angle grinder. It took me 4 months......

There is nothing really noteworthy in this design. Cylindrical breech block, operated by a underlever......simple extractor, really nothing new. It could be made 50 different ways and still work fine. It could even be made with a side hammer, or side lever.......there is nothing new under the sun If it was really groundbreaking, I'd maybe consider patents, but it's just a hodge podge of design features from a bunch of other rifles, chosen to satisfy my whimsy and desire for a simple to build rifle.
I appreciate all the kind words though.

Darcy

[Artful]

you deserve all the kind words - and sometimes it's not the innovation but the execution that demands respect!

[rking22]

Beautiful rifle! I love the simplicity and efficient design of the action, just what's needed
Oh, and the wood is awesome as well, if you get time I'd love to have one in 38-55, that is if you got a spare 3 months to build it for me

[45stomp]

Beautiful rifle! I love the simplicity and efficient design of the action, just what's needed
Oh, and the wood is awesome as well, if you get time I'd love to have one in 38-55, that is if you got a spare 3 months to build it for me

I'll get right on it!

[Bill*B]

I keep going back to look at that pic in post #14. Simply stunning. I am in awe of both your manual skills and your sense of aesthetics. Lovely work.

[244ack]

Love the rifle! Great but simple peep site you made also
well done

[oldred]

Well it may be a hodge podge of other design features but it's the workmanship that sets it apart! Also you brought up one other very important point and that's the fact that a lot of shop equipment is not necessary with determination and a bit of creative engineering along with a willingness to pay attention to detail. I have often had someone tell me "I would love to have the machinery to build one of those" but in fact when I built my first HighWall rifle all I had at the time was a lathe and basic lathe tooling along with the usual shop gadgets such as an angle grinder, etc. I built a simple milling attachment for the lathe and rigged up several more "gadgets" as necessary to the task at hand and it turns out that solving the problems of how to do it was nearly as much fun and satisfaction as building the rifle itself.

I love to see other builders sharing their work, such as the fine example here, and I like to encourage others who want to do this to take the plunge and get started, I honestly think most folks would be surprised at what they could accomplish if they made the attempt and as you have so stunningly shown it doesn't take a million dollars worth of equipment to do it! I think it would be a heck of a lot of fun if we could get a bunch of folks started and maybe start a thread where could share tech info and ideas for solving problems and also the encouragement to not only get started but to stick with it!

[45stomp]

Well said oldred.

Darcy

[badgeredd]

I see elements of Frank de Haas's Vault Lock action there, but your design is much more graceful in execution, as is your stock design. You know how to make a lovely fore end! Look how the bottom lines of the butt stock, action and forearm flow together. And the deep engraving is very striking.

What I like about your action over the DeHaas design is you seem to have eliminated some of the components and it appears to me that your design is more straight forward without over complicating it. I personally like an exposed hammer design. To me the Winchester High and Low wall designs are truly graceful. You have also captured that grace in your design and execution. Again, great job!

I will be watching for your drawings.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

We see wonderful pieces of work here which are less wonderful than this one. I think someone would have to depart considerably from your design or your standards to blow any part of his anatomy off with industry-standard high pressure cartridges. But I hope you won't take one or two queries or suggestions amiss.

I don't know the origin of your extractor, but it seems pretty good for rimmed cartridges, and perhaps a better solution for rimless ones than any I have seen done with pivoted extractors. There are a lot more people doing good work on falling-block rifles, than there are manufacturers putting falling-block riflesinto production. But if that extractor is of your own devising, thisis some thing that might be worth patenting. It is now possible to compose a provisional patent fairly cheaply with the program obtainable on www.patentwizard.com. That protection is only for a year before more money is due, but might be enough to get some manufacturer to nibble. Someone might bluff you into letting it expire, but they then have no means of acquiring sole rights to an invention which, by this disclosure, would have fallen into the public domain.

Your extractor doesn't have the accelerated motion which would provide for true ejection of the case, but that isn't as necessary as it is in a Martini, say, where a slowly departing case can stay in the action. The Martini does that by contact of the block first on a long arm of the L-shaped extractor, transferring after primary extraction to a point much nearer the pivot, where it imparts less leverage but more speed. Westley Richards had an extractor which simply had a saw-cut into the slightly oversized pivot-hole. Pressure compressed thespring-tempered extractor around the pivot pin, and it kicked powerfully as case adhesion to the chamber was broken. You can't build that springiness into your extractor, but the actuating stud could be a rather similar flat piece of steel, slotted into the lever. A rimless case body might also slip more easily over the extractor if the top surface which slides on the receiver was slightly convex in a lengthwise direction.

Is your firing-pin tip lifted or allowed out of the indentation in the primer before the block begins its downward travel? (Lifted is better than allowed, and I have never liked a rebounding hammer in a high pressure rifle.) The Sharps-Borchardt sometimes used to jam that way, but I don’t think it is anywhere near as important as it was in the days of softer primer metal. The pin is likely to be cammed out of the indentation all on its own. If that is all you have, though, I think there ought to be a fairly pronounced shoulder on the pin, to stop its protrusion from extending. This rifle is going to outlive you, and sometime it will surely fall into the hands of someone who does a lot of dry-firing.

I always thought of the round block as Frank de Haas’s, since he did use it. But it isn't in the only patent of his I know:

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US3735517


The referral system on that website led me to another patent, though, which is for the round block:

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4570369

Gerfen makes the obvious claim for the lack of stress points. But what I find really interesting is that the hole doesn't go all the way to the top. Instead the receiver is cut away on the left or the right, which some would find more convenient, and which allows for the fitting of a scope and better gas clearance from a case failure - if you are shooting from the shoulder you bought the rifle for, of course, and worse if you aren't. This doesn't expose a half-moon of barrel threads as a hole bored all the way to the open air would do. Some don't like that, although it is more an aesthetic than a practical consideration. Even a "short" breechblock hole slotted on top as far as the rear of the barrel would do that.

There is also something to be said for a tapered round block, fitting a hole made with a large taper pin reamer (¼in. per foot taper for Imperial reamers or one in fifty for metric.) For those seeking the ultimate in accuracy that block could be lapped to an extremely close fit, including after the slight distortion that can easily happen in case-hardening. If I was to try colour case hardening, I would want a steel dummy block in there, or even the real one, while it was heated and quenched. A lack of carbonizing inside isn't going to matter with such a large contact area.

Take note, though, that Gerfen's patent expired early, due to lack of financial nourishment. I'm afraid that can happen all too easily with people who have extremely good ideas in falling-block rifle design. So much that does the job quite adequately was invented a lot longer ago than patents last.

[oldred]

I always thought of the round block as Frank de Haas’s, since he did use it. But it isn't in the only patent of his I know:

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/US3735517


The referral system on that website led me to another patent, though, which is for the round block:

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4570369

Just my two cents on that subject, and that's probably about what it's worth if that!


As I mentioned earlier my first attempt at a falling block was meant to be an original design but in searching I found that what I had in mind had already been done or at least it was so similar it was essentially the same thing. The round, or rather cylindrical, block was my first thought more so because of it's simplicity of fitting to the receiver than the fact it is inherently stronger. The square, or more appropriately the rectangular block was obviously more difficult to do because of the daunting task of creating a properly fitted square or rectangular hole in the receiver, and for all that extra fitting the designer is left with a somewhat weaker design due to the corners! There are a great many ways the triggering group can be designed but not only did I find that most of the simple ideas had already been done but they worked as well or even better than anything I could come up with and I found myself trying to design around what I really wanted just so as to make it different. In the end I simply gave up and settled for a modified version of Winchester's 1885 which itself is a modified version of the Browning single shot falling block, I suppose ol' John B had it right way back then.

The basic falling block design has been around for so long and so many people have worked with it, plus the basic principle is so simple to begin with (vs most other designs) that it's a bit like wildcatting a cartridge, almost anything we can come up with has already been done before usually more than once and anything different is all too often done just for the sake of being different while still arriving to the same end. Still the receiver Stomp has created is rather unique even if it uses a lot of previously used ideas, nearly impossible to get around doing that, but I still see some things that are not only different but well executed also, more than enough to make this his own design and not simply a modified copy as what I settled for. In my case the rather time consuming mods were done more for appearance rather than for functional improvement, redesigning the sear and mounting it on a sliding carrier instead of simply suspending it on a fixed pin for example. This resulted in little or no functional gain (save for the unintended function of being able to somewhat adjust the trigger pull) vs a properly fitted original sear and pin but it did eliminate the, to me anyway, unsightly pin ends appearing on the outside of the receiver just under the hammer. Ditto for the trigger group, machining retaining tabs on the lower tang and matching slots in the back of the receiver plus drilling/tapping holes for the retaining screws really did nothing but remove the screw heads from sight on the receiver sides and hide them under the stock but it's what I wanted so it was worth the extra trouble to me. The other significant mods were to the firing pin design and breachblock mods to accommodate these firing pin changes plus a radically different link pin to lift the firing pin before the block starts to drop, these firing pin/block/link modifications had all been done before and if mine are different the difference is slight with the basic function being exactly the same.

My hat is off to the OP for not only being different but being different for reasons other than simply appearance, this receiver is unique and despite the OP's modesty in not wanting to claim a unique design it is IMHO a real departure from the norm and worthy of being called a NEW design!

[taco650]

Great job Stomp! If I could afford to make my own, I'd rather just pay you to build it for me. Do you remember what your materials cost was for the rifle? I realize it would be in Canadian $$$.

[45stomp]

Oldred, I would love to see a pic or 2 of your action if you don't mind.

Firing pin is not rebounding, the hammer holds it against the primer until you raise the hammer to half or full cock. Firing pin itself is spring loaded so as soon as the hammer is lifted off the rear of the pin, the pin can retract. There is nothing stopping the lever from working when the hammer is in the fired position, although I could have easily added that feature.......I just didn't feel it was necessary.

Barrel and chambering.......about $600, stock Blank, $350,bar of 4140......other materials, less than $50......so roughly $1000 Canadian for materials.

I prefer an extractor to ejector, or I could have added that feature as well. I don't like digging my brass out of the snowbank.

Darcy

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Firing pin itself is spring loaded so as soon as the hammer is lifted off the rear of the pin, the pin can retract.

Yes, that should be fine. It wasn't liked in the old days, as the spring could fail through corrosion. I also think there was a period when they weren't as good at making coilsprings as flat ones. At least Martinis are the only rifles on which I have seen broken coilsprings which weren't due to corrosion.

But modern primers are better at keeping fouling out of the firing-pin hole, and although I can understand preferring to avoid stainless steel in a falling-block rifle, you could use a stainless firing-pin and return spring.

[45stomp]

Also, the hammer falls on the firing pin, but the forward travel of the hammer itself is stopped by the receiver, and not the pin bottoming out. So, while I don't dry fire this rifle as a rule, it shouldn't cause any major problems.

Darcy

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The round, or rather cylindrical, block was my first thought more so because of it's simplicity of fitting to the receiver than the fact it is inherently stronger. The square, or more appropriately the rectangular block was obviously more difficult to do because of the daunting task of creating a properly fitted square or rectangular hole in the receiver, and for all that extra fitting the designer is left with a somewhat weaker design due to the corners!

You are right about the simplicity of a round hole, although I don't believe strength is the issue some claim, when you can make the sides as thick as you like. But a rectangular hole isn't that much of an issue either, if it goes all the way through.

This hole surrounded by D2 air hardening steel, some way down my pending projects list at the moment, is sized to accept the Cadet Martini action frame and working parts. I had it done by a specialist spark erosion firm at a cost of about $100. I did consider a mortice with a vertical step and a narrower, non load-bearing rearward extension, to accommodate a breechblock like the Sharps-Borchardt.

I don't consider those pin heads ugly, but if you wished, the pin over which the spring-loaded lever plunger passes could be finished off flush, and virtually invisible even engraved and integral with the main engraving if you like. Or it could have an unslotted, tapered screw-head on one side, and be drawn in tight with a thin-slotted screw from the other, like Stevens Ideal pivot pins.

[oldred]

Ballistics, I was referring to the pin that supports the sear on the 1885 and of course you are right about them not being ugly, they are in fact hardly noticeable, it's just that I wanted the exterior of the receiver as clean as possible and after relocating the lower tang screws I just kept going and eliminated that pin also. This is just a hobby for me and the time spent to make this mod just didn't matter so it was worth the effort to me, it's not something I would suggest to anyone else but it's really not all that time consuming if someone wants to do it. After all a couple more hours or three spent on something meant to last a lifetime is not much to ask when the end result is something a person desires no matter how slight.


Stomp, I have pics of two of those rifles in several threads but I have not posted any pics of the internal mods, I will try to disassemble the one I have nearly completed (I was going to do that anyway because it's time to prepare for the bluing tanks) and take some photos of the various parts. The first rifle was, as I said earlier, intended to be more of an original design but ended up being simply a modified HighWall that is somewhat different on the outside in addition to the internal mods, it's probably not a bad looking rifle but I regretted the external changes and so the last two efforts including the scaled down "Baby" version were built to more closely look like the original 1885.

I will try to get those pics up today sometime.