Can a Stevens 25 RF be converted to 25-20 WCF?

[Suo Gan]

My question is about converting a Stevens Favorite chambered in 25 rimfire over to a 25 caliber centerfire preferably 25-20 Win. I have heard that some have done this using the .25 auto cartridge. So can this be done, what steps would I need to take, and would the action be strong enough for the 25-20 Win.?

I know, I know, I come up with some hum dingers don't I?

How do you weigh in? WAG's?

I am tired of the thing just sitting there with nothing to do! A gun without a job is a pure shame.

[Cactus Farmer]

Line it to 22lr. Favs are NOT strong! No centerfire 25-20 factory loads would be safe. Yes, the firing pin needs to move for the 22 also but not as far as for a CF.
Made a 32 RF into a 32 S&W once.....it was great until the fellow loaded some "blue pills", still haven't found the breach block. He wrecked a really nice,quite rifle.......:roll:

Did you get my check yet?

[pietro]

[Line it to 22lr. Favs are NOT strong! No centerfire 25-20 factory loads would be safe.]

+ 5,287 [smilie=1: :mrgreen:

.

[OldBob]

Or if it is in nice shape and you want to retain its original condition, you can turn a .22 barrel blank offcenter so the rim lines up with the firing pin, mount it with the offset up , cut a relief for the extractor and you are good to go. I did one of these for myself and one for my BIL and they made nice little rifles.

[gnoahhh]

Do anything with it as long as it's a rimfire (and not a magnum rimfire either). "You'll put an eye out kid" if you convert a Favorite to centerfire. Bad ju-ju.

[John Taylor]

I get quite a few 25 and 32 rim fires to convert to 22LR. They are not hard to reline. If you want a good shooter go with a hammer forged liner from T.J.'s 859-635-5560. If you want someone ells to install the liner, ask T.J.'s who he recommends. The firing pin may need to be moved, some work some don't. Moving the firing pin requires a mill or a good drill press. You will need to build the extractor up or replace it. http://www.wisnersinc.com/has extractors.

[Bret4207]

Besides the strength issue the dimensions are wrong. The 25 RF uses a .251 bullet, the 25-20 the more standard .257. Being a fan of most Stevens rifles and the ballistics of the 25RF I always liked the idea I saw posted some years back- convert the rifle to CF and size 22 Hornet brass to 25 RF dimensions. Standard 25 cal boolits can be sized down to the .252-.254 you'll need. Yes, it would take a custom die, but at the time CH4D was offering dies for around $100.00. These days I don't doubt someone like Buckshot could whip you up a suitable set of dies for around the same $$$.

I had my eye on a primo Stevens Marksman in 25RF to do this with but the seller backed out. What a great woods walking rifle that would have made.

[gnoahhh]

Bret,

What you describe doing is all well and good, and if one kept pressures down to sane levels would probably work. The issue is not that necessarily, but one of safety margins. What's to happen if a heavy powder charge or God-forbid a double charge gets through? Easy enough to happen when dealing with tiny charges of powder even in a small case like the Hornet. The Favorite action, and others of that ilk, just weren't designed/built with that in mind. In original RF configuration they are nifty little guns as-is.

In addition, what's to prevent a future owner of the gun from injuring himself/bystanders through ignorance? In the land of ignorance, exuberance trumps caution. We can't be around forever to guard over over our guns. Sooner or later some idiot will take a look at the Hornet headstamp and think high speed. The emergency room nurse will think moron.

[HORNET]

Even better, there are a couple of places that still get runs made of .25 RF once in a while. They're far from common , but they are available on a limited basis. Same with .32 RF. If the inside of the barrel is still good, it might be worth pursuing. I know a couple of people that said it was the perfect squirrel gun.

[pietro]

[does anyone know, have available, can steer me to the SAAMI specs and max for the Stevens Favorite? It should be rated at least 20-25,000psi? ]




[i]20-25,000psi ? R U SERIOUS ? ?

No disrespect intended, but you should "help it", and yourself, with a heavy dose of cold water/self control - before somebody DOES get hurt/burnt, playing with fire.

I can't emphasize it strongly enough - fahgettaboutit ! ! Pleeeze !

Those rifles were made eons before ANY kinds of safety standards were set up in this country, certainly well before SAAMI was even somebody's wet dream. ;)

The knowledge of the limitations of the various vintage rifles & actions was hard-won, through trial/error - and an error was a serious "OOPs, we better not do THAT any more !" - after a gun blew up.

I don't know of any waiting lists, for new eyes, etc - because when one of those oldies hand grenades, some plastic shooting glasses aren't going to be much help.

.

[roadie]

The .22 Mag. is loaded to pressures in the 24-25000 range and a .22 Mag will beat that Favorite to death very quickly. Possibly take it apart.

The problem as I see it, is that you have'nt researched it yourself on a possibly very dangerous idea. You can't compare modern Favorites to older ones, not even close.

I've done these kind of conversions on modern rimfires, but I knew what I was doing going in. No way would I change that Favorite to anything other then a .22 rimfire.

I like Bret4207's idea and it takes the factory ammo out of the equation, would make a sweet rifle. But it's only for those that truly know what the risks are. The pressures are what you make them.

This is'nt something to play with.

roadie

[Bret4207]

Bret,

What you describe doing is all well and good, and if one kept pressures down to sane levels would probably work. The issue is not that necessarily, but one of safety margins. What's to happen if a heavy powder charge or God-forbid a double charge gets through? Easy enough to happen when dealing with tiny charges of powder even in a small case like the Hornet. The Favorite action, and others of that ilk, just weren't designed/built with that in mind. In original RF configuration they are nifty little guns as-is.

In addition, what's to prevent a future owner of the gun from injuring himself/bystanders through ignorance? In the land of ignorance, exuberance trumps caution. We can't be around forever to guard over over our guns. Sooner or later some idiot will take a look at the Hornet headstamp and think high speed. The emergency room nurse will think moron.

You did catch the part where I said reform the Hornet case to 25RF dimensions right? Much , much smaller than a Hornet. I understand what you're saying, but that's the same caveat that goes with any wildcat.

[shotman]

Well the action would hold. There have been several converted. but Its a night mare to rework the action. to get the fireing pin to hit center. Lots of machine work.
I took a 22 wrf and bored the chamber to 22 mag with a 1/4 in drill and it works fine. shell is little problem to insert and extract . but works good and has for 15 yrs

[John Taylor]

I have heard of pressures running 24,000 + for the 22 LR. Probably higher with a tight chamber like a Bentz. The favorite was made after smokeless powder came along but before the modern high velocity ammo. Best to stay with a standard 22LR chamber and use the more expensive standard velocity target ammo. The action is plenty strong for the modern ammo but the higher pressure can cause ruptured cases around the extractor, which is also where the firing pin hits.

[John Taylor]

Suo Gan, you need to find a new gun smith, 2 years is a bit long to wait.

[gnoahhh]

I would re-line the thing to .22LR and be done with it. There are plenty of other better single shot actions around that would be safer to mess with, and work up into dandy little walking around rifles.

Bret- gotcha. Misread your post, my apologies. I was picturing a .25 Hornet loaded to .25RF pressures. Still a pretty fair job of work to convert the firng pin to CF. Is it really worth all that aggravation? Doubly so if one is paying a gunsmith to do the work. In the end, one still ends up with a Favorite that's a bit edgy as far as safety margins go.

I'm not sure whether we're talking about a modern Savage-made Favorite or a vintage one. I would feel a lot better about the project if it were the former.

[trevj]

In addition to the previous assertions, I will add the following, as much for you, as for the next guy that stumbles across the subject, looking to convert this action.

Firstly, the action is a casting, and none too high a grade of work. As a casting, it tends towards being a bit brittle. I have, and have seen several more, actions with tangs broken off, without any signs that they had any flexibility at all. Plenty strong enough for it's intended purpose, using Black Powder pressure range loads in low powered rimfire calibers.

Next, the barrel is retained by a single set screw or thumb screw. Not terribly positive. If it works loose, unnoticed, it plays merry heck with a 22 rimfire load. I don't want to be around one when the pressures are much higher.

Also the shank diameter is, by default, smaller than I would be happy with.

Taking a good look at the internals, one finds that the entire load of firing this action, is taken up on two screws, the screw that the breech block pivots on, at the front, and the screw that the lever pivots upon.
If the breech block is already riding on the shoulders of the action mortise, then the screws are already bent or badly worn.

Notice also that the screws are not supported all the way through the action. they have a gap between the walls of the action and the breech block sides. This allows the screws to bend or flex. They are not very big screws.

That pretty much spells out that the Stevens Favorite action is barely a candidate for modern High Velocity 22 shells.

Never played with a modern version of the action, although I can see from the photos, that the internals appear to be powder metallurgy parts, rather than machined. I cannot tell you if the gaps have been left internally, that would either have the screws directly in shear, or unsupported.

Other guys may be willing to convert theirs, I won't. Stevens used their Model 44 action (considerably larger and heavier built than a Favorite, but internally similar) for the Hornet chambering, and discontinued it very rapidly, due to issues with headspace and wear. The 44 has considerably more material and larger screws, holding it together. If nothing else tells you it's a bad plan, that the factory would not carry on building Hornets, should.

As one guy put it so well, "God may love ya, but he ain't giving you another set of eyes!"
Building and shooting one with much reduced loads does not stop ones offspring or theirs, or others, at some point, from loading up a full power round, and trying it out. That is also something I would not wish to be responsible for.

Best bets for a small action along those lines, would seem to be the Falling Block Works Model J, or perhaps one of the new EA Brown Model 97 actions.

Cheers
Trev

[Bret4207]

Here is the same question asked by some poor sap at another site. Rumor has it they hung him at sundown from the tallest oak tree in the county.

http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13179

Whoa. That dude is out there.

[Bret4207]

Here's an option for those like me who love the Favorite. Only $$$ prevent me from having one.

http://www.varnerguns.com/

I own and have owned several Favorites. Some were in far better shape than others. If you get an old ratty one then it pays to go through and replace the screws, bush the holes if needed and generally clean and tighten the old girl up. Given a decent example I have no qualms about using modern hi-speed ammo in them. I would personally have no issue with converting to a centerfire version of the 25RF but as with any wildcat that decision is best left to the owner. The original 25 Long RF ballistics were something like a 60 gr boolit at 1150 fps. Considering the difference in the dynamics of back thrust in play I don't see where sticking to those levels would unduly stress a tight Favorite. But, it's up to the individual in the end. I personally would prefer the Marksman action or a #4 Remington Rolling Block.

[NoDakJak]

What's this? Trevj raises some good points but I agree with you completely Bret. I have two 25 Hornets partially completed. Both have been shot. Some 25 rimfires have chambers so generously reamed that unfired Hornet brass will fit. It only remains to thin the rims and trim the case to have a centerfire version of the 25 Stevens. I have an almost new conditioon Model 27 Marlin pump that is awaiting this use. I have a spare centerfire breechblock so won't even have to modify that. I have been cobbling up ammo with 25-20 dies but made a straight line bullet seating die. I say bullet because it is a bit tight to use with boolits. I am presently imiting my velocities to 900 fps. I had not thought of using the Remington #4 action but have one laying there. It is an action only so I believe that I would thread the reciever for the barrel. Neil

[Bret4207]

That #4 is a sett litte action. Green Mountain barrels offers an octagon "pistol caliber" barrel that is .875 tapering to .675 or something like that. That's as close to the right diameter as you'll get for the tiny #4. That's what I intend to replace my ruined 32 Long barrel with.

[KCSO]

I just finished converting a Stevens 44 from 32 Rim fire to 32 centerfire with a new barrel and I have done several 32 rim to 22 conversions in the past. To convert to 22 rim fire you may not have to change the firing pin but it would be a good idea to make a new pin that won't impact on the breech as most of the old ones willl after years of use. Relingin the barrel is a straighforward reaming job for the 5 /16 liner. This should cost your from $90 to 130 bucks. Turning a new firing pin will be another 20 bucks or so. If you want a new barrel yo are looking at the same money and for a rim fire action I would not want to go with anything other than 22 lr. Also before you do any conversion make sure the pins and links are n good condition and the lock up is tight because if you have to make new links or ream and re fit the piins you will get a LOT of money in the job.

[Bret4207]

Liners are life savers. I have my Dad's 44 32-20 and the barrel is near useless even with jacketed. A liner will make all right in the world again.

A word of warning on liners- for the do it yourselfer- spend the bucks and gbuy or make a PILOTED DRILL. I didn't one time and that why I need a new barrel for my #4........

[roadie]

I made two liner drills, one with a pilot ground on and one as a flat bottoming drill.
I do the bulk of the drilling with the piloted drill to within about .250 of the muzzle and finish with the bottoming drill to within .080 +/- and clean up with a new crown.

It's a bit more work but I think worth it as you end up with a seamless job.

I really have to find one of these lil guns, that .25 Hornet or a shorter version on the .22 Squirrel sounds real good. The Squirrel is the one in my avatar.

roadie

[roadie]

The difference is night and day, the 44 1/2 breechblock is supported by steel shoulders.

The 44 is a big version of the Favorite with all the shortcomings pointed out by trevj.

Try a Google search.

roadie

[roadie]

Suo Gan,
I was just answering, did'nt mean it as a personal affront to you either.
I tend to give short and to the point answers. But really, a Google search with "Stevens 44 1/2" as the search term will tell you a helluva lot more then I can, even has a link to exploded views at wiseners.

roadie

[TonyT]

The Stevens Favorite action is very weak. It was designed for the low pressure rimfire cases. I would not convert it to 25-20. A better option would be to have the barrel relined to 22 LR. I had a Favorite in 32 Long RF and finally sold it.

[rickster]

Physics lesson. Force equals pressure times area (pounds per square inch). The area of a 25-20 case head is several times that of a 22LR case head. Therefore, the potential force is several times as much for the same pressure. There are other factors involved, of course, like the strength of the case. But the point is that 25Ksi in a 22lr is a lot harder on an action than 25Ksi in a 25-20.

[Bret4207]

Physics lesson. Force equals pressure times area (pounds per square inch). The area of a 25-20 case head is several times that of a 22LR case head. Therefore, the potential force is several times as much for the same pressure. There are other factors involved, of course, like the strength of the case. But the point is that 25Ksi in a 22lr is a lot harder on an action than 25Ksi in a 25-20.

Uh, yeah, there is a lot more to it than that.

[roadie]

Physics lesson. Force equals pressure times area (pounds per square inch). The area of a 25-20 case head is several times that of a 22LR case head. Therefore, the potential force is several times as much for the same pressure. There are other factors involved, of course, like the strength of the case. But the point is that 25Ksi in a 22lr is a lot harder on an action than 25Ksi in a 25-20.

All well and good if you're talking about an action with some kind of safety margin. The Favorite has absolutely none in this application because of the fact that factory ammunition can be chambered in an action not designed for it.

Thats a major physics lesson waiting to happen.

roadie

[rickster]

Uh, yeah, there is a lot more to it than that.

I bring it up because all too often I have seen it written that xzy action is factory chambered for some little cartridge that develops xxxxxx psi pressure, so obviously the action should safely handle a much bigger cartridge at the same pressure. Well, it doesn’t work like that at all. Yet, I have seen such pronouncements in mainstream gun rags. And there was a similar comment in the thread above. So, it seems to me that there is a widespread and unsafe misunderstanding of what pressure is and how it acts.

[gnoahhh]

The Hornet operates at a whole heck of a lot more pressure than 24,000, 50-75% more at least. Coupled with the larger area subtended by the head of the case against the breech face= a lot more thrust backward against said breech than with a .22RF.

Even in .22RF I would be a bit cautious with a century old Favorite. In a rifle made from low grade steel and cast iron, depending on pins and screws for lock-up, designed for ammo in an era when .22 black powder and low pressure smokeless was the norm, without much of a safety margin built in anyway. Certainly I would ignore the current crops of hyper velocity .22 ammo and stick with the most sedate stuff I could find. Converting one of these things to centerfire, or even a .17 RF would , in my humble opinion, be ill advised.

[Cactus Farmer]

I am amazed at this thread! Someone is going to build a Fav. in a totally unsafe caliber due to some of these threads and When they end up with a portion of the action in their forehead who will be responsible? THIS is not a safe conversion.
I did one in 32 S&W. The breach block went AWAY! Low pressure? Who will explain the coming wreck to the widow? I hope anyone who attempts this has lots of life insurance........

Rant off........but (here comes the warning) PLEASE test fire the thing with a string before you shoot it on your shoulder.......it might be the thing that saves your life if not a nice old Stevens. I'd gladly loose a gun to save a fellow caster.

[Bret4207]

I bring it up because all too often I have seen it written that xzy action is factory chambered for some little cartridge that develops xxxxxx psi pressure, so obviously the action should safely handle a much bigger cartridge at the same pressure. Well, it doesn’t work like that at all. Yet, I have seen such pronouncements in mainstream gun rags. And there was a similar comment in the thread above. So, it seems to me that there is a widespread and unsafe misunderstanding of what pressure is and how it acts.

I hope no one took it that way. The simple rule is that in 2 cases loaded to the same pressure and of the same shape the one with the larger case head exterts more pressure on the breech block.

[Bret4207]

I am amazed at this thread! Someone is going to build a Fav. in a totally unsafe caliber due to some of these threads and When they end up with a portion of the action in their forehead who will be responsible? THIS is not a safe conversion.
I did one in 32 S&W. The breach block went AWAY! Low pressure? Who will explain the coming wreck to the widow? I hope anyone who attempts this has lots of life insurance........

Rant off........but (here comes the warning) PLEASE test fire the thing with a string before you shoot it on your shoulder.......it might be the thing that saves your life if not a nice old Stevens. I'd gladly loose a gun to save a fellow caster.

And how do you know it wasn't your conversion that caused the failure? Anytime someone does a conversion or hauls an old gun out of the closet it pays to do a thorough check of the rifle. It still ends up being the individuals decision. A 22 or 32 S+W, 25 RF...I can see then in the Favorite. No one is advocating a 22 Hornet or 25-20 in one.

[StarMetal]

I hope no one took it that way. The simple rule is that in 2 cases loaded to the same pressure and of the same shape the one with the larger case head exterts more pressure on the breech block.

Actually it's the internal square area of the case web floor. Granted if that's larger usually the head is larger, but wonder if that area is the same size, but one case is rimmed and the other is rimless? Also the body taper plays into effect here too.

Joe

[Cactus Farmer]

The breach block was not modified in any way except to move the firing pin. Look at a #4 breach block. Two small ears are ALL that keep it in place these "ears" broke off with 32 S&W factory ammo.
I'm reading that it is OK to do these conversions with down loaded ammo. That's great for a reloader but someday a non loader could put a factory round in it...
It seems to me that the safest way to enjoy these vintage old guns is to err on the safe side. I was lucky that Bruce is still my friend,alive and well. And yes we talked a some length about the safety issues........we were WRONG! It just wrecked a really clean nice old Stevens.
I won't do it to any typical weak action design. Fav,44 ect. are not strong even if made with modern steel.

[rickster]

...
I'm reading that it is OK to do these conversions with down loaded ammo. That's great for a reloader but someday a non loader could put a factory round in it...



Exactly right. Rifles (bridges, piping, etc) are designed with safety margins to allow for overloads that might reasonably be expected to occur. Taking advantage of these margins to build a rifle in a different caliber eliminates the safety margins and makes the rifle an accident waiting for a place to happen.

[Bret4207]

I still am unclear as to why it would be dangerous to shoot the same bullet, that is operating at the same pressure down a barrel by using a case that is larger.
This is a chamber pressure chart I am using
http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

Maybe I am getting closer to understanding...but I really do want to understand this.

Clearly, chamber pressure taken alone is not something that should be the golden rule of what defines an actions ability. We need to compare apples to apples, case in point, a 45 Colt running at 19,000 cup would not be something even open for discussion.

Bret et al; So larger case head makes the opposite more felt, and creates more stress on the reciever? Why? This is Gunsmithing 101 and I am having fun learning!

I'm not an engineer and can only put it in term I understand- If you have 2 cases of the same shape- lets say they're straight walled and rimless to make it easy- and both are loaded to the same pressure but one has a .400 case head and the other .425 the .425 exerts more force on the breech block all other factors being equal. It's kind of like hydraulics where 2000 psi pushing on a 1" ram can lift a certain amount but the same 2000 psi on a 4" ram can lift several times what the 1" can.

There are a mess of variables- case shape, chamber finish, lube in chamber (remember the 22 Jet?), probably a bunch more that don't come to mind.

[Bret4207]

The breach block was not modified in any way except to move the firing pin. Look at a #4 breach block. Two small ears are ALL that keep it in place these "ears" broke off with 32 S&W factory ammo.
I'm reading that it is OK to do these conversions with down loaded ammo. That's great for a reloader but someday a non loader could put a factory round in it...
It seems to me that the safest way to enjoy these vintage old guns is to err on the safe side. I was lucky that Bruce is still my friend,alive and well. And yes we talked a some length about the safety issues........we were WRONG! It just wrecked a really clean nice old Stevens.
I won't do it to any typical weak action design. Fav,44 ect. are not strong even if made with modern steel.

This is the same argument that results from ANY conversion to ANY gun. I'm not saying anyone HAS to do it, but there is still a bit of freedom of choice left in this country and if some one goes into something with their eyes open and knowing all the pro and cons it ends up being the owners choice.

[rickster]

I still am unclear as to why it would be dangerous to shoot the same bullet, that is operating at the same pressure down a barrel by using a case that is larger.
... Why? This is Gunsmithing 101 and I am having fun learning!


Since I am an engineer, I thought I might be able to put together a post that would explain how all this works. But after typing for a half hour last night, I could see my post would raise more questions than answers, if it didn’t put everyone to sleep first. So I stopped.

Rereading your post today, I think I may see where the misunderstanding is, and will try to help there. If I miss, please excuse me. We can try again.

It appears that you are thinking of the cartridge as a rocket motor, where the thrust is determined by the opening (in this case, the bore size). Actually, a hydraulic ram, as Bret described, is a good analogy. In a rocket engine the thrust is developed by an imbalance of internal forces caused by reduced pressure at the outlet. In a firearm, the thrust is generated as the bolt prevents the case from expanding like a bladder. The forward case walls are (typically) locked to the chamber walls by friction while the rear case walls stretch backward toward the bolt head. The force on the bolt will be the pressure times the cross sectional area of the case at the widest point minus the strength (tension) of the case. If the pressure is low, and the case is strong, the bolt feels no thrust, and may not even be contacted. If the pressure is high, and the case reaches yield, the bolt thrust will be roughly equal to the force that would be generated if the case were a hydraulic piston.

And then there is the matter of hoop stress in the barrel……..

I typed this as fast as I could during my lunch break. I hope it makes some sense.

[Bret4207]

Is it possible for an engineer, an educated man I assume, to make a post without resorting to abbreviated foul language? The "F" word in it's many forms is a no-no on this site. Rather than just notifying a Moderator, I thought I'd make you aware so you could fix it yourself. I'm sure you didn't intend to be offensive, but we have women and kids reading these posts.

[rickster]

Fixed.

[gnoahhh]

Most women and kids I know use the "F" word more than most men I know.! :)

[Bret4207]

Most women and kids I know use the "F" word more than most men I know.! :)

Not here they don't. Why drag this place down to the same level as the rest of our crumbling society?

[Bret4207]

Fixed.

Thanks Rick!:D

[MNruss]

The snowshoe theory doesn't work because it's just your weight on the snow shoe, a finite fixed amount.
Sticking to the hydraulics analogy (it's a good one) :
Force applied over an area = pressure.
Pressure applied on an area = force on that area.
Chamber PSI applied over a larger area = more force on the breechblock.
More force on the breechblock = more force on
those itty-bitty screws acting as pins.
Think of a big hydraulic cylinder vs. a small one pushing on something
The larger diameter cylinder pushes harder, and if the pin on the end of the cylinder breaks, well in this case, KaBoom.:oops:
I wish I had better writing skills.

[Suo Gan]

But the force you can exert on a snowshoe could be different for each and every step you take. What would happen if you hopped on one foot with a snowshoe on, you would sink further in the snow than if you jumped and did this with two feet, right? A larger snowshoe would help us sink a lesser amount into the snow not more...but this is spread over a larger area. But if you could control this perfectly and apply the same amount of force (in our case gunpowder) to a single, and then a double set of snowshoes...They will equal each other out.

I understand that a larger cylinder pushes more but for a shorter distance, a smaller pushes less for a longer distance. The same amount of fluid (in our case gunpowder) will move them so that they will... equal each other out!!!

These are essentially the same principles IMO.

What has been said, and what I need explanation on is how the smaller a case head is helps an action to feel less force to the rear. My untested hypothesis is more force is being "felt" by the sides of the case the smaller in diameter a cartridge is. Therefore less energy exists to move the cartridge to the rear.

But there must be an equal and opposite, otherwise we will be set back scientifically a few hundred years.

What I am reading in the posts is that there is less equal and opposite the smaller a case head is? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps I need to blow the dust off the old physics book.

I think that for the sake of this friendly discussion we can STOP thinking in terms of the Favorite. I mean all of this is a large enough pill to swallow. Also I think that the Fav argument is biased one way or the other (mostly one way). And I think that some of you think you may need to beat it in my head that the Favorite is not a strong action. I know this.

[MNruss]

is that we're not moving anything, just applying presure.
If any thing moves, bad stuff can happen (KB)
So a big ram pushes harder than a small ram, and any movement = breakage.
Therefore a big ram is more likely to cause breakage in whatever fixed object (breechblock) is being pushed against.
Breech thrust is important in T/C contenders, also.
The snowshoe analogy applies (only kind of) if the same powder charge & bullet is loaded into a larger case the general result is less pressure.
(38 special load in a 357 case >> less pressure.)
(increasing C O A L will do this also)
Again, I wish I was a better writer.
Regards
Russ

[Suo Gan]

But we are on the same page. The same energy will equal the same energy however you slice the pie. We must limit the energy applied to the hydraulic ram because to do what you are saying would equal an infinite amount. A ram with infinite amount of fluid to move it will move its entire length or at least exert its complete force on an area. A charge of powder is finite. I think we are saying the same thing, but in a different language...of course You are the drunk Chinaman! :kidding:

I think I am going to move to the logsplitter principle next! Can you split a log with a flat piece of 12"x12" steel? No? But you are saying it works better than the wedge. That is what you are saying!

Also, please do not take offense. I have gotten ribbed pretty well on this thread. I figure I can start doling it out too.

[Bret4207]

Suo Gan- Remember this is laymans terms- If you have a 38 Special case and load it to 20K PSI it exerts a certain amount of pressure to the rear. If you take a 44 Special and load it to the same 20K PSI and all else is equal to the 38 case (wall grip, etc.) you have a larger "hammer" pushing back on the breech block, bolt, whatever. Yes, it' sort of counter intuitive, kinda anyway. But the breech still has to deal with that 20K. The breech block remains the same size while the base get's larger pushing over a larger section of the breech block, so a larger section of the breech lock (whatever that happens to be) is affected and transfers that energy to the locking area.

[Chev. William]

This OLD Thread has some 'General Comments' that may or may not apply:
The Stevens Favorite came in Several Different Versions over the Years, and yes, as manufactured the Strengths of the Actions Varied with the Date and Version Manufactured.

As to Strength of the Actions:

An Early 'Favorite' with 3/16" diameter soft steel screws for pivots and a .450" wide Breech Block is NOT the same as a later one with Hardened and tempered pivot screws and a .480" wide Breech block or a "Favorite" with a .550" wide Breech Block and .213" heat treated Alloy Steel pivots (1915 type). I even have one that has a .600" wide Breech Block with larger "ears" for the pivot which has .250" pivot for the Breech Block and .213" pivot for the Lever.

As to the pressures of Cartridges:

The .22 Short, the .22 Long, and the .22 Long Rifle are ALL rated for the SAME maximum pressures. just the bullet weights seem to be the largest variable in their different velocities in MODERN loadings.

A .22 Hornet case FULLY Resized Down to the diameter of a .25 Stevens Case Body (.276") by pushing it in to a Sizing Die all the way to the Rim top face, will still have about the SAME case wall thicknesses,including just above the Web, and I have measured sectioned Hornet cases that indicate the wall just above the Web is .013" thick. This leaves a Web diameter of about .250" in the downsized Hornet. The RIM diameter of a .22LR Rim is .276" to .278". Comparing these, the .22LR Rimfire cartridge will have more area pressing on the Breech Block than the .25 Stevens Sized Hornet Centerfire Cartridge at the Same Chamber Pressure.

All Rifle Receivers not made from Aluminum Alloy, Brass, Bronze, or other NONE-Ferrous metal or Plastic are by definition made from Ferrous (IRON) alloy. Stevens appears to have used Cast Steel in their receivers, then heat treated them for wear resistance (Case Hardening). Grinding upon different Age Stevens receivers throw 'Low to medium Carbon' characteristic type Sparks.
While grinding upon Cast IRON (Ductile) throw 'high Carbon' characteristic type Sparks.

Has anyone actually done a thorough Laboratory Analysis on several Stevens Favorite Receivers from the full range of manufacturing Production?

Just my Comments on the General sense of the responses in this Thread. Yes I admit these are my own Observations and yours may Vary. But "Blanket" Condemnation of the FULL Range of Stevens 'Favorite' Actions as being 'Too Weak' is misleading verging on Blanket condemnation of a Whole Manufacturers product line based upon one know 'weak' product from early production.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

My question is about converting a Stevens Favorite chambered in 25 rimfire over to a 25 caliber centerfire preferably 25-20 Win. I have heard that some have done this using the .25 auto cartridge. So can this be done, what steps would I need to take, and would the action be strong enough for the 25-20 Win.?

I know, I know, I come up with some hum dingers don't I?

How do you weigh in? WAG's?

I am tired of the thing just sitting there with nothing to do! A gun without a job is a pure shame.


After reading the Roughly three pages of Posts on this Thread I feel No One is actually Reading the previous posts or even the Original Poster's Question completely.

There are Different Versions of the "Stevens Favorite" and the "Stevens 44" with different characteristic "Weaknesses and Strengths".
The Earliest Versions are Different from the Later Versions as parts are NOT directly interchangeable between the different eras of Production.
Example: A 1889 "Favorite" Breech block is too narrow, and has too small pivot holes, to fit in a 1915 "Favorite" Receiver.
And the 1915 Breech Block cannot even enter a 1894 Receiver, without major rework to either or both.

As to CF conversions of a RF version; that Does Entail Machine Work. But the ones who are saying ALL Favorite Type Receivers And Actions are "Too Weak" to withstand CF cartridges OF the SAME diameters are making Broad Stroke Condemning Comments without Fully Reading the Posts.

Why is it Unsafe to Convert a ".25 Stevens (Long) RF" Favorite to a ".25 Stevens (Long) CF" Design cartridge using the SAME Case Diameters and the SAME Bullet Diameter?

Each Reply to the proposal ONLY responded that the "parent Case" listed was too powerful for the 'Favorite' in general Without Reading the FULL posted comment that it was REDUCED to ".25 Stevens Sizes".

Later Era Stevens Favorite were made and sold chambered for the ".32 Long RF" cartridge, which is the SAME Size as the ".32 Long Colt CF" cartridge (which is NOT a .32 S&W Long CF Cartridge!!!).
The Stevens ".32 Long" barrels I have do NOT have the Same Bore/Groove diameters as the "S&W" version Specifications and will NOT Chamber a S&W size Cartridge.
My Barrels seem to have chamber diameters of around .320" or smaller to fit the .318" diameter of the .32 Long/.32 Long Colt Case, NOT the .337" to .339" of the 'S&W Family' Cases.

If you don't like the Idea of a Stevens 44 with .293" Diameter Pivot Pins for the Breech block and Lever and .187" Diameter pivot pins for the Link, with a Breech Block that is a Tight fit between the Pivot pin and the Receiver Shoulders when in Closed position being used for a .32 Extra Long Cartridge (converted to CF from RF) then you are avoiding Thinking of what this Action was built for and just where would you find "Modern High Power Factory Loaded Cartridges" for it?
For that matter, where are you finding "Modern High Power Factory Cartridges" for .32 Long Colt?
I have NOT seen ANY Factory Loaded ".32 Long Colt CF" in other than low power 'Cowboy' shooting Loads on the market, and those don't even come up to the .32 Long RF Specifications for performance.

.25 Stevens Long, either RF or CF versions, have NOT been Factory Loaded since about the 1970s by anyone, and not generally factory loaded since the beginning of WW2. Even then the Factories were not loading them to the Original Performance Specifications, down loading by about 150fps to 200fps of Muzzle Velocity. And the .25 Stevens Short was even further 'weakly loaded'.

For modern comparison, a .25ACP cartridge is about the same size as a .25 Stevens Short, but is loaded to perform about the Same as the Original .25 Stevens Long out of a Rifle Barrel.
Interestingly it is the SAME Case diameter and Bullet Diameter as the Stevens Cartridges.
It also has a 'Rim', that would let it be chambered, and extracted, in a .25 Stevens Barrel.
The .25 Stevens was loaded to around 23,000psi Maximum Chamber Pressures and the .25ACP is currently rated for 25,000psi Maximum Chamber Pressure, just slightly (about 8-1/2%) higher.

In a 1915 Favorite, with Modern Replacement alloy Steel Pivots Screws and Pins and a close fitting CF Breech Block, I think it would be reasonable to fire a .25ACP in a .25 Stevens (Long) chambered Barrel.
I would not try this in a 1886 Favorite however.

Further, Given the improved strength of a "Stevens 44" action due to it's increased size, I would try firing a .25ACP cartridge in a CF model fitted with a .25 Stevens (Long) chambered Barrel; either Side Extractor or Center Extractor Versions.

The later '44' action Versions shot 'loose' under 44-40 RIFLE Hunting Loads, but worked well with Target Loadings, so strength of the action is sufficient for .25 Stevens (Long) in either RF or CF Cartridges of the SAME dimensions. The .25-25, 25-21, and 25-20 SS also were fired in the later '44' actions for Target Shooting but not Hunting Loadings.

Yes You all have Experience and Knowledge that lends Stature to your thoughts but you dilute it by NOT Stating Which Version(s) you are Referring to.
And, Yes I have seen photos of Breech blocks of Early Versions Broken due to High pressure cartridges being discharged in the early Action(s).

That is why I do NOT Advocate reworking then to fit Modern, currently Factory Loaded Cartridges, such as the .32 S&W Long, .32 H&R Magnum or any similar Cartridges.

Just my 'Rant' on the 'Quick Draw' posts that miss the target questions.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[35remington]

Given the cheaper cost and ready availability and suitability of the Contender action for the 25-20 cartridge, all this speculating is firmly in the category of "why bother?" A better, stronger, cheaper and equally handy rifle can be had without any worries about suitability. It will likely be more accurate as well.

This places the idea of converting a Stevens Favorite action in the "not even remotely practical compared to better alternatives" category. Why wonder or hedge when complete assurance of suitability can be had for less hassle and cost?

The point is as moot as moot gets.

[Chev. William]

35remington,
You are correct in your comments on the 'Practical' side of converting a "Stevens Favorite" in .25 Stevens (Short or Long) RF to '.25-20' (Either SS or WCF).

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

Suo Gan,
You asked a General Question on converting a "Stevens Favorite" in ".25 Stevens RF" to ".25-20 Win." which is incomplete as it does not state the Era/Model of 'Favorite' you are asking about.

In general the 25-20 Winchester Center fire cartridge was designed and produced to fit Winchester Action 1892 of the Era, that could not handle the length of the '.25-20 Single Shot' straight walled cartridge that was then used for Target Shooting and occasionally for Hunting at the time.


Cartridge Name
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif

Bullet
Diameter
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif

Shoulder
Width
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif

Body
Width
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/uparrowmini.gif

Rim
Width
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif

Case
Length
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif

Case
Capacity
http://ammoguide.com/gfx/blank.gif



.25-20 Single Shot (http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=pOgBUSjsfv&catid=518)
.257
.296
.315
.378
1.635
20.4


.25-20 Winchester (http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?sn=pOgBUSjsfv&catid=118)
.257
.3332
.348
.408
1.330
19.4


As you can see from the table dimensions it is both larger in diameter and shorter in length.
The .25-20 S.S. nominally was loaded with 85 grain bullets at 1410fps; later from 60 to 90 grains and speeds from 2500fps (60 grain) down to 1200fps (90 grian).
The .25-20 Win. nominally was loaded with 85 grain bullets at 1440fps; later from 60 to 90 grains and speeds from 2249fps (60 grain) down to 1623fps (90 grain).
Diameter of the Cartridge bases (.315" for the 'S.S.' and roughly .347" for the Win.) and of course their Areas, are greater than the .25 Stevens diameter (.276") and Area.
Even if you load the proposed cartridges to Maximum Pressures of the .25 Stevens RF, both of them would exert more total Force on the Breech Block and its pivot Screw/Pin (Force = Pressure times Area) than the .25 Stevens Rf cartridges.

It is Generally not recommended to modify a Stevens Favorite of any era to take a Cartridge that is currently Factory Loaded and has larger base diameter than the Cartridge(s) originally offered by Stevens in the particular model.

Further; The .25 Stevens used a bullet of .250" to .252" diameter in Barrels with Bore/groove diameters of about .244"/.250" while the 25-20 Cartridges use bullets of .257" to .260" diameter in Barrels of about .250"/.257" bore/groove diameters.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[cdupuy]

I have 42 rounds for that rifle if you are interested?

[Chev. William]

I have 42 rounds for that rifle if you are interested?

What rifle? Or more Exactly, what Cartridge designation?

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Geezer in NH]

[Line it to 22lr. Favs are NOT strong! No centerfire 25-20 factory loads would be safe.]

+ 5,287 [smilie=1: :mrgreen:

.
Agree no matter the shape of the action. Want to play CF in a Stevens get an Ideal 44 to start

[vh2q]

Well at the risk of being excoriated I am going to state the following:

1. The 22 mag is loaded to the same pressure (SAAMI) as the 22 lr. I have a Stevens 1915 that I fitted with a 22 mag barrel, and I have put hundreds of rounds through it. I believe I used a 224 groove barrel for the magnum but I don't remember exactly. The 22 mag bullet is .224" whereas the 22 lr is .223" so not a good idea to simply rechamber a 22LR.
2. I have converted the 1915 to CF in the following calibers: 218 Bee (40,000 psi), 256 Win Mag (43,000 psi), 357 Magnum (35,000 psi), 32-20 (16,000 psi)
3. I have converted an 1894 from 32RF to 32-20
4. I have fitted a ruger 10/22 barrel to a favorite.

In all cases I replaced the action pins with modern hard pins that were a hair oversized, calling for reaming prior to conversion for a tight fit. I have replaced the action screws with modern steel screws made from grade 8 bolts, or alternatively from drill rod that was hardened after turning. I usually make the lever screw (and this is the weak point as the screw is skinny) one letter size larger than original as the holes in the lever and the action are usually a little oval so I ream them round to take the new screw. If I cut threads I make them as shallow as I can. The action must be made tight and over center before setting up the headspace for any of these conversions.

In some cases I have threaded the action and barrel shank, but in most I have used the standard retaining screw.

I have casehardened some but not all of the actions. As someone stated these are cast steel not cast iron. But not as strong as forged steel. When you engrave one of these actions, you don't get nice curls, you get chips.

In all the CF conversions, I use mild handloads and I make sure there is adequate leade in the throat.

The only problem I have encountered is the lever screw bending, and that was using modern replacement screws that I bought from a vendor. After that I made my own oversized and hardened screws and had no further problems. I find it difficult to imagine that the breech block can fly out of the action as it is attached to the lever assy as well as the action itself. If it failed it would likely "gape" allowing hot gas to escape from the primer and/or cartridge head, most of which would be deflected upwards. I had this happen once with a 22lr that was a bit loose but unmodified. The case failed at the rim, there was a rather loud bang and some smoke but no harm done.

The breech block is buttressed by the action shoulders which I believe adds a degree of safety to the action. If the action starts to yield the play will be obvious, which is not true with other types of action where the lockup is not "tactile" and exposed.

I do recall reading in a book by P.O. Ackley where he did an experiment on a rifle that was chambered for 30-30. He successively and deliberately increased the headspace and was unable to detect any breech thrust at all due to the brass gripping the chamber walls. If the CF case is roughly straight-walled, it seems that theoretical breech thrust is not reached in practice. It should be relatively simple to calculate how much pressure a given brass case can withstand before it needs to rely on the breech block to prevent failure in tension. I suspect the ctg manufacturers dimension the case accordingly but I am not sure of that. No rimfire cartridge is going to display this behaviour as the cases are very thin indeed. That's why rimfire ctgs are loaded to low pressures. And sloping cases (like the hornet and the infamous 22 jet) are not going to grip the chamber as well as straighter cases like the 357 Mag.

I have also converted a 44 in 25RF to 5mm Rem Mag. The firing pin on a 25 Stevens does not need to be repositioned for this conversion. The 5mm has MUCH higher pressure (33,000) than the 22 lr or WRM (25,000) so you have to have a tight extractor fit to support the thin case rim. The Remington 592s had a very sophisticated two stage extractor to deal with this risk. I plan to do the same conversion on a 1915 but I would not try it on a 1894.

I would not do this type of conversion for a third party, for obvious reasons. And I should say "do not try this at home", if you do it's "AT YOUR OWN RISK".

[Chev. William]

vh2n,

very Good report of your experiences, thank you for sharing.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[NoZombies]

Well at the risk of being excoriated I am going to state the following:

1. The 22 mag is loaded to the same pressure (SAAMI) as the 22 lr. I have a Stevens 1915 that I fitted with a 22 mag barrel, and I have put hundreds of rounds through it. I believe I used a 224 groove barrel for the magnum but I don't remember exactly. The 22 mag bullet is .224" whereas the 22 lr is .223" so not a good idea to simply rechamber a 22LR.
2. I have converted the 1915 to CF in the following calibers: 218 Bee (40,000 psi), 256 Win Mag (43,000 psi), 357 Magnum (35,000 psi), 32-20 (16,000 psi)
3. I have converted an 1894 from 32RF to 32-20
4. I have fitted a ruger 10/22 barrel to a favorite.

In all cases I replaced the action pins with modern hard pins that were a hair oversized, calling for reaming prior to conversion for a tight fit. I have replaced the action screws with modern steel screws made from grade 8 bolts, or alternatively from drill rod that was hardened after turning. I usually make the lever screw (and this is the weak point as the screw is skinny) one letter size larger than original as the holes in the lever and the action are usually a little oval so I ream them round to take the new screw. If I cut threads I make them as shallow as I can. The action must be made tight and over center before setting up the headspace for any of these conversions.

In some cases I have threaded the action and barrel shank, but in most I have used the standard retaining screw.

I have casehardened some but not all of the actions. As someone stated these are cast steel not cast iron. But not as strong as forged steel. When you engrave one of these actions, you don't get nice curls, you get chips.

In all the CF conversions, I use mild handloads and I make sure there is adequate leade in the throat.

The only problem I have encountered is the lever screw bending, and that was using modern replacement screws that I bought from a vendor. After that I made my own oversized and hardened screws and had no further problems. I find it difficult to imagine that the breech block can fly out of the action as it is attached to the lever assy as well as the action itself. If it failed it would likely "gape" allowing hot gas to escape from the primer and/or cartridge head, most of which would be deflected upwards. I had this happen once with a 22lr that was a bit loose but unmodified. The case failed at the rim, there was a rather loud bang and some smoke but no harm done.

The breech block is buttressed by the action shoulders which I believe adds a degree of safety to the action. If the action starts to yield the play will be obvious, which is not true with other types of action where the lockup is not "tactile" and exposed.

I do recall reading in a book by P.O. Ackley where he did an experiment on a rifle that was chambered for 30-30. He successively and deliberately increased the headspace and was unable to detect any breech thrust at all due to the brass gripping the chamber walls. If the CF case is roughly straight-walled, it seems that theoretical breech thrust is not reached in practice. It should be relatively simple to calculate how much pressure a given brass case can withstand before it needs to rely on the breech block to prevent failure in tension. I suspect the ctg manufacturers dimension the case accordingly but I am not sure of that. No rimfire cartridge is going to display this behaviour as the cases are very thin indeed. That's why rimfire ctgs are loaded to low pressures. And sloping cases (like the hornet and the infamous 22 jet) are not going to grip the chamber as well as straighter cases like the 357 Mag.

I have also converted a 44 in 25RF to 5mm Rem Mag. The firing pin on a 25 Stevens does not need to be repositioned for this conversion. The 5mm has MUCH higher pressure (33,000) than the 22 lr or WRM (25,000) so you have to have a tight extractor fit to support the thin case rim. The Remington 592s had a very sophisticated two stage extractor to deal with this risk. I plan to do the same conversion on a 1915 but I would not try it on a 1894.

I would not do this type of conversion for a third party, for obvious reasons. And I should say "do not try this at home", if you do it's "AT YOUR OWN RISK".

I think the disclaimer of "Don't try this at home" should be the first, last, and only things said about this post.