Gentlemens:

I was followed home by a Ruger #3 and have decided it will be the basis of my bench rifle. I have recently seen a picture of Steven Hughes' side lever Ruger and fell in love. I have always been a sucker for anything in a side lever.

So.... We have got so far as to decide that it will be a Side Lever action.  I am soliciting any ideas, advice or insults associated with this project.  I want to lose all that Rube Goldberg stuff hung under the barrel and will need to do something with the trigger. There is a lot of room between the tangs if the safety is removed so I suspect one could incorporate a set trigger of some sort. 

The hammer will have to be powered in some other way, either a flat spring or perhaps a coil like Winchester used.  I reckon it is even possible to lose the hammer all together and make it striker fired. 

I would be glad to hear from anybody who wished to toss their two pennies into the bucket.  Thanks for your help!

Glenn

HST;
I cannot help you with re-engineering the Ruger, but one of my Ruger's (a custom #1) has a pretty decent German single set trigger on it. I believe that it is still available.

Dale53

Foster: 

Thanks for the input. It is going to be an interesting project. We are going at it in two some what separate ways as you are interested in a hunting rifle and mine will be a pure bench rifle. Howsomever, there will be plenty of common ground.

Instead of the "Squeeze cocking" set up how about a squeeze safety, kinda like the grip safety on a pistol? The Ruger safety is pretty safe, what with it blocking both the trigger and the hammer. Perhaps you could incorporate the lever pressure into the system.

Glenn

hst, This project has my interest up on the full setting, have always liked the looks of the Hepburn & thought it would make the prefect bench rifle with a straighter butt stock attachment, this project of a side lever Ruger may be the better answer & less $$$ if you do not count personal labor involved! Presently only one Ruger #3 in 7mm x 1 1/2"R resides in the gun safe, it is very accurate with breech seated cast bullets and would definitely benefit from a side lever conversion for bench shooting. Had the Kepplinger single-set trigger installed when I purchased the rifle. It is an excellent set trigger, does take a couple tries to get it adjusted to your preference, but once completed it maintains the setting, FFL's holders/dealers price from Brownell’s is about $170 and IMO well worth it. Personally, only performed the basic mechanical work on the #3’s, defiantly would like to hear more about this project and in the future perform the same type of conversion on my #3. Thanks for bringing up this fascinating project, Mike 

The two gentlemen are correct. I now remember that my trigger is a Kepplinger. It is engineered for the Ruger and should be relatively easy to install.

Dale53

Foster, possibly one reason Mr Hughes hasn't responded to your requests about the sidelever conversion is that he's not the guy who accomplished it. Mr Hughes was merely the stockmaker on these projects and not the metalsmith, in fact I don't believe Steve Hughes does much metalwork at all compared to his volume of stockwork. A fellow named John Madole is the guy who can give you the straight skinny on how it was done, but I don't know how to contact him. The best pictures I've seen of this conversion are contained in Steve Hughes' book Custom Rifles in Black and White, which also contains some truly great photos & descriptions of some other truly great custom single shot rifles.

Glenn, I've used the Kepplinger SST on both Ruger No 1s and various Mausers, it's an OK design but maybe not quite as crisp as some others. It's a typical over-center design similar to the original roller SSTs and so is sometimes a little mushy-feeling in comparison to the ones with sharp secondary sears.

I no longer possess a Ruger but continue to use the Kepplinger triggers on two Mausers. I've found that they sometimes require some spring-tension adjustment/balancing to achieve the best results and have actually had to substitute other springs on one occasion. Also I've had to reduce the internal sear engagement surfaces on my Kepplinger Mauser triggers to achieve good crisp unset pulls with no creep. I don't remember having this problem with the Ruger Kepplingers but as always, YMMV.

At one time Canjar made an SST for the Ruger, IMO I would MUCH prefer the Canjar over the Kepplinger but where would you get one? Maybe keep your eyes on eBay? Or advertise in the Journal or here on this site? Of course I know that a man of your means & resources can easily make one but it's somewhat of a hassle to say the least.

In the past I've been able to buy spare parts from the Canjar folks including extra trigger/kicker assemblies that I could use with my own bench-made trigger legs, for various custom applications including one of my Borchardts. It's sometimes a lotta work but it's been worth it for me, keeps me off the streets & outa trouble for the most part (VBG).

If you choose to pursue the adaptation of some other type of DST such as the previous mention of using triggers from a muzzle-loader, I can offer an opinion. I've been pursuing the use of other set triggers on the Winchester walls and have made several conversions of this type with mixed results. I've had trouble getting the triggers to maintain their settings due to the relative sloppiness of the triggers' fit in their frames.

I've now concluded that possibly the best solution is to use the more-compact DSTs intended for Mausers rather than the earlier designs like the original walls or muzzle-loaders. Over the years I've found that the best compact DSTs are IMO made by Anschutz and Precise Metalsmithing Enterprises, both of which are available from Brownell's. It's been my experience that either of these brands are capable of holding a dependable setting right down to the 2-ounce mark and so far I've had no trouble with the sear surfaces wearing under use. Have been using one particular set of Anschutz triggers now for many many years with no changes, and a set of PME triggers for almost that long. IMO they are both superior products & I recommend them wholeheartedly, AAMOF I keep an extra new set in stock at all times just in case they quit makin' 'em unexpectedly.

Please feel free to contact me via e-mail if you want to be confused any further, I would be honored to help. And Ben S informs me that you need all the help you can get!
Best regards, Joe

Gentlemens:

Thanks for all the input and support. 

I see two ways of approaching the hammer spring issue. The first is to find a better way to power the hammer. The other is to use a striker. I don't know which would be best. The Hammer will likely be an easier solution, and by lightening the parts one could tame it all down. More thought and experimenting required.

I did see a picture of the Dakota M10 without the stock and it appears to be striker fired in a manner that I was envisioning for the Ruger.

Joe, I believe you to be right about the Hughes action being done by Mr. Madole. Unfortunately, I understand that Mr. Madole has passed on.  A man who could do work of that caliber will surely be missed.

Do you recall if any of those pictures showed the action open? If so, did the floor plate come down with the lever?  If not then there had to be modification to the block as well as the firing mechanism.

I checked Brownell's website for the triggers you mentioned. All I could come up with is a set of triggers for the M-98 made by NECG, part #661-098-100.  Do you happen to have the numbers of the Anschutz and PME?

And yes, I must confess that Ben is right.

Glenn

hst, here is Brownell's url for the Ruger set triggers { (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links) } Check page 8 of the #58 Catalog, they also have installation instructions for the Ruger trigger in the guntech section. Mike 

Something I forgot to add. The Kepplinger triggers, due to their over-center design, exhibit a definite & unique 'feel' when release occurs. I can somewhat liken it to the double-action recoil felt in the long-recoil semiautomatics like the Browning A-5. Also like the A-5, this 'feel' is very disconcerting to some & completely unfelt by others. I acquired my first Ruger Kepplinger trigger when the owner decided he didn't like it, but I liked it just fine, in fact I liked it well enough to buy three more over the years.

Of course you know that most set triggers will cost you about a 10% accuracy penalty. But the braggin' rights are simply irresistible!
Good luck, Joe

I have to confess I don't have the slightest interest in converting my #3 into a side lever.  Maybe people should look into the Fraser instead. What I really would be interested in would be external cocking - not by pulling up the lever, nor by pushing a large button forward (like some of the German rifles have promoted), but by pulling back something that looks like an external hammer, but does nothing but cock the action. Then I could get rid of the safety, which for my #3 is dangerous because the web of my hand easily pushes it off when I carry it, and it would be nice to be able to carry the rifle uncocked until the last moment.  I think it would look good too, all the charm of an external hammer, but with an internal hammer and external cocking.

The Most Learned Mr. Steele:

Thanks once again for your help and advice.  I will get me a set of the set triggers and start playing with them. 

Pictures? I don't need no stinkin' pictures!  I just ordered a copy of Mr. Hughes' book. I am looking forward to seeing what details are depicted. There may be enough detail to infer the rest.

Right now I am looking at the modifying the existing Hammer/ swinging transfer bar system to be a shorter stroke, lighter mass set up. Loosing that push rod alone will take a lot of mass out of the system. This would make for a quicker lock time and less chaos when the hammer falls.  Then the action could be fit with the DST or the Kepplinger trigger depending on the intended use of the rifle.

What could possibly go wrong?



As to the troubles with inadvertently actuating the tang mounted safety, the tidest fix for that might be to recess the safety slide down into the tang. This might well look a bit sleeker as well.

Glenn

P.S:  Joe, tell Ben that you heard somewhere that he ain't right.

Hello Again

The noise of the Ruger ejector really irks me, I don't know why but it does, even when it is set at minimum pressure and only extracting.

As part of this project maybe we could devise an sort of elastromer replacement for the Ruger arrangement that would both power the ejector and damp the noise it makes.  I can't quite get my head around the exact mechanics of this but it looks feasible to me.

Secondly it is quite simple to modify the safety spring to give a more positive on/off detent if it is causing a problem, any smith could do this.

Finally a point of clarification, I have the action schematic from the De Haas book, it shows the Ruger trigger as riding the sear, however my No 3 has the trigger linked with a toggle and pins to the sear.  I believe mine to be a 1976 model.  Are the production models all the same ?? (De Haas reviewed a very early or pre production rifle I think)

Cheers - Foster

Tentman, if you take the spring and associated linkage off of the ejector it becomes...an extractor!  No noise, no tossed cases!

David
Montezuma, IA

Mr. Hurst:

Ya' know, that ain't the way I heard that story....



Joe:

I have been lead to believe that it is a true fact that a flat spring is faster than a coil spring.  Howsomever, the "coil" spring on a late model Winchester is not a true coil spring. It is a torsion spring and more akin to the flat spring than a coil spring. Because of this and the fact that is much lower in mass it may well be faster than the flat spring in the Winchester. I dunno. It would be interesting to design and execute a test.

Glenn

Joe:

I would be most interested not only in the results of your test, but with the means with which you figure on testing. I was pondering ways to do this and the equipment involved and then it dawned on me that I already have the basis of what I need. What could be more suitable for measuring a very brief instant of time than a chronograph? If one were electrically inclined one could probably cipher out a way to use electrical inputs right into the box.  Howsomever, a crude thing to measure relative speed of the hammer could be done by having said hammer pull something through the screens. It would be easy enough to work out the mechanics.


As for the Ruger, at this point it is going to be a singularly ungraceful pure bench rifle.  It will have a short fat barrel, something in the 2" diameter range. I have a friend that tells me  short and fat is a system that has worked for him his whole life and he don't see  no reason to change now. How can you argue with logic like that? 

It will be chambered in the venerable .38 Cloudy Day.


I am afraid this rifle is not going to challenge any of Mr. Hughes' rifles in a beauty contest. It will be a matter of attempting to make the most graceful and well finished rifle that can be made without sacrificing the functionality of a pure bench rifle. 

I expect it will sport a bob sled and a flat bottomed forend. The bottom line of the butt stock will be parallel to the bore. That pretty much ties one's hands in regards to artistry, but we will try. I do have a way cool piece of very dense walnut that will be perfect for this.

What could possibly go wrong?

Glenn

Interesting....


I reckon in theory one could make a hammer as light as a striker, and as short of stroke, consequently it should be as fast as a striker.  Would such a lock deliver the same degree of accuracy? Probably not. 

The striker's action/ reaction force is in the same axis as the bore and would tend to move the rifle more or less parallel to the axis of the bore. A swinging hammer would be a rotational force, first when the hammer is started and again when it stops. That energy has to go some where, so one would have to assume it makes the rifle rotate around the hammer pin.

This would seem less good. All else being equal, I have to think that the striker is inherently more accurate

Howsomever, I am not convinced that the difference would be measurable in the real world, be it a light hunting rifle or a 15 pound bench rifle.  I suspect it would get lost in the noise of cast boolits  and atmospheric conditions in the case of the heavy bench gun. In the hunting rifle, you sure could not see the difference in my offhand shooting. <g>

Glenn

So far as testing the various springs & hammers in the walls, we're really only interested in one or two things. The intrinsic accuracy advantage or disadvantage with each setup from the bench, and the relative speed of the various lock times for offhand shooting. The lock time may or may not be correlative with the accuracy.

I think measuring the velocity of an object launched by the hammer will be complicated by the differing weights of the different hammers. Remember the speed of the test object will depend upon the momentum and not just the velocity of the hammer, and all three hammers have different masses which will cause differing momentums even if the velocity is the same. I think we need some sort of shock-measuring intrumentation attached to the action with a time-measurement readout of some sort, to get a good handle on the relative lock times.
Now I'm off to the gun show, have fun with this while I'm gone, Joe

There are surely smarter folks out there than I but if I remember my physics correctly, the speed (velocity) does not depend upon the momentum but rather momentum depends upon velocity. Momentum is a product of mass times velocity. Likewise energy is the product of mass times velocity squared. If memory serves correctly, if one determines the velocity of the hammer and knows the mass of the same, then the striking force may be calculated. It is correct that either momentum or energy will vary with a change in mass. Obviously the stored energy of a given spring will imart a higher velocity to a lighter hammer than a heavier one.
 

OK, enough of that. Taxes my brain!

I'd really be interested in only two things in this whole scenario: A) which hammer/mainspring setup is more accurate from the bench and B) how do the various lock times compare?

And I wonder if they'll correlate?
We'll see, eventually, Joe

Glenn, the gun show (Birmingham, AL) was a disappointment so far as single shots were concerned. Usually it's better but this time one of my table buds & I had more single shots than all the rest combined, it seemed. Lots of trapdoors, nothing much else except Rugers.

Lots of Unertl scopes however, with big prices attached. I sold a well-used Unertl 2" target & an almost-new MVA BPCRS 6x, bought a really clean Unertl 1" target in 6x. Been looking for a 6x Unertl for a squirrel scope for a long long time, now it's mounted on the Hurst-engraved low wall 22LR & will be tried in the woods shortly.

Yes, the Madole SS rifles are true works of art, as are most of the others in the book. However the Madole trigger guards are way too small IMO for best looks although their shape is just fine. I personally would make the TGs out of slightly thicker stock, up to 50% thicker, & make the bows slightly larger in size, up to 20% larger & elongated toward the front. Right now IMO the bottom of the rifles looks kinda naked with those small TGs, but it's all personal taste & the taste varies with the taster. The rest of his metalwork is pretty much flawless IMO.

Please take a look at the Edd Webber Hagn. At first I liked it OK but thought it wasn't anything better than some others in the book, however I later came to agree with Hughes' opinion that it exhibits a truly unique classic timeless beauty. AAMOF IMO it's the best-looking SS rifle I've ever seen, period. Maybe not perfect but still the best I've ever seen.

Also, one of Webber's 1877 Sharps is the best-looking Sharps I've ever seen, it's the sporter with the lesser drop in the upper tang. The lesser tang drop IMO makes it look much much better than the other two 1877s.

This book oughta give you some really neat new ideas for your next project. I know that it put some new colors in my paint box. I look forward to his next book.
You never did answer my groundhog question but you're OK in my book anyway, Joe

STeve Hughes has noted on another forum, don't recall where but it was in answer to something I posted, that extraction with his side lever Ruger is not up to the original underlever.

So be warned.

The Winchester takedown "barrel extension" (as it is called) is being reproduced by Frank Zika and marketed on eBay by the same guy that sells a lot of Rodney Storey's castings as well as (I think) by Brownell's maybe.    The original high- and low-wall installation this involves requires the rat-trap style coil spring which is associated with the hammer and does not extend in front of the receiver at all.  Alternatively, it might be possible to construct some sort of a back action like the Rem Roller that has a flat spring over the trigger tang and behind the hammer...the question is, WHY?   ???  If you are going to change the action THAT MUCH, why not do all that machining from the start on a design that is closer to what you want in the end anyway?  I'm as much of an experimenter as the next guy, but I can't help but feel it would be more practical to start with a design that is closer to your desired end product, that way you can be sure the light at the end of the tunnel is not just an oncoming train! 

If you like the general idea of the Winchester takedown, you might buy a Meacham action (which is over-long in the proper area) and machine in the interrupted threads, reshape the face of the receiver to match the original takedown configuration, and spend all the time you saved doing wierd machining out at the range shooting your new toy of proven design!   

JMHO, YMMV, yadah, yadah, yadah!
Froggie

Thanks for the comments Guys

How do you think a locking nut arrangement like the Savage bolt actions use would go, especially with a octagonal barrel (I know I'm making life complicated here).  I'm thinking something nice that has a tulip type shape so it looks a bit stylish.

Cheers - Foster

I've seen the locking nut arrangement done on an 1898 Mauser with the internal shoulder and it worked well. Should also work well on a single shot, if done correctly. Don't know how it would look/work with an octagon bbl, however, when things finally began to get loose. Scope mounting would take some thought.
Interesting, Joe

Joe,

I just assumed one face was fixed and the other had all the wear. I think the math works out the same as half on each. So the .001 gap is aligned at the 60°, or 30° from the bore line. That makes a 30-60-90 triangle with the hypotenuse in line with the bore.

I'd have to get out the book and make some calculations, but I don't think there's a huge difference in face area between the 16TPI V and the 10TPI square. The square is .050 deep, and the V is .062 minus the root fillet and tip flat.

Another thought, the Ruger has a 1" thread. May be reasonable to bore it out and cut a 1.100 x 10TPI square thread in it. I don't know if I'd want to do it with a belted mag, but for anything a typical single shot nut would want I think it'd work fine.

Wesg, you might also consider a 12tpi square thread as used in the Marlins, it would give you a little more room and minimize the 'crush' wear effect at the same time. I'll bet you could use something like 1.050" x 12 tpi instead of 1.100" and still have plenty of wall thickness left. But I bet you hafta use a carbide tool to cut that Ruger receiver ring!
Regards, Joe

Hello Folks

After a bit of late night scheming I think there is a way of doing the ignition faster and with nothing in front.

The Rugers hammer is replaced and becomes a sort of light-weight link, it is uses the existing sear but the firing impulse is delivered to the transfer bar via a strut or striker that connects at the sear end of the link, somewhat like the Hagn action.  The striker pivots from under the stock bolt along the line of the saftey bar, which it replaces.  The safety would be a "preventer" that stops the striker from pivoting up.

This would deliver a striking action based on impluse like a modern bolt action(sorry I'm not a smith or engineer so don't know the right jargon) rather that the effect of a hammer, which I think of as based on momentum.

There is a little milling to be done to the reciever web that lies just to the front of the sear and a seat for the base of the striker but if it is no good then it should be possible to go back to the original parts (as long as the hanger bar hasn't yet been "chopped")

Now all someone has to do is figure how to have the lever have a positive position at all times, instead of being "floppy" when not being pushed on by the mainspring.

Cheers - Foster