I have a Stevens 44 and a Stevens 44 1/2 that are in way better condition than most that you may come across. Have been told that they are like 95% or better. They are not dilled & tapped for scope bases. Would having them drilled and tapped for Unertil scope bases in the same place on the barrel that Stevens would have done so harm the value of the rifles? They are both standard rifles and there is nothing extra on them. I can't help but feel that it would not, but would like to hear from those in the know. There is little dough that I could shoot them more accurately with my Unertl scopes than with the tang and globe that I now use. Don't get me wrong because I do like shooting with the tang ad globe but for wringing out the most accuracy in testing the scope would sure be an asset.

                 Sendaro

Sendaro wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 8:42am:


Absolutely!

Because Stevens was the first rifle maker to actively promote the use of optics, first by offering Malcolms & Cummins'  in Stevens catalogs, later by manufacturing an incredibly diverse selection of its own scopes, there's nothing ahistorical about mounting a scope on a Stevens IF you do it right.  Doing it right means forgetting about Unertl-style blocks & installing repros of Stevens blocks, which Steve Earle produces.  He can make them with the Unertl flange cut, which isn't of course correct for Stevens, but they will at least have the correct length & hole spacing.

Most later Stevens barrels were marked on the "off side" of the top flat, but if you've got an earlier barrel with markings on the top flat, there's still space on either side of them to place the blocks without drilling the markings--which WOULD be a cardinal sin.

You might try this . I milled two bases on a piece of flat stock. I epoxy or use doublesided tape. I can test loads or shoot it for quite a while.  I do use some vinyl tape as a safety. 
Kurt

If it were mine I would drill and tap it but that's just me. I see no use in owning a rifle one cannot shoot and enjoy for the rest of his shooting days.

JLouis

You are probably going to loose enough in value between the two rifles to buy a CPA to shoot. I looked at a High Wall that had been D&T recently it was priced accordingly, about half of what an untouched original would sell for

One reason I don't collect guns, don't want the burden of keeping one pristine.

Boats

frnkeore wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:


Could screw blocks to a plate rather than mill the entire piece.

     Joe. 

boats wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:


Not at all.  For one thing, the brl markings on Winchesters, except the late ones, are spread out over so much space that there's no room to mount the blocks without drilling the letters.  For another, Winchester never promoted scopes until it began producing them (probably to compete with Stevens).

Wish I could find a nice HW I could buy for half its value because its brl had been drilled!

Redsetter wrote Quote:

Redsetter,

I'm suspecting that WRA rifles that were ordered with factory installed WRA scopes had the barrel address and calibre markings shifted from the 12 o'clock position to the 10 o'clock position.

I think you get more suggestions for the 14 twist.

Try to fine a P jones 32002 mold for it or get one from someone and sent it to Steve Brooks to copy. He has a fast turn around time.

Frank

Sendaro wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:


That's possible, but how many chucks did you see run over in the road?  As late as the early '80s, their little mangled corpses made (sickening) mile-markers, almost.  Same in the Catskills, where I lived at the time.  But soon after, the coyote invasion began, & it's never been the same.

Sometime in the '90s I visited a farmer near Shusan who confirmed what I'd seen happen in the Catskills, & told me he'd watched coyotes stalking them in his own fields.  For critters as smart as coyotes, they're sitting ducks. 

Redsetter,

   I have to agree. When I was a kid there were no coyotes around, and sometime in the 1980s they showed up. They have nearly wiped out the chuck populations in several areas. So now we shoot coyotes. I still hunt chucks but not near Shushan NY. For many years I hunted them in the Mohawk Valley and south west of there. However the last few years it's been much harder to find any than ever before. The days of shooting 30 or more in a full day of hunting are gone. If I have a day with 8 to 12 kills that's a good one and I have to travel for that. Best day ever was back in the early 1990s when we shot 52 chucks in one day between my hunting partner and I. Have attached a photo with 17 that I shot one afternoon with a single shot rifle. The rifle was not of any great age. It was a 6MM PPC that I shoot in BR comp. I took it to the field just to see how it would do on chucks, as it was classefied as a light varmint rifle in BR shooting. By Joe, it killed chucks just fine! Euber 68 grain BR bullets did the trick to 428 yards. I miss the good old days!

                                Sendaro

If you choose to not drill, you'll never be tempted to lie about it.   


Sendaro, great picture! Can see by the countryside, the weather and critters, how a man could spend hours and hours hunting chucks.

    Joe.

JLouis,

           A C Gould makes a good point I have to agree. However I think that I will keep the rifle's org. barrel as is and see the folks at CPA to have a new barrel made. There is nothing wrong with a 2 barrel set. Also I can go with a little heavier barrel, and a faster twist. What twist would you recommend? CPA has recommended a 1 in 15" twist, and a 200 grain bullet mold. Do you think the 1 in 14" would be a better choice? How about barrel length. They can furnish a 28". Would that be any advantage over the org factory 26".  Please advise. I value your opinion.

                             Thanks, Sendaro

John I have had all my success with a 28" 15 twist and a 6 diameter ogive  210gr. spitzer bullet. The 14 twist will let you go a little heaver and give you more variety. I did have 14 twist for a short time but felt it provided an over spin ( per Mann's findings ) and the out shots went further out. It did shoot extremely well but not quite as consistently well as my 15 twist.

I might also add I have since went to a 195gr. flat nose bullet ( Darr 190B ) and it has by far been the most consistent and provided the smallest groups. I have not noticed any increased condition movement even in 10-15MPH winds as should be expected? I might also add both bullets are cylindrical and I personally have not had great success with tapered or two diameter bullets and I have tried several different varieties and nose designs. 

Just my experience.
JLouis

JLouis,

      Thanks for getting back to me. It will be a 1 in 15" that I will have made up and in 28 inch. What do you think of Douglas XX barrels? Any other make you would suggest? 

   CPA has molds in stock. I'll take a look at what they have. The Darr mold you mention is that a design of Darr or is he the mold maker also.

       CPA also has barrels that are round, half round and octagon, and all octagon. I'm leaning towards the round barrel for two reasons. It has been my experince with octogon and part octagon they do not seem to shoot as well as most of the round barrels that I have worked with in modern high velocity firearms that shoot jacketed bullets. Also a round barrel is easy to make a forearm for. Just in case I want something different to use off the benchrest.

        Thanks again for you help.

                                                 Sendaro

Louis.  I have two Darr 190 gr molds. Both are tapered. Chuck Bordman has two Darr 190 gr molds. Both tapered.  Didn't know Barry made a straight version.

Very accurate bullets in just about any .32.

        Joe.

JLouis, 

Again good advice. Thank you. Sent an email to CPA, and awaiting reply. If all goes as planned I will be making a visit at CPA sometime within the next week. Will be looking at a Douglas XX barrel 28" long in #4 round contour. Will have to see what they have for bullet mold. Would like to have them slug the barrel for me as I'm sure they have had more experince than I in doing such. 

                                  Sendaro

Quote:


And where did you say the family cemetery burial lots are located ?      

C.M.M.

One thing I've noticed on most Stevens single shot rifles that came factory D&T for scopes is they didn't usually have a dovetail in the barrel for a rear sight base. So if you were to D&T the gun it would have both dovetail and scope holes, and not really be quite what Stevens usually did.
I'd make up a base that fit into the rear barrel dovetail, and then a scope rib that could mount to that, and also use some epoxy to add to strength. The combination would be very strong, and not likely to get bumped off, but still keep the gun original.
I've got a couple old Rem. Rolling Blocks that weren't D&T for a tang sight and I've always wished they were. I know I could D&T the tangs in the perfect location, but I hesitate to alter them, even if nobody but me would know.

marlinguy wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 11:57am:


Well, what about Stevens owners who bought their guns before Stevens began building scopes in 1902, or who "had to think awhile" before shelling out for a scope that cost half as much, or more, than their gun?  Might they not have returned their barrels for D&T?  Or even if they were drilled by some local gunsmith, how much less "original" is such a gun?   

First Stevens mounts weren't attached by blocks--they were screwed directly to the brl., so the owner had to be fairly committed to the use of a scope.  Detachable mounts & blocks came in 1904--in fact, Stevens invented them.

Quote:

Stevens also made their No. 1 mounts that went into the existing sight dovetails, so you didn't need to drill and tap the barrel, though you did need to use a full length scope, which was available.

I suppose that what you do depends on whether you consider the rifle to be a tool used to do a job, a common attitude back then and to a certain extent  now, or if you feel that a 95% plus condition rifle that they just don't make anymore should be used and enjoyed but readily able to be returned to its original unaltered configuration if you decide to pass it on sometime down the road.

In the end, it's your rifle, do as you please, but I personally won't pay high dollar for extra holes.

So if you have a Stevens that was not originaly drilled and tapped and the fellow took it to say Schoyen or one of the other highly regarded barrel / rifle builders of the day and had one of them D&T it would the rifle then be worth more as a collectible or less. Another scenerio would if the owner sent it back to Stevens to D&T for one of their scopes would it then be worth less and how could one tell who actually did the work the first group mentioned or the factory?

JLouis

BP wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:


For anything but shooting off a bench, a FL scope is highly impractical.  Over the years I've had two of them which I tried using for squirrel & woodchuck hunting (hardly arduous sports), but found the handling of them just too aggravating.

Still have a FL Favorite model (scope not gun) which was the cheapest scope Stevens made, pretty dim except in full sun, and the #1 mounts are simply primitive.  Despite the convenience of mounting a FL, I think any serious shooter of the time would have avoided it.

Redsetter wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:


Those installed before we get the guns are unknown, so I'm not sure what your point is? It's impossible to say which are factory, and which are gunsmith mounted, or if they were done after they left the factory, or returned to be factory D&T. 
Only those with no rear dovetail, and a Stevens scope could possibly fall into the factory installed situation, but since there's no records we don't even know for sure on them.
My point is I would not D&T an old gun for a scope or sights, even if I could do it exactly how the maker did. I just don't want to modify an original, unless the gun was already messed with, or far from decent condition.

What I was trying to communicate is that those without a dovetail would be more likely to be factory, not that they were the only Stevens that were factory. Or that I didn't accept a Stevens as factory if it was done on a return trip.
I have no issue with a factory d&t gun, even if it was sent back later and done. But there's just no way to know a Stevens was done at the factory new, or later. No records were kept, so how would one know when, or by whom the d&t was done?
On other makes of guns some factories kept better records, and any return trip was added to that serial number's history. So if it's recorded it actually adds history to the gun, and in my opinion value too. The more info that can be documented on a gun, the better in my opinion. Most collectors will agree that documented history is much better than speculation.

BP, well said. I think that is part of what makes this hobby so interesting. Some things can be documented, much more cannot. "If they could only talk" it would sure make things easy. I buy what I like. Try not to pay a premium for something that cannot be documented. Sometimes pay the premium anyway just because I like the gun. For example, I have a Stevens Favorite with what I think is a factory checkered stock. No way to prove it for sure but I bought it because I liked it and did pay a little more than I should have. Stevens is one of the toughest to document because of lack of factory records and a lot of model differences are in the sights, which can be changed at any point in time. It this was easy and simple it would not be nearly as much fun.

BP wrote on Nov 20^th, 2013 at 4:25pm:


Don't make it true, but (given what you said) it DOES make it possible & plausible.  Here's where experience & good judgment come into play--if the gun looks "right," untampered with & so forth, I think it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I've got some untouched guns, and I've got some highly modified guns, and I love them all! I can't even say I'd rather have a bone stock, unchanged gun, as that would eliminate almost every schuetzen style rifle I own, as almost all were modified a little or a lot!
I have to look at each gun and decide if it's what I want, and the price is commensurate with the condition, changes, and collectability. I actually love old guns with period scopes, and own a few, but I take into consideration that most are likely modified after they left the factory. I think those holes hurt the gun's value, but I also feel that if a correct era scope is still in place it offsets the extra holes.
I purchased a Ballard #6 that was gunsmithed long ago, and had a Stevens scope on it, with Pope rings and bases. It also has a .22 Short Winchester 1885 barrel, and numerous other changes. But I was excited to get it, regardless of how far from factory it was, and I still enjoy it. 
Sometimes changes add value to a stock gun, but they have to all go together. The quality of the work, all the features added up, and when those modifications were done, help me decide if I like the rifle or not. Most important ( at least to me!) is when the changes were done. I'm not too interested in one that was modified last year, but early last century (or before!) really gets my juices flowing!

marlinguy wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 8:38pm:


Well, yes--that goes without saying!: the work done before the gun became a "collector's item."  

I've got & use a variety of Stevens scopes, but have never even seen Pope mounts offered for sale; just as well I guess, as they'd be unusable without a barrel milled to fit them.  Equally scarce, & superior, I think, in its operation, was Stevens #4 Double Micrometer, one of which I found after years of searching.

At sixty pounds, no drop needed. Just a little bump on the scope could cause damage.  One sixty pounder is enough, trust me. I like the shorter scopes in any event. Needed the long scope to fit my rifles mounts. I like the Parsons optic better than the MVAs.
I also have a long Stevens scope with nice optics but cant get the crosshairs clear. Don't know how to adjust it.
Might be my right eye. Having trouble seeing any crosshairs. 

      Joe. 

BP wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 1:12am:


Yes, such scopes on a Favorite wouldn't be a problem (though still not so handy as a shorter scope).  But there's a world of difference between a Favorite so equipped, and a 10 or 12 lb. gun with a 32 or 34 inch scope.  Also a world of difference between the brilliant optics of a Parsons, or other modern scope, & a Stevens Favorite model scope.

My Stevens scope is a 161.  Dave Casey explained to me how to adjust the crosshair focus. Couldn't get the hairs clear. 

     Joe.

Redsetter wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 10:56pm:


Not quite correct. Most people think all Pope mounts were dovetailed into the barrel, but Pope actually listed separate mounts with the dovetail cuts in his catalog. My understanding it not many people opted to purchase the mounts as Pope didn't recommend his own mounts because he felt it was inferior to the cuts in the barrel.
My gun has a pair of the Pope mounts with his optional bases. The only pair of bases I've ever seen, and so far nobody else has located another pair that I know of.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Joe,

Nice scope!
Can you tell if someone may have screwed around with the eye piece before the scope ended up in your hands?

If I remember right, the scope has a brass lense cell that is fixed.  Dave instructed me to loosen the eyepiece, then bump the scope so the cell slides back against the eyepiece, then adjust the eyepiece forward until the crosshairs become clear. Don't know what keeps the eyepiece from sliding forward and back. Will take another look at it. 

       Joe.

Ahso! Will take a look after the Frau goes to bed.

   Joe.

Cell is fairly tight. Has a ring machined around the end so can get hold of it with the fingernails. 

One screw at the forward end of the brass lense cell.  Cross hairs are extremely fine. Hard to tell if they are in focus or not. Like I said, my right eye don't see so good anymore. Have trouble seeing the c-hairs in all my scopes.  Is strange because the vertical hair is clear, the horizontal hair is blurry and looks further away. Rotate the scope a quarter turn, same thing. Cockeyed Joe??

    Joe. 

   

westerner wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 9:38pm:


Sounds somewhat like astigmatism, though I'm certainly no optician.  Really, you need to find someone else to check this out & tell you whether he sees the same problem with the crosshairs.  No sense continuing to tinker with the scope if the trouble is your own eyesight.

Good idea. Need to take a look at it again since I put it back together. As Redsetter said it may not be as bad as I thought. Still need to know how the pieces go back together. Thought I kept them straight but now I am not sure. Would be helpful if someone here knew what order all the pieces go in.

Hi Guys,

    Solved my delema with to tap and drill or not to. Went to CPA in PA yesterday and ordered a new barrel for my 44 1/2 Stevens. Can't ask for two nicer people than Paul and Gail. They took the time to answer my questions and offered advice that only comes with years of exper & knowledge. I now have a Douglas 28" #3 barrel half octagon and half round with a 1 in 15" twist on the way. The barrel will be D&T for both Unertl type scope blocks and an extra hole so that a Weaver base could also be used. 
    I want to thank all of you who replied to my post as it did offer much insight and helped me in making my decision. In this case the 44 1/2 remains untampered with and I will have a barrel that will allow me the uses of a scope, as well as a better than average chance that it will be an accurate barrel. I could have D&T the org barrel and found it was not as accurate as I'd be content with. So at the very worst in this case I will have an org untampered Stevens 44 1/2 and it is a two barreled set with a new barrel set up for scoped use. 

     Now I pose the question of what bullet to start with for distances of 200 yards and beyond. At present I have a SAECO #632 170 grain mold that is working for me in a 1 in 16" twist org barrel on a Stevens 44. Should I seek purchase of a mold that cast a bullet of 200 grains or more? I'd want it to be a tapered bullet for breech seating. What about a pointed or spritzer shape? Would like to hear your suggestions.

      Thanks, Sendaro

Boats,

      Thanks for the reply. I've sent an email to CPA and asked them to suggest a bullet mold. I'll bet they suggest the same one that you make mention of. Have not had the chance to cast with a HOCH mold as of yet. Will I have to purchase HOCH mold handles, or will other mold handles accomadate the use of HOCH mold blocks?

                        Sendaro

JLouis,

   Once again you are there to help. Thank you. What Hoch bullet? The spitzer or the traditional Schuetzen type? I plan to shoot at 200 yards and beyond. The beyond part is just to see what it will do. I have 500 yards on the range at our shooting house. It should be a hoot!!!!

                                            Sendaro

CPA's Hoch is a fairly conventional bullet, round nose tapered and 200 grs. Main point is it's going to fit the barrel which is 3/4 of the job. It's considered to be a standard, nothing radical. Like J Louis says there may be better but it's a good starting point.

Started with it and for a dozen years never saw the reason to look for another. Am moving my offhand shooting from breech to fixed next season, ordered a duplicate of the tapered bullet that's cylindrical for fixed ammo, basic design, length & weight is the same.  Fixed is an experiment not recommending it for maximum rifle performance.

Some like the spritzers and I have had very good success with a 38/55 290 gr Spritzer intended to give better 500 yard results. However spritzers are fussy and mine may have worked more due to luck than design.  It's real easy for the long nose to slump on ignition, while the better B/C is marginal at plain base cast velocity. If it won't shoot due to too long, B/C is not important.

Others may see it different

Boats

is " bullet (nose) slump" more of a problem with bp that with smokeless.   my understanding is that the two have a different burning rate; with BP having more of an initial explosion that gives the bullet a real hard kick in the butt to start, while smokeless has a more gradual launch.

I first heard about bullet slump when reading about the long range spitzers with their long unsupported and  bore-rider noses in the bpcr/quigly-shoot context.   

OK Guys, What's up with nose slump. Just what are you making referance to? The bullet in flight tipping down as velocity starts to drop off in flight, or as it enters the bore at the start of being fired?

            Sendaro

JLouis,

              Thank you I will look forward to you email and learning what is ment by nose slump. This is the first that I have ever been aware of the term. No rush. When you have the time.

                                                                  Thanks, Sendaro


         

OK, and thanks