uscra112 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

Sure they do... its part of the reason we buy these old dogs and do what we (try to) do with them, isn't it?      

I too have problems with blanket statements about 'Weak' Stevens Cast Receivers.
If they are so 'weak' many more would have broken by shattering since they were 'Case Hardened' similar to the failures in M1903 Early Receivers.  However, Hatcher in his Notebook says out of about 300,000 'Old' metal/Heat treat, only about 35 were reported as failing and those were mostly in 'abusive' Testing Service.

What I am saying is Stevens Did use Cast Steel NOT Cast IRON in his receivers.  Those on which I have touched a grinding wheel to surfaces Not Case hard, threw 'low Carbon' type Sparks.  Not those described as from grinding "high Carbon' Steels or Iron.

As to Pivot Sizes, It seems that the two model receivers I have here have thicker side walls in the way of the Hammer and Trigger screw holes than in the way of the Breech Block (BB) and Lever pivot/screw holes.

I have thought on possibly fitting headed pins with retaining screws like later M44 BB and Lever pivots seem to be.

This idea is also possible in 'Favorite' receivers to improve their pivots within the confines of their sizes.  The problem with Screws seems to be that the Threads are in one side of the load bearing areas for BB and Lever usually and hammer and trigger sometimes. Each version of the Actions is improved just by cutting screws that have the minimum or no thread showing on the inside of the receiver when tightened in place.  

I have purchased 'used original screws and even BBs and Levers that show Thread wear when threads are extended into the 'bearing' surfaces.

Another idea that occurred to me, but was set aside when I measured the 'margin' around a 1894 BB pivot screw holes, was to fit a hardened 'sleeve' through the BB to give more Bearing area and support to the Screw to BB joint in the receiver.  This might be doable with a '1915' style BB still but I have not yet considered it for the 1915 BBs.

Just my Thoughts on the Subject, your experiences may vary.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

RE: Stevens 44 Wall Thickness.
On Stevens Model 44 receiver sn 37249 marked "44" and "O" and using a Brown & Sharpe Model 13 0-1", .0001" Micrometer (reads to .0001" without interpolation).
  The Left side wall in the way of the hammer and trigger pivots measures .3532" thick and the Right side wall measures .3723" thick.
  The Lever pivot area Left side measures .2758" thick and the Right side measures .2498" thick.
  The Breech Block (BB) pivot areas are not accurately measurable with this Micrometer due to the wall to inside ledge at the Breech block and Lever openings interference with the anvil arm of this Micrometer.
   Using a Mitutoyo 0-1", .001" medium anvil length Micrometer, the hammer pivot area Left side measures .192" thick and the Right side measures .145" thick.

  I only have this one '44' receiver disassembled at the moment so it is the one I measured.

  Since the Lever opening measures .590" and the BB opening measures .600" in width using a Dial Caliper;and the outside width of this receiver is 1.110" by the same Dial Caliper, it stands to reason that the BB will have some space between the inside wall at the pivot point and the sides of the BB 'Ear(s)' which loads the pivot in Bending rather than near pure Shear. The Lever is a much closer fit and loads its pivot in almost exactly Shear.
  Also we can know that the trigger and hammer still load their pivots in mixed Bending and Shear due to Space between the inside walls and the respective items sides.

  This would indicate that on THIS receiver, larger pivot diameter for the Hammer, and possibly using a through Pin instead of a Screw if a Lugged hammer is fitted.
  This particular receiver is fitted for .293" Diameter BB pivot and .292" Diameter Lever pivot using the separate coaxial screw retention method.  The Pivot Pins and Screws fitted are Replacements, products of "Muzzleloader Builders Supply", and are of modern Alloy Steels.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

There are many differing opinions on the Strengths of various actions from the 1870 through the 1920s mostly, it seems, without Real Factual Data to support their positions.

J. Hatcher was an Officer involved with Springfield Armory and other Commands over his career and his 'NOTBOOK' is very interesting and informative reading. his discussions on the development of the Various Service Rifles, at least from "Krag" through the M1 Rifle, are detailed with information on troubles and failure analysis both proving some theories and Disproving others.  He includes detail summaries of the Failed M1903 Early Receivers and the Analysis that resulted in improved Receivers, both for the M1903 and for subsequent Military Rifles and Carbines.

Some of my past experiences are applicable to materials selection although it is not my major Career Area of Specialization, I am by training and education an Electronics Technician, and have worked as a Calibration technician and Associate Engineer, then as a Components Engineer before saying 'to H*** with this cycle of hire and layoff by the Project', and I joined the IBEW (Local 40) to work in the Movie Industry for the last few years.

I was for a time a member of ASM, AWS, SAE, ARRA, AIAA, and some others.  I am somewhat of a Machinist, as I can operate Lathes, Mills, and other Shop Tools from my Industrial Arts Classes in Junior College.  I do know how to Gas Weld and Braze/Solder but do not Electric Weld as I don't like the Long term effects on Vision I have witnessed in Professional Welders of my Acquaintance. 

I know All Materials have Cyclic Loading Fatigue Limits that can result in Failures under load with little warning leading up to the Final point of failure.  I also know that engineering, BEFORE the now ubiquitous Computer Aided Design Systems, left more 'margin of error' extra material in loaded items than our modern counterparts do.  Pre 1960 automobiles are still reparable.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

Adding another straw to this camel's load.....

Noticed last night that the Stevens catalogs list two hammer screws for the pre-1903 models - one is specifically called out as "Schuetzen".   Ditto for the breechblock pivot screw.     No illustration.   So...how are they different?  Am I going to sell off my grandchildren so I can buy a Model 52 to find out?  Stay tuned.......   

Merry Christmas everyone !

Well Phil, Maybe breechblock and lever screws in my M47 are "Schuetzen" screws -- all it lacks of full Schuetzen is handrest under forestock. Maybe the "25caliber" sized screws in mine are Schuetzener screws? But not the "22caliber" ones in most of your Stevens 44s? Could that save your grandchildren?

What size screws does frnkeore's ex-32-40 have?

Poor camel!! Deserves some Christmas hay.

Grisen

Seem to recall JJ Grant mentioning that the Schuetzen frames were slightly wider than the field grade frames, so perhaps the Schuetzen screws are the same size but slightly longer.