Lugged hammer from late model Stevens 44 chambered for 32-40 or 38-55. This hammer has a square topped lug protruding from front edge of hammer. This lug fits under the breechblock, strengthening the rifle. I may need to buy breechblock from same rifle, IF this lug does not snugly fit under breechblock on my rifle.

Hammer and breechblock (if needed) both need to be undamaged (no cracks, chips, battering, excessive wear or distortion) and free of pitting. Ideally, these parts will not be from a rifle that has been damaged by ammo that produced too much pressure.

Thanks,
Grisen

As is said, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Though with the amount of hand-fitting Stevens did, I have to wonder if you could obtain the fit of block and hammer to your existing frame and barrel that you want.

My thanks to each of you for useful responses!

ledball's response will likely be what I pursue.

Thanks again,
Grisen

Agree with Chuck, but maybe I'm just too picky about the finished product.   

Sorry guys, I was talking of installing a lug on an original hammer, not making the hammer with lug.  Ledball

Well, if that gunsmith has a DC power supply and the appropriate solutions, you should be able to get that gold plating done too.      

Ledball's idea of building up a lug has possibilities. Still not a simple job.
Chuck

Not a welder, but might be possible to use TIG with mild steel rod to build up a lug and file to shape. Would have to be casehardened after finishing. Ledball may have a better way to do it.
Chuck

IMO, the only good a laser would be would be to use to cut out blanks from flat plate.
Very careful welding could be done to buildup a lug; but the filler metal would have to be a similar grade of steel as the hammer itself, or casehardening may not work.
Speaking from experience !

svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2014 at 4:12pm:


I'm working my way toward that end.  The outline is a stinker unless you have CNC, which I don't.   The originals were blanked out from plate in a stamping operation, according to one source.   By drilling and milling I can get close enough to file the rest.  It ain't going to happen in two hours, that's for certain.  Maybe eight.  I'm starting with 41L40 bar stock, to be through hardened when finished.   

The sear  notches obviously have to be has hard as possible.  Welding on an original would certainly compromise those, unless re-heat-treated/case hardened.

What about either milling a slot or drilling the front of hammer and inserting a square stock key or round pin anchoring either option by cross drilling and pining (would need to be pined under so as to draw it all together tight) then file the proper angle to fit breech block and taper bottom edge so the link won't snag it. Both options could be done w/a shoulder so you wouldn't need to remove to much material from hammer and yet have full width for breech block to rest on. I would think the hammer would be machinable w/out annealing but I may be wrong. please let me know what you think. Hopefully this is not a terrible stupid idea.
Brian

Larry,

Was your TIG welding a repair or to create the kind of lug being discussed?

Brian,
I have vague thoughts similar to what you posted. Not being a machinest in the least, I have been hoping someone that is would post an analysis of such an approach. What you suggest would seem to offer option of modifying and fitting a used hammer.

Thanks,
Grisen

The buildup of hammer was not a repair. It was a  addition. The rifle is chamberd for 22lr and as long as I own it that's what it will stay. The reason I modified it was I liked the reasoning behinde it. Belt ans suspenders syndrome. In my opinion the 44 is strictly a low pressure action😊

If there is that much interest in them out there find a machine shop that does EDM work and reverse engineer the part then have them cut some. There will be a programming and setup charge but the parts will be spot on dimension wise as EDM is very accurate. Maybe make them a bit oversize in the lug area for fitting. Just my two cents worth.

JMHolland

Good Morning fellow M44 owners!

l can see another group buy in my future, thanks to Mr. Holland's excellent suggestion. First steps seem a thread asking for show of interest in joining a group buy of lugged hammers, hopefully followed closely by identifying machinest(s) willing to make a bunch for a specific price each.

Have a nice Thanksgiving!
Later,
Grisen

The twisty path is before us, likely replete with pros and cons about this and that.  Methods, costs, shops, operators, QC, installation, perhaps even ATF legalaties?

Something for everyone?
Grisen

I'm not either, but he says he had a visit from ATF a few years ago over a small-parts job he'd taken in.  Maybe it was auto sears for ARs or something?   He knows next to nothing about guns.  Instrumentation and R&D is more his line.   

Meanwhile, the search goes on.   

Whether a machine runs unattended or not isn't the issue.  Amortizing purchase cost is.   

Say, I wonder if Steve Earle might be interested?

Thanks ssdave!

You just covered two items on my "Needs be done." list.

An alternative path for financing is to have some or all buyers pay in advance, either to you or to parts fabricator or someone else. This can be sliced and diced and modified in various ways to provide a workable procurement.

Regards,
Grisen

Larry,

Did you/was it needed to make any alteration to back end of breechblock?

Have you done enough shooting with that rifle since installing safety lug to get any indication if it is actually taking any load?

Thanks,
Grisen

So far have not seen any ware due to loading. Action is verry tight only soot target 22lr so pretty litely loaded.


Larry

I put Phil's drawing on my computer and compared to a single hammer I pulled out of one of my actions.  There's substantial discrepancies.  I have a half dozen 44 stevens, I'm going to pull and scan each hammer and compare them and make a composite drawing that I think will work.  While I'm at it, I think I'll scan the block, trigger and frame and put the parts in relationship to each other in the drawing to make sure what I draw will have a good probability of working. 

I don't have access to the scanner I use for this now due to a remodel of the area where it's housed, but will be able to use it again in a week or so.  Then, just to find time to do the scans/drawings.  Won't be a matter of days, but I will get to it.  Working full time and running a business on the side cuts into my available time badly.

dave

The "discrepancies" Dave mentioned are in parts of the hammer that I had not finalized, and in an area where my hammer had been machined, I think for clearance for the "strut" type mainspring. 

Looking at my early 44 breechblocks, I see that the slot for the link is machined, and is more like what you'd want to engage the lug.  Center-extractor blocks are a casting, and the slot profile is a cast feature, not so congenial for lug engagement.

Food for thought.

No criticism of Phil's drawings was intended, my apologies if that was implied.  My thinking right now is that I need to compare a wide range of these, to see if there is any uniformity at all, so that a universal part can be made.  Or, if there are variances, which areas (if any) are standardized, so those can be designed in and which parts need "extra metal" to be fit by the gunsmith to the individual rifle.   

I have some range of 44's, so can at least get a good start on it.  May be a project that will work, and may not.  Dimensional variance in the actions will determine what works.

dave

Not taking umbrage, Dave.   According to an old magazine article included in Kimmel's book on Savage and Stevens, the standard hammers at least were blanked out on a punch-press.   Not that they couldn't have changed the profile over the years, but I'd reckon it unlikely.    Even in those days a good set of dies could have made 50,000 parts, with periodic resharpening.

That said, the lugged hammers would have had to have different dies, or were blanked out in some different process.  It would still have to fit within the same frame geometry, so would likely not be very different,  but we really need to lay hands on a lugged hammer to see.    

I'd always assumed that the profiles were made by form cutters, just as they were in the Krag trigger machining processes, of which I have some good contemporary info.  But not so at Stevens.

I had intended to do a separate post asking that folks wanting lugged hammers to tell us how many. I had delayed that until we have clear path forward to production, which may take a while. Now that LTC B has stated his interest in buying two, it really seems more practical for interested folks to post here.

Thanks,
Grisen

Phil,

Yes and maybe no. I am presuming that there is some number of folks that would like one or more, based on # of M44s they have/use. Some # of M44 owners seem already intent on installing one or more via their own capabilities. Is the potential market less than 10 or is it some multiple of 10? I have no idea presently. Does anyone?

I am sure price will affect extent of market. Those of us with a nice old M45, 47, 49, 51 that we use heavily are likely to have a different price point than someone with a rough standard M44. I suspect that those of us with higher grade M44s are more likely to benifit initially.

I would like to have some idea of market size. Dave probably does too.

Regards,
Grisen

CPA charges $40 for hammers with stirrup. That's a price comparison.

These guys are both doing it to make a living, and at volume. I would think the two would cancel out somewhat.

I think most folks' price point is above $40, but below $100 each.

What a wonderful project!

Through unforeseen circumstances, I now have a lugged hammer action in my possession.  A rifle I bought today had one in it.  Be a few days before I have time to take it apart and see how it all fits together and compare to the standard hammer and block.

dave

Thor smiled on us!!

I was able to mill a slot in my hammer and insert (press fit) a piece of key stock (machined) then pinned in place and fit up to breech block. It seems to work very well. I didn't see the need for a hardened lug as the block and hammer are not any harder. Will try to attach photo's

   Brian

Grisen,

  I have not shot it yet (weather not great) but according to the lay-out dye the lug is taking some load.
  Time wise the measure twice - cut once method really slows down the process, but a real machinist wouldn't take long (I just like to tinker)
Tools needed -- milling machine,end mill,numbered drill bits & a worn out bit used as a pin & 1/4 " key stock, files, stones & felt tipped marker (works well to show contact) 
As far as my dimensions, they won't do Dave any good, as I purchased a blank breech block from Dave and machined it myself - so not o.e.m. specs. 
  Was a fun little project
         Brian

Grisen,

No I meant breech block!  Dave had a casting laying around, not sure where he acquired it.
Mass produced is a strong word (words) as each block & hammer need to be custom fit no matter if a new hammer is made by EDM or mods done to an  original hammer. As I said I like to tinker so I chose the mod way that I can do myself--GRATIFYING 
    Brian

Hi Brian & Phil!

You guys are keeping me on the low, steep part of learning curve about M44s and their parts supply! Please don't stop!!

Still, I keep getting impression that "mass produced" for M44 parts starts at something like a few "10"s. Still awaiting info about someone producing "100s" per run.

Regards,
Grisen

Thanks for calibration Phil!!

I had been looking for a nice range/target rifle in 32-20 for some time. My 32-20 Low Wall hunting rifle will put first few shots with HV hunting loads, from cold barrel, into sub MOA  but, then POI starts moving off POA quite significantly, like some of my other favorite hunting rifles. This Stevens M47 on 44 receiver was first nice 32-20 range rifle that came along at a price I was willing to pay. So far, the strange bore diameter is the only bothersome aspect, and I am still able to get into or near to sub MOA groups for at least 7-8/10 shots at 100yds. Functionally, mechanically and ergonomically, I could have spent $1000s more and not have a better shooting rifle for my use.

However, I would not have bought a plain M44 or 44,5, especially in 22RF.

Regards,
Grisen

Chev.

The key stock I used would be used for machines for keyed shafts or shear point etc. But in this application the force exerted is to the key length, approx. 5/8" rather than 1/4" (if this makes any sense) and in turn exerted on the hammer pin/screw and that dia. is quite small and not meant to carry a load. So the weak link of this lugged hammer would be the hammer screw   not?
  As far as fitment I did mine as you described, upon primer ignition the hammer won't drag, but an empty case w/no primer the hammer makes contact yet will not bind under block. 
  This is not meant to be a Rem RB as that hammer & pin are intended to carry the load, This should only share a very small part of the load and only if the rest of the action is up to a standard mild loaded cartridge.
  Also the lug and block angles need to match (as on a quality Rem RB) because of rebound of hammer by loose or blown primer or main spring failure etc. etc.

  Just my thoughts  (maybe not worth much)

          Brian

Brian, Phil, others,

Given the geometric analogy with Remington rollers, as well as the amount of metal around the hole in hammer for load-bearing screw, it seems that hole could be made larger and a larger, stronger screw fitted. Yes, no, maybe? Pros and cons? IF "yes", how much larger could screw be made?

Are holes in Stevens made lugged hammers larger?

Another thought entered my mind. Can the Stevens hammer and firing pin function as inertial firing pin (perhaps with weak retraction spring on firing pin)? That is, does hammer hit firing pin forcefully enough for reliable ignition, even if lug on hammer retards forward movement of hammer in latter 50% or so of hammer travel??? IF so, could this allow tighter fitting of hammer lug to breechblock???

Why stop "halfway" in strengthening our M44 actions?

Regards,
Grisen

Brian,

QUOTE " I am only interested in trying to replicate what Stevens has done. I'm sure you could enlarge the hole and istall a larger pin/screw,but to what end, this is still only a cast action."

Are you implying that walls of cast receiver, where hammer pin/screw is, are so much thinner/weaker than where pins for lever & breechblock are, that little would/could be gained by installing a larger diameter pin/screw? I have not had mine apart to extent that I could determine wall thickness in area of hammer pin/screw.

I have no issue with your desire to only reproduce what Stevens did. Whether the logic of strengthening the new load-bearing point, that is a logical result of installing a hammer lug, leads to a significant increase in safety margin seems beyond any evidence yet presented in this discussion.    Also, at this point I have seen NO info about actual, verified issues with cast receivers for M47s, M49s, etc. on M44 receivers.

Regards,
Grisen

Brian,

I am coming from somewhat different background and presumptions, although our final goals for our Stevens rifles are much the same.

Yes, I know about that cast ballard. What % of cast ballards in apparent excellent condition, in 40-65 or similar cartridges, even with 20K++ psi nitro loads, have not failed? THAT is evidence I prefer.

I am also presuming that M44 receivers for much higher $$ rifles were made with more care and/or verification that they are sound than run-of-mill, low $$ M44s. Some of my best made firearms were produced in 1890s and heavily used in the 100++ years since, in part by me. They remain good, reliable shooters with ammo for which they were designed. I expect this Stevens M47 is another.

I am also much impressed by the metallurgical advances in 1880s and 1990s and the many quality designs of firearms from those decades. Mannlichers, Mausers, Sauers, Savages, Winchesters, Rigbys, H&H, Brownings, Stevens(?), Husqvarnas, Remingtons, to name a very few.

In addition, I expect that your approach to making a lugged hammer for M44s will prove viable, especially for individuals that have machining skills similar to yours.

We really don't have major differences in goals, even though our paths may differ.
Grisen

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.

svartkruttgris#369 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:


Same as my wreck s/n 5426.

They are all a collection of parts. The question after a hundred years or so is who put them together and when? I have one of those I need to post pictures of to see what the experts think. I am pretty sure it was a standard 44 that had a lot of after the fact changes made but sometimes it is hard to tell who did what when.

If you pull out your copy of JJ Grant's Single-Shot Rifles, and turn to page 71, you will find the following text for the Ideal Schuetzen No. 51:
"This was a heavier action, usually seen with the lug on hammer fitting into and under the breechblock, ..."

cont. on page 72:
"The weight of the No. 51, with the 30-inch #4 barrel, was around 12 1/2 pounds with the heavier Schuetzen frame, and 12 pounds with the regular lighter frame. ..."

cont. from bottom of page 72 onto page 73 for the Ideal Schuetzen Junior No. 52:
"This model was also offered in two weights of frames, the regular and the extra heavy. Both utilized the lug-on-hammer principle. ..."

cont. on page 73 for the Ideal Schuetzen Special No. 54:
"With the 30-inch barrel the rifle weighed 11 1/2 pounds. The heavy Schuetzen frame was also available in this model and with the same barrel raised the weight to 11 3/4 pounds. ..."

Grisen,

Note that with regard to the Schuetzen frames, Grant says "... usually seen with the lug on hammer ... ", not always.

As Grant, beginning with the Model No. 44, proceeds upward through the model numbers giving the respective details for each, he makes no mention of the lugged hammer until he has passed the No. 4X models, and then proceeds to describe the No. 51, 52 and 54.

[quote author Grisen]For whatever it is worth, on my M47 width of receiver and length of breechblock pin is 29,2mm/1,15in and at hammer screw is same, with additional 0.2mm elevation on rounded head of hammer screw. [/quote]

[/quote author uscra112]Same as my wreck s/n 5426.  [/quote]

Phil,

Totally forgot to ask if your other M44 frames are same size or wider?

Regards,
Grisen

RE: Pivot diameters on Model 44 Actions;  I got out the parts I set aside for sn 37249 and started measuring the pivot pins/screws with my Brown & Sharpe Model 13 Micrometer.

Breech Block Pin = .2928".
Lever Pin            = .2927".
Hammer Screw  =  .2227".
Trigger Screw     =  .1584".

I also noticed that the Trigger 'sear' is short as the 'Half Cock' hammer is sitting ON the BB Back surface, which will not work well.

Eyeballing, it looks like a 1/16" longer trigger sear tip would work to give the clearance needed for the BB to open wiht the Hammer in Half Cock Position.  Now i need to see if I have a suitable trigger or need to go looking some more on the Internet.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

Grisen,

A good question might be who's rifle(s) survived in an unmodified condition for the six score of years since the 44 was introduced, and would still contain the original sized pins and screws as supplied by the factory?

Happy New Year!