Been shown this rifle. Only picture I have. It is supposedly a  45 built on a 44 action. These rifles are really not my strong point. .22 cal, globe front, peep tang and spirit level midships, DST. Good bore, 85% blue to barrel.

I have no idea if this is a $200 or $2000 gun. I know it is hard with only one photo, but any rough idea appreciated.

Thanks

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I agree with moshannon's pricing but, if it is as good as it looks in that picture, maybe $100 more for that long barrel in 22RF.

I have a 44/45 that I like, a lot. It was 32/40 but, I converted it to 22RF with a long match chamber for BSing.

If you get it, it will only shoot marginally (I think), I had a original 22RF Stevens barrel on a 44 1/2, the chamber and groove size was larger than modern match chambers and groove size and it only shot about 2 - 2 1/2" groups @ 100. Good plinking accuracy but, not match. So, I sold it.

Frank

There wasn't any damage to the barrel.

I don't know about the early 52 chambers but, the later one's (at least the 52C) had very good match chambers. That chamber is very close to most of the modern match chambers.

Frank

frnkeore wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:


52 chambers, as well as many other features, evolved over time--the D is supposed to be an improvement over the C, and maybe the E over the D.  But all these are a far cry from the first rather primitive 52s, with their dog-leg stocks & cock on closing locks.

oneatatime wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 3:59pm:


I'm sure not against them! I think the 44 is a perfect gun for .22LR!

marlinguy wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 4:02pm:


What he said. ^^  Especially with a new bore and a modern match chamber.

In short, my bad, for Redsetter is surely right that a Model 44 (indeed any golden-age Stevens single-shot) actually marked ".22 LONG" would be an excessively rare item.

But for those who want a longer story, please read on.

In their catalogs, Stevens claimed to have developed the .22 LR cartridge and to have put it into production in 1888, well before what we generally recognize as the Model 44 reputedly began production in 1894.  So, especially because the company considered the .22 LR a proprietary cartridge, again, Redsetter's opinion makes perfect economic sense.

In further support of Redsetter, my post-1900 Stevens catalogs (alas, my 1895 version is well and truly packed away), the discussions of .22 rimfire cartridges makes the statement that the company chambers "regularly" for the .22 LR.

Why not "exclusively"?  Because, of course, the .22 Short is also offered as a standard cartridge in all the company's single-shots.

So what about the poor .22 Long, which back then was still widely in production?   

That's where for me things gets interesting.  In the same discussions cited above, the company notes the .22 Long's existence to the point of illustrating it, and also claims that one can shoot it just fine in a .22 LR chamber.

Just fine?  Isn't the rifling pitch important here - i.e., for any accuracy doesn't the bullet in the .22 Long require the same rifling pitch as used for the .22 Short?

In short, what was the rifling pitch (or pitches) used by Stevens for their two standard .22 rimfire chamberings?

Thanks for bearing with me.

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Apr 19^th, 2017 at 9:11pm:

Bill,
If you're referring to the 1902 Stevens Catalog No. 50, on p110:
   .22 Short       ...  one turn in 25 inches
   .22 Long Rifle ...    "     "    "  16    "

On p94, in describing the 22 Long, Stevens says "This cartridge is loaded with five grains of black powder and a lead bullet 30 grains in weight, being merely the .22 Short bullet placed in a longer shell, while the Long-rifle is, of course, the .22 Long shell with a heavier bullet and more powder than the .22 Short."

Continuing on, Stevens says:
"It does give excellent results as a hunting cartridge at moderate ranges, but at the same time it is not what would be called a target cartridge and we would hardly recommend it for such work."