I know there are at least three elderly models....1897, 1894, and 1915 and others later.

Mine is a 1894 with the wire loop through the knob that retains the barrel....it's chambered for .25 Stevens rim fire.

I want to rebarrel it (not using a liner) and thread it to the receiver and install a new extractor.  The barrel was ordered weeks ago in chrome moly 1-9" twist.

I'd like to chamber it to .17 mach 2 or .17 HMR

Can someone lend advice on doing either of these two cartridges.....the HMR  ammo is far more available and that would be preferable....but I have 14 boxes of the Mach 2 ammo and can backorder it for a future need.

jy3855 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 3:21pm:


My calculations show the .17 HMR to be 35% greater force on the action than a .22 LR.....and a .22 WMR to be 25% greater force on the action due to it's slightly larger case diameter.  That said.....The gun can't tell the difference between shooting a .17 Mach 2 and a .22 long rifle.

Do you see anything particularly difficult with hardness of the metal in the receiver as I want to thread the barrel and receiver together to get rid of the barrel screw which I find of poor lines of the action.  I think I can get a new extractor from Wisner's.

You should check how much or little in the case  of the 1894 receiver side wall thickness at the barrel vs side walls, very thin, and would require a odd diameter and small pitch tap.

The 1915 is a much better choice to tap, as the receiver is wider, also a bigger dia breech bolt screw .218 vs the .193 of the earlier models.

Threading it for a barrel seems like a good idea but probably not realy necessary. The Favorites and also 44s were not threaded and worked just fine.

I love gunsmithing the Favorites; I've got six of 'em, two .22s have been relined, one .22 has been rebarreled, a fourth has its' barrel in the lathe at this very moment being drilled for a liner.  Two are too good to touch, so I'm looking for yet another one to convert to centerfire so I can shoot .32 S&W.   

I'm mighty skeptical of upping the pressure in an 1894 with the two-diameter barrel shank, but Frank's tap size would be the right choice if you must.  I'd thread only 2/3 of the length of the .630 diameter, leaving the back end alone.  Thus the barrel is aligned both in front of and behind the thread, making the assembly stiffer in pitch and yaw. Both unthreaded diameters should be line-to-line fit in the receiver.   Look carefully at how the Model 44s were done.  I think this is one reason why the 44 design was so accurate. 

I'd then keep the barrel retention screw feature, just as Stevens did for the 44 1/2.   

You're going to have to tighten up the linkage as much as possible, and I can offer a tip there:  Drill and ream all the holes .1570", and use 4mm pins.  That gives you a light press fit all around.  Open the holes in the link by about .0003" to ease the fit a little.  The one I just did is very stiff to operate.  (I had to buy 50 pins, and can send you a few.  I'll never use 'em up! )

The breechblock shoulders must be in contact with the receiver when the action locks up.  Otherwise all the thrust is resolved through the breechblock pivot screw, which in the 1894 ain't very robust.  This may involve actually elongating the breechblock pivot hole so the block can shift to the rear a few thousandths.  There's a very specific sequence to finishing the barrel shank and headspacing to get this 100% right. Too much to detail here.   

Even with all that, I'm still mighty skeptical of using the .17HMR cartridge.  The linkage in the 44 and Favorite is at a considerable mechanical disadvantage, and adding more pressure just doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.  If you must, you'll need a .25 RF breechblock.  The .22 firing pin doesn't line up with the rim of the .17HMR case very well..  (Already studied that while working out how to rebarrel a .22 action to .25 for this new-made .25RF ammo project.  Gave it up and bought a .25 Favorite instead.)      

jy3855 wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 9:25am:

A superb idea.....I can make that one myself.....and it saves me from tapping the receiver.....

vapodog wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:57am:


Why retain the take-down feature at all?  (A holdover of course from the time when most folks traveled by train and other public conveyances.)  Seems Locktite, epoxy, etc., would produce a more rigid assembly.

My personal feeling is why disable the takedown feature when it's already there. Since you're starting with a brand new barrel, you can make the slip fit to very tight tolerances, and even polish out the bore of the receiver if it needs it. Having the takedown system wont make a difference with your caliber choice, especially with a good Allen screw to keep it tight. 
And as you say, you can make a nice fitted case to give the rifle some extra eye candy!