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!

kensmachine wrote on Aug 1^st, 2017 at 10:49pm:

Thanks for the info.....as luck would have it.....I just traded (even up) for a heavier version....the 1915 model.

I'm learning a lot here as I was told I would!

Here's a real strange Favorite that might handle the .17 HMR...
I'm not sure what Stevens was thinking...

The frame looks like a 44 1/2 but the triger droping down with the action open sure isn't 44 1/2. The barrel screw with the loop is Favorite. Got me confuses on this one.

If Dutcher's .25 RF example also appears fully and so nicely finished, tabbing the two rifles as experimentals or prototypes seems to me a stretch.  And why build examples only as rimfires when the action appears easily able to handle at least .22 and .25 CF cartridges?   

BP, is your example a boy/lady-sized gun?

Bill Lawrence

went to the woodpile and got some boards.....getting started is the trick.....

vapodog wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2017 at 8:47am:


A woodpile like that ought to be stored in a bank vault.

I've seen a Favorite that was chambered for 25-20. I assume it was the WCF
but didn't ask. It was in a gunsmith's shop for a second try at the breechblock. 
The replacement block was 4140 and it failed so that certainly sets a point to avoid.
The 25-20 SS has about half the breechthrust so that MIGHT be an alternative.

A nice project for someone would be to make a nice alloy ( 4140 or 8620 ) version of the whole action.  It would be a labor of love since one certainly couldn't make it 
pay.

desert-dude wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 10:45am:


I seem to recall from Grant that there was a Ladies Model on the Favorite action that was .25-20SS.  

John Taylor has posted a photo of a 44 breechblock that pulled apart at the pivot eye.  This should not happen, and won't if the breechblock sets back far enough that it is in solid contact with the frame shoulders when the action is closed.  Better material won't solve this problem, but it can't hurt.  I'd love to see the trigger and hammer made of tool steel and through-hardened, like the Page-Lewis.  The case-hardened Stevens parts wear, and the trigger pull goes to heck, or the hammer won't stay cocked at all.  Ditto the link, which is the weak spot in the whole design.  But whittling the frame from solid 4140 seems to me to be major overkill.      

frnkeore wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:


Cock on closing is what I don't like about the Win. SS!

My 1885 HW has a second de-cocking fly on the full cock notch so the hammer drops on cocking. It can be disconcerting if you are not used to it.  I have thousands and thousands of rounds through it with no issues. 

Jack

Interesting that the bottom front of that experimental block has the same radiused profile as the 44 1/2 (0-44 1/2) block.

  Very cool! Thank you for sharing that! I am enlightened!

Glad to be of service.  Just as a validation, a while ago I was doing initial testing of a 44 chambered .25-20SS that I'd set up that way, and managed to fire a double charge of AA#9 in it.    Aside from having to drive the case out with a cleaning rod, there was no damage to the rifle.  Quickload said 80,000 psi, and the Crony agreed with the calculated velocity.  The link in that one is heat treated 0-2.  The standard link probably would not have come through so well.  

If a 1915 Favorite were set up that way, with the barrel threaded in, I'd be much less apprehensive about the O.P.'s plan to barrel one for .17HMR.


 

For reference, here's the third of Chuck's force resolution diagrams, showing the lugged hammer.

That hammer spur (lug) is true genious.....I like it a lot.....It can beef up the action immensely.

While elongating the BB pivot might help, using the BB that came with a rifle. If you start with a new, water cut BB, you can fit it with contact to the frame but, the forces on the BB, try to rotate the BB down and away from the pivot, pushing it away from the contact area so, there is no direct resistance. The loads will be shared by both link and BB/frame contact. My guess is, because the contact, is on a angle (down and away), the link will still take most of the force.

If a RB type hammer is used, there is direct resistance. The wider contact area (full bb width) and larger pins, distribute the loads, over much a wider area, amounting to much better wear resistance.

The press fit pins, take out any impact wear, caused by clearance, between parts and would help prevent "creep" in the soft frame material (look up metal creep) and a heat treated BB and hammer would minimize it, on the contact surfaces between them.

I have two 44's (both 32/40) with a hammer lugs. the contact surface, is very small and the one that had been used more (newer one with "bolts"), makes contact but, the clearnance has open and does not hold the BB from moving, until the clearance has been taken up. HT surfaces would make that last longer but, there is not much contact surface, to begin with. 

I re-barreled it, in 32/20 and it stretched cases with 1300 fps, 180 gr loads. 30K by QL. I believe the RB type hammer would have kept that from happening in that pressure range. the rifle is now a breech seating 22RF, w/o issue, as would be expected.

Frank

uscra112 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2017 at 7:42pm:


With the RB type lock up (not hammer lug), the geometery can be set, so that there is a camming effect, as the two substanually larger surfaces, come together and in the last part of the travel, it can take up, all clearance, and still not have enough friction to stop it's movement.

This, of course, requires a high level of accuracy, fitting the parts but, with todays CNC machining, it wouldn't be a problem.

A problem with multiple links, is that they all have to have clearance to be able to move. Making links slightly longer helps take up clearance but, will add to the wear of each joint. 

Frank

more

wish I knew how to post all photos in one post.

now only missing a firing pin.....and bluing and checkering.

Since I opted for a take down model, I might as well make a carry case for it....here's a start

Very muggy yesterday so I stayed inside where I have some AC.....and did some checkering.

The metal parts have been shipped off to the bluing tanks..... so the checkering is all that I can do while I wait for them to return.

The Hornet and Bee are too much for even the full size Model 44 action.   Don't even think about them for a Favorite-sized action.  The weak link is.....the link.  The geometry of the action puts a large compression load on the link with every firing.   Chuck Deats did some diagrams which I can send you.

You can get some small improvement by making the link pins larger, and making the link from through-hardened steel. (The originals were only case hardened!)   

If you are going to use an 1885 style block, you will need to bring the shoulders of the receiver up to the centerline of the bore to handle a .218 Bee.
Chuck

There remains the task of making it shoot little tiny groups.....but other than that this project is about done.

Whattya think?

one last post.....

Beautiful gun. Beautiful work. It amazes me what you have done with an ordinary pain jane Favorite.

I took the gun to the range today and after a few warning shots at the target managed to get it to shoot fairly well.

It's not suited for telescope sights so I focused at 25 yards with the irons I installed.....and was pleasantly surprised at a few dime sized groups.  It seemed to shoot better as the shooting continued but for now the Hornady HM 2 ammo is  a precious commodity.  I will shoot some more if the 1,000 rounds I ordered ever get here.....

All in all, it's a very pleasing hunting gun and ready to remove a few tree rats from their trees and make some great stew this fall.....

They made a Delux Favorite and a Ladies Model Favorite that were definately not plain Jane. The 44 action was heavier and made for centerfire cartridges but not high pressure rounds. The late 44 Walnut Hill was chambered in .22 Hornet for a couple of years but they realised the actions would shoot loose and stoped productuon. I have one and shoot it sparingly with low end reloads. The 44 1/2 action was much better but unfortunately was droped after WWI when Savage took over. I have been collecting Stevens for many years and have aslways thought they had some of the best guns made for the time and still are great guns today.

jy3855 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2017 at 12:18am:


I'm somewhat of a cheapo guy.....That sight is $285 and I know some like it are far more expensive.

I would also have liked to install a Ballard style butt plate.....but every firearm I've built has had rubber on the butt.  Not because it's best but for safety reasons.  I'm really sold on the non-skid idea of rubber on all firearms.

My Favorite was indeed drilled and tapped for the Montana sight and I certainly concur that it would be the "bees knees" to install one there.....it's simply that I don't have the "coin" to do everything I want.....none of us do.....But thanks for the suggestion....Christmas is coming and I might just make some strong hints to Santa in this respect.

Gentlemen,

Thank you all for your kind words regarding my BULLARD books, makes all the work worthwhile.  Incidentally Schiffer Publishing will have my EVANS ARMS book in their fall 2018 catalog.  No other details yet. 
However the purpose of my letter is to clarify the Bullard/Stevens side plate rifle.  I believe it to be authentic, here's why; thanks to my many correspondents who are so very generous with their acquisitions and are willing to share them, this letter from S.K. Hindley, (Bullard's replacement as the day to day manager of the Bullard Repeating Arms Company) to H.H. Bigelow (moneyman) dated June 12, 1886 states "We have a rifle made by Mr. Horr who is stocking our guns for a cheap gun.  I should think would fill the (void?) & can be made & sold at the Winchester price & get money back. Will say more about it next time."  Unfortunately I have no more letters until June 21st 1886 so know nothing further of what may have transpired except that we know the Bullard concern did nothing with it.  T.T. Cartwright was the stocking department at Bullard's but left to join Farrow in his rifle venture only to return to the Bullard fold sometime later when Horr left.  Horr knew everyone at the factory having shot on their indoor range many times.  This rifle will appear in my distant 3rd edition which will include basically only new material including all the letters I have copies of.  So long story short I believe the rifle to be very authentic.  Why Bullard never took it up will remain a mystery.  One of the sellers knows this information too since I passed it on to him.  So what's it worth, no idea, I'm not a Stevens collector and I never tied my research to gun values, one cannot devote so much time to research and be a collector too.  I also thought it unfair to use my knowledge for financial gain, the research is all the fun I need and to know that my readers enjoy my work.

   Regards,

Scott Jamieson

I see know reason to thread a Favorite action, two of the best shooting rim fire rifles ever made ( Anshultz and most BSA Martini ) are not threaded, if your worried about the barrel falling off use some 680 lock tite.  Ledball

uscra112 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 3:31pm:


Available for the '94 action?