Was the front of the receiver marked for model number on a 107,109 the same as was done for the 40-50 series rifles?

I think in your case they didn't want to take a chance of messing up that pretty receiver

On mine, the barrel, tang and butt plate have matching serial numbers. Under the forearm the barrel is stamped 107 and also 22. No model number on receiver, but the case hardening can be seen so I think the surface area has not been played with.

Was just curious what was normal.

Almost where it turns from octagon to round, maybe 1" from the front of the forearm.

Yes, but sadly i'm pretty sure it was re-barreled at some point. Chambered in 25-21.

The chamber marking is correct on the barrel and there is no evidence that a previous marking was removed. Serial #223?. I think is too early for the chambering, but don't know when it first appeared or how late the model was sold.

I'll try to  post the barrel marking tonight, but yes the 22 I was referring to is under the forearm.

Shoots reasonably well, but have not worked with it enough. Some bullets came with it and they were too small .2565. 

Tried some .258 65 grain and the groups tightened up considerably.

oodmoff wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 2:47pm:


The "accepted" date for transition to the 2-digit numbers is 1896.

Looks like a #4 wt. brl. on that gun, so it's not hard to imagine why the brl. was abbreviated, & weight added to the buttstock!

And just to keep us all on our toes, including Redsetter, the very big barrel and the rattling buttstock are of oodmoff's rifle.

Also, Dellet's rifle is the one with the .25-21 chambering and the matching stamp on the barrel with every sign of being original.

Last, Dellet mentions two numbers, "22" and "223".  Which, if either, is the serial number he notes is stamped in three places?

I swear I'm getting too old to participate in these kinds of convoluted conversations.

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 4:09pm:


Of course--it was to him that I addressed my comment.

oodmoff wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 5:26pm:


Further evidence, evidently, of inconsistency in placement of markings--Dellet just said above there were NO markings on the front of his rcvr.   

I knew we could get a question successfully answered in this thread...well played...well played.

I'm sorry, oodmoff, that we've only by counter-example sort-of answered your original question (and I stress "sort-of").  But Dellet's rifle, being earlier than yours (serial number 223x vs. 29xx) has thrown us for something of a loop with it's seemingly very unlikely "original" .25-21 chambering.

Now among us Old Boys and especially when it comes to Stevens material, loop-throwing and tangent-chasing seem to happen often, perhaps too often.

So I'm taking a feeble stab at getting back on track.

By any stretch of the imagination, assuming the correctness of that .25-21 chambering, could the "22" be a twist rate?

Bill Lawrence

Bill please understand my comment was in jest, I appreciate all the knowledge put forth thus far, including the nurse/nun info.

Certainly how Dellets rifle came to be may never be known.  The odds of it being a factory re-barrel are probably higher than as it being a "later" parts on hand assembly, but that probably isn't completely out of the realm of possibility.  I have seen rifles roll stamped "Rebored by J Stevens" but never have seen anything indicated that it was "re-barreled" by Stevens.  Perhaps someone else has.... Given how accommodating Stevens was to other makers and custom orders and the odds or ringing a barrel in the day...its odd they wouldn't make a stamp to say such, thus its more likely in my opinion that they may have just rebarreled and matched the serial number.  But again I am speculating.   I would suspect a twist rate more along 1 in 12 or 14...  22 seems extreme.   Could be a barrel worker number...

btw thanks for the photos

Oodmoff, I knew you were jesting; so was I, somewhat.  But the apparent purposeful destruction of the Stevens factory records often leaves us with severe cases of frustration characterized by overdoses of speculation over even the seemingly simplest questions.

In a slightly earlier conversation concerning a Ballard with both Pope and Stevens stamps, the group more or less came to the opinion that Stevens had "re-bored and re-rifled by" and "re-barreled by" but no "barreled by" stamps to identify work done on guns other than their own.

But when it came to rerifling, rechambering, replacing, or adding barrels to one of their own guns, as you note, Stevens apparently left no tracks behind on the guns themselves.

Damn the destruction of those factory records!

Bill Lawrence

I have 2023 and 2459 in my collection.  Neither one has any markings at all on the receiver, other than the s/n on the tang. 

S/n 2023 has the one line mark on the barrel, with 1886 patent date.  It has no caliber mark, no barrel weight mark, and the s/n is stamped in a much smaller typeface than the receiver.  The original chambering appears to have been .22 Harwood Hornet, so I want to think that this barrel was fitted and chambered by Harwood himself, but of course this is only a guess.   

S/n 2459 has the two-line barrel rollstamp with the APR 17 94 patent date, and s/n from the receiver is repeated on the barrel in the same script style.   Barrel is chambered .32 Ideal and is so marked.  No weight number.

I have logged no fewer than 15 rifles between 2000 and 3000, and while for several specimens I was unable to get the barrel marking at all, s/n 2144 and above all have the two-line APR 17 94 mark.

Yup.  Late night typo.

Dellet wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 9:12am:


It's NOT correct (though that's the date given by Barnes); .32 Ideal was available by 1896, if not before, because it's listed in a Stevens 1896 catalog.

Dellet wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 10:49am:


The most popular cartridge that Stevens claimed to have originated (after the .22LR) was the .25-20 SS, or rather .25-20 Stevens, as it was called in their 1900 catalog. That catalog includes the statements "we first brought this cartridge out" & "was originated by us," leaving no doubt as to where full credit supposedly belonged.  

However, the truth is a little different.  Harvey Donaldson devoted a chapter to it in "Yours Truly," describing how FJ Rabbeth developed it from the .32 Wesson case, then took his design to the Maynard Co, which first offered it in 1884 (Barnes says '82, probably because it was first chambered in that model).

But since Stevens later bought out the Maynard co., I suppose their "we" in the 1900 catalog could be interpreted as including products of Maynard as well, though that's clearly stretching the point.

Harvey also says that before developing his .25 case, Rabbeth had necked the Wesson case down to .28, making it the first in that caliber.  That cartridge, however, was not taken up by Maynard. 

And, your not going to tell us the number

Frank

Dellet wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 1:19pm:


.28-30 was available by the fall of 1900, according to Stevens catalog. 

uscra112 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:48pm:


Must have been--no other logical explanation.  Scrapping any usable part merely because it had an outdated marking on it would have been foolish.