I'd guess if it's a rebarrel, it was done at Stevens as the serial number font matches Stevens, and aftermarket would likely not even get a serial number, or the wrong font.

Full octagon or full round are always scarce on Stevens single shots. The half octagon was the standard.

Redsetter wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 5:09pm:


At that point in Stevens history it was tough to find a 44 based rifle made that wasn't a .22RF too.

OLD TUCK wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 5:58pm:


You are.

When did stevens stop using screws for the lever and breech block  and the 7 o'clock extractor on the 44's as the one in this post has both. Ken

kensmachine wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 8:21pm:


Grant estimated pins replaced screws 1898-9.  Ditto for wide central extractor.

Those are the one piece screws, I think they were used up to about #15,000, and the 7 o’clock extractor was used a bit longer. 

This is from memory and notes from uscra112 when I was trying to narrow down a manufacture date for another rifle.

uscra112 wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 11:26pm:


Think the last dated catalog was 1900, so even figuring out which of the later numbered catalogs corresponds to those years is confusing. Only catalog dating chart I've seen is the one in Ken Cope's book, but it's untrustworthy because it dates #50 to 1902 & #51 to 1904, with nothing in between; this can't be right, because it's inconceivable that Stevens wouldn't have rushed to announce their "new" 44-1/2 model as soon in 1903 as it was in production.

On my #51 repro I wrote long ago "1st ed. 1901, revised 1903."  Probably dug that info out of one of Grant's books, but can't remember exactly.  It isn't earlier than 1903 because it includes the entire 44-1/2 series.  Lists two different extractors, Side & Central, the latter having not yet been split into "wide" & "narrow" variants.

So sometime before Jan. 1, 1902, the side-extractor had already been abandoned. 

BP wrote on Oct 24^th, 2018 at 7:06pm:


Of course they would continue to use up old parts as long as they lasted!  That goes without saying.  But introducing the new design clearly meant the company intended it to be a replacement for the old one.  Otherwise, why bother?  "Superseded," then, if you think "abandoned" is misleading.

Redsetter wrote on Oct 24^th, 2018 at 7:18pm:

Red,
I don't consider the transition from using a side extractor with frames using screws, to a central extractor with frames using bolts, to be a new design, just a modification made to an existing design.
Stevens made a lot of modifications, or transitions if you prefer, to the parts used in the 44 design.
Transitions don't always occur with a clean, clear-cut break in a timeline at a nice and handy specifically fixed date... instead often being phased in gradually over a period of time.
The chiseled-in-stone change-over date that some might like to establish for their sake of orderly convenience and organization may simply not, and never have, existed.

uscra112 wrote on Oct 24^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Phil,

Its a reprint that I got a good while back, but I didn't order it from Cornell.

I did a search by the ISBN that's printed on the back cover, and this is what came up:

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

Here's a link to the publisher's site that shows the catalog:
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

oneatatime,

The #50 1902 catalog published by R&R has 128 numbered pages.
The plot thickens...    

BP wrote on Oct 24^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:


R&R is (or was, long ago) Tom Rowe. 

All I can add to the catalog discussion is I'm somewhat leery of the many reprints today. Often they use one catalog, and another year's cover. They also can be all over the place with dating their copies, which adds to confusion.
I'm glad the reprints are out there, but unless one has an original to compare to, it's not easy to feel comfortable that you're really looking at a correct year copy.

That's a good idea to compare index pages. Easy enough to post a pic. I'll do the Cornell when it arrives.

oneatatime,

There are three more 1902 dates contained in the R&R reprint of the Stevens #50 1902 catalog:
The first additional 1902 date is found on the outside rear colored cover that illustrates the three Stevens plants "WHERE THE STEVENS GOODS ARE MADE" - with the text "RIVER PLANT NO.2 ADDED IN 1902."

The second and third 1902 dates are found on page 125, contained within the the Peters Cartridge Co advertisement, in the text lines that state:
"WON The Revolver Championship and the Pistol Championship of the United States in the U.S. Revolver AssociationTournament, 1902"
and
"Won the Indoor Rifle Championship of the United States in 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902"

Something else that caught my eye was the Lyman Gun Sights advertisement found on page 127, and its notation that "Illustrations of Lyman Front and Rear Sights, other than the above styles, on page 71 of this Stevens catalogue."
After cross-referencing the Lyman sights illustrated on page 127 and on page 71, additional sights that Lyman introduced to the market in 1903 are NOT illustrated in this particular Stevens catalog.

Quote:

Bill,

Does your #50 have the "Stevens-Pope" section beginning on page 36, and ending with fired targets shown on page 48?

Bill,

I'm refering to your copy of the #50 Catalog, that you mentioned you were handling during the page count mix-up.

Sorry. BP, I'm apparently having a "bad brain" day. since I didn't catch that your second question referred to to Catalog # 50, not # 51.  In any case, the answer to your second question is yes; it's the same R&R reprint.

As for you, Red, if I'm understanding you correctly, Grant states on pg. 94 of Single Shot Rifles that there is a Catalog # 51  that has NO reference to the 44-1/2, implying that it was printed between BP's Catalog # 50 and my Catalog # 51, or, if you must, that my Catalog # 51 is a revision.  Now, if so, that narrows the time frame for the 44-1/2's introduction.  So, is there any verification of Grant's claim?  Does anyone have or has anyone at least seen this "first" version of Catalog # 51?

Two related questions.  There is a third Stevens catalog with all-color covers; it has a "frame" of people on the front cover, one of whom is clearly Annie Oakley.  I've never seen this catalog, only a photo of its front cover.  Is this the "first" Catalog # 51?  If not, which one is it?

Bill Lawrence

I'd be surprised if Annie Oakley was on a Stevens catalog during that era since she was paid by Marlin, and used Marlin repeaters in her shooting.
Likely it's some image made to look similar to her to use her notoriety.

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

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 26^th, 2018 at 2:02pm:


Bill, 
From the early 1890's to just after WWI Marlin provided a number of highly embellished guns to Annie Oakley. She shot nothing but Marlin rifles in her act during that time. 
There are numerous letters from Annie Oakley to Marlin dated from the early 1890's to 1917 where she acknowledged receiving these guns made for her and thanked Marlin. 
In 1894 Marlin announced in newspapers that they had shipped the first of guns Annie Oakley would be using in her exhibitions, and a  stage act. 
Shortly after she received an engraved Model 1889. rifle.
In a letter dated Nov. 23, 1906 she sent the following letter to Marlin, after receiving her gold plated and engraved 1897 .22.

"Gentlemen,
On my return from Chicago I found the beautiful rifle you so kindly sent me. I am indeed pleased and will see that full justice is done just as soon as I am through with seven more cases similar to the enclosed.
With many thanks for your kindness, and every good wish for the future of your company.

I am sincerely,
Annie Oakley"

In 1917 she received her next Marlin for exhibition shooting. Another highly engraved Marlin on the model 1893.
Annie died in 1926 after a train accident left her paralyzed, but not before she made a full recovery from that accident. 
She may have shot Stevens in earlier years, but she was a dedicated Marlin shooter from the early 1890's to the end of her career.

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 26^th, 2018 at 2:02pm:


Though it's clearly not Annie (the face is so homely I first thought it was a man!), one of the figures on the #52 cover is definitely "Oakley-like," & holding (in a ridiculous position) a SS pistol that could pass for a Stevens.  

Actually, her aiming position in that lower right card resembles the (exaggerated) one on the catalog.

Presenting Annie Oakley, 1922.
What Marlin is this?

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 26^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:


Very true, but Cody's show included other women, mostly trick riders, but another trick shot, Lillian Smith, who was played up as Annie's big shooting rival.  Lillian's marksmanship evidently came pretty close to Annie's, but bad behavior outside the show eventually got her canned.

Quote:


Exposure times in that era of photography were very long by our standards.  Studio photographers commonly employed "steady rests" to help their subjects hold still.   

Could that odd position be because the pistol is being supported by something just out of the frame?

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 26^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:


Well, obviously post-1903.  The most recent date I found in my repro copy was March, 1907, but as with the #51, #52 may very well have been published in more than one ed.

#52 was the last to include those fascinating (I think) cartridge descriptions that had appeared in all earlier eds. They were omitted from #53, maybe to make room for better rifle illustrations, but still a loss, I think.

BP wrote on Oct 26^th, 2018 at 10:47pm:


That's exactly how Bill described his original #51.

Bill,

Take a look at the following links.
There are three different colored picture covers, and you might look to see if the timeline makes sense with the catalogs that you have on hand.
If so, then maybe we can start filling in a few more additional gaps about which particular catalogs do and don't have 44 1/2 info, etc.
Let us know what you think.

No 50 early issue (colored picture cover) 1902, 128 pages
Note the colored picture of a woman taking a bird from a dog, with the camp set up in the background, and no date shown.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

No 50 later issue (colored picture cover) 1903, 142 pages
Note the same picture of the woman taking a bird from a dog, and the camp, and the 1903 date added on.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

No 51 early issue (plain cover) 1904
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

No 51 later issue (colored picture cover) 1905
Note the colored picture of a man reaching to take the bird from the dog, with what looks like corn shocks in the background.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

No 52 early issue (colored picture cover) 1907
Note the colored picture of a number of people, one of whom seems to look a bit like Annie Oakley.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

No 52 later issue (plain cover) 1909
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Phil,

You say your 128 page Cornell copy has a 1903 date on the front cover.
Does your reprint have any additional 1903 dates contained anywhere on the inside pages of the catalog, in the advertisements, on the back cover, etc?

What is strange is that Cornell's site does not show a 128 page #50 1902 catalog.
Cornell does show a 142 page #50 1903 catalog.

The cover shown on the gunandswordcollector site doesn't have a 1903 date displayed on the front cover.
If the reprint shown on the gunandswordcollector site is the same as the R&R reprint, it will have 1902 on the spine, (also on the back cover, and in three more places on the inside pages), but not on the front cover, and it won't mention or illustrate the 44 1/2 action.

Considering price difference, and the 44 being designated for small calibers after the 44 1/2 was introduced, I don't think the 44 1/2's introduction hurt 44 sales anymore than Low Wall introduction affected High Wall sales. They just complimented each other.
I think Stevens' plan was to replace the 44 with the newly designed 44 1/2, but we all know how well that worked for them. 44 fans must have been chuckling when the 44 1/2 went away, and the 44 remained?

My 40-year collection of Stevens ephemera stretches from the mid-1870s to the 1920s.  Its mostly original, factory material in complete, undamaged condition, indeed, much of the post-1900 material is as-new and in original mailers.  UNFORTUNATELY, the most recent catalog I have on hand is the Catalog # 51 I’ve written about in this installment.  All the later material is stored in my way-off-site warehouse.

The second caveat is that in my opinion based on my experience, Cornell’s Stevens catalogs specifically cannot be trusted as to covers, date assignments, and sometimes even contents.

Now, on to BP’s post, in the order he presents the catalogs.

Catalog # 50, 1902, 128 pages; Stevens-Pope section, no mention of 44-1/2
This is the R& R reprint which I bought some 20 years ago and still consider to be a true reproduction of the original.

Catalog # 50, 1903, 142 pages; Stevens-Pope apparently not mentioned; complete 44-1/2 line
This Cornell publication has the same cover as the R&R reprint of # 50 with the 1903 date added.  It has the same content layout as my original late-1903 Catalog # 51 (Frost’s male hunter with dog cover) but is stated as being 6 pages longer.

Catalog # 51, 1904, 140 pages; Pope Barrels and Stevens-Pope sections; 44-1/2 full line
While I don’t accept the later-style cover - my experience is that the colored, illustrated covers form an unbroken if relatively short sequence - or the catalog number, Cornell may well have the date correct with the content a true reprint.  Some dismiss this catalog’s date because it’s been widely publicized that Pope left Stevens in 1903.  But in an interview published in the June, 1941 American Rifleman, Pope himself states that he left on December 31, 1905, only to wiped out in San Francisco on April 07, 1906.

Catalog # 51, 1905, 141 pages; Stevens-Pope section, “new action” mentioned
Other than “1905" being added, this Cornell cover is identical to that of my original (revised?)  Catalog # 51.  It’s a very complete posting of the Stevens line.  Coming right after the Model 44 section, the “New Action” is surely the 44-1/2.  My best guess is that this catalog’s date is actually early 1903 and that it’s the catalog that Red says my Catalog # 51 revises.

(continued)

Redsetter wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 10:24am:


I would suspect you're correct. I think Stevens would have totally stopped high grade 44 models once they introduced the 44 1/2 action.

To quote from the one page devoted to the Model 44 in my Catalog # 51, while still offered in .25-20 Stevens C.F. and .32-20 C.F., "For special calibers and extras, see description of our 44-1/2 rifle ... an entirely new action."; "This rifle (Model 44) will not be fitted with double set triggers."; "No deviations from above specifications except as noted.", the "as noteds" being caliber, sights, barrel lengths, and a full-octagon barrel for $2.00 extra.

That was what they said.  But "Never say 'never'" the saying goes, so there were likely at least a few exceptions made for those "special" customers were willing to pay for it, pretty please.

Bill Lawrence

The "semi-military" Model 404 (both actions) is popularly believed to have been introduced in 1913.  I don't have my catalogs from that time-period at hand to check.

Bill Lawrence

Redsetter wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 1:56pm:

The problem with a "hand-dated" 1912 is that the date could have been hand-written by Billy-Bob Dillwad, who had no association whatsoever with Stevens.
The original "GENERAL CATALOG No. 53" that I have, which shows the High Power and the 404, may have a type-set date provided by Stevens...   not on the cover, but found on what would be page 1, at the lower left-hand corner of the page, below the New York City and London Office addresses, is "9-1-12-75" ... not sure what the -75 suffix could be, but the 9-1-12 might (or might not) represent Sept 01, 1912.
If the catalog was created in late 1912, and wasn't sent out until the end of 1912, or beginning of 1913, then I'd lean toward Sharpe's date of introduction of the 404, and against Flayderman's, until a #52 catalog is found that definitively shows otherwise... that's my personal choice having been shown mistakes contained in Grant's books by others, and going by the "bird in the hand" #53 catalog.
Draw your own conclusion.
Regardless, this tangent doesn't help Phil to pin down the year of the introduction of the 44 /12 action.

Phil,

In the #53 catalog, the largest calibers shown for the 44 action (on page 28) are the 32 long Rim Fire, and the 32/20 Center Fire, so you're back to digging through the information contained in the prior catalogs.

Well, this Cornell repro that I have, which is 128 pages and (I only just noticed) states "Catalog #50" in small print at the bottom of the frontspiece, very clearly limits the 44 to the small cartridges and no options, and very clearly states that the larger cartridges and special option will only be supplied on the "new action".   

The only question left in my mind is whether it is a truly 1903 dated catalog, as it says on the cover, or is it a 1902 catalog as that website claimed.   

On such trivia hangs the fate of the world.   

BP wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 5:19pm:


Don't doubt there are mistakes in Grant, but when he says definitely that he first found the 404 listed in a #52, not "I think it was a 52,"  (the last ed. of which is 1910), I don't quite understand why anyone would dispute that statement.   

So we're back to where I've been for some years now,  i.e. is the Cornell 128 page #50 dated properly in its' cover?   

Is that repro cover the same as the later and bigger #50?

So we're back to where I've been for some years now,  i.e. is the Cornell 128 page #50 dated properly in its' cover?   Is that repro cover the same as the later and bigger #50?

Lordy, this has been going on too long!

First, the Cornell catalog # 50 has 142 pages, not 128.  Yes, it does have the same cover as the R$R reprint of the 1902 Catalog # 50, which is the 128 page catalog.  But the Cornell catalog's content list and the order thereof match that of my original late 1903 Catalog # 51 with 136 pages -i.e., 6 less than Cornell's.

To sum up. the 1903 date of the Cornell Catalog # 50 is likely correct, but the cover is likely wrong and it's number should likely be "51" rather than "50".

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 7:18pm:


I assume by the only way one would know there was more than one ed--by seeing or being told about copies marked "52" that were clearly not identical.  Assigning dates to them would be the more difficult proposition.

I assume by the only way one would know there was more than one ed--by seeing or being told about copies marked "52" that were clearly not identical.

Yes, dear boy, obviously.  But he didn't come up with "multiples", he came up with "four".  And he did so when there was no internet, no email, when things we now know are common were accepted as rare.

Or look at it this way.  Here we are with all our collective intelligence, decades of collecting experience, and research helps that the "old timers" likely didn't even imagine, and we can't seem to begin to do as well as they apparently did.

Speaking for myself, I'm a little ashamed and more than a little in awe of Kenneth Cope, Jim Grant, Phil Sharpe, Ned Roberts, and all the other Researchers Extraordinaire.

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:



Bill! For Pete's sake!  I'm holding in my hand a Cornell reprint that says #50 on the frontspiece page, cover says 1903, and by God it is 128 pages!  It's got the 44 1/2 in it. 

I'm not that far gone.

Is it possible that it's the R$R catalog with the wrong cover?  In which case it IS a 1902 catalog?  How can we prove it?

Is it odd that an alphabetic index ends with "To"? What, no more "T"s, or "U, V, W, X, Y, Z"? Are there missing pages of index?

Redsetter wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 11:54pm:


It's lumped in with the "Ideal" rifles, pp.21 thru pp.33.  Pages 21 to 24 are descriptive text applying unquestionably to the old swinging-block style action. Page 25 is a cut with a few specs for the Model 44, in which they state that the only centerfire cartridges it will be supplied for are the .25-20 and .32-20. "For special calibers and extras see description of our No. 44 1/2 rifle, which has an entirely new action."  Pages 26 thru 32 are descriptions of the various 44 1/2 models, 45 thru 54.   Page 33 is the Model 55 Ladies Rifle.  Comedically, they still used the old cuts of the 107/109 style action to illustrate.  Those engraved plates were too expensive to replace, I guess.  Following 2 pages are parts list for the ols style action.  There is no parts list for the 44 1/2 action in this catalog.  The Pope product line takes up pages 36 to 48.