Here are the remaining photos.

Ss
I think that I can convince myself that there is a partial #2 at the right edge of the hole.

Ss
No missing parts but the parts were dry, with light surface rust and I've disassembled the rifle for a good cleaning.
It looks as if the builder drilled and countersunk the original mainspring screw hole, from the other side. The mainspring is located in its usual location and held in position by the bottom of the through bolt piece.
None of my other Stevens 44 1/2 rifles have a through bolt. Is this a common modification?
Has anyone heard of J. BUNCH?
Otto

Does the mortice cut out to accommodate the through bolt attachment go all the way to the face of the action. 
Please post a picture if possible.

JL
Attached are photos of the mortice cut and the crack on the right side. Despite the fact that it didn't prevent the cracked stock, I like the retained wood island. I suspect that it helps to strengthen the wrist area.
All the wood to metal contact areas show evidence of epoxy bedding. The original owner is said to be an accomplished target shooter and also interested in varmint rifles but the seller of the rifle had no additional history on the rifle.
uscra112
It appears as if the through bolt block used the original mainspring screw hole, on the lower tang and the rear tang sight hole, in the top tang.
The barrel has nine scope mounting holes, suggesting that the rifle has been used with a variety of scopes.The shortened top tang does move the front of the comb forward about 1", which may have helped the original owner obtain optimum eye relief.
Otto

The back of the frame should have a radius milled in it between the top and bottom tang.  The wood should be inlet tightly into that radius.  By doing this it will greatly improve the strength of the wood to metal fit by anchoring the front of the stock in the frame and would have probably prevented the crack in the spacer block. No amount of epoxy will replace that wood.
Bob

Thank you so very much for your reply and your stocks mortice pictures for the through bolt attachment. And the best that I have personally seen to date!

chipmaker wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2021 at 1:04pm:

It might help if you looked for "J. Bunch", since that's what's stamped on the barrel.

Try to get copies of Michael Petrov's two volume study of 20th century custom gun makers.  They're rather expensive to buy, but a shooting friend might have them or perhaps you can obtain them through inter-library loan.

Bill Lawrence

Lot of “J Bunch” hits on Ancestry.com.  Figuring out which one is connected to your gun would take a lot of work & luck. Could focus on likely birth date,  someone who would build a rifle like yours. Probably 1900 or later & before 1950

Another separation could be place Mr Bunch lived. Look for Varmint Rifle use locations. Luck would be finding a Bunch with a trade that is linked to gunsmiths in obituary’s 

Boats

Having worked on CPA's with through bolts the mortice has gone all the way to the face of the action. When putting a white piece of paper under the action in this area I have been able to clearly see light on both sides of the action. From the back of the tang all the way back to the actions frame. The only contact points left are two very small cheeks on each that are just barely contacting the frame. The issues that I have worked on personally is this created and issue with the triggers actually working or not. If the through bolt is to tight they tend not work and if backed off until they do now work the contact points at the back of the action are no longer tight enough. And that now becomes a swivel point and accuracy is now non obtainable. But there is a real fine line when everything will actually work, no more swivel point and double sets will now work. What I believe is actually taking place is the bottom tang is being flexed just enough for the entire trigger group to no longer work as was originally designed. I might also add that I have personally worked on more than one having this same issue. And all though there are four screws, two on each side attaching the bottom tang to the frame it can still flex enough for the triggers to no longer work. These were also just after CPA offered a through bolt option and I don't know if they have since changed that original design. 

In cleaning up the action, I discovered that the serial number was stamped on the extractor. There was also the initials TR engraved/stamped on the other side.
Does anyone know who TR was?
Otto 

Ss
Thanks for your input. I was unaware that the serial numbers and caliber were stamped on Steven's extractors.
I'll check the other parts for serial numbers as I clean them. Do you know of any additional action parts that might have a serial number?
Yes. The breech block does look as if it was converted from rim fire to center fire. The firing pin was also reduced to .062".
The main issue now is removal of the barrel, which is super tight and might have some epoxy or Loctite in the threads.
Otto

Unfortunately I don't have any pictures to share on hand. On one of the rifles the contact points / stock to action on side was not touching the back of action. The mortice cut from back of action to back of tang. Left very little as  contact / bearing points. And to the point of allowing the wood to per-say warped and no longer being straight with the tangs. I don't recall the rear contact of the back of the tangs to the stock. It is typically an area of having no direct contact to minimize possible wood splitting. My own CPA uses the tang screws and both tangs and the contact points at the face of the back of the action have been fully epoxy bedded. This has also improved accuracy and the screws also put forward pressure towards the action when tightened. I also replaced the tapered tang screws that had a tendency to back out with straight shanked screws with very course threads and that has eliminated that issue.  The end result is there is now no flex between stock and action or a means for possible movement. 
I hope that helps to answer your questions and the original barrel a 32-40 has 140'000+ bullets down the bore. And there has been damage caused to the stock by having the back of the tangs being in hard and direct contact with the stock.

Chipmaker, the extractors are not always stamped with a serial number or caliber, but often are. As far as serial numbers being stamped on other parts, I have only seen the buttplate stamped, and sometimes you can see the serial number written in pencil on the butt end of the stock, and the barrel channel of the forearm.
Sometimes 44 1/2 rimfire breech blocks are stamped with the caliber, usually just a 22,25, or 32. 

As you can see only one of the loose extractors I had laying around had been stamped with the serial number, but all were stamped with the caliber.

This rifle does not have the EX stamp on the front of the action. The rifle does not have any special order extras. It has a original non-matching .32-40 barrel on it with an excellent bore. I do have the matching serial number .22 long rifle barrel, but it has a horrible bore.

I’m not surprised at that, but I have a couple of 44 1/2’s that have the EX stamp on the front of the action that do have special order extras. So who knows?

" JL
It appears as if tight inletting of the stock to the back of the action is important, especially in rifles chambered for hard recoiling cartridges. In your target rifle, did you inlet the radiused cuts, as recommended by bobw earlier in this thread? "
I am not sure exactly what he was referring too?? All of the back of the action including both tangs have been fully epoxied beded to the butt stock. And minus any gaps if that might help to answer his question.

Otto, yes this is the area I was referring to.

My opinion is this area should be inlet tightly and/or bedded on a 44 1/2.  Doesn't matter how deep it is fitted into the frame just as long as its in.  Also my opinion is the factory was in production and most guns were not for target shooting, they were just turning out product.  Not that it make much difference now, due to wood drying out and time, but it might be interesting to see how a factory target gun was setup.

I've included your picture here in order to help show why I believe this needs to be done.

Looking at the front in the picture, the wood is bridged at the top, but is not at the bottom.  The bottom is where the biggest concern is.  By bedding the tangs and the front face of the stock to the back of the frame, yes, you get a solid point for straight recoil, but without the tenon set into the rear of the frame nothing is holding the wood from flexing or spreading at the bottom and away from the lower tang.  The tang retains the wood on the inside, and the tenon, the spreading to the outside.  The tenon should also do a better job of retain the stock at the top and not allow the top bridge to split down the center.  Simply bedding the stock to the rear of the frame and tangs does not hold the stock from twisting out at the bottom.  Just because there is a through bolt, that holds the wood against the frame, verses a couple of wood screws does not make up for the tenon.
Hope this clears up why I originally brought this up and my reasons why.  Also apologize if I sound angry because I'm not!
Bob

Chipmaker-Found a reference to a John Bunch from Garland, Texas mentioned in an article called "Golden Era Gunsmiths" in the February 1993 Precision Shooting. The author mentioned his help with the project, so he was probably around at that time.