Hi all,

Hopefully this is the right sub forum, of all of the forums that I frequent it seems that this one has the most info on stevens rifles. I'm working on acquiring another falling block rifle. I've bought from this individual's collection before and he is generally fair on price. I'm discussing with him purchasing this 44 1/2 in 22 Hornet (.223 dia) and trying to come up with a fair price. It's in pretty clean condition, has peep sights and a round barrel. I only found pictures of one similar one on here (stock and forearm combo) and it was referred to as a semi-military. Can anyone weigh in on a good ballpark for this rifle? TIA 

Thank you for that input RD, in my many google searches I was coming up with some sold examples in the 7-900 range for models without high grade stocks, but then some random ones 12-1300. I just didn't know if this particular configuration is desirable for any reason.

Wondering if anyone else has an opinion otherwise?

Smoke wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 6:39pm:


No idea, I didn't think they came from the factory in 22H. I thought it was a 22LR barrel rechambered but I just don't know enough about them. It definitely requires .223 bullets for reloading.

Thank you for the input, I'll ask for some more pictures tomorrow. Would those attributes affect the price much?

Sure shot wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 7:35pm:

With the J Stevens Arms marking, rather then the earlier J Stevens A&T marking, it's possible that the rifle was sent back to Savage owned Stevens for re-barreling sometime in the 1930's or so. Someone might have re-barreled it using a model 44 barrel . If the barrel is 26" long or longer I'd guess Stevens re-barreled it. Does the serial number on the barrel match the receiver? The serial number is likely under the forend. That buttplate style was typically used on Stevens shotguns, so there's a good chance that the stock is original. 
Most likely this was someone's wood chuck rifle back in the day.

I think it's worth $900.

More pics

Since the last 44 1/2 was made about 10 years before the 22 Hornet was developed, it was definitely rebarreled, or also converted from 22 LR. The markings on the barrel might suggest factory work.

My guess would be an early conversion using an available barrel. Using a 44 barrel that was offered would need to have the shank cut off, a shorter than normal barrel might be a clue.

As far as being collectible, that’s debatable. There is an interest in early varmint rifles and wildcat cartridges. The rifle as is would likely fall into that category, but harder to find the right buyer. 

Of course if it shoots well, that in itself would help the value. Just buy it as a shooter and enjoy it.

It’s still a part of history, a lot of single shots met this fate between the wars.

I think you would need to turn the 44 barrel down and re thread it  to have enough material for a sleeve. Never thought about it much. Probably be more like a helicoil than a sleeve if you didn’t.

Sure shot wrote on Jul 9^th, 2024 at 1:15pm:


Agree.   Looks like the Hornet barrel was sleeved. (maybe just soldered in) into the butt of the original barrel.

CHRIS

Sure shot wrote on Jul 9^th, 2024 at 10:41am:


Maybe I meant upside down, the way the barrel is threaded on - the lettering is upside down from the right side.

Just google this "sierra 223 hornet bullets". They are the best source of the 223 Hornet bullets. Most of the older Hornet and other 22 wildcat rifles had .223 barrels. I have used these bullets in my Hornets and in my 219 Donaldson Wasp. They are excellent bullets. They come in 40 and 45 grain weights which are ideal for the Hornet and they really come zipping out of my Wasp with excellent accuracy.

Well, I had a little time tonight so I cleaned the rifle, slugged the chamber and bore, borescoped, took some more data and then mounted a scope.

The bore was surprisingly clean with no pitting, it was continuous which leads me to believe that it's not a liner. The barrel is 24.5" long, tapered from .982" at the action to .830" at the muzzle and has a 1:16 twist. Both slugs with cerrosafe measured as .222 after an hour and the chamber slug confirmed that this is a hornet case.

I'm not certain what the .222 correlates to for the appropriate bullet diameter. 

I appreciate the input so far, I wouldn't have thought that the lettering was intended to be at that orientation and I've priced the sierra .223 bullets - just wondering if the PRVI's would be better suited at .222. I suppose if there's no harm done in trying both diameters, I could just load some up and see what shoots better in this rifle.

1.  You don't really know what the diameter is with a vernier caliper.  When you get farther than 2 digits past the decimal, your in ouija board country.  A 1" micrometer will serve you MUCH better.

2.  I would like to see the breach block face and know what size the firing pin hole is and then the size of the firing pin tip.
When I see the fires cases, I'm not seeing pressure signs( sharp corners on the primer and leaking around the cup).  What I suspect is a oversized hole and the primer is expanding into it,  it also looks like it's capturing the firing pin and ripping it open when the block is lowered.  A couple looks like they ruptured on firing into this oversize hole.  That part scares the heck out of me.  Escaping gas could potentially hit your eye and even blow out the firing pin.
IMHO, I don't think it's safe to shoot until these issues are answered and addressed.

I would tend to agree with 830singleshot.  Not that primer can’t be part of the problem.   

I see several issues.

1. The primer flowing around the pin and what appears to be a “to large” breech block hole for the pin.

2. Blown primers.

3. The firing pin hanging up in the primer.  Looking at the shell bases #4-5 and 6 in the lower row.  They all appear to have marks in the primer and continued drag marks on the brass from the pin.  Of course with the primer flow the pin will drag trying to get free of the primer but I would think it should still be fully retracted by the time it gets to the brass.

I would definitely be looking at the pin and breech block hole and get it fixed if it is as suspected.  Also check to be sure the pin can or does fully retract.  The pin nose shape needs to be properly shaped on a 44 1/2 because of the angle it sets at, if not, it can have trouble releasing from the primer.  Is the pin protruding to far when fully extended from the hammer hitting it?  Lastly, make sure the action is timing the lift of the hammer properly.  The hammer should be lifting before or no later than when the breech block starts lowering so that the firing pin can release from the primer. A work around for this issue would to simply put the hammer to half cock before lowering the bb.
Bob

One other thing, it's possible the firing pin is broke and the tip is staying in embedded in the primer when the body retracts.  I still suspect an oversized firing pin hole and to small a pin.
It's not a particular difficult or expensive repair, but it does take someone who works on single shots a lot.
Good pictures of the block face and firing pin will tell a lot.
These guns have been around more than 100 years.  At one time they were cheap and every hack had a turn at them.  It certainly appears the one you have is worth getting right.

More pics

oneatatime wrote on Jul 16^th, 2024 at 7:40pm:


I'm not sure if I would know the difference. I removed the retaining screw and the pin doesn't seem to want to come out. I gave it some light taps with a brass punch but it's pretty well settled into the block.

I would agree with Dellet.  Not knowing if the pin was against the pin groove stops in the pictures I can’t say on the protrusion or retract position.  But, going by what is seen in the pictures, the pin appears to be extending to far and not retracting far enough.

Here is how I like to set up a firing pin.   

When retracted, like Dellet says, just below the bb face…retraction stopped by the pin groove against the retaining screw.

When the pin is extended and flush with the rear of the breech block, as if hit by the hammer, around .055 protrusion.  When extended I don’t want it to be stopped at the front by breech block or by the firing pin groove hitting the firing pin retaining screw.  The hammer stops against the breech block, which stops the forward pin movement.  The primer cushions the hammer blow against the bb.

From what I am seeing, I would make a new pin in order to have a better fit in the front hole of the breech block.  Although this could be troublesome.  Sometime the pin is smaller because the main pin body and the FP hole are not centered on each other properly, so people reduce the size of the pin, or enlarge the bb hole, or both, to get it to work freely in the bore.  Looking at the primer picture it appears the primer flow around the pin is offset, so this may be the reason for the larger hole.

Sorry, this is probably more than you really wanted to know!
Bob

Pin’s definitely bent.  I would replace it, see how it looks and if looks good try it.
Bob

This gets back to what I was saying about so called gunsmith monkeying around.  If you look at the front of the block, you can see a circle around the firing pin.  You can also see file marks all over the face.  I think the block has been bushed with a screw then filed for headspace and redrilled for the firing pin tip.  It's not parallel to the body of the firing pin.   
To get it to fire,  someone reduced the tip size and bent it.
It can all be redone and made right but it might be more cost effective to start with a new block.
If Gail at CPA is still there, I would call her and ask if CPA would do the work or her recommendation on who to send it too.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news