Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) 100 series Model 44's receiver markings? (Read 4297 times)
uscra112
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2650
Location: Switzerland of Ohio
Joined: May 7th, 2007
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #30 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 6:41am
Print Post  
Yup.  Late night typo.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #31 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 9:12am
Print Post  
uscra112 wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 9:15pm:
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.   


I almost wonder if dates and serial numbers have much meaning, or Stevens sold a lot less rifles than we think before 1900. I have no trouble believing barrels with old patent stamps were used, and there was certainly a transition period of when the 1894 date actually hit the street.

In the examples above an 1885 marked barrel around #2100, selling no later than 1897. Then a 1894 barrel chambered in 32 ideal #2459 is only 350 rifles in 6-8 years. If the 1903 introduction date of the cartridge is correct, or the #2459 was also possibly rebarreled  Shocked

I would think they sold more than one Ideal/44 Rifle a week. Confusing for someone who never really gave the timeline much thought.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Redsetter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3468
Location: New York
Joined: Aug 6th, 2013
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #32 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:37am
Print Post  
Dellet wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 9:12am:
If the 1903 introduction date of the cartridge is correct, or the #2459 was also possibly rebarreled...


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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #33 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:49am
Print Post  
Redsetter wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:37am:
Dellet wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 9:12am:
If the 1903 introduction date of the cartridge is correct, or the #2459 was also possibly rebarreled...


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.


Thanks,

Are there others that you are aware of that were considered Stevens cartridges?

25-21, @1897
28-30. @1900
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Redsetter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3468
Location: New York
Joined: Aug 6th, 2013
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #34 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 11:36am
Print Post  
Dellet wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 10:49am:
Are there others that you are aware of that were considered Stevens cartridges?


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.
« Last Edit: Aug 2nd, 2018 at 11:42am by Redsetter »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #35 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:19pm
Print Post  
I guess Bill Lawrence summed it up best with his loop-throwing, tangent-chasing comment.

I have another misfit early Model 45 with the radius breech in the high #3500 range. It also has an extra number stamped under the handgaurd that matches a number stamped in the extractor, which differs from the serial number.

I had assumed this rifle was re-barreled because of the 28-30 chambering again seemed early for the serial.

The more I learn, the more I just want shoot the darn thing and not worry about the rest. Grin

Thanks for the info provided.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
frnkeore
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 6904
Location: Central Point, OR 97502
Joined: Jun 16th, 2010
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #36 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:25pm
Print Post  
And, your not going to tell us the number Sad

Frank
  

ASSRA Member #696, ISSA Member #339
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Dellet
Senior Forum Member
****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: May 19th, 2017
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #37 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:36pm
Print Post  
frnkeore wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:25pm:
And, your not going to tell us the number Sad

Frank


Not sure which is worse, no number or wrong number.

From memory, it was 2525, because I thought that might have been the original chambering and it had been re-bored. But I could find no evidence of remarking the barrel.

The numbers are the same size and script as what was used for cartridge on the barrel.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Redsetter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3468
Location: New York
Joined: Aug 6th, 2013
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #38 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:53pm
Print Post  
Dellet wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 1:19pm:
I had assumed this rifle was re-barreled because of the 28-30 chambering again seemed early for the serial.



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

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
uscra112
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 2650
Location: Switzerland of Ohio
Joined: May 7th, 2007
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #39 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 7:48pm
Print Post  
Dellet wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 9:12am:
uscra112 wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 9:15pm:
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.   


I almost wonder if dates and serial numbers have much meaning, or Stevens sold a lot less rifles than we think before 1900. I have no trouble believing barrels with old patent stamps were used, and there was certainly a transition period of when the 1894 date actually hit the street.

In the examples above an 1885 marked barrel around #2100, selling no later than 1897. Then a 1894 barrel chambered in 32 ideal #2459 is only 350 rifles in 6-8 years. If the 1903 introduction date of the cartridge is correct, or the #2459 was also possibly rebarreled  Shocked

I would think they sold more than one Ideal/44 Rifle a week. Confusing for someone who never really gave the timeline much thought.




Well, I still ask the question of how many rifles Stevens sold in each year from 1896 to 1915.  But it surely must have been in the thousands.  The 6 o'clock extractor appeared somewhere between 1900 and 1903, and the lowest s/n that I have logged that has it is 17108.

One interesting thing I do see - there are a few rifles having the Stevens diamond on the receiver, which has long been accepted as being a Savage innovation, yet they have half-octagon barrels marked exactly the same as prewar, with the APR 17 94 patent date.  Was there a large supply of unfinished barrels that Savage was using up?
« Last Edit: Aug 2nd, 2018 at 7:56pm by uscra112 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Redsetter
Frequent Elocutionist
*****
Offline



Posts: 3468
Location: New York
Joined: Aug 6th, 2013
Re: 100 series Model 44's receiver markings?
Reply #40 - Aug 2nd, 2018 at 8:27pm
Print Post  
uscra112 wrote on Aug 2nd, 2018 at 7:48pm:
One interesting thing I do see - there are a few rifles having the Stevens diamond on the receiver, which has long been accepted as being a Savage innovation, yet they have half-octagon barrels marked exactly the same as prewar, with the APR 17 94 patent date.  Was there a large supply of unfinished barrels that Savage was using up?


Must have been--no other logical explanation.  Scrapping any usable part merely because it had an outdated marking on it would have been foolish.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Send TopicPrint