Results 1 to 18 of 18
Thread: Stevens 44 1/2 drawings
08-05-2012, 09:18 PM #1
Stevens 44 1/2 drawings
I'm wanting a set of Stevens 44 1/2 drawings, I would like to see internals. I would like patent drawings. Or, any help. I'm liking to think I would make one. Probably not. I still would like to see how the block works.
08-05-2012, 10:50 PM #2
Possible Stevens 44 1/2 patent
Go to. pat2pdf.org
Enter number 518448
This is Free service and downloads as a PDF document.
If that is not the correct patent, google and search other threads until you can determine the patent number.
The USPTO has a search function but is much less user friendly.
08-06-2012, 02:07 AM #3
Got a public library handy? Look for some of Frank Dehaas' books on single shot rifle designs. Great cross sectional views of how the works interact.
Check out Amazon, too.
The 44 1/2 was a true falling block, and a pretty decent gun, if a little smaller than current tastes run too. The current repro's of the design were scaled up a bit. CPA Rifles, CPA RIFLES. Out of my price range.
Guys have built repro's that worked, off the DeHaas Drawings. They are pretty good, though not dimensioned. Here. As easy as it gets http://www.wisnersinc.com/exploded_v...model_44.5.htm
08-06-2012, 11:07 AM #4
i agree with trevj, the deHass b00k is great. Got mine from Brownells, haven't checked for years but they may still sell it. Going to build one of DeHasses design in the nest few years.
08-06-2012, 01:22 PM #5
Keep looking for the 44 1/2 action drawings in lieu of the de Hass plans or for that matter the Walter B. Mueller single shot action plans. In my biased opinion these two modern single shot firearms are two of the most ugly designs ever conceived, with the Mueller design clearly the most ugly of the two. The 44 1/2 is a beautiful and classic style and design. I bought both of the books and threw them on my library bottom shelve.
08-06-2012, 01:53 PM #6
The Mueller design isn't much to look at, IMO, too
There are uglier rifle actions out there though. The Wickliffe, with it's piggy tail lever and odd proportions comes to mind. It is derivative of the 44 1/2 action, sorta.
I've always been wanting a Winchester 1885. Went out and bought the two Campbell books on them. Interesting to read the history and the 'who's who' of the folks that brought that fine arm to the marketplace.
In one of the books, there were some drawings of a action that was being worked on as a alternative design, possibly, by William Mason. It is VERY similar to the Stevens design, with a steeper breech block angle. Quite a bit simpler interior design than the 1885 Win, too. It was not produced, though the drawings and notes suggest that they at least sent it to the toolroom for an example to be made.
Be a strange ol' world if we all liked the same thing, eh?
08-06-2012, 08:54 PM #7
Stevens 44 1/2 drawings
I have both the DeHass and Muller book, I just don't like their designs.
08-06-2012, 11:26 PM #8
The Single Shot Rile Plans book has some fugly designs in it, for sure. They were designed to be made with the least possible access to a real machine shop, as well as to explore some design ideas that had not been done historically. Pretty sure he says that in the text.
Are you wanting dimensioned drawings, or just something you can work from to get the idea of how it should go together? The dimensioned drawings is gonna be a stretch. The Dehaas drawings of the Stevens action, and a photocopier or a scanner and some dicking about with print sizes, and you have about all the information you should need for a one-of build. If you figured you could download enough info to build them commercially... Hope springs eternal, eh?
Take the drawing I linked, scale it up or down as required, and start on yer way to a bunch of work.
There are some drawings out there with dimensional info of the Win 1885, and a couple others, that were originally drawn to be used for a set of castings that are no longer available. There have been a few fits and starts where folks have tried to resurrect the idea of making a run of some of these kits Rodney Storie Rifle Castings , but nobody ever seems to come up with any when they start following leads. There are a couple other sources of kits and castings out there, but not for a 44 1/2 that I am aware of. Sharps and High Wall/LowWall Winchesters, seem to take up the bulk of the commercial survivors.
Take a look on the Home Gunsmithing forum and search through the old posts. There are a bunch of builds documented there that used nothing more complicated than the method I suggested, working from DeHaas drawings.
08-07-2012, 10:50 AM #9
The Single Shot Rile Plans book. I'm looking for a drawing that helps me to under stand how each part worksl.
08-07-2012, 12:28 PM #10
If you cannot understand all you need to know from the Wisners link I posted, you are not going to understand it any better from any other source.
That link IS using the DeHaas drawing.
That's about as good as is available. If that's not good enough, save yourself a bunch of time, and buy one to copy.
08-07-2012, 09:26 PM #11
I have built several of the Stevens 44 and 1/2s from the Dehaas drawing..I have also built a couple 1885s..The 44 and 1/2 is considerably easier to build. I go by Alphawolf45 on most forums, some of you will recognize that name...My opinion is that guns are cheap,cheap,cheap,cheap -relative the huge amount of work required to build one at home--and the only good reason to build your own is because you already have shop full of machinery and some skills and you need a good project to work on..
And if you cant figure out the 44 and 1/2 from the DeHaas drawing you may need some way to cheat through your first build..You could watch Gunbroker.com for a bare neckid or incomplete Stevens Favorite receiver and then build the innards going by DeHaas drawings for the Favorite parts..It may be better to build a .22 for your first gun anyway..My first build was a .22 Stevens Marksman...
08-08-2012, 11:09 AM #12
Stevens 44 1/2 drawings
Trying to use drawings from DeHaas, my cad skills are rough. But, it can happen. Thanks,
08-08-2012, 11:28 AM #13
I'd suggest that you forget CAD for at least the very beginning, and revert to scissors or an Xacto type knife and kraft paper or poster board, along with a half dozen copies done with a photocopier.
Seriously. You can build a flat, working model of the firearm action you choose, and see the way that the insides move in relation to each other.
The other advice I have, is, Google Images Search. If you are unsure about what the part looks like, pound it into Google Images, and see if you can find it. Lots of the parts are flat, but some are quite different looking than you would think, looking at a cross sectional view.
Best of luck!
08-08-2012, 12:28 PM #14
The DeHaas drawing of the 44and 1/2 is wrong in one area.If action is built exactly per the DeHaas drawing the hammer will jam up and not allow the block to lower until hammer is pulled back manually..The little bump on forward side of the hammer is too low where the linkage is trying to push hammer off the firing pin..
Here if this works is picture shows my Home shop built 44 and 1/2 in .17 HM2 caliber..Really stacks all the shots into a tight groups.
08-08-2012, 04:05 PM #15
08-08-2012, 09:23 PM #16
I would disagree with avoiding the use of cad, but I have access to some good professional grade solid modeling packages. They let you set the parts up in assemblies and see how they interact and move. Its rather nice and you can create good prints directly from the models. Of course that kind of capablilty is out of reach for most folks.
Having said that, its still a good idea to build a working model from something easy to work and verify the mechanics before cutting steel.
08-09-2012, 10:35 AM #17
Stevens 44 1/2 drawings
I found some thing that helps me. In the Home Gunsmith Forum, ALPHAWOLF45, made a Stevens. Very Interesting, tech.
08-09-2012, 09:42 PM #18
I will invite you again to the BR match in Pencil Bluff this next weekend. Come over either Friday or Saturday and I will buy your evening meal and beverage. We are staying at the Shangri La. That is the 17th and 18th.