ApacheCoTodd
member
Even when not looking for guns, I still back-into them from time to time. Activity limitations of the season, not withstanding.
This one found me last night.
One of my all-time favorite bolt action 22s is my Stevens 66B (top gun in pic #1) and it has always made me wonder about 66As and straight Model 66s.
My 66B "Buckhorn Rifle" has always impressed me with its accuracy and build. It presents as a *full-sized* rifle, has good but not serious heft and some doggone interesting sights. The front is a beautiful hooded unit while it has two rears; a very economical three-aperture peep and a safari-style open sight with a clever windage dial on it. The rear also has the thickest ladder adjust I've ever seen outside a vintage Winchester.
So, all this wonderment on the Buckhorn always made me curious about earlier versions.
While I don't subscribe to the notion as any form of rule and can cite several instance in opposition, it is understandable that succeeding gun-versions - more often than not - represent cost-cutting rather than improvements.
Definitely NOT the case with the 66 (the lower gun in the rack). The "B" is such a significant improvement that the only wonder involved is why it didn't get its own model # altogether.
The earlier - first - version is just plain WEIRD to me.
For one, the entire tubular magazine travels fore-aft exactly in time with cycling the bolt as shown by the wear to the tube in pic #4.
Then, to fully remove the bolt assembly, it must be disassembled while still in the receiver since some of the bolt assembly is pinned into a sleeve which is then threaded into the breech-bolt shown in pic #5. The forceps touching a single piece of steel in two decidedly different locations. That piece shown in the final pic.
Very odd and exceptionally difficult to loosen.
I wonder if I'll bother keeping it? So far, unlikely though interesting.... and frustrating.... and interesting.
With age and looseness, another disappointment arises in that the thumb-screw for attaching the action to the stock can not be sufficiently tightened to remove looseness within the stock - at least on my old gun; made between 1935-48. See, if I tighten it enough to lock it in, that tubular magazine binds for no longer floating.
Easy enough to address but I don't know that I'll even care - eventually.
Just the right oddity to occupy my Covid-afternoon.
Todd.
This one found me last night.One of my all-time favorite bolt action 22s is my Stevens 66B (top gun in pic #1) and it has always made me wonder about 66As and straight Model 66s.
My 66B "Buckhorn Rifle" has always impressed me with its accuracy and build. It presents as a *full-sized* rifle, has good but not serious heft and some doggone interesting sights. The front is a beautiful hooded unit while it has two rears; a very economical three-aperture peep and a safari-style open sight with a clever windage dial on it. The rear also has the thickest ladder adjust I've ever seen outside a vintage Winchester.
So, all this wonderment on the Buckhorn always made me curious about earlier versions.
While I don't subscribe to the notion as any form of rule and can cite several instance in opposition, it is understandable that succeeding gun-versions - more often than not - represent cost-cutting rather than improvements.
Definitely NOT the case with the 66 (the lower gun in the rack). The "B" is such a significant improvement that the only wonder involved is why it didn't get its own model # altogether.
The earlier - first - version is just plain WEIRD to me.
For one, the entire tubular magazine travels fore-aft exactly in time with cycling the bolt as shown by the wear to the tube in pic #4.
Then, to fully remove the bolt assembly, it must be disassembled while still in the receiver since some of the bolt assembly is pinned into a sleeve which is then threaded into the breech-bolt shown in pic #5. The forceps touching a single piece of steel in two decidedly different locations. That piece shown in the final pic.
Very odd and exceptionally difficult to loosen.
I wonder if I'll bother keeping it? So far, unlikely though interesting.... and frustrating.... and interesting.
With age and looseness, another disappointment arises in that the thumb-screw for attaching the action to the stock can not be sufficiently tightened to remove looseness within the stock - at least on my old gun; made between 1935-48. See, if I tighten it enough to lock it in, that tubular magazine binds for no longer floating.
Easy enough to address but I don't know that I'll even care - eventually.Just the right oddity to occupy my Covid-afternoon.
Todd.
