The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Dave McCracken Memorial Shotgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 27, 2013, 06:30 PM   #1
deadcoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 491
J. Stevens Arms model 520 question...

I was recently gifted one of these shotguns, it has the "2 hump" style receiver. I believe, if the internets didn't lie to me, that the "2 hump" type receiver was phased out to the one hump in 1920? I have no sentimental attachment to this shotgun, I gifted a friend a Turkish mauser a couple of years ago as he was fond of it and I paid $50 for it. He inherited this shotgun, did not want it and offered it up. It functions great, I am considering having the barrel cut down to 20" for a home defense gun. How durable would this shotgun be re: holding up to modern 00 or 000 defense ammo?
deadcoyote is offline  
Old March 1, 2013, 10:38 PM   #2
nanewt02
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Posts: 248
good to go

you should do just fine for 2 3/4 loads. attached is a picture of their original catalog, not sure if this is your gun, but all their 520 models were either "bored for nitro" or "proofed tested". nitro loads of the day produced similar performace in modern day loads. however, only some of their models indicate proof testing, check for proof marks. im not great on my history, but they may not have been required to proof back then. i wouldnt worry about it, especially since black powder loads werent the standard when this gun was produced. besides its based off of one of brownings durable design. i wouldnt hesitate to fire 2 3/4 loads. but if you still feel nervous, fire it with a string. i have about a spoonful of cold blue left to touch up that fresh cut barrel if you decide to cut it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../No5201912.jpg
nanewt02 is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 11:37 AM   #3
PetahW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 4,679
I would be very reluctant (read: would NOT) shoot modern loads through ANY shotgun made prior to the ammo upgrades made to all commercial shotshell ammo in 1926 involving different powders & pressures than prior to then - which precipitated more then one company to discontinue a current model in favor of a newer/stronger model (Ithaca Flues/old, Ithaca NID/new) comes to mind).

YMMV, & if it does, please ensure your health coverage is PIF.


.
PetahW is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 11:47 AM   #4
Pyzon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2009
Posts: 266
I would agree that vintage guns (and their shooters) may not survive modern loadings, but in the case of these Stevens 520/620's, they are made out of a serious block of steel and built heavy as hell.

My son and I trimmed a couple down to 19" and we could not be more pleased with how they shoot and handle. The takedown feature is very sweet. We can pack them into a 20" X 6" X 2" case that looks very unlike what is contained inside. With practice, they go back together and are rockin' in less than 10 seconds.
Pyzon is online now  
Old March 8, 2013, 09:14 PM   #5
Two Old Dogs
Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2012
Location: Eastern SC
Posts: 68
The Model 520 is built like a Tank. It was manufactured from 1912 to 1932 and still assembled from fabricated parts well into the mid 30's. If yours is marked J. Stevens Arms Company it is post WWI. Stevens made 191,000 of them and the Military bought several thousand.

The Model 520 was originally chambered for 2 3/4" shells so you should have no problems with any standard 2 3/4" loads.

Take down is simple and the gun has no disconector so if you hold back the trigger, it fires every time you rack the slide. Not a bad feature in a home defense shotgun.
Two Old Dogs is offline  
Old March 8, 2013, 09:38 PM   #6
Lee Lapin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2004
Location: SE NC
Posts: 1,238
it has the "2 hump" style receiver. I believe, if the internets didn't lie to me, that the "2 hump" type receiver was phased out to the one hump in 1920?

The one hump version is often referred to as the 520-30, I always figured it was because they started making them that way in 1930 - but I could be wrong. Look at the left side of the receiver in front of the trigger guard and see if it's marked MOD. 520-30 - see the pics of the trench gun at http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=331581260 for an example.

I'd get a good 'smith to look at it but as long as it is mechanically sound I'd figure it would handle modern shells just fine.
__________________
Mindset - Skillset - Toolset. In that order!

Attitude and skill will get you through times of no gear, better than gear will get you through times of no attitude and no skill.
Lee Lapin is offline  
Old May 3, 2013, 04:42 PM   #7
deadcoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 491
I was just going to add mine says "520-30" on the reciever but it's the two hump style reciever.
deadcoyote is offline  
Old May 3, 2013, 05:10 PM   #8
Hawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 11,694
I have one of each style and they've had a buttload of modern shells fired through them.

Hawg is offline  
Old March 2, 2014, 12:55 PM   #9
detpar210
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2009
Posts: 2
age of MFG

anyone have any friggin idea where I can find the approximate age of a Stevens trench gun 54XXX

I know they were made from 39 - 40's

any & all help appreciated most graciously

thank you DP210
detpar210 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07613 seconds with 9 queries