Frontier armory sells castings, and Buffalo arms sells machinist drawings for the Farrow 1887 action. I like the more sleek looks of the action, and read that it is an improvement on the Ballard.

Not much info as to the history, strngths and weaknesses or suitable chamberings. Do any of you have any experience with them? Might be a fun build as a compaion to my 7X57R break action I am close to finishing. Maybe in a 6mm Rem. ( always wanted a 6mm)

Is the '87 the longer action (front to back)or is that the short(er) one? Dean Miller did one, but it went T.U. when Dakota bought themout.

Rich
DRSS
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...
10 days til Harare

I believe it is the longer action.

I read that Miller was working on the actions. Didn't hear of any that were finished.

I am sure the action could handle modern pressures given it is a falling block. What I am after is the sleek look. My one complaint about most falling blocks is the abrupt step at the rear of the action as it transitions into the wrist area. I might just rob the profile and design my own mechanics.

Hello Folks

I too admire the sleek look that the Farrow action gives, however it would be interesting to know how it balances and handles.

In particular I wonder how easy it is to load and reload, especially if it was fitted with a scope - a sort of limitation common to falling blocks. Yes I know they all work, and I like my Martinis and Hiwall, but they are not "optimised" once a scope is fitted. I suspect the Farrow with its slim block would need carefull consideration to work well.

Cheers - Foster

Farrow

quote:

I like the more sleek looks of the action

You can always get an 1885 High Wall and have it milled to the profile you want, something between a High and a Low Wall--call it a Mid-Wall. In modern steels, a Low Wall can take a .30-30, so I'd reckon you could do a 7x57R in a Mid-Wall.

I recall the internals of the later Farrow are more like a Stevens 44 1/2; it should be strong enough.

farrow action pics.

I think user 4477 is R. Storie.

Story actions

A friend (& Farrow collector) said I might be interested in this thread, so here goes. I own an original Farrow. My friend owns more than one. These comments apply to the original actions only, not to modern day versions. There are more Farrow actions than the 1884 and 1887. FdH showed a drawing of what he called "the Final Model" in his Potpourri book. Farrow made actions from the mid-1880s until (maybe) the early 1920s. Farrow is quoted as saying "I invented six actions". And there may be more.

An educated guess says that Farrow made fewer than 250 actions over 40 years, and that the number is probably closer to 200. A private collector's records do not list any serial numbers higher than the 190s. I read somewhere that Farrow began numbering at 100, because #100 was purchased from his estate. That is incorrect because my Farrow has a 2-digit number. I have seen at least one Farrow without numbers. I think Farrow action development was a continuum of tinkering with a basic design. Perhaps he built them in small batches, perhaps singly, but very few are exactly alike. My friend and I have actions that LOOK alike, but the basic parts are not interchangeable. Out of curiosity, we tried.

All the original actions were apparently made for mid-range and short-range black powder cartridges. None have retractable or rebounding firing pins. Broken firing pins are apparently common. Those are not insurmountable problems if you are building a reproduction action for a mid-range BP cartridge, but if you are thinking about smokeless powder pressures, the entire firing pin design will have to be redone. And that may lead to making the breech block thicker. In the originals, it is very thin. I would shoot a Farrow in .32-40 without worrying about the safety of the action. I would probably shoot a .38-55 with the same degree of confidence. But I would not shoot an original if rebarreled to a high-intensity smokeless cartridge.

Another question one should ask about any particular Farrow design is "Will it work?" If you drop the lever and lower the block, insert a perfectly functional cartridge, raise the lever and close the block, raise the rifle to your shoulder, take aim and squeeze the trigger, you would reasonably expect the rifle to go "bang". With some Farrow designs, particularly the actions with reversed DSTs, that may or may not happen. Some of the original designs as built by Farrow are flawed. Also, and especially if you are considering a Farrow as a hunting rifle, you should investigate the operation of the hammer. Farrows come to full cock when the action is closed. Can you carry it at half-cock? If you pull the hammer back, will the rifle then fire? And if you have a shrouded or spurless hammer, can you even get your thumb in there? And could you reach the hammer if you have a scope on the rifle?

The original Farrows fasten the buttstocks like a Winchester. Tightening the tang screw pulls the lower tang closer to the upper tang when the buttstock is attached. That puts a strain on the lower tang. It is a casting. It is pinned into place and may develop stress cracks. The movement of the lower tang may also change the arrangement between trigger, sear and hammer. The trigger pull may not be the same after the buttstock is attached.

Farrows were 1890s race guns. Period. They were never intended to be hunting rifles. To make one suitable for modern cartridges, you will need to do a total redesign. After that, will it still be a Farrow?

have you had a chance to compare with the Miller version?

Rich
DRSS
Knowledge not shared is knowledge lost...
THREE DAYS!!

I do not know anything about the Miller version, nor do I know anything about the other modern reproductions. But why call them Farrows? If you must, call them hyphenated Farrows and put the other guy's name first.

I looked at the photos of the 1884 and 1887 actions at the site Richj posted. In both photos, it looks as if the guy that buys the casting decides how he is going to fasten the stock. That is a good feature. The builder could put in a block to hold a through-bolt and a lot of "Original Farrow" problems would go away.

In the photo of the 1884 action, what is the function of the spring mounted on top of lower tang? And where is the main spring? Please tell me that it is not one of those springs that looks like a refugee from an alarm clock, wound into a tight flat coil in a recess milled into the hammer.

I think Farrow was quite concerned with accidental discharges. He put flat springs into the actions that kept positive pressure on the sear, preventing the sear from moving unless the trigger was deliberately pulled. Adjusting that spring MIGHT (or might not) help in adjusting trigger pull.

The photo of the 1887 action shows a coil spring powering the hammer much like a Stevens 417. Farrows have faster lock time than Ballards and that coil spring and driver arrangement should make the action faster yet. (I say that because I held my Farrow up against my two Ballards and pulled all 3 triggers. The Farrow hammer hit first.) The coil spring and driver rod setup would also be a whole lot more reliable that a flat or wound-up spring Farrow.

The block that holds the coil spring in place looks as if it passes through the lower tang. Does it mount on the top surface of the lever? That is something that Farrow would have done. If so, it adds another (and unnecessary) degree of complication to the whole action. And with the Stevens 417 in mind, can you cock the hammer by hand, compressing the coil spring? Can you safely release the hammer?

My Farrow is a combination of the two actions, plus some features not shown. My rifle has the integral mount for the tang sight shown in the 1884 action, but someone dropped my rifle and the tang sight was broken off. I looked at an original Farrow tang sight and decided not to replicate that in my restoration. Instead, my rifle will have the stem from a Parts Unknown Stevens-Pope. I think the integral tang sight mount is unnecessarily vulnerable. There was a reason for keeping expensive tang sights in neat little boxes or fancy leather cases.

My action has even less visible hammer than the 1887 action. With either action, what holds the lever in place when the breech block is raised? My Farrow's lever has a serious case of the droops. The droops in turn have a negative impact on the rifle's reliability. You have to really get inside a Farrow to see how that happens.

This sounds as if I'm really down on Farrows and that is not the case. The wood-to-metal fit on the Farrows I have seen is first-rate. The wood is of excellent quality. The shape of the stock is just right for offhand shooting and Farrow buttplates are about the best of all the Schuetzen types. I just want my Farrow to be reliable enough to shoot in a Hudson match.

Waterman,

GREAT info and very thorough. Any pictures????


What attracted me to the action is it's profile and I like the looks of the lever. I would rather it be hamerless, and so I wouldn't refer to my design as a Farrow, only Farrow inspired.

I know some don't care one way or the other, but I like rifle actions that have nice lines that flow with and into the stock. So many falling blocks look....like blocks. Ruger no1s aren't bad at all, but the Farrow actions I have seen pictures of have more of what I am looking for.

I have some pre-restoration photos of my Farrow, plus 3 articles that I wrote for our rifle club newsletter and an analysis of the DST problem that I wrote for the gunsmith now restoring the rifle. The text of the articles and the analysis is in MS Word. I have not yet entered the world of digital photos. Does this site have a provision for PM or e-mail? If you will send me your e-mail address, I will send you the jpg & doc files. Or a snail mail address for paper copies.

I just looked at Farrow's 1887 patent drawings. They are shown in Grant's "More Single Shot Rifles", pp. 132-133. The hammer & the flat mainspring & the trigger group are all fastened to the back of the breech block. All apparently slide up & down as a unit. They are (thankfully) not attached to the top surface of the lever. But other designers managed to keep the mainspring & hammer fastened to the receiver. W. Milton Farrow was a watchmaker, and that explains a lot. Grant's first volume, "Single Shot Rifles", shows a DST Farrow action (#116) on p. 309. That is definitely NOT my DST action. The same rifle is shown on p. 136 of More Single Shot Rifles". My rifle looks somewhat like that but has the loop lever.

There's a 6-7 page Farrow writeup in Gun Digest Treasury 1969 with biblio.

Rich

Thanks for the reference post, Rich. I did not find the 1969 compendium on my bookshelves, but I found the original in the 1962 Gun Digest. Purchased when new, long before I ever thought I'd be the possessor of a Farrow.

In the catalog cuts (engravings, woodcuts?) you can see a folded view of the Farrow tang sight. You cannot make a windage adjustment without a change in elevation.

Most interesting is the brass-action Farrow, another Farrow with no SN, and the rest of the Farrows shown are all in the 2-digit range. The writer also commented that the Farrow was a target rifle and that the design of the action, particularly the hammer, did not lend itself to a hunting rifle.