doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com lengthening chambers

There may be good reasons to do this in Europe, say from 2 1/2" to 2 3/4". The gun can be reproofed and the owner will have a wider choice of cartridges. It becomes a whole nother story when that gun comes to the US. I like sixteens and light twelves but I won't even look at one that has had it's chambers deepened. The reason, I have no way of knowing how many standard SAMI loads it has fired. If the chambers have been deepened in this country without reproof it's even more suspect in my eyes. Without doing a barrel profile you just don't know what the story is. Of course theres also the issue of European guns with original 2 3/4" chambers proofed to CIP standards. Again, how many thousands of SAMI rounds have gone thru 'em? But at least in this case one is fairly safe in thinking that there's enough metal at the chamber's end. It's not that I care inordinately about my fingers, it's just that no matter how you cut it, removing metal from the chamber will weaken the barrel.
npm

Amen! Have you noticed that an expectedly reputable dealer will always sort of mention the 3" chambers on a vintage gun in passing. Up to the end "emptor" to sort them out.

jack

Silly me, I was shooting everything but magnums in my guns, including twist, before I heard of chamber lengthening and Sherman Bell. Now---same thing: 2 3/4 in 2 5/8 chambers etc. except that I keep pressures around 7,000psi.

After Savage bought Fox, guns with short chambers returned to the factory for any kind of work were supposedly automatically lengthened to 2 3/4".

I 'gotta play devil's advocate here, Nial. Since, there aren't thousands of blowed up doubles, damascus or steel, English, European, or good old Yank, and the ones that do appear ALWAYS show absolute signs of obstruction, what are we to conclude?

I had a MacNaughton 12, built back before accurate records were kept, lengthened in the chambers and chokes let out, followed by standard 850 BAR reprooof in Birmingham. This was the third trip through a proofhouse for the old girl by the way, it carried previous London and Birmingham proof. Since the gun had been built as an 13 gauge, and measured 12 when it went for the third trip, assume a generous hone took place as well, just not by my 'smith.

Dangerous? Hardly. A non event, if truth be known. I used it for years. Didn't pay too much attention to the ammunition used, if further truth be known.

My lone Darne is out of French proof for a bunch of reasons-pimple bulges, chokes let out, backbore as well. Oddly, chamber length was always 70 on this gun. But, the thin spot in these tubes is .060 wall thickness, and per the manufacturers suggestion, I just shoot the thing. They advised plain old American hunting loads, a bit more pressure being a good thing in an overbore gun.

Those guys laughed at me when I suggested reproof.

Hey, if I come across the right proofhouse veteran, wearing 2 1/2 marks, but, exhibiting longer chambers, I'll cry about what a damn shame it is to the dealer, and see how much the price plunges. If I find the price acceptable, I'll cry some more to see if I can get the Larry Brown discount, as well.

And then I'll walk away with it. No dead bird has ever come back to haunt me about chamber length.
Best,
Ted

It is true to shoot a 2 3/4 paper shells instead of a 2 1/2 paper shells build up extra pressure. But if someone shoot 2 3/4 plastic shells, it is much thinner than paper and it does not build up as much pressure as paper shells. It is why some have been shooting plastic 2 3/4 without noticeable kicking.
But light load should be used. In the old day, the 65 mm was around 6000 6500 psi, the modern 2 3/4 are about 11000 13000. That is enough to ruin some old guns. It is close to the proof load too.

I'm no expert on this but I have read enough in the past two years to make me cry about all the great deals I passed up on Damascus guns. From what I gather, SAAMI U.S. factory loads are lower pressure than Nitro proof loads and if either did not exceed the yield strength of the barrels, no damage has been done to them. Nor is it likely. Now that does not mean the gun has not been stressed beyond its' design limits, and it may be off face because the frame is sprung or the locking surfaces are pounded. Perhaps the wood is beginning to crack at the head. But unless the barrels deteriorate due to pitting or physical damage, the same loads are unlikely to blow them. So if the gun with lengthened chambers passed European proof, came to the U.S. and had SAAMI loads fired through it, and is still tight and undamaged with lever right, I see no reason to pass on it. Some of us don't even know what has been fired in our own guns. I have a friend who routinely fired 3" mags in his fathers' Ithaca Flues 2-3/4" 20 ga. and still has eyes and fingers. Another friend accidently fired 3" heavy turkey loads in his twist bbl. H Lefever with no problem. I once bought a grade 2 L.C. Smith at a poorly lit gun show and swore it was fluid steel. Got home and inspected it in sunlight and then fired some max. dram equiv. shells. No problem. A second closer look under the forend showed it was reblued Damascus. Of course, I fired no more factory loads in it, but I'm sure those couple shots did no harm. Any of these guns may have been ruined if fired with low pressure loads with a plug of snow or a stuck wad in the bbls. And the gun you yourself accept just because the chambers are unaltered may have been similarly abused. European shooters also have access to 3" shells and some are also fools. Just inspect your gun carefully before you plunk down your money. I lost a few bucks on the L.C. because I stripped the reblue and blacked it to show the Damascus pattern. But at least I can sleep knowing I didn't potentially blind someone.

In Denmark we have to use steel or bismuth shells because of lead ban. The shortest Eley bismuth shells are 67½ mm. Hence we get our old guns regulated to 70 mm chamberlenght, to decrease the chamberpressure. We do not use 70 mm or longer shells. The biggest store in Denmark (Hunters House) http://www.huntershouse.dk/kat183-Klassiske-våben/)decline to sell a gun with shorter chamberlength than 70 mm
best regards

Yikes, Joe! That gun has a modern British reproof for sure, but at 2 1/2" and 850 bars. If it's since been let out to 3"--I don't see that indicated on the barrel flats, nor do I see a reproof at 1200 bars, which is what would be required on a 3" gun. I'd steer clear of that one, other than as a wall-hanger.

What we sometimes miss is that current standard CIP service pressure is pretty close to the same as it was on American guns, before SAAMI (and the first "modern" shotshell load, the Super-X) came along in the 20's. So from a pressure standpoint, shooting modern American factory 2 3/4" loads in old American guns is as bad as shooting them in British/European guns. One difference, however, is that the old American guns tended to have thicker barrel walls. That's not always true, but it is generally true.

Ted, the best discount I've received is when you sent me your unused Cabela's bucks.

Never trust anyones interpretation of proof marks, who can't discern between a "Bar-Action" & a "Back Action".

I thought it was a screw grip...

Let me say this about that.

Even if the chambers ARE original length, you still have no way of knowing how many standard SAAMI loads it has fired. Lots of guys were too cheap to have the chambers lengthened and too cheap to buy the right length shells. I've met quite a few old guys that have guns still with the original 2-1/2" chambers and they've been feeding them 2-3/4" and even 3" loads for years.

The only thing original chambers will tell is that they haven't been lengthened. By themselves they will tell you nothing of the guns condition. And vice versa, just because a gun has chambers that have been lengthened doesn't mean it's in bad condition.

If they send me some more, you can have those too, Larry.


Did they sell any of their Darnes? There's a sucker born every minute, you know....
Best,
Ted

Always glad to take them off your hands, Ted. Darnes . . . I looked at a nice one at their La Vista store some time back. That pair look to be a good buy if you compare to new prices, but I expect they'll be a hard sell.

RR, the difference between shooting long factory shells in short factory chambers and doing it in lengthened chambers is that at least in the first case, metal hasn't been removed--which process cannot possibly make the gun stronger.

Actually, it is.

Perhaps I don't completely under the issue here....

I REGULARLY have the 12 gauge 2-9/16" chambers lengthened on older American classic doubles as part of the refurbishing process. My gunsmith also lengthens the forcing cone at the same time. Seems foolish not to do so, if the gun is to be used much.

Is this what is being discussed?

JERRY

Jerry,
When a chamber is deepened, it is essentially moving the forward corner of the chamber/forcing cone forward. Since the outside barrel contour has a taper, what ever distance the chamber is deepened will result in a reduction in the wallthickness in that area. Dividing in half the difference in diameter between where the original chamber end is and where it will be after deepening will give you the reduction in wallthickness. I suspect the difference in wallthickness is in the .010-.015 range most times that a chamber is deepened less than a 1/4". A few measurements should tell you.

I have to agree with RR. The punch marks on the table only tell what was at one time, not what the gun has been subjected to since. A reproof of each and every piece would be the optimum fix, but that's a different road to follow. What I've always wondered about is some of the same gun buyers that recoil in fear of a shotgun that has had it's chambers and/or forceing cones lenghtened that put it out of the security blanket of proof in their minds, but seem to in no way be bothered by other repairs. Re-pinning of the hook or welding on the same to fix off face actions, striking and rebluing barrels, annealing and then recase coloring actions, tightening lockup to put the lever to the right, etc. Some would instantly require reproof, others depending on the degree of work. Look at the alterations & restorations done to bolt rifles with the welding and other gunsmithing operations and no one bats an eye or even mentions(re)proof. Judge each piece alone, including any alterations or work done to it, as to wether it was performed properly and safely.

Whether it's a screw grip, rotary bolt, Treble Wedge Fast or what-ever type of bolting has nothing at all to do with the lock works. He called it a bar action, & that ones a pure unadulterated "Back-Action" lockwork. But then I think the vast majority of screw grip guns did have back action locks.

I saw it as back-locked Jones under-lever...my comment about it being a screw grip was a joke.

The well informed responses to my post have convinced me that I've been wrong in my opinion about chamber lenghtening. Well mostly wrong anyway. What bothered me are the following facts. SAMI allowable service pressures for 2 3/4" shells are nearly 2000 psi more than CIP pressures for the same length shells. So a 2 1/2" gun is deepened and reproofed to CIP standards. Exported to the USA and then used to fire SAMI shells. Where is the sense in that? The gun has been weakened to allow the use of higher pressure shells. Wouldn't it have made more sense to just lengthen the forcing cones? No doubt the people who do this work have measured the barrel contours, etc. and have concluded there's metal to spare, well maybe just eyeballed it but what the hell, it's only a quarter inch. Don't get me wrong, when I was a kid I made 12-bore shotguns out of 3/4" iron pipe slid inside a 1" piece. Killed as well as a H&H Royal. It's just that in my dotage my opinions are less and less rational. I'm glad I can count on the folks here to help me keep a grip on reality.
npm

Larry, that's obvious, I didn't state anything to the contrary.

I have a 1939 Nimrod drilling that has 70mm chambers but is not stamped as such. I had the gun checked thoroughly, was told it had no damage. I only shoot 2-1/2" in it to keep it that way. I have no idea how much the gun was shot after the chambers were lengthened (my guess is not much at all) or what shells were used. Very few buyers can be sure what a gun in question was fed before they owned it. My point being that just because a gun has lengthened chambers , by and of itself, is not a reason to condemn it. What needs to be taken into account is the result of actually being shot and what was shot.

Now, how chamber length originality affects collector value and price is another story. If they're not original I use it every chance I get to lower the price on a gun I'm buying. If they are original it's definitely a point to bring up if I'm selling.

Rob, my first classic double was a pre-war Sauer 16. Original short chambers. Had them lengthened, hate to think about how many 1 1/8 oz pheasant loads I pushed through that old gun. Didn't hurt it a bit . . . but it's one of those case by case deals. I would not worry too much about lengthening chambers on most older American guns, as Jerry suggests, because they tend to have thicker barrel walls than Brit/European guns. Probably the best thing on a gun with punched chambers is to have wall thickness measurements taken at the end of the chamber. The acceptable minimum I've heard, at that point, is .100. I'd have a fair degree of confidence if there's that much steel left.

Nial, per the Birmingham Proof House, the difference between SAAMI service pressure (11,500 psi for a 12ga) is less than 800 psi higher than CIP service pressure (10,730 psi). The Brit "bars" figures are crusher bars, not transducer bars. Converting to transducer bars--again, per the Birmingham Proof House--CIP service pressure is 740 bars rather than 650. Essentially, what that means is that current standard CIP service pressure is very close to American service pressure on our own old, short chambered guns--prior to the advent of SAAMI and the conversion to standard 2 3/4" chambers.

npm
I'm glad I wasn't the only kid who made a 12 gauge shot gun out of a piece of 3/4" cast iron pipe. Thank you.
Steve

Thanks Larry. Accurate information is always appreciated. Just now for curiousity I measured the chamber walls on a 16 gauge 2 1/2" Brit gun. They look to me about average in that chamber walls are 5/32" at the breech then taper down to .096" right at the start of the cone. If I were to deepen them .250" the minimun chamber wall thickness would be pushing .085" I think this is a typical English 16-bore game gun, not extra light, weighs a little under 6 lbs. .085" would probably be OK in 16 gauge, smaller diameter tube= stronger, etc. But what if it was a 12 gauge? What then? You mention a tenth of an inch as being what you would be comfortable with. I guess my point was, I see lots of Brit game guns that have been deepened and reproofed, but why? It doesn't add anything to 'em. If the cones were just lengthened people could go ahead and fire the 2 3/4" cartridges in a stronger tube with little or no extra increase of pressure. That's my objection to lenghtening chambers right there in an nutshell. What's the point? Pay a bunch of money to have "Reamer Rube" do his thing, then another bunch to the proofhouse but end up with less gun.
npm

Nial, I agree with you on the lengthening of cones but not chambers. And as long as the 2 3/4" shell is loaded to a pressure appropriate for the gun in the first place, you shouldn't hurt it. However, I'd also point out that it's much easier to work up low pressure reloads for the 12 (5-6,000 psi range) than it is for the 16.

I've enjoyed this thread so far. I just have one thing to add. If you plan to shoot shells loaded with fiber wads, BP or smokeless, lengthened forcing cones may allow powder gas to leak around the wads, where lengthening the chambers with a chamber reamer that has a normal forcing cone taper, won't.

Here's a really good quote from Chuck H. which everyone considering grinding out and butchering chambers in the older guns should read and ponder prior to going under the tool for permanent change .......and why to never buy a gun that has been altered in this fashion.......

Even if the outside barrel contour doesn't have a taper, reaming is going to reduce wall thickness. So will honing to take out pits. You remove metal, you have less metal left. The question is, how much did you have to start with, and how much is left when you're done. Lengthening chambers only 1/4" (as on Brit/European guns with original 2 1/2" chambers) can be perfectly safe; witness all of those to which it's been done, and which have passed reproof. Most of the time, however, you'll get the same benefit, with far less metal removed, by simply lengthening the forcing cone.

Anybody know of a lengthened chamber or cone that has failed?

Any stats available from the proof house on failed guns?

Mark:

Currently on page four there is a thread titled "Baker Resurrection" with photo's....advise you view that thread....

Just brought that thread forward for your review Mark......

Doug, were any measurements made on the failed Baker?

Mark:

On the original Baker Resurrection thread PeteM mentions that RMC (Randy) who owned the Baker took measurements I believe after it blew up.....Randy said that "for the record, it blew up after thirteen low pressure shots"....Randy said he had just purchased the gun, shot 8 himself then his brother shot the next 5 at which time it blew on #5.....he mentions all this in his last post over there on page 3..........I don't think he posted the actual measurements, but I think Randy would supply them should you ask him....?........PeteM on page 2 said he took measurements and remarked that the chambers were on the 'thin' side...?...

Regards,

Dang, just when I thought I was getting conversant in shotgunese, I get a curve ball like that.

I thought altering chokes and chambers was "raping" and altering stocks was "butchering?" Ah well...either way, I'm a butchering rapist. I guess it matters not whether you're pitching or catching...it's all baseball.

Mike the Ripper

Mike, it is really hard to keep up with, I know what you mean....there is one here you would probably like quite well......it's where the butchers, choppers, cutter's and rapist's all had a beer together before their work.....(probably more like 5 or 6)........whatta ya think, your style...?....They didn't miss much......

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=180655224

Or maybe you like the 'modern' dimensions for your wood...they also did a little barrel work on this one (tune up) for the 'eastern lot' type hunting....and you get to choose your own rubber pad, what say you...?.....

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=180238924

I have never lengthen a chamber, but I've "eased" the forcing cones on a few older guns. FWIW, I don't think I'd do it again. For one thing, I don't know that I could tell the difference. It's not like these were skeet guns; shooting them ten times a day is a lot. Destroying originality is like loosing virginity ... it seems like a very good idea at the time, but there's no going back. As I've gotten older I've decided that the world is full of shotguns. If you're not satisfied, it's easier, cheaper and less destructive to just find a different one than it is to make the one you've got into something it ain't. TT

This is more my style ... color me a rapist.




Another victim on the alter. Sorry it's too late to save her...

Didn't some american manufacturers intentionally cut their chambers to 2/5/8 and label them 2 3/4" I think I have more than one like in my safe?

Jerry

You can buy her make up and pretty cloths but shes still a ....

Yea, but a very pretty one and I'll bet it fits him like a glove too.

Yours look about like the ones I pasted up, except you have more Harlem upgrades.....The shell boxes look nice though.......

Does the round knob and lack of checkering on the SW help in your swing, or is it more of a cosmetic addition, maybe just shotgun porno like you said......?.....

I noticed the ones I pasted up had after market gaudy stocks and no checkering as well like yours (owner improvements), that is why I thought you would like them.........enhancing the field gun look, don't you think...........

They did indeed, Jerry--back during the paper shell era, when American gun companies were converting to the 2 3/4" standard. They discovered that patterns were better with shells that opened a bit into the forcing cone, because the shot--of course unprotected by plastic wads in those days--was somewhat cushioned by the case mouth on its initial contact with the barrel walls.

As for "originality", some Americans seem to have a serious hangup with it. It's one thing on a "collector" gun: high grade, not many made in the first place, or perhaps even a field grade in mint or near mint condition. But if you buy a gun as a shooter, why not alter the stock to fit you (rather than trying to alter your shooting style to fit the stock), why not open the chokes to suit (since very few American doubles had the chokes marked anyhow, who's to know minus a factory letter)? As for reblacking barrels, refinishing stocks, recutting checkering . . . the Brits do it all the time. In fact, especially on a nicer Brit double, they'd look at you as if you were crazy if that Purdey, showing a bunch of wear, checkering almost gone, bluing significantly faded, were described as "all original"--as if that were a virtue. Their thought would be, "The owner didn't care enough to send it back to the maker to have it kept up properly?" Different strokes, I guess.

The checkering comes last....so it doesn't get glopped up with finish. I'm not surprised some people don't know that....about not glopping on finish and all.

OK, I concede to the voice of experience. Sometimes a "refinish" really does constitue butchery, as in the case of this "Almost a Virgin."



Well, they'll be even harder to find now. There used to be one more high condition original SW out there

I would have to agree with you there Sparky..(amazing).....not my style to ever put finish in the checkering......for some reason I figured you had bad eyes, so here's some close ups.......

Strange place to take a picture of a gun.

It is a Sterlingworth jOe. When it comes to Sterly's the only other proper place for a picture would be next to the commode. I'm just kidding.

Not a Fox guy, but I have a A-grade from 1929 and my checkering is different, or it looks different than PA24's. Did you recut that checkering? I was under the impression that most Philly Fox's came with flat top checkering and pointed up coarse checkering would usually be found on Utica guns.

No Dustin, not re-cut.....the top gun above is an LC Ideal Grade...and the bottom is the SW Philly both with factory checkering....showing the refinished wood without finish in the checkering for Sparky up above ......

I have a field grade 16 LC that the original buyer in 1931 purchased with upgraded wood and 20 LPI checkering.....and lettered as such........just like today, you can order pretty much what ever you want if you have the money....these companies were all in business to make money......so step right up......sign here........collectors sometimes think everything is cast in concrete...well, it is not as most of you know........

Some more refinished wood...all factory checkering....SW forearm is the one on the left with a piece of lint on it....

Doug, I posted a question about the blown barrel on that Baker thread. You might want to take a look. Given the damage to the hull, visible in one of the photos, I'm thinking maybe an obstruction was the culprit--although it's possible it might not have happened had the chambers not been messed with.

Original SW 12 stock as stripped, including a small area of damage on the right lower corner in the checkering as shown in the pictures....this was the only area that I repaired and can be seen in the photo of the unfinished butt stock pistol grip, right side checkering..........all the wood is serial numbered to this gun.....

This stock had the original finish and original FACTORY checkering prior to stripping and still has the original FACTORY checkering with my small repair and re-finish.......




Undamaged left side--


After my repair on the right side--


Re-finished stock before assembly--

I've never seen a sterlingworth with pointed checkering. Is this relatively normal and just shows my inexperience or is it a "known rarity"?

Apparently life is black and white to some of you--must be nice. For me, as long as the MEASUREMENTS taken on the barrels as taken by the professional I have do the work reflect safe wall thickness I've lengthened the chambers in mine--and given that my budget mandates field-grade only most have been built like a tank to begin with. None of my guns were original when I got them and even given that some metal was removed, based on the clean bill of health given by multiple respected barrel-guys I still believe my guns are in better shape than when I got them. One mans butcher is another mans craftsman.

I can't answer that for you David, I would have to defer that question to the...-"known experts"-.... of which I am not one..........I only KNOW for a fact that this gun left the Philadelphia factory with the checkering as pictured above.....



Best,

They were low grade guns with low grade wood that could explain the 'flat top looking' checkering on some.

PA24, that wasn't meant to be a barbed comment--I just have never seen a sterly with checkering that was pointed up, and I had thought I looked at a decent number of them. I'm interested in learning what I can about it so I tried sending you a PM to ask, but you have that function disabled. Had I seen it on a gunshow table I would have pegged it as a well-done refinish due to the pointed checkering--I don't doubt that it could be original, I was just curious how you know it to be original.
If you care to reply and want to keep this thread on topic my email is david.furman "at" hotmail.com

Thank you

Doug,
I'll be honest, I just dont think that checkering is original to the gun. It doesnt even look like the correct "pointed up" style that Fox used on its Utica made guns and even more so.. it doesnt seem match Philly style checkering either. The diamonds on your gun are just too nice and look to have been recently cut.
Double Gun Journal, vol. 15, issue 3, Autumn 2004, pg. 89. Excellent article by David Noreen. Pg. 94 & 95 there are two pictures that give excellent reference.

Dustin

Dustin--

You are sure entitled to your opinion as I am to mine....The gun sat in a closet since new and was known by me as was the original owner, who has long passed.....Dustin, I'll be honest like you----the gun has never been touched since it was new until I refinished the stock....those are the facts....................

David----sent you two PM's David....

I understand your post clearly, but I cannot confirm how many guns the Philadelphia factory produced with pointed checkering....as you can see by Dustin's posting, others appear to know more about my gun than I, whether from a book or real experiences, who knows.........the gun was 100% original when I bought it.......as mentioned right above.........

Like I mentioned on a previous post, I have another field grade gun that was purchased new in the 30's with upgraded factory checkering and wood and mentioned in the factory letter ......The SW is lettered, but the checkering is not mentioned.......

***************************************************************

For all the experts and critics here, I dug out the photo's I took of the gun before I started the wood refinish.....(I keep complete files and photo's on every gun--before and after any work)....then took pictures of the pictures to post here just for you..............the checkering was not re-cut or touched up....only the repair in the corner to match as close as possible the undamaged area --by me--...what you see posted above is the checkering as it appeared after stripping.............now are you going to tell me next that it is not the factory finish and checkering OR that this is not factory pointed checkering...?....






Best,

Listen up Doug, I was the first to say that I was no Fox expert, I'm just saying that your Fox's checkering doesnt look "right" for that era of Fox. If yours is original, then it would be the first Philly Fox Sterly I've ever seen with pointed up checkering and with diamonds cut at that angle. The only Fox's I've seen out of Philly with pointed checkering were graded guns. I haven't seen a ton of em, but a few. Just sayin'.
We really should start another thread on this so guys like Researcher, ellenbr, Petrov, etc. can chime in, those are the guys that should be looking at this and telling us whats what.
Just thought of this and it has nothing to do with your Fox really, but that 30's era Sterly you mention, the one that letters with ugraded wood and checkering...why would someone do that? Why not just upgrade to an A grade gun?? Food for thought.

Dustin

Dustin--


Listen up Dustin, the "other" field gun I mentioned IS NOT a Sterly....**Not a Sterly**...it is an LC Smith.....(the post says 30's field gun I think).....and letters with the wood upgrades and checkering, unlike the Fox Callahan letters..........LC's letter with Cody and are much more detailed generally........

As far as starting another thread, I am really tired of this back and forth Q & A --........I know what this gun is and where it came from........ the checkering is pointed, I like it and "I'm sure there are more" and it does look nice..... Tired of listening to the so-called "experts" who don't really appear to do their homework and spew mainly opinions or parroting what another "expert" wrote in some book, if you know what I mean....none of us were in the factory back then, so we only know what someone wrote on an index card and believe me that is not conclusive by any means...........like most factories, I am sure you could pay someone to do a little extra work and they would do it........or maybe it was a newbee who screwed up, or an employee made gun who changed his mind, or all the so-called experts are half a bubble off and they made lot's of them, don't really know and it's not important to me........

It is a pristine gun with factory 99-100% blue and CC, with original wood and checkering and sports all the steel that it left the factory with and letters as such......and shoots like a dream with F-M.......28"....and I have not seen another SW that even comes close to the condition of this gun and doubt that I ever will......

Thanks for your interest and opinions Dustin..........

Best,

Truthfully I'm having trouble seeing what they are arguing about.

Regarding the checkering, anything is possible. I've never seen one checkered that way, but for all we know, it was an employee's gun who worked at the factory and he requested checkering pointed up like a graded gun. That might show up in a factory letter, but I doubt it. Guess its just another one of lifes little mysteries.

And some one takes original gun that sat in a closet and refinishes the stock. But he takes pix of the original stock before he refinishes to show it had special chequering. ????

I don't know how late Doug's Sterly is, but if it's a particularly late gun, that can explain a lot of things--like Savage using up the wood it had, as they were halting the production of "real" Foxes. I had a unique, very late SW 16. The gun had a receiver the likes of which I doubt anyone has ever seen on a SW, unless they saw my gun or photos of it. Instead of the raised "bosses" on the sides, it had the typical SW engraving that followed the contours of the bosses--but the bosses themselves were absent! Flat-sided gun. The explanation is that it was likely an SP receiver finished as a Sterlingworth, at the very end of Fox production.

When it comes to wood, I think we've seen the same thing on other American guns: Late Field Grades bearing wood that looks like it belongs on graded guns. Again, a case of the factory using up what they had, as production wound down.

No way to know whether that's the case here, but it would appear to me that's one possible explanation.

Nice job

Best,
Mark