Ran into a very nice example for very little money on a trip back East last week and was wondering if anyone here had some insight into issues with this particular model. I only know what the internet can tell me about the production history. I know they were made for a comparatively short period (1921 thru 1933) in 20-bore only, are very light, and some (all?) were take-down. Can I assume that the earlier versions had 2 1/2-inch chambers? Any other insight would be useful, such as functional issues or other problems to look out for. I am considering this gun as a gift for someone.

No. They were made for 2 3/4 inch shells from the get go. Remington never made a pump or autoloader for shells shorter than 2 3/4 inch until they got into 2 1/2 inch chambered .410-bore skeet guns.

There are no 'genetic' issues with the Model 17. It is a finely made gun AND was the 'model for the Ithaca Model 37

I've got one. It was my grandfathers gun and then my 1st shotgun. I really learned how to shoot with that gun and it performed well. I never had even one malfunction with that gun that i can remember, and now another kid is learning how to shoot with it too. I would have to say it is a very well made gun.

I bought one for $50 from my Dad's late deer hunting partner in 1977-still have it, it was my go-to gun for many years, and has trained many a kid, and a few times, the kids parent, in hunter safety training. No malfunctions ever.
An excellent repeater design.

Best,
Ted

I have owned a number of them including 2 17B models in 32" and 28" solid rib configurations. The are very light and useful pump guns with a John Moses Browning design. I never had a problem with them

I had a solid rib version and regrettably sold it some years back.

Smooth operating,very light weight,nice handling. The lineage to the Ithaca 37 is obvious.

Seems to me that the Remington 17 has a positive trigger disconnect, and does not have the so-called 'slam-fire feature' (a misnomer but that seems to be the way most people know what you're talking about).

Never had any problems with mine and I shot it a lot.
Never can't recall anyone asking for repairs on one either.
I'd guess that parts would be difficult to come by if you did need to find some and most any around will be well worn bits from stripped down parts pile guns.
That's just the way it is with old and especially low production guns.

Funny! I'd never even heard of the Model 17 until a few months ago. Picking it up from the "bargain rack" and actually knowing what it was, was kind-of fun. I don't remember seeing a solid rib and I didn't remember to check the choke, but I'd guess that it's likely to be full. The gun seemed to be very well-made (like alot of things were in the 20s and 30s) and it had obviously been well cared-for. The gun also seemed to be quite lively, so I'm guessing around 6-lbs of weight? A nice light gun for long walks on northern trails. Variety is indeed the spice of life.

I'm seeing quite a lot of these nice, older (and perhaps, a bit obscure?) guns in my travels now (that seem to get bypassed in the rush to buy the plastic and parkerized stuff).

Lloyd, the Remington 17 is one of my personal favorite "corn-shuckers", along with the Winchester model '97 and 1912. Be on the look out for a Stevens model 520, another John Browning design from that same era. The 520 is an A-5 hump-back look alike. I have one in 16ga that I'm thinking of having engraved in the Sweet-16 Browning pattern since I always tell everyone at the dove shoots that it is a rare pump sweet-16 anyway...Geo

Edited to correct the Stevens 520 make and model number after Researcher politely corrected my faulty memory!

Huh?? What? I've never heard of a Savage built John M. Browning designed pump. The humpbacked J. Stevens made John M. Browning designed pump is the No. 5xx --









And, I've never seen them catalogued in anything but 12-gauge. Their 1927 replacement the streamlined No. 620 was introduced in 12-gauge with 16-gauge coming the next year and 20-gauge the year after.

The Savage Model 220 was a hammerless single barrel first introduced in 1937, along with the very short lived Model 320 side-by-side, and Models 420 and 430 over/unders.

I have a solid rib 28 inch modified model 17 and it would be the one i would use if i shot pumps. Bobby

Researcher's correct of course. Old guys should never rely on memory cells!...Geo

Cataloged or not my 520 is a 16ga. Actually, it's a Montgomery- Ward model 30 version of the 520. The 5 and 620s Researcher pictured have the early 'suicide safety' inside the trigger guard. The later models like mine have a tang safety.

The Model 17 Remington was my first shotgun, one that had belonged to my grandfather and he also made the stock for it. I still have it (55 yrs later--yikes!) and Ken Hurst did a beautiful engraving on both sides of it. They are close to the Model 37 Ithaca, but few if any, of the parts are interchangeable. Most importantly the firing pin in mine started hanging up within the bolt and required some surgery, welding and alteration. That is the only problem I have ever had and it has seen lots of use. BTW, the Ithaca version takes care of the issue with the bolt/firing pin so in that regard it is superior.

Seems like getting off the subject (Rem. 17). My Model 30 is a Ranger (I think thats Sears) in 16ga with safty on backside of trigger guard. Nice slim gun, but wish I had the tang safty.

You folks are an amazing resource. So where does the Model 31 fit in all of these evolutionary tales? Was the 17 a precursor to it (as it appears to be to the Ithaca Model 37)? Was the 31 as light?

Yet another question.....w/all things being equal (LOP, gauge, barrel length) which gun is lighter, a Model 37 or a Model 17?

I ask this because I know a few hunters (both younger and older) that would benefit greatly from lugging a much-lighter gun afield. They would have much more fun, and they would likely increase their bag numbers as well.

Ok George,

Your gun is a No. 520A with the flat-topped reciever. Doesn't have the second bump along the top like the No. 520 - 535s. It never appeared in any J. Stevens Arms Co. or Savage/Stevens/Fox catalogue that I've ever seen. I've seen them as military riot/trench guns marked 520-30 and as "trade brand" sporting guns for both Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck & Co. The are in the 1951 Savage/Stevens/Fox parts list --

Back to Remington Model 17s. They were a John M. Browning design all their own, certainly not related to Remington's 12-gauge John D. Pedersen designed Remington Repeating Shotgun/Model 1908/Model 10 or the shortlived improved version the Model 29. While I am genetically predisposed to dispise bottom dumper pump guns, I do find Model 17s with the bosses at the front and back of their receivers rather attractive. Much nicer looking than slab-sided Ithacas. If you ever see the one Remington engraver Carl Ennis did for his Wife, you'll see how really attractive they can be!!

The Model 31 was an entirely new side ejecting design by Remington designer C.C. Loomis, with help from Charles H. Barnes and Oliver H. Loomis. Once it went through the growing pains of the 1931 and 1934 versions and emerged full blown in the 1941 version it was, in my not too humble opinion, the greatest pump gun to shoot ever. And, I shot NSSA Skeet with a full bag of Winchester Model 12/42s for seven years. The Model 31s do have their issues though, and if you've spent some time with one, you know why in 1950 Remington went to the "twin action bars" on their new Model 870 Wingmaster.

I always thought a nice Model 31 was a nicer gun than a model 12 and I really like the Model 12. I've never been able to find a nice model 17 at a decent price and I've been looking for 20 years. Seen a few -never shot one.

Thanks for your posts Researcher. Learning more about Remington and Stevens today. My Model 30 "Ranger" 16ga has the second hump, but safety on backside of trigger guard, so I'm assuming it's a late version 520. If I wanted a tang safety, I would be looking for the newer 520A

Tim Frazier has some nice M17's. He located a fine Deluxe that now sits in my gunsafe. I also have a "shooter" with a Lyman adjustable choke. Major difference between it and the M37 Ithaca is that the Ithaca has both top and bottom extractors whereas the M17 only has a bottom extractor. Ithaca planned to introduce a copy of the M17 in 1933 when Browning's patent expired but Pedersen had made some changes in the Browning design and those patents didn't expire until a few years later permitting Ithaca to run with the design with a few changes. M17s were made in any gauge you desired as long as it was 20 gauge.

Stevens 520 and 520A, and their brand names were made in 12, 16 and 20ga. I've owned many of them in all 3 gauges. Some with the solid rib too. One solid rib gun was 'Riverside' branded.
I've had Sears as well as JC Higgins plus MontgomeryWards, Ranger & Riverside marked guns in addition to the Stevens marked ones.

The stepped topped (and bottom) receiver is the earlier version.
The 520A is the straight top & bottom edge and came out later,,probably mid 30's best I can reason but it's just a guess.
The US Military resurected the 520A when they needed riot and trench guns for WW2 and put Stevens(Savage) back to work making them. I understand the model production had been actually been discontinued. The 620 was already in production.

The earlier versions use flat mainsprings. Later coil torsion springs for mainsprings (520A).
Lots of small changes inside. Not all parts are interchangeable.
If there's anything that breaks often it's the carrier spring (flat spring & two different types) and the firing pin.
The op rod gets worn and disconnects from the bolt at the beginning of the return stroke in a well used gun (hold the gun upside down and operate the action to see if it does). Can be fixed pretty easily if bubba hasn't gotten to it first

There was even a short lived version (520) with a hangfire safety for a while. You need to use the slide lock latch to open the gun even upon dry firing. Marlin hammerless pump shotguns all had one too.

The Remington M17 was also the basis for the Remington 'Whippet' shotgun.
A pistol grip short barreled no-nonsense Security & Law Enforcement defender weapon probably as a rival to the Auto-Burglar and others.
One accessory was offered for it was a belt clip attachment carrier of sorts. The trigger guard screw was replaced with a special slightly longer & extended larger headed screw.That snapped into a spring clip holder that was slipped onto the owners belt. A handy way of carrying the blaster under a long coat common for the day.
A similar 'holster' was offered for Colt SAA's way back too. I can't recall the name of it. The hammer screw on the Colt was replaced with the special lengthen & larger headed screw.

My late production M17 had one of these extended belt holster spring clip screws on it holding the trigger guard assembly in place. Probably just what ever was available for assembly at the time.

Researcher: Most of the information available online states that while John Browning was the original designer of the Model 17, John D. Pederson was involved in a re-design that improved it's function. Can you elaborate on that?

The gun was based on a John M. Browning Patent No. 1,143,170
granted June 15, 1915. However, Remington was gearing up for WW-I at that time and it would be six more years before the gun came out. Remington's designer John D. Pedersen made design refinements in 1919 (applications filed Sept. 15, 1919, Patent No. 1,429,621 granted Sept. 19, 1922 and Patent No. 1,487,799 granted Mar. 25, 1924) and G.H. Garrison made further improvements. It was the patents on these improvements that forced Ithaca to wait until 1937 to bring out their copy of this gun, though Ithaca had actually built some guns by 1932. Actually Pedersen has so many patent applications filed in that 1919 time frame it is hard to tell which really apply!

I always thought Pedersen was the designer but I had been told that it was discontinued because of "patent problems". I knew Ithaca picked it up in 1937. I'm glad to get my perspective straightened out. I did not know it was a Browning design.
The guy who wrote the article I read years ago didn't have his facts straight on the patent details.
Good information here!

Researcher: Thank you so much for that wonderful history lesson! In this one posting I've been straightened-out on Model 17s, Model 31s, Model 37s, Stevens 520s, Stevens 620s, and Remington Whippets. You folks are quite the resource!

After all of this rumination, I called the folks in Maine on that 17 today. Modified choke, 28-inch tube, and in 80% condition. I now own it. It will likely be my sons first grouse gun if his grandfather doesn't lay claim to it (it will need to be field tested, after all).

Since I've "taken the plunge" here, I did a bit of research myself and I found that our Mr. Walter C. Snyder knows quite a bit about Model 17 Remingtons and Ithaca Model 37s, and specifically, how one lead to the development of the other. The part about the Harry Howland patent and how the Model 37 was almost the Model 33 was quite interesting reading. The fact that Pederson's modification patents were also overlooked by Remington (for many years!) was another interesting tidbit. In many ways, Remington really blew-it by allowing Ithaca (in 1932) to pirate their then-discarded Model 17 design. Before the Model 37, Ithaca didn't have any marketable pumpgun designs and their market share was in sharp decline (doubleguns were being replaced by repeaters in the mass-market). With the Model 37, they came roaring back and fully capitalized on the well-tested Browning/Pederson design, now made by them in 12 and 16 gauge as well. The rest, as they say, is history. How many millions of Model 37s have been made? Aren't they still in production somewhere?

In Upper Sandusky, Ohio. Great people to do business with, by the way. They will build you a 20 or a 28 gauge model 37, also.

Best,
Ted

So... John Moses Browning's design lives on in yet another incarnation, and in 28-gauge this time. Pretty amazing when you think about it. From what I've read, the original design work for the Model 17 was done in 1915. We're now approaching 100 years and over 5-million copies produced to-date (the longest continuously produced pumpgun design). I know this isn't a subject matter normally associated with the fine gun world, but it's quite a tribute to the man's genius. I have heard it argued that his weapon designs (1911, BAR,.50 BMG, 40mm, etc.) altered the course of the Second World War and seriously affected the outcome of many others since. Who am I to argue?

Yep, he literally wrote the book on it. Everyone who treasures the M37 should have his book. Gil

I have 2, one a 17E that's on the restoration pile and a two barrel gun, both barrels numbered to the gun. Never had a problem, lovely, lightweight guns.

I always assumed that the 1917 was patented in 1917 and the patent expired 20 years later which is when the Ithaca M37 appeared...

Did you ever end up with the wreck of a high grade model 17 that was seen here, Rob?
God, what a shame that gun was. Definitely worth saving, however.
I've never seen a higher grade in person than the 17B I own.

Best,
Ted

It's in the safe Ted, waiting it's turn.

Nice one!
I'd have gotten right in to that project dispite the others waiting..but then I like odd model pump guns.
Condition not all that bad really when looking at it from a restoration standpoint..

Recoil Rob: What a stunning piece! What year was that one turned out? Something of that quality would be a prime candidate for restoration if it was in my stable. FWIW: Who would you use on a gun like that?

Mine finally arrived. According to the barrel date markings it was made in March of 1929. Not as light as I had thought, 6lbs even.

Where can I get pictures of the different engraving patterns they used on the 17's?

As far as I know, the higher grade Remington Model 17s were only pictured in the 1923 catalogue --







As originally introduced, the Remington Arms Co., Inc. Model 17A "Standard" Grade came with a plain stock and a ringed forearm just like the Model 10A "Standard" Grade. When Remington Arms Co., Inc. improved the Model 10 to the Model 29, the Model 29A "Standard" Grade got a checkered stock and forearm and so did the Model 17A. That is how it is shown in the 1930 and later Remington paper.

Researcher: Thank you so much! Now I know mine's a Model 17B. And, it looks like Recoil Rob's is a 17E "Expert" grade gun. Wonderful resources here.

Aren't cellphones useful things? Remington 17B Special grade.

Up into the 1929 Remington Arms Co., Inc. catalogue the Model 17A "Standard" Grade is pictured with the plain stock and ringed forearm --



As to when Remington actually changed to the checkered wood on the factory floor I have no information. There isn't a notation in the old "between the Wars" factory ledger. From 1930 on the Model 17A "Standard" Grade is pictured like this --



Remington didn't seem to ever bother to change the catalogue text to mention the checkering. Guess they were more interested at that time in getting their smallbore Model 31s to the market. The Model 17 last appears in the 1933 retail catlaogue, and the 16- and 20-gauge Model 31s are in the August 12, 1933, Illustrated Retail Price List and the Model 17 is gone. Supposedly Remington continued to sell Model 17s out of inverntory up to WW-II. In 1934 J.L. Galef, 75 Chambers St., NYC, was closing out Model 17As out at $27 with plain barrel and $31 with a solid rib. By J.L. Galef's September 1936, catalogue Model 17As are $25 for a plain barrel and $28 with a solid rib. In the 1937, J. Warshal & Sons, Seattle, Washington, catalogue they still have 30-inch barrel solid rib Model 17As (prepaid to you) $34.95.

The catalogue texts always say the Model 17A "Standard" Grade had an American Walnut Stock, while the Model 17B "Special" Grade had an imported walnut stock and forearm. I have only seen a very few B "Special" Grades in any of the "between the Wars" Remington shotguns, and the only one I am really sure about is this fairly early "The Sportsman" B-Grade which is clearly marked --

Thank you Researcher, mine could be transitional. The wood seems fairly plain. What's the story on the patina on the action? It's almost an olive green. It reminds me of the protective finish I've seen on some older LC Smiths.

Had an odd malfunction of that 17B today. I was out "dog training" with my father-in-law and a few chuckers when it failed to cycle after firing at a departing bird. He emptied the remaining live rounds from magazine first and then, after trying everything else, he pulled the trigger on the spent shell. The firing pin dropped on the empty shell (again!) and it opened and ejected. I believe I have the option of returning it to the folks I bought it from or fixing it. Any ideas or suggestions?

Have you used a pump prior to this? If you grip the foreend too tightly at the shot, the slide release won't get a chance to unlock. You can practice this by dry firing the gun, unloaded, of course. One or two dry firings won't hurt anything as you learn to use the mechanism. I always give the front wood a little shove forward, after the shot, to get the slide released. Different models of pump shotguns have different ways of releasing the slide after the shot-the model 17, and the model 12 Winchester seem a bit fussier than a Mossberg 500, in my experience.
If that isn't the problem, these guys are qualified to work on the gun:

http://www.diamondgunsmithing.com/

I wouldn't be in a hurry to return it to the seller. Good copies of this model aren't running around in bunches. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the gun, over 80 years old, simply needs a very good cleaning.

Best,
Ted

Lloyd3, how did the gun recock for the "dry" fire if the action would not cycle? I must be missing something.

Chief: That was my question as well. The hammer definitely dropped twice before it would allow the action to open. First time to fire it and then somehow on the then-empty shell. I was worried that the spring that drives the firing pin might be either broken or weak, and...perhaps weak might allow recoil to re-cock it? From my research, I know Remington had some problems with firing pins, and Ithaca re-designed this part of the gun before they built their version of it (M37).

We fired it on a grease board to function check it when we got there (I think four shots, there wasn't a plug in the magazine) and then I carried it first. I missed twice, reloaded and then knocked a bird down. So that's three more shots. I traded with my father-in-law (so he didn't have to lug that 870 all day!) and he shot it once on a departing bird, missed, and then it wouldn't cycle.

Ted: the operator is a pump-gun man from way back (M12 & 870) but this was his first exposure to a 17. We were using some fairly warm, new Federal stuff, but I have some fairly light 20 bore shells from an old hammer gun (I used-to own). I'll try to get it to fail again before I hit the panic button, but I only have 30-days to make a claim. This gun seems to be very clean, but I don't think the barrel has ever been off of it. Just how clean is sort-of hard to determine without a proper tear-down.

OK, that's a mystery and should not happen. I'm not familiar with the Rem 17, more with the Ithaca 37. I was going to suggest that your extractor was worn off causing the gun not to extract/eject. That is common on well used 37's. I based this on your FIL cycling the action to clear the live rounds. I suppose then he depressed the shell stop to clear the live rounds?

Chief: I assume that's how he cleared it. Ithaca made several changes to the gun before they built their version, extractors being one of them. Since Remington only made it in a 20-bore, maybe some of those changes were designed to make it robust enough to handle 16 and 12 bore?

I was across a small muddy ditch from him when it jammed, so I'm only reporting what I saw. My father-in-law is pretty competent when it comes to this stuff, so while I'm not completely dismissing operator error, I'm fairly sure something odd happened.

Lloyd3,

I would pull the trigger assembly out and clean/check/lightly oil. Again based on the 37 being very similar I would suppose that the bolt moving back across the hammer is what resets the trigger against spring tension.

I've never seen a Rem 17 in the flesh, only external pics of them. I think weak extraction was covered in a prior post? If you disassemble the action could you post pics?

Good luck!

The Remington 17 and the 37 are very similar-however, there is zero parts interchange on the two models. The stock has to be removed on either gun to remove the trigger assembly, and, Chief is correct, the bolt clearing the chamber and moving back resets the hammer.

The model 17 has an interrupter that keeps the gun from "slam firing" a lá a model 12. A model 37 can be equipped with one of three different triggers, a unit that functions the same as the model 17, a trigger that will slam fire, or a third design that keeps a slam fire from happening, but, differently than the model 17 trigger.

I think you are at a point where you have to decide to keep the gun, and massage the warts down, or return it-I wouldn't want anybody talking the stock off a gun I sold them prior to returning it to me.

If it were me, I'd keep it. If you decide you don't want it down the road, they sell pretty quickly, and I wouldn't mind knowing first if you go that route.

Keep us posted, anyway.

Best,
Ted

Well, you're right Ted. It's fish or cut bait time. I can't tear the gun down to see what's wrong without honestly voiding any option to return it. I also didn't buy it to make a project of it (I'm a doublegun guy, after all). I've got very little money in it, but time is money and I'm finding it's becoming more of a chore than I'd anticipated (I bought it as a gift). I'll call the Kittery Trading Post and see what they suggest.

Lloyd3,
How much do you have in it? I may be a buyer!
PM me with details.

I have a workable explanation for the FTF on this gun the other day now. It's something I remember hearing about as a kid in backwoods Pennsylvania the 1960s, but that I don't remember hearing folks talk about much since. A "short-shuck" will cock the hammer but fail to eject the spent cartridge. And, evidently, it's fairly easy to do if you're not familiar with a particular type of pump mechanism. I'm going to function test the gun again to confirm the theory, but I expect this mystery has been solved. I am so grateful for the depth of knowledge that is represented and unselfishly-shared by the members here.

Lloyd3,
That is very likely. I just attempted that with my 37. It took about 1" of bolt travel to reset the trigger. It takes nearly 4" total travel to completely cycle the 37. The 17 should be similar.

[url=[URL=http://s135.photobucket.com/user/lamiii/media/rem870amp17.jpg.html][/url]][/url]

1929 and 1989 Remington technology. I'll bet there aren't many other photographs of 870s on this forum! What is really noticeable is the weight difference when you pick them up together. Something like 2-lbs and change.

[url=[URL=http://s135.photobucket.com/user/lamiii/media/17bbutt.jpg.html][/url]][/url]

Since I can't figure out how to post pictures to PMs, this is in response to a request for some additional photography. Nice spring day here in Colorado.

[url=[URL=http://s135.photobucket.com/user/lamiii/media/17btopview.jpg.html][/url]][/url]

Another requested photo for my "subject matter expert". What is the finish on this receiver? Is it just a patina that has built up over time or is it the remnant of the factory finish?

Just wondering on the Model 17 issue,,when the problem happened, did the shooter attempt to open the action using the slide latch?
That should have released the action to be opened w/the hammer cocked ,,regardless of wether there was a case in the chamber or not.

I've had the short stroke issue occur on a Win97 a few times of late. Just me doing it, nothing mechanically wrong with the gun.
It will leave the fired case in the chamber & on the 97 recock the hammer to 1/2 cock. That puts me out of commission and I have to open the action using the slide latch button.

I'm sure other hammerless actions can do the same,,others not. They're all a bit different. I use a number of pump guns and all will act a bit different if short stroked. Some will eject the empty and then just dump the next live round right out the port onto the ground.
I've had a Rem17 in the past and can't recall having the issue,,but I was younger and stronger then!

Never had a 29,,quite a number of Model 10's though. I found them nice shotguns dispite the bad press they get. At least the bad rap made for good buyers prices. Gotta know what you're looking for in them though.

Two M-17's from 1939

I'm glad I'm not the only one here with the audacity to post pictures of pumpguns on a fine-gun webpage!

GLS- Your guns look lovely! Both look to be Special Grade guns (17B). If that is the original finish then mine definitely has acquired something of a "patina" over time. Also, are you sure of that date? I thought 17s were discontinued in 1933?

Kutter: I assume that my father-in-law attempted to release the slide during his FTF, and it didn't seem to solve the problem for him. He got it to open only after pulling the trigger a second time. Is that an issue? Also, the Model 10s you mentioned intrigue me. They seem to have very nice lines (from what I can see on the web about them). Their poor reputation does seem a bit harsh, considering what some folks are asking for good copies now. Did they ever make them in sub-gauges? Last question: where does the Model 29 fit in all of this? We're talking about pumpguns here that I didn't even know existed until a few short months ago.

Lloyd, yes, they are both 1939 according to the Remington date codes. Some were assembled after that date from leftover parts and sold with later date codes than mine. The top gun is in original condition. The bottom one was refinished and was bought at a very low price as a potential "parts" gun for the better one. It is still a very good "shooter" as is with the Lyman adjustable choke giving it some ugly, but practical versatility.

Lloyd,
The finish on your model 17 is the bluing turning "plum" with age and exposure to the elements. The gun has seen a fair bit of service and is starting to show it.
Some people turn to a refinish at this point, others will keep an eye on the stocks, wipe the gun down carefully after a day in the field, and enjoy it as-is. I would likely fall into the second camp.
I would investigate further, and look into glass bedding the head of the stock. I like the look of the original wood and would do everything possible to keep it there another 50 years.
Beautiful old gun, by the way.

Best,
Ted

Remington Model 10s, Model 17s, Model 29s, Model 31s, and now Model 17s built 6-years after they supposedly stopped production? No wonder I'm having a hard time makeing sense of it all. Pre-WWII Remington pumpguns are a veritable cornucopia of models and gauges!

Let's see If I'm following correctly, Model 10s were 12-bore only, Model 17s were 20-bore only. Model 10s were replaced by Model 29s (in 12-bore only, and only built for 3-years). Both the Model 29s and the Model 17s were replaced by the new Model 31s (in 12, 16, and 20-gauge) in 1934, with Ithaca adopting Remington's then discarded Model 17 design to build their Model 37. Whew!

It sounds to me like Remington was doing everything it could to compete with Winchester's venerable Model 12, and only meeting with marginal success.

Thanks Ted! It pleases my eye as well. I'll continue to moniter the head of that stock. It does appear to be a bit discolored, but it's not obviously oil-soaked or punky yet. It will very likely serve out the rest of it's years in your home State, on the Canadian border west of I-Falls. First in the hands of my in-laws, and then perhaps in my son's.

My own gun has spent quite a bit of time in the same area, but, not recently. I went 5 for 5 on both woodcock and grouse behind a memorable Gordon Setter one time with my model 17, close to Orr, MN, in the late 1980s.
I've never done that with any other gun in the course of a day.
I only shoot a brace of birds, these days, before I call it quits. I really don't pester the woodcock, either, unless my less than memorable English Setter handles one really well. They really aren't her forté, and I see far fewer of them than I once did.

Good Luck with the old gun.

Best,
Ted

Wow, talk about late to the party! I used to really get chastised here in years past for even bringing up my beloved Model 17!

I have two currently but have had many come through my home and love to find good homes for them. I had a three digit 17A that went to a collector as it was far too nice for a hunter like me. I've had some solid rib guns but to be honest I have a soft spot for the plain barrel guns with Polychokes on them! The majority of upland game I've killed in the past 15 years has been with a Remington Model 17.











I could go on and on.

Did you know the solid ribs were MACHINED as part of the barrel! Ithaca's genius was that they figured out how to make the 37 profitable. The 17 had way too many machining steps which made it too expensive to build. The Remington Model 17 and the Winchester Model 42 are the only shotguns every made specifically for a gauge other than 12. If your a fan of the 20 gauge, you need one!



Really I will stop shortly!

Some one owns this, sadly not me!



Maybe one of the ones mentioned awaiting a face lift?





A few have been projects...

This is the 3 digit gun made before Remington started the barrel codes. Only marked Remington 17 on the barrels, most were marked on the left side of the reciever and some only on the slide bar. This one only had it on the barrel itself.

Great Pictures Tim!

Nice pictures, thanks for posting them!

Before we get locked down for posting these awful pump guns,,here's another to add to the list of those made specificly for a gauge other than 12.

Stevens Model 200,,in 20ga and 3inch chamber (only) no less.
Short lived, very low production and a mystery to most.
But they aren't all that complicated inside. Very strong lock-up.
Not nearly the fine looks of the 17,,but it's different,,I like it. Shoots well. But it never saw any 3" ammo from me.
1911/14 time period,,somewhere in there.

Mr. Frazier: I believe I owe my limited education on Model 17s to one of your posts a few months ago. Look what you started!

Kutter: What a wild-looking design on that Stevens 200! I thought all of John Moses Browning's guns were supposed to be beautiful? That one sure is a mystery. I've got to try and track one of those down just to try it. It's so darn ungainly it's just plain cool!

FWIW: I know some doublegun folks that would have snit just looking at it.

I just read that a Charles "Sparrow" Young was the designer for the Model 200. Browning's asthetic reputation might be salvaged yet.

There is one for sale as we speak, for the trivial sum of $1,250 (plus $50 shipping) on Gunsinternational. I believe I'll have to pass on that one.

Lloyd, Is your Model 17 working?

Mr Browning wasn't involved in the 200. Trying to by-pass his patents was more likely the problem.
The TD system is certainly different. The knurled ring is an obvious path to the TD, but getting at it is the problem. The Sparrow solved this by supplying a spanner wrench with each shotgun.
The wrench is kept in the end of the magazine tube and looks like a simple end cap when in storage.

In use, the wrench is used to turn the lock ring 1/3 (one third)turn to unlock the bbl/forend assembly from the frame. The bbl assembly then pulls straight forward & off the frame.

Without the wrench, many of these guns have seen the use of a punch of some sort in the spanner groove(s) to get them apart. Most owners don't know that the wrench is even there in the end of the magazine tube. Some spanners are found with the tip broken off from a bit too much pressure on them.





I have more fun with things like this, a Meriden pump, Marlin hammerless pumps, the early Remingtons ect than the common Winchester M12s. I really can't even remember ever owning a M12.
Plenty of 97s though.

Mr. Snyder: I believe it is, but I haven't had a chance to function check it yet. I discussed the matter with it's last user and he's convinced he "short-shucked" it , as you surmised.

Kutter: How cool is that? The 200 comes with it's own take-down wrench! With fine doubleguns costing what they do, these little pumpguns are a pleasant distraction. I don't shoot them worth a hoot, but many do and they are fun to learn about. I know I read somewhere that this wasn't a Browning design, but it sure looks like it borrowed heavily from the Stevens 520. Perhaps Mr. Young just did the takedown work?

Kutter,

That is really cool! I love odd guns and unusual pump guns even more!

Amazing it was chambered for the 3" shell.

This was the cleanest 17 I ever saw in my life. In hind sight I was not very smart to leave it on the rack. :-(

I had the oddest take-down 16-gauge hammer pumpgun walk into the shop about a year ago. The fellow carrying it was, by coincidence, an old co-worker of mine who I hadn't seen in years. It had been his great grandfather's gun and he was looking to sell it in preparation for a move to a less gun-friendly place (California?). I believe it was marked as being made by Crescent Arms and I hadn't ever seen anything like it. So, like an idiot, I told him it wasn't worth much and didn't even offer to take it off of his hands. I later came to find out it was made by Marlin. It was very light and seemed to be in very good condition. Live and learn. I couldn't even track him down to tell him what I had learned later.

The J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co. No. 200 only appears in two of their catalogs, the second printin of General Catalog No. 53 (the one with out the 1911 date on the cover) and General Catalog No. 54 --







During 1916, the factories of J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co. were taken over by New England Westinghouse and they renamed the company J. Stevens Arms Co. The No. 200 is still on their 1917 price list at $25., but is gone from their 1919 catalog.

In that time frame, the "standard" U.S. 20-gauge shell was put up in a 2 1/2 inch paper case and carried a maximum load of 2 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder, or 18 grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite, pushing 7/8 ounce of shot. In a 2 3/4 inch or longer paper shell one could get 2 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder, or 20-grains of dense smokeless powders such as Ballistite or Infallible, pushing that 7/8 ounce of shot a bit faster. The longer 2 7/8 inch and 3-inch 20-gauge shells carried the same load, but with more/better wadding which many serious Pigeon shooters thought significant in their 12-gauge Pigeon guns and this carried over to some "sports" using 16- and 20-gauge guns.

I'm wondering if Stevens didn't make a couple different versions of the 200.
I've owned 3 of these, 2 of which I still have.
I've often read of the 'two' swinging plates or blades inside the mechanism. One used as a cartridge guide, the other a simple covering for the blank space in the port behind the bolt.
The component parts list shown (other than being a reversed image) shows the two parts #83 & #19.
But none of the 3 Model 200s I've had work that way. They only have one pivoting blade doing both jobs. It looks very close to part #83 in shape but with obvious differences.
Mine don't have the inertia weight (hang fire safety) shown in the parts diagram either. An early Stevens 520 edition had one but didn't last long.

The receivers of mine have/had far fewer holes in the side also!,,though there's plenty enough.
There's a few extra parts on the list and in the drawing because of the differences that I don't have in the box-o-parts from a complete takedown.

Maybe the drawings are just that and the actual production guns ended up being different. Mine all # in the 16K range FWIW.


As far as the 'Cresent' mfg pump,,I don't know of any,,not that they could be around.
But Marlin used to market their pump shotguns under the name of 'National Firearms Company'.
Their multitude of hammerless models used a swinging cover/blade like the Stevens 200 to close off the rear of the ejection port opening.
Marlin seemed to assign a new model number for each gauge even though the guns were the same as the 12ga version (except for frame size).

A Meriden Mfg pump gun has a reference to a Savage Arms patent on it.
Confusing bunch,, but my Marlin 43T is a favorite shooter.

Thanks for posting Stevens pics and especially the parts breakdown on the Stevens. I shall save that. Now I know what they're really called.

Kutter: After reading your last post I did a bit of digging and what I believe my old co-worker had shown me was a Marlin-made Model 16 with the National Firearms Company stamped on the barrel. Evidently, a number of different names could be found on these guns but each version was made by Marlin.

OK you pumpgun connoisseurs, how does the Sear's Ranger Model 30 20-bore compare to the Stevens 200? The mechanism looks similar, but the takedown seems to be more in-line with the Stevens 520 design.

How would the two guns compare as far as weight and dimensions? I would assume the Model 30s were made in the 1930s?

Sears/Ranger Model 30 is a Stevens 520(A?)IIRC.

Nice guns. Should be the straight top and bottom profile receiver, not the early stepped profile if I have that correct.
Top tang safety.
That change in profile came in the 1930's I think along with a couple of internal changes.

Lot's of 520's around and under different store brand names. Heavier than the Mod200 in 20gauge but you can still find parts unlike a 200.
12ga 520 by far more common but 20's and 16's are around. Smaller frame than the 12's and nice handling pump guns.
Completely different inside from the 200.
They are a J M Browning design,,unlike the gadgety looking Model 200!

Kutter: This one appears to be the earlier stepped profile receiver with the safety at the rear of the trigger guard. Any areas of concern with these variants? How much heavier than the 200 would you guess?

That's the early style,,the biggest difference aside from the receiver profile is inside.
The early style (520)uses flat springs for the mainspring, trigger spring, bolt latch, ect.
The later straight profile frame (520A) uses coil wire torsion mainspring, wire bolt latch spring, coil spring for the trigger.

I've never had a any of the above break on an early model.
I've owned probably 10 of the early models and half dozen of the late ones.

I have had to replace a few mainsprings on the 520A (coil torsion) that have just lost their power and were causing misfires.
They can be torqued open (unwound) in the opposite direction a bit to renew their strength, and that'll work for you for a while.
But they give it up shortly after the quick fix and a replacement has to be found. You have to watch what you buy as the 'new' mainspring may be just as relaxed as the one you want to replace.

Either 520 variation does wear out the ejector. Easy to get at.
A screw on the outside of the left receiver wall holds it in place in a slot inside. Two small 'hooks' are what kicks the shell out. The small space between them is for the left side extractor to ride past.
IIRC now there's two slightly different variations of the ejector.

The carrier spring breaks on occassion too. It's a small flat spring in both variations of the 520 tucked into a slot in the right rear wall of the frame. Two different types of those too.

Firing pins break occassionaly. Just fatigue from a lot of rounds I think. Dry fire does them no good and should be avoided.
I brazed one back together using the original pieces.
One I brazed on a piece of steel for a new front half, shaped it, lightly case hardened it. Both still going strong.

On very worn 520's, the bolt will come disconnected from the slide on the back stroke, leaving the bolt behind as you bring the slide forward. Not a good thing.

Easy to fix if the tip of the slide rod or the channel in the bolt it snaps into isn't damaged. A gentle upsweep curve to the slide rod is needed. You almost can't see it w/o sighting along it and you have to be careful placing it in as the slide rod is rivited into the sheet steel forend tube. It rips out easily if you try to bend the slide rod the wrong way. Many are solder/braze repaired back in place.

Starting to sound pretty bad!

Make sure the bbl to frame TD lock up is tight. The mag tube is rotated to lock the large 'nut' with the beveled lugs into the frame at the front.
They can be worn to the point were the bevel reaches their limit and no amount of tightening will take the looseness out of the TD . Shade tree fix is to peen the lugs (of course). That rarily works. You can shim the lugs and put it back together forever, never to be TD again, but it'll be tight!
You can build up the surfaces and refit,,or machine down the flat surface of the magazine nut and the bottom of the frame lug cut so the bevel can seat deeper.

The M200 weighs 6# right on the button.
I'm guessing,,but I'd say a 20ga M520 would weight just under 7#. Most of the extra weight is going to be in the bbl wall thickness.

Kutter: Thank-you for all of that! It sounds like the earlier flat-spring versions might be the better option here, and all of the issues you describe would be associated with heavily-used (and somewhat abused) guns that are getting to the end of their useful lives. When I look at a 520 (or the 200) I see the polar opposite of a fine doublegun. Two very different paths were chosen to achieve the same end (i.e. an effective shotgun!). They scream 1930s hardscrabble to me. There is no pretense, and little gentility. They were working man's guns that defended property and put food on the table. That raw honesty somehow makes them attractive to me, and the John Browning connection makes them even more appealing. I grew up shooting a Model 97 and the 520 seems to be the logical next step in that evolution. And, perhaps the best part of that, is that I can take that step without spending a significant sum to do it. An education in fine doubleguns is fraught with far-more peril.

For matters of trivia, I recently acquired an early Model 17 with UMC markings. It seems that there is some disagreement as to whether Remington Arms Union Metallic Company, inc, ever made a Model 17. I had one years ago and could not pass on this one as I didn't realize then how unusual it was. Model 17 is only marked on the barrel distal from the company markings. The receiver is clean. No barrel date codes and BO is marked above the four digit serial number on the underside of the receiver.

Never have seen one of those, and I've looked at quite a few of them.
It's been a while since I have even seen a good model 17 for sale-I bought just the barrel off the last wreck I saw, and now have two barrels for mine.

Best,
Ted

Very nice!! Pictures are worth a thousand words. Interesting to see that even though the company name changed guns that were already manufactured weren't remarked. I've seen Model 10 pumps that are marked "Remington Arms Co., Inc. successor to Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc."

The Model 17 hadn't appeared by the last catalogue issued by Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc., Catalogue No. 50 --



In the aftermath of WW-I, Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc. was floundering. On May 20, 1920, the board of directors elected to dissolve Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc. and form a new corporation, Remington Arms Co., Inc. The new company was incoprorated under the laws of the State of Deleware on May 24, 1920, and Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc. was dissolved on August 11, 1920. The only shotguns catalogued by Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co. (1911 to 1916) and Remington Arms - Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Inc. (1916 to 1920) were the 12-gauge Model 11 autoloader and the 12-gauge Model 10 pump.

Remington Arms Co., Inc. Catalogue No. 51 --

Very nice! Would an early Model 10 have the same but plate?

The Model 10 I am looking at has the same buttplate as Lloyd's Model 17.

That one's not mine but I'm considering a Model 10 I found in my travels that needs a butt plate.

I think it's interesting that they made the metric conversion for the "taken down length" in parentheses in that last photo. What year was that, 1920?

Think export.

Best,
Ted

Researcher, on the cover of the above "cat" catalogue #51 that you depicted included the classic Bullet knife and Remington .35 Caliber cartridge. The Remington Bullet folding knife of that era might give the M17 a run for the money in value among knife collectors.