S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
1 members (oskar),
268
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,531
Posts545,924
Members14,420
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
Hello,
I have a side opening, hammer double, made by the American Arms Co, Boston, to the George H. Fox Patents. Also a copy of the "The "Fox" Gun, 1878" catalog, to which I make reference.
My gun is missing its extractor "bar", but not the slide with the stud that fits on the end of the bar, that limits the sidewise movement of the barrels during ordinary handling.
I can open the gun, as if to load, push a flexible rod in the extractor bar hole, and depress the slide so as to lower the slide/stud. The barrels then can swing further to the side as shown on the right hand illustration in the catalog page of "Directions".
At this point the barrels have swung out so that the raised "swivel plate", just clears the barrel plate, with the broad slot in which it slides when closing.
I believe that I should now be able to lift the barrels off, however, I can not do so! What could possibly be still holding them down?
I appreciate your help!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,274 Likes: 205
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,274 Likes: 205 |
There were about three different mechanical variations on the George Fox gun. It is possible you have a gun a bit different than the one in the catalog. I have not messed with mine for years, but seem to remember the extractor position was important during disassembly or assembly.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
As far as I can tell from limited published s/n, mine is a relatively high numbered gun. The receiver table also carries three Patent dates: January 1879, November 1877 and January 1878. It seems to have the mechanical features described in the 1877 Patent.
As I describe in my original note, the extractor is missing, however, with a flexible rod, I can successfully disengage the slide with it's stud, permitting the barrels to swing out to the position where I believe they should disengage.
However, they do not. So my question remains, why not?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,274 Likes: 205
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,274 Likes: 205 |
Without photos it's hard to tell what you have, but if it's a late gun, it is probably like mine. I just took off my barrels by
opening the gun
turn opened gun upside down on a table
depress the button you see exposed on the underside of the forend
push the extractor into the breech
now your barrels should rotate a bit more and come off
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
I have done exactly as you describe - up to the point of "and come off". For some reason they do not.
The barrels are hanging up on something. Since the front screw is still covered by the barrels, I can not take the wood off to see why or on what.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 304
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 304 |
On my Fox, I have to do what you say plus move the barrels forward or back, I can't remember but the barrels are keyholed. When you get the barrels out far enough than side them forward or back. See if this works. Thanks, Frank
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
Interesting to hear this. However, I have tried to do as you describe. The GHF Patent of November 1877, Number 196748 shows an extension of the curved slot in the fore end plate, beyond the "keyhole". Ahead of the barrel "stud" in the barrel plate, there is a screw or stud that engages this extension. The purpose being to align the barrel stud upon assembly with the curved slot for closing. This stud or screw also prevents the barrels from swinging sideways beyond the point in opening where they should lift off.
If my barrels are swung out to the point where the swivel plate just disengages the broad recoil groove in which it moves on closing the breech, there is about 1/16 to 3/32 inches of "play" in the direction of the curved slot, of the fore end on the barrel stud. Pulling back on the fore end comes up hard on the screw or stud in the barrel plate, pushing forward simply begins to engage the curved slot and the barrels begin to close. I assume the "play" is where the shank of the barrel stud disengages its curved slot. However, I cannot lift the barrels off.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,895 Likes: 110
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,895 Likes: 110 |
William M. Furnish and James A. Nelson did an article on these guns in The Double Gun Journal, Volume Five, Issue 4, with pretty good photos showing at least three varieties. There is a good article by Elliot L. Minor, tracing the history of the American Gun Co. and its products in The American Rifleman, April 1970.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
Thanks! I am looking forward to borrowing the copy of DGJ with the Furnish / Nelson article this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Boxlock
|
OP
Boxlock
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23 |
Since several of you offered help in my period of frustration, my thanks, and I thought you might be interested in how the problem has been resolved.
According to the DGJ - Furnish / Nelson article, my gun is a Model 1877, the most common variation, and is as carefully described in the 1878 Fox manual, and the November 1877 Patent. So nothing new here except to verify what I thought that I already knew. Therefore, I did what I was trying to avoid, made a 3/16 inch diameter trepanning tool, located the front forestock screw, drilled it out and removed the wood. As I feared, there was a piece of quite old, folded cloth, in the cavity beneath the barrel pivot bolt. Since this material was jammed around and under the head, it did not have clearance to pass through the enlarged hole ("keyhole") in the forestock plate, for barrel removal. Upon removal of the cloth and fragments, the barrels came off easily. The third part of the extractor, that I call the "sliding block", was also in backwards. Therefore the extractor could not be replaced properly, and in fact the gun would not have closed. This explains why those extractor parts are missing!
I will refrain from commenting on the talents of the last person to work on this gun!
|
|
|
|
|