|
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
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,518
Posts545,707
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187 |
What are the years of mfg that the Superposed had salt wood issues?
Thanks, Derrick
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 27 |
1967-1976 Salt wood Years
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,729 Likes: 122
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,729 Likes: 122 |
Not to start an argument but it was always my understanding that the salt years were 1967-69. About 90% of the guns during that era were salt guns. The problem kept showing up until around 1972 which was the year that they burned the rest of the wood. So if you avoid these years, you should be OK.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 879
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 879 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 27
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 27 |
Derrick: My info was taken from Matt Eastmans Guide to Browning Sarge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 187 |
Tudurgs,
Thanks for the link..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,540 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,540 Likes: 3 |
matt eastman's info is good but not infallible. there are several things in his books he didn't get quite right. i've personally owned several brownings (not just supers) that were completely correct but shouldn't have existed according to his books.
the standard rule of thumb is 1967 thru 1969. i've personally owned brownings from 1971 that had salt problems. per schwings book - as noted in a previous post - all that wood was destroyed in 1972. i've seen 1966 dated guns with the problem but i suspect those had their # assigned in '66 and weren't finished out till 1967.
were it me, i'd look over very carefully a 1966 gun. i'd avoid period a '67 thru '70 unless tested negative and proven and i'd be more careful of a '71 than a '66. by 1972 i wouldn't worry about it too much as long as there were no obvious outward signs.
roger
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,755 Likes: 30
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,755 Likes: 30 |
1967 guns with European walnut should be okay. My understanding is that the guns with Claro walnut are the salt wood guns. 67 is when they went to Claro and thats hwere the problem surfaced. Maybe I am wrong but this is my understanding. Can soemone confirm or refute?
Last edited by Brian; 01/27/08 11:13 PM.
Brian LTC, USA Ret. NRA Patron Member AHFGCA Life Member USPSA Life Member
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
Schwing (p. 146, The Browning Superposed ) states that the blanks that were salt stickered were Claro supplied by a Joe Oakley from the Sacramento, CA. area.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
|