doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com American Classics - Your Take

Thanks Ted. I suspected that was what you meant but I wanted a little more - and got it. I partially agree with you but I don't believe all old side-by-side shotguns should be glass bedded. I think it depends, as you say, on the condition of the wood at the head of the stock and certainly on how the owner intends to use (or abuse) his shotgun. I don't own any that I would hesitate to shoot because the wood might be questionable nor would I ever use any ammo that might stress my guns in any way. Thank you again, Dean

I've never seen a pinned Parker that wasn't abused first.

Let's not forget, Parkers were made in a day and age when the user of a product still had some responsibility. Things had not been made idiot proof as they often are today. I can't blame Parker for assuming their customers were not idiots.

I'd much rather have a 1910 Parker with smooth barrels - the way God intended - than a modern gun with the obligatory safety warning stamped on the outside of the barrels.

I have to admit to having a real warm spot for the Baker graded guns.

I have the three 16 gauge makes and models you listed and in my opinion i would pick the 16 ga A grade Fox. Not a better or sleeker looking or handling American 16 side by side has been made than the Fox. I have 0 frame Parker and it has larger frame than the Fox.Smith fw has a very nice small size frame also. Parker probably better workmanship but not design. Just my opinion and i love them all! Bobby

Quote from Ted:
"Cherry bomb, Italian SXS-There was a time when the Rev, or others, had a modest collection of blown up Fox pictures at hand. I didn't save them, because I don't give a rip, not ever having owned one, and with no desire to do so. This isn't because I believe them to be inferior to any other period design. I would guess that the examples we have seen (and, there have been quite a few blown up Fox guns here, and elsewhere, over the years, don't kid yourself) have been abused, either by owners with limited understanding of the guns limitations, (Burt Becker's use of them for his waterfowling ideas may burden every single Fox ever built with a reputation for indestructability, acted out on by past owners) or by gunsmiths (I'm thinking of one right now, who's nickname is "The Torch") who favor the Fox design for re-sale, after working their "magic" upon it."

Ok Ted:
I now see where your coming from here. I am well aware of the cracked frame problem, but in all honesty, I have never seen a Fox with a destroyed barrel that wasn't obviously due to an obstruction. I have recounted in prior threads the use/abuse I subjected my own Fox to over the years before I knew any better.
The fact that mine is still tight and onface is to me a tribute to the strength and integrity in its design and construction. I personaly think it's the strongest American double ever made after the Winchester Model 21.
I own several more expensive and sophisticated guns today but this Fox will always occupy a special place because it never let me down.
Jim

Italina SXS,
You are wrong. It might be third, but, it is far less the gun than any NID. Note, significantly, that Olin avoided the model 21, and the gun that first used the 3 1/2 magnum shell was the NID.

That wasn't an accident.

If you want to talk looks, you will get no argument from me that it is superior to a model 21 or a NID. But, I've seen precious few of those two, or documentation of same, illustrating 21s or NIDs that have been injured, frame or barrels, either due to abuse or stupidity. That isn't an accident, either. The early 21 has a defect that effects the rib and foreend lug, but, it is hard to hurt the steel in the barrels.


Best,
Ted

Well Ted:
I let it go at this. I expect most opinions including my own are based upon our own personal experiences. I am wrong? Can you point me to a statistically valid longitudinal study comparing the two makes that substantiates this? I have never owned a NID as I can't get past the looks.It may be sturdy but so is a plough horse. I'll take a quarter horse or arab for pleasure riding each and every time.
Jim

O.K., I'll put my 2 cents worth in, I have an A grade Baker with damascus barrels I shoot once or twice a year at quail,with light loads,and it's a wonderful gun. I also have some Foxes, L.C. Smiths, Ithacas and a couple English doubles and the Baker will stand up to them all. My A grade is very well made. But then again, each to his own!

I recall just one instance of a posting of a cracked frame Fox since I've been a member of this forum--which has got to be close to 10 years. Has there been more than this one reported?

I shoot old guns for all my hunting, I sold off all my modern crap and never looked back. Sure they take a little work to keep in the field but it's worth it.

I've cracked a stock or two with duck and goose loads it's true. But they fix pretty easy and are just as strong or stronger once they're repaired.

Destry