|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics40,127
Posts570,948
Members14,672
| |
Most Online19,682 Mar 28th, 2026
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717 |
An early Ithaca 37 is a nice gun, but, for the same reason Tim posted, it 'ain't a model 17. I also like the raised areas at the front of the receiver on a 17 that were left off the 37. Just looks like more involved machining. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,064
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,064 |
Ted, ditto that. Seems like makers quickly learned that a flat sided receiver was lots cheaper to make than one with milled panels. All the really great looking pump guns had sculptured frames: M-12,97, Rem. 29, 19, 17, etc. I love the classics and haven't bought a new gun since my last SKB and that was in the 70's. Thnks for all your input, guys. Chopperlump
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,681 Likes: 27
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,681 Likes: 27 |
Mine has the plain barrel with a Poly Choke. It has a beautiful stock made by my grandfather and was sitting under the Christmas tree for me when I was 10 years old. I used it as my go-to everything gun for many years. I recently put an extension on the buttstock and a leather pad so it fits pretty well again and may once again be my go-to gun. Many of the parts, I think, are interchangable with the M-37 Ithacas. I agree they are just a little nicer than the Ithacas. For some reason the ribbed barrel guns bring a higher price. BTW, mine has serial #9175 (receiver has a BO above that #). Any idea when that was made? My grandfather died in the late 40's and I never knew him. Thanks!
[IMG]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717 |
Dave, Remington ended up with a bit of a legal hassle over a Pedersen patent that applied to the model 17. The first several years production the guns were not marked with the "Pedersen's patent" nomenclature, while later versions were. Remington was blindsided and paid out a bit of money for this mistake. I did read that waitng for one of the Pedersen patents to expire was what held the model 37 off until 1937, as Ithaca was ready to product them sooner than that. They are sweet little guns, that is for sure. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717 |
Gil, You are going to have to look for the two letter barrel code to nail down the date of manufacture. And, rather sadly, the code only accurately dates the barrel, so if the gun made it back to Remington, it could be wrong. Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,213 Likes: 83
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,213 Likes: 83 |
My gun also has the BO over the serial number, not sure what it means but it's not the date code.
Ted, you said that "the code only accurately dates the barrel, so if the gun made it back to Remington, it could be wrong."
On my gun both the barrels are numbered to the receiver, so I would assume that matching serial numbers would give an accurate month/year of production.
Having said that, according to Remington, if a gun was sent back for repairs it recieved a ssecond set of letters to indicate when it was repaired.
It's a very confusing system to say the least, the only way to know for sure is to ask Remington.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. - Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 386
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 386 |
Does anyone know what the Pendersen patent covered? As far as the ribs bringing a premium I would guess it's because they were milled into the barrel, not soldered on. Gil, I did 90% of my hunting this fall with a plain barrel 17 with a poly. It will be my grouse gun for some time to come, although it may not be the looker the Fox was it's wickedly effective. As a game gun it's easy to see why so many were set up this way. I think Ithaca did make, or intended to make, some improvements such as the second ejector arm on the bolt. I have heard that eliminating the sculpted areas on the frame was a pretty big "achievement" from a production standpoint. This is an early solid rib gun! It shows a stock extension in progress. It has .018 choke and I shot a 20 at skeet last week with it while trying the stock demensions out. Look out doves! Here's the grouse/bunny gun
Last edited by Tim Frazier; 02/18/07 07:08 PM.
"Not all who wander are Lost" -Hoppie 14'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,247 Likes: 1717 |
The checkering on that guns stock is identicle to mine. I should refinish mine, and clean up the recoil pad installation... Best, Ted
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,213 Likes: 83
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,213 Likes: 83 |
I guess the later ones had checkered forearms, mine is the old corncob style. But I do have solid ribs on both barrels.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. - Errol Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,971 Likes: 169
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,971 Likes: 169 |
According to my 1923 Remington Arms Co., Inc. catalogue No. 107, the No. 17A "Standard" Grade had a plain pistol grip stock and a ringed forearm. The No. 17B "Special" Grade had a checkered stock and forearm, and would be made to customers dimensions for no extra charge. Higher grades were the No. 17D "Tournament" Grade, No. 17E "Expert" Grade and No. 17F "Premier" Grade. By the 1932/3 catalogue the Model 17A is shown with a checkered stock and forearm, just like the new Model 31A.
|
|
|
|
|