doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Early A-5 Question

Do you guys know if a pre-war 16-ga. Browning A-5 will cycle 2.75-in. shells?

One of my hunting buddies called me on his cell phone from the road to proudly tell me he'd bought a Sweet Sixteen for a great price ($575) at a small town gun shop. When he told me about the "raised but not vent rib," I thought, "Uh-oh." I asked him where the safety was, and he said "Huh ... it's out in front of the trigger."

About then his cell phone cut out on me, which was a relief, because I didn't relish telling him he hadn't bought a Sweet Sixteen, or that that safety is known as "the widowmaker." Now I'm trying to figure out if I have more bad news to deliver. It was certainly no steal, but I don't think he paid way too much for the gun, as long as it has a lot of condition. I am worried, though, that he may need 2.5-in. shells, which becomes problematic, as he's thinking it would make a cool old duck gun.

Thoughts? Thanks. TT

It's too early for your friend to start worrying, first a few questions.

What makes you think it has short chambers? How do you know it's a Sweet Sixteen? The name was not engraved on the receivers till '48.

The safety in the front of the trigger guard is not evidence of short chambers, that safety was in production until late 1951 and all the 2 3/4" guns from the end of the war till then have them.

The "solid" rib also tells you nothing about the chamber length.

In addition "Pre-war" A5 16's had 2 9/16" chamber but many of them were modified to cycle 2 3/4". If it is a short chambered gun you need to know how to tell if it was modified. Do you know how to tell?

Post the serial number and the numbers from the proof marks (16-65) or (16-70) and I'll help you figure out what this gun is.

Jeff

I think that probably is a short chambered gun, probably a St. Louis one. I had one, it is not a sweet 16 I am guessing, but can be altered to accept regular 2 3/4" shells. I really didn't like the safety location at the front of the trigger guard, but I learned to shoot with it and it was all I had at the time. It's an OK gun but the ones made after that were better.

If it's short chamber, not to worry as there are plenty of 2 1/2" 16 gauge shells available.

Have to wonder who named the inside the trigger guard safety the "widowmaker"? It was my dad's favorite style, on the Remington Model 11 that served him for over 50 years(bought used, in about 1920). My mom outlived him by more than 20 years. A similar safety worked well on the M-1 Garands, as well. JL

Don't sweat the safety, millions of teenagers carried a Garand with a similar set. Safe as can be, unless you coon finger the thing.

Gil, until we have the serial number and proof marks were just guessing.

All, The A5 safety originally called the 'suicide safety' was a different design. It was within the trigger opening, but not set in the front of the trigger guard like were talking about. It was discontinued before Belgian 16's were introduced in the US.

The big problem with the "trigger guard" safety in question is they can be hard to get off in a hurry, like on flushing game. I have a pile of them and still struggle with them a bit.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jeffmulliken/detail?.dir=40abre2&.dnm=5664re2.jpg&.src=ph

A lot of these safeties were converted by Browning to the cross block safety. The Browning factory manual includes gunsmith instruction on this conversion.

Jeff

Jeff: Thanks for your thoughts and the offer. My concern is that the gun probably ISN'T a Sweet Sixteen. As to the solid rib, I mentioned that simply because it was the first thing he said about the gun that told me it was probably of early manufacture. I have found that pre-war guns are much more likely to be standard weight than the lighter Sweet Sixteen. Would you agree? Although I don't know what the serial number is (my buddy and the gun are still several hundred miles away), regarding the gun's age, he said he was told 1932 ... I figured it was safer just to assume "pre-war." I brought up the matter of the front safety, not because it is a firm indication of chamber length, but because everyone who has used them seems to hate them. Finally, as to post-manufacture alteration, factory or otherwise, I have no idea if the chamber and ejection port have already been opened, but it seems safest to figure they haven't.

Don: Yes, there are plenty of short shells available, but not in non-steel, no-tox options, which he would need for duck hunting.

The bottom line, which I should have researched before posting my question, is that if it's as old as he says, then it started life with short chambers, which may or may not have been opened at some time. I won't know until I see it, buy there's a better than average chance my buddy has bought himself a heavy standard weight gun with a nasty safety, probably a too-tight choke, and short chambers that won't take any off-the-shelf no-tox shells.

Thanks. TT

Your assumptions are not unreasonable but have more margin of error than you might think.

First, if he was told it's a Sweet Sixteen from 1932 it was misrepresented. The Sweet sixteen was not introduced until 1937. Based on this fact alone I can whole heartedly agree with your point that pre war Sweets are pretty darned rare as compared to Standard Sixteens.

But on the other issues there is still room for it to be a Sweet, that safety was around till late 1951. And the "solid" rib (actually known as "raised, hollow, matted) was produced through 1961.

Let's hope your friend comes though with the numbers and we can give him some good news. And hey, even if it's a Standard some of them are really nice. That straight stocked gun ('23 standard 16)in the pic in my earlier post only weighs 2 oz more than my '51 Sweet Sixteen and it has a 2" longer barrel.

We need 16 ga. shooters, else where would our next generation of handloaders come from?

Seriously, your bud may come to have some buyer's remorse over this gun, but I haven't heard anything that can't be fixed or ignored.

Heavy gun - probably, but he's a duck hunter and accustomed to discomfort (and heavy guns).

Nothing wrong with the safety unless you hate it. I don't. I am the second owner of an old, gray Model 11 made in 1919, and it hasn't killed anything by accident yet with any of the 100K or so rounds fired through it.

Choke probably is too tight, but that is a $25 fix.

Shells. Well, probably he will need to open the ejection port 3/16" if it hasn't been done already. The chamber will be OK, but the empties won't eject if the port is short.

A poster from Mexico, where ammo choices are rather limited and handloading is forbidden, shared with us an innovative way to use 2 3/4" shells in a short-port gun. IIRC, he used a 1/2" hole saw in a drill to cut half way through the hull in the center of the crimp. The extra 1/4" went out the muzzle with the shot and wad, and a 2.5" fired hull ejected. The post was a couple of years ago; I wish I could recall the man's name.