16 gauges built on 20 gauge frames? - The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com

I have searched the site and haven't found what I am looking for.

Does anyone have a list of steel-barreled 16 ga SXS's that are or were built on 20 ga frames?

Thank you.

AH Fox first came out with a 20 gauge and then built a 16 gauge on that frame. So all the real Fox 16s are on a 20 gauge frame.

You can find 16 gauge Parkers on an "O" frame, nominally the 20 gauge frame.

Merkel 1620.

Lefever 16 gauges, with an "XX" marked on the frame are built on a 20 ga. frame.

The pre-Folsom Baker Batavia 16ga is a scaled frame. Not sure if a true 20ga size as no pre-Folsom 20ga guns were mfg, but my Baker 16 weighs 2oz more than my '28 vintage Sterlingworth.

SAC mfg light wt 16's.

Ithaca also mfg'd some very svelte 16's.

John

So if you can get a 16ga on a 20ga frame safely was it really a 20ga frame to begin with?

Originally Posted By: gunmaker

So if you can get a 16ga on a 20ga frame safely was it really a 20ga frame to begin with?

Is the true scale of a frame the important factor? Or is adequate strength at minimum weight and balance enough?

John

One of the few guns made where the 16-gauge and the 20-gauge each had their own unique frame was the Remington Model 11 and "Sportsman" autoloaders

Darne.

Best,
Ted

The Kireghoff Essencia in both sidelock & triggerplate versions built by Jens Ziegenhahn & the versions that Ziegenhahn sells under his own name are available in 16 ga on a 20 ga frame.

I have one w/29" bbls that weighs 6 lb even.

Thanks everyone.

"Is the true scale of a frame the important factor? Or is adequate strength at minimum weight and balance enough?"

John

It just seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance.

The Ithaca M37 is scaled per gauge as well. Gil

Holland and Holland 16 bore built on 20 ga frame.....28� barrels, 5 lb 13 oz....sweet.

Generally most of the older American built shotguns were on 20 gauge frames while European shotguns normally built a specified 16 gauge frame.

+1

Originally Posted By: gunmaker

So if you can get a 16ga on a 20ga frame safely was it really a 20ga frame to begin with?

IMHO, "scale frame" has been left seriously undefined. Does it mean a size smaller than the next larger gauge (12 on a 16)? Does it mean the smallest frame a given gauge can be built on? Or, does it just mean the size a gauge is usually built on? 20 ga frame is not exactly one single thing.

As above, which size 20 ga frame are we talking about? Way too much has been made of the idea of 16 ga on 20 ga frame. If you can build a 16 ga on any given frame, is it not a 16 ga frame? No doubt that you can build a 20 ga frame that would be unsafe for building a 16 ga on. Why no hue and cry to build 20's on 28 ga frame of 28's on ,410 frames?

Sub 6 1/4# guns quickly become difficult to handle for most/many shooters. 12 ga guns have been built down into the mid 5# range with 2" chambers.

Thus endeth the rant.

DDA

A.H. Fox immediately comes to mind. The old Philadelphia ones especially higher grade came with 4 or 5 different barrel weight. The ones with lightest barrel profile are truly "toyish". When I examined "C-grade" 16 I had to rub my eyes and when I looked back it wasn't 20ga as I thought but still a 16ga, amazing. If you want something else I suggest 12-20 concept pioneered by an English company and propagated by some Basque makers.

Originally Posted By: Rocketman

IMHO, "scale frame" has been left seriously undefined. Does it mean a size smaller than the next larger gauge (12 on a 16)?

It could. Or, does it mean the opposite ........... "a size larger than the next smaller gauge"? Seriously, my understanding of it is simply that each gauge's frame is built proportionately smaller (or larger)than the adjacent gauge frame. Or, put another way, no two gauges (or bores, as in the case of the .410) are built on the same size frame.

I'd never considered that there was as much confusion about the term as you suggested. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

SRH

I simply prefer a SXS that weighs around 6 1/4 pounds with 29" barrels.

I had a Piotti King that was just that and it was a joy to carry and shoot. I'm sorry I sold it. It had 2 3/4" chambers. I've also owned a Greener built with 28" steel barrels in 1898 that weighed 6 pounds, 2 ounces with 2 1/2" chambers. I should have kept it and had a stock made for it. My AYA 4/53 in 28 ga has 29" barrels and weighs less than 6 pounds 1 oz. It is a delight to carry and shoot.

Having 29" barrels helps to keep weight forward for a smooth swing even if the gun is "light", at least for me it does. Thus, my search for a "light" weight SXS in either 16 or 12 gauge (either 2 3/4" or 2 1/2"). I have an AYA 4/53 in 12 gauge-also with 29" barrels that weighs 6 pounds 11 ounces-that I use for South Dakota pheasants, waterfowl (with Briley thin wall choke tubes) and Sporting Clays.

The search is always great fun.

I bought a 16 gauge Fox sterlingworth with 28 inch barrels and ejectors last year that weighs 5 lbs 13 ounces. Bobby

Parker built at least one 28 gauge on the 000 .410 frame. It belonged to a neighbor so I was able to measure the firing pin separation to confirm it was a true 000 frame. It was displayed at an Ohio Gun Collectors show a while back when the PGCA annual meeting was held at the Ohio venue. I don't know where the gun is today. The owner of this and a similar gun has passed away.

rtw,
I prefer lightweight sxs's as well. My new Churchill 12ga. with 2 1/2" chambers weighs 5 lbs. 12 oz., perfect for my all day romps in the U.P. for grouse.
Karl

Originally Posted By: Rocketman

+1

Originally Posted By: gunmaker

So if you can get a 16ga on a 20ga frame safely was it really a 20ga frame to begin with?

IMHO, "scale frame" has been left seriously undefined. Does it mean a size smaller than the next larger gauge (12 on a 16)? Does it mean the smallest frame a given gauge can be built on? Or, does it just mean the size a gauge is usually built on? 20 ga frame is not exactly one single thing.

As above, which size 20 ga frame are we talking about? Way too much has been made of the idea of 16 ga on 20 ga frame. If you can build a 16 ga on any given frame, is it not a 16 ga frame? No doubt that you can build a 20 ga frame that would be unsafe for building a 16 ga on. Why no hue and cry to build 20's on 28 ga frame of 28's on ,410 frames?

Sub 6 1/4# guns quickly become difficult to handle for most/many shooters. 12 ga guns have been built down into the mid 5# range with 2" chambers.

Thus endeth the rant.

DDA

What about the Baker 12-20 action? The action design was to have strength, be lightweight and reduce the size of the standard 12 gauge frame. British manufacturers in the 1920s and 1930s designed 12s weighing 6 lbs or less. The 2" 12, Churchill XXV, and the 12-20 are just a few of these designs.

Ken

Any 16 gauge Parker grade 1 and higher could be had on the standard 20 gauge 0-frame.

So; what exactly determines the frame size??. I have for instance one of Lefever's 16 gauge guns built on the XX (20 gauge?) frame & it weighs a "Svelte" 6 3/4 lbs. I also have a 12 gauge Lefever built on the "12 gauge" frame which weighs 6 1/2 lbs. Both are H grades with 28" twist barrels.
The XX frame has a slightly narrower bar but the 12 gauge has a wider firing pin spacing but with the barrels struck thinner. This 6 3/4 lb 16 gauge Lefever has a wider firing pin spacing & larger standing breech than would a 6 lb Lefever 16 gauge also built on the XX frame.
So what exactly does determine a "True" scaled frame, to me it means the entire frame as well as the standing breech is scaled to the gauge. Personally I do not see that simply changing the size of the standing breech while retaining the exact same size bar & body of the action truly reflects a "Different" frame size. I have 12 gauge Lefevers which weigh from the above mentioned 6 1/2 lbs up to 8 lbs which all have substantially identical bar & action body sizes, with only the standing breech & firing pin spacing altered for the individual barrel set. Personally I do not call these Different Frame sizes. Everyone call it as you see fit, but to me the entire frame, bar, body & breech have to be scaled to make it truly a different frame size.

Originally Posted By: rtw

It seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance.

rtw, no offense intended, I've a little problem with the above statement. My experiments with gun handling show that weight, balance (teeter-totter kind, not an undefined, summative, subjective "number"), unmounted swing effort (based on the gun's moment of inertia at center of gravity/balance point), and mounted swing effort (based on MOI at the butt).

Weight is a summation of all the parts' weight. It tells you the effort to carry, lift, and hold the gun.

Balance is the summation of increments of weight times distances from a point (teeter-totter point) where the summation is equal to zero. It tells you what % of the weight each hand carries. Individual shooters have a considerable range of preference for these two %.

Swing effort is based on increments of weight times their distances from the balance point squared. Thus, if two increments of equal weight are placed one at one foot and the other at two feet from the balance point we find that the one at two feet has four times the effect as the one at one foot. Swing effort is the measure of the effort to point the gun in a differing direction.

Actions figure much in weight, somewhat in balance, but little in swing effort. Barrel and butt lengths and thicknesses figure large in swing effort due the longer distances from the balance point.

What are you thinking when you say, "--- improve balance?"

DDA

Originally Posted By: Stan

[quote=Rocketman]

I'd never considered that there was as much confusion about the term as you suggested. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

SRH

I think there is that that much confusion. I guess I just wish people would not get starry eyed over a concept that is a misnomer at best. Maybe we need to invoke the dreaded oxymoron.

OK, I'm off my soap box.

DDA

Originally Posted By: Rocketman

Originally Posted By: rtw

It seems like you have to get them built on a 20 ga frame to get the weight down and improve the balance.

rtw, no offense intended, I've a little problem with the above statement. My experiments with gun handling show that weight, balance (teeter-totter kind, not an undefined, summative, subjective "number"), unmounted swing effort (based on the gun's moment of inertia at center of gravity/balance point), and mounted swing effort (based on MOI at the butt).

Weight is a summation of all the parts' weight. It tells you the effort to carry, lift, and hold the gun.

Balance is the summation of increments of weight times distances from a point (teeter-totter point) where the summation is equal to zero. It tells you what % of the weight each hand carries. Individual shooters have a considerable range of preference for these two %.

Swing effort is based on increments of weight times their distances from the balance point squared. Thus, if two increments of equal weight are placed one at one foot and the other at two feet from the balance point we find that the one at two feet has four times the effect as the one at one foot. Swing effort is the measure of the effort to point the gun in a differing direction.

Actions figure much in weight, somewhat in balance, but little in swing effort. Barrel and butt lengths and thicknesses figure large in swing effort due the longer distances from the balance point.

What are you thinking when you say, "--- improve balance?"

DDA

I find that I shoot guns in the 6 lb & less range better if they are
more stable & less "dynamic" than heavier guns.

I think Michel McIntosh once wrote something like that "as the gun weight goes down, the balance point should move farther forward from the trigger hand" & within reason I would agree with that.

A smaller, lighter action helps to achieve that.

The Germans built some lightweight 16ga guns prior to WWII. I had a Sauer built shortly after 1900 with 26" barrels that weighed 5lb 12oz.

I've had two 16ga from around WWI with 30" barrels that weighed in at 6lb 4oz. The pic is of one of those guns that had a rounded action. The quarter is overhanging both sides of the bottom of the frame by a fairly significant margin. I'd say the bottom of the frame at the barrel lumps was actually about as wide as nickel.

I take no offense.

My views are largely uninformed and are simply based upon my experiences with different SXS's and how they "felt".

My LOP to a front trigger is 14 3/4. Thus, there is a lot of wood weight to the rear (even if holes are drilled and a pad is used. Shotguns feel whippy to me if there is more weight to the rear than in front of the action. I think of this situation as being "Unbalanced"

A "balanced" -for me-shotgun has "enough" weight forward such that the shotgun isn't "whippy"-a smooth swing is easy. Obviously, multiple factors are at play: wood density and stock size, forearm type (splinter versus beavertail), barrel thicknesses and length, action weight, etc.

Beautiful gun Steve.

Originally Posted By: treblig1958

Beautiful gun Steve.

I'll say-gorgeous!

Good point, Ken. Interesting that 12 bore on a 20 frame never got the "traction" as did 16 on a 20. I've never been able to explain that.

DDA

Originally Posted By: Brittany Man

I find that I shoot guns in the 6 lb & less range better if they are
more stable & less "dynamic" than heavier guns.

Most people do shoot light guns better when consideration is given to increasing the swing effort by longer barrels/barrels thicker near the muzzle and a stock with more than normal weight at the butt. Not sure I understand "less dynamic than heavier guns."

I think Michel McIntosh once wrote something like that "as the gun weight goes down, the balance point should move farther forward from the trigger hand" & within reason I would agree with that.

This is true only if the weight is removed from the action and stock. If weight is removed by shorter/thinner barrels, then the balance point moves rearward.

A smaller, lighter action helps to achieve that.

A lighter action reduces weight by the amount it is lightened. However, this lightening has limited effect on balance and swing efforts due to the closeness to the balance point.

DDA

[/quote]

Originally Posted By: rtw

I take no offense.

Very good as surely none is intended. This subject is of great interest to me. Unfortunately, I find many shooters resistant to new learnings and offended when they are presented.

My views are largely uninformed and are simply based upon my experiences with different SXS's and how they "felt".

I suggest that you develop a habit of focusing first on how the weight feels. Then refocus on how the weight distribution between your hands suits you --- this is what balance does. Third, make swings left-right and up-down with the gun unmounted paying careful attention to the effort needed to start a swing, change direction, and stop a swing; this is unmounted swing effort. Last, mount the gun and make left-right and up-down swings, again paying attention to effort needed to stop, start, and change direction mid swing. Early on in the gun handling experiments one wag noted that low swing effort guns (whippy/wand/etc.) started in a wink, changed direction in a wink, and stopped in a wink.

My LOP to a front trigger is 14 3/4. Thus, there is a lot of wood weight to the rear (even if holes are drilled and a pad is used. Shotguns feel whippy to me if there is more weight to the rear than in front of the action. I think of this situation as being "Unbalanced"

Remember that balance is an individual preference with no optimum beyond individual preference.

A "balanced" -for me-shotgun has "enough" weight forward such that the shotgun isn't "whippy"-a smooth swing is easy. Obviously, multiple factors are at play: wood density and stock size, forearm type (splinter versus beavertail), barrel thicknesses and length, action weight, etc.

You feel weight forward or rearward only in balance. You can't detect where weight is located in swing efforts.

DDA

Originally Posted By: Rocketman

[quote=Brittany Man]

"Not sure I understand "less dynamic than heavier guns."

To me "dynamic" means low swing effort or quicker handling if you prefer that term & in hunting guns I do prefer guns in the 7 to 8 pound range to be more "dynamic" than a gun in the 6 lb range & getting that feel usually requires having a higher % of the guns weight between the hands rather than @ the ends of the gun.

I can't remember who wrote this but the line was something like "light guns should feel heavier than they actually are & heavy guns should feel lighter" & for most hunting guns I am in agreement.

"This is true only if the weight is removed from the action and stock. If weight is removed by shorter/thinner barrels, then the balance point moves rearward."

I think every one understands this. Can you further explain the point you are making?

"A lighter action reduces weight by the amount it is lightened. However, this lightening has limited effect on balance and swing efforts due to the closeness to the balance point."

I disagree. I you take a 6lb gun & add 1 oz of weight close to the muzzle or the rear of the stock you can feel the difference in how the gun responds. I know this because I have done both. If you keep the total weight @ 6 lb. & are able to remove 1 oz. from the action & move it either to the muzzle or the rear I'll bet the difference response will be even more pronounced (obviously I have not been able to do this).

Originally Posted By: Brittany Man

I can't remember who wrote this but the line was something like "light guns should feel heavier than they actually are & heavy guns should feel lighter" & for most hunting guns I am in agreement.

I have had only 12's and 16's. The 16's have weighed between 6 pounds even and 6 pounds, 11 ounces. The 12's between 6 pounds 4 ounces and 7 pounds 5 ounces (with the exception of a 8 pound plus Pieper sidelock that I haven't shot as it needs a new stock).

The last gun I bought was a Lindner Charles Daly 12 gauge. When I received it and first handled it, I was convinced it would be nicely around 7 pounds flat. Was shocked when I weighed it to discover it was 7 pounds, 8 ounces. Heaviest gun in my safe, except for the unused Pieper. Would love to get it on Rocketman's device and get hard numbers on it's handling characteristics, and compare it to some of my other plus 7 pound guns.

Originally Posted By: rtw

I have searched the site and haven't found what I am looking for.

Does anyone have a list of steel-barreled 16 ga SXS's that are or were built on 20 ga frames?

Thank you.

If you're contemplating a purchase I would take long hard look at 16ga Manufrance Ideal.

Frame size, at least on Parker Bros. guns, is determined by the exact distance in 16ths of an inch of separation between firing pin centers.
In the smaller frame sizes, 0-frame, 00-frame and 000-frame the water tables could and would be milled out to reduce the gun's weight by an ounce or two.

The Parker Reproduction 28's also have the milled out water table. The 20's do not . . . which may be why they don't seem all that light for 20's, even though built on 0 frames.

I was curious so I measured a Baltimore B grd 16ga. I�m restoring. It measured 1 1/16�. Would that be considered small frame?

My Parker 0 frame was 1�.
Manufrance Ideal 24ga 1�.
Hellis 2� 12ga 1 1/16�

Thank you all for the questions and suggestions!

Interesting topic for sure!

Some years back this subject was discussed here. Many of us measured our firing pin spacing's & submitted them. I don't recall recording any of mine but one might do a search & find the old thread.