Does the barrel weight chart of unstruck barrel weights in Michael McIntosh's book on A.H. Fox include the ejector/extractor slides or are the weights published without the ejector/extractor slides?

If Roe Clark had thrown those damn barrel weight charts in the shredder when he found them we would all be better off. They were only of interest to a worker in the Fox factory selecting a rough barrel set to get the finished weight he was working towards in the finished gun with the least amount of striking.

If they were only of interest to a worker in the Fox factory I wonder why those damn barrel weight numbers show up in so many Fox gun discussions and so many For Sale listings?

All much ado about a number that may or may not remain on the bottom side of Fox barrels, and means far less now than it did when a Fox factory worker selected a rough set of barrels to make the gun.

Well, you've now replied twice, but haven't addressed the original question.

No one has been able to answer that question and provide satisfactory evidence that their answer is factual, that I am aware of. My personal belief, because of the way I envision the manufacture of Fox guns taking place is, "No", they are weight "markers" that were for the unstruck barrels without ejectors/extractors. I do not believe the ejectors would have been fitted before the barrels were struck to their final weight, and fitted to the frame. I also believe that the numbers were there only to provide a reference to the builder(s), not to provide any information of sorts to the owner, or subsequent owners. If that were not the case, the lightweight barrel sets would have had the number replaced after they were filed off in striking.

JMO, of course.

SRH

Why not ask on the fox web site? Strike that, I see you already did. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I posted the original tables provided by Roe Clark to the Headricks back in the late 1980s on the A.H. Fox Collectors Association thread. When we were working on "the book" the Headricks provided photo copies to McIntosh and me.

I wonder if those weights could be for just a rough pair of tubes from suppliers, before they were ever made into a set of barrels?

Possibly not relevant, but the weights stamped on Smith barrels were before final fit and finish

1909 12g 00 with 30" Armor Steel barrels, stamped 4 over 5. The barrels now weigh 4lbs 1oz.
'BH' could be Belknap Hardware, a major distributor in Louisville, KY.



Dean or Bill would know if the same applies to Parker weight stamps

The light gun obsessors love this stuff. I know that with Parker, the numbers are the weight before finishing. I have a 20 and a 16. Made within two years of each other. 20 is 0 frame, 16 is 1 frame. both have 28" barrels. Weight on 20 gauge set: 3-0. Weight on 16 gauge set: 3-1. So they mean nothing until the gun is finished. The 16 weighs 1/2 lb more than the 20. Slighly larger frame but I attribute much of the difference to 1/2" more (and probably more dense) wood and a skeleton buttplate.

Alder Adder, I appreciate your response and the information you've supplied, but you've answered a question that wasn't asked.

That wouldn't really be a first on this thread, now would it?
It was a personal observation about the subject. I wasn't really concerned about the answer to your question. Sorry for not making it about you.

Bingo! The ejector/extractor parts were serialized to each gun. They had to be fitted when the gun was built, so they would not have been included in the weight calculation of the rough barrels. I have seen the rough barrels - bought a couple sets, actually - and they had no ejector/extractor parts.

Removed

improved, light modified?