Hello everyone, I’m a 70 year old hunter up in Montana. I own or have owned three side by sides and three over unders. A 1907 Lefever, a 1869 Parker GH I inherited from my father in law(his grandfather’s gun) and an LC Smith featherweight. All three guns are 12 gauge. The O/U’s are a 12 ga Citori, 12 ga Ruger Red Lable Sporting Clays and a sweet 20 ga early 70svWinchester 101.

My question is regarding a Fox Sterlingworth pin gun with some issues that I found in a local shop. Overall the gun is ok and seems to work well with snap caps, safety works, each trigger trips the hammers, ejectors eject. The barrels have been reblued but done well, the barrel stamping is clean and distinct and the bores are shiny.

The main issue is the lever is definitely left of center and kind of hard to open. The action feels tight to me, but everybody makes a big issue about the lever being right of center, or centered. Can a good gunsmith fix this if it’s a problem?

The other issue is purely cosmetic, but basically ruins any collector value. The 30” barrels ring like a bell and it has double ivory beads, but at some point, somebody milled the rib down about 3/16” for about 6-7” forward of the action. I have no idea why, maybe to mount a scope or something though there are no threaded screw holes. The machined section is dimpled so it doesn’t reflect. I assume the only way to make it look original is to find a donor rib somewhere?

The guy is asking $500.00, I’m thinking of offering him $300-$400, if I could feel good about the lever issue and the gun was a safe, tight shooter, I’d be happy.

A.H. Foxes were, along with the Win. M21- the two American mfg. Boxlock doubles with fewer parts to wear or get out of alignment, in years of usage. The A.H. Fox, the Ithaca NID and the L.C. Smith guns all have the same basic top extension rib lockup, the top bolt with continue to cycle to ensure a solid closure-

Two tests, besides the snap caps, I usually do on any used vintage gun such as the one you are considering- (1) With the barrels in battery, but the forearm removed, "shake" the gun slightly and check for barrel "rattle"- also mount the gun into your shoulder pocket with the forearm removed, see if you sense any "rattle"- (2) with gun closed and cocked, and with snap caps in the breech, and with the safety in "safe"position- squeeze the forward trigger as hard as you an, then remove your finger from the trigger blade, and then slide the safety forward-then repeat with the rearmost trigger- this checks for worn sears- if the hammer trips when you slide the safety forward, that can be a sign of worn sears or other firing mechanism "maladies"--

I bought two pre-1914 graded 12 bore ejector L.C. Smiths because of the top lever being to the left TDC on the top tang. I replaced the top rotary bolts and the V-spring- Bingo--

I have never worked on a Fox gun- several noted gun writers viewed them as the best designed and made boxlock ever made in America-- all coil springs, few parts, well fitted. I would agree.

There are some collectors who prize the so-called "pin" Sterlingworth Fox guns, as I believe there were few made, compared to the thousands of Fox doubles over their production span of years. If the gun is mechanically sound, but the top lever and the "Fubared" top rib section become"bargaining chips", assuming double triggers and selective ejectors, and no pitting or dents or bulges in either barrel tube, sure- try the seller out at under his asking price, with those factors "on the table"

Where in The Treasure State.?? Last time I fly fished was near Billings, the Yellow Tail Dam area of the Big Horn- in Oct- we also did a "cast and blast" Later I bird hunted in the Chief Nine Pipes Federal lands area-- tons of pheasants. RWTF

That’s very helpful, thank you. I live in the beautiful Flathead Valley of NW Montana, near Glacier National Park.

Finding and replacing that top rib is.not going to make economic sense for a non-original Sterlingworth at a $300-400 purchase price... especially one with the lever left of center. I think you can do better.

What would you suggest? Just hunt if as is and be happy? $400 for an shooter Fox seems ok.

I have a 12 ga. Sterlingworth and a 12 ga. Sterlingworth Deluxe. Both are 28" guns in nice above average condition, all original, and no issues. Both were purchased in the last 3-4 years. Both were under $400.00. There are deals out there if you watch for them. You have several other decent doubles, so there is no need for you to rush in and spend too much money on someone else's problem child.

If you paid $400.00 for the Sterlingworth you describe, you'll be under water if you fix it, and you'll be very hard pressed to sell it as is for that amount. I like project guns, but not the ones I'm likely to lose money on.

A.H. Fox Gun Co. Sterlingworth "pin-guns" with ejectors are not too common. The 12-gauge Sterlingworth serial numbers started at 50000 with The Sterlingworth Co. guns in 1910. The Sterlingworth was included in the 1911 A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalog and they transition to being marked Made By A.H. Fox Gun Co. in the 53xxx range. All the ejector guns I've recorded are 589xx and above. The transition to the smooth hinge pin is in the high 61xxx/low 62xxx range.

You might want to check things out at the A.H. Fox Collectors web site --

https://www.foxcollectors.com/

I will add a note or two here. First & Foremost "ANY" mechanical object having more moving parts than a Hula Hoop is always a compromise to some degree. There are "NO" perfect mechanisms. Simplicity with a mall number of parts is good to a point but this can be carried to an extreme. In My (Not so Humble) opinion I will list two features that I consider fall in this category. 1st is the rotary bolt. While I consider the Smith, Fox & NID all serviceable & dependable guns none are my favorites.
2nd is on a gun of my favorite make among the American classics, the Lefever Arms Co. This is the large cooking hook introduced around 1898 I believe. If anyone is interested I am willing to discuss either or both of these further.

As to the Win 21, I have asked on several occasions for one of their "Admirers" to list me just 1/One mechanical feature that set it apart as having a superior design than any other break open double. As yet I have none. The bottom line is it has just two things in its favor. st with it being designed & introduced after WWI it utilized advanced developments of the steel industry & was made of heat treatable alloy steels so is strong. 2nd it carries the name "Winchester".

I have all of the mentioned guns in my collection. The rotary bolt guns, when they are worn out, would be a nightmare for the common man to tighten up. Happily, it doesn't happen very often. The Lefever is a wonderful gun, not to hard to tighten up if it gets loose in the breech, but the "large cocking hook" has nothing to do with this ease of tightening. The ball joint is the secret and is easily adjusted. The Winchester 21 doesn't need any "superior design" to be a great gun. It rarely gets used enough to need tightening and if it does get to that point, a little bit of excess material injected into the locking lug surface will tighten it up for decades. The end of story is that a worn out rotary bolt gun has to go to a talented gunsmith and the others can be fixed at home. Again, end of story.

The serial number on this gun is 62013. I don’t are about being underwater as I’ll never sell it, I’m 70 years old but still in good shape (knock wood), I’ll hunt it as long as I’m able then let my estate sell it after I die.

As long as it’s safe to shoot I’ll just ignore the rib. I’ll definitely do those test Run With The Fox recommended.

The Fox design is subject to being striker bound, the firing pins don’t move back with the hammers when you are attempting to open the gun. It is worse after the gun is fired, usually. If the gun is in this condition, usually a result of use and wear, it will need the attention of a gunsmith.

Best,
Ted

The large cocking hook on the Lefever was in no way implied to mean it had anything at all to do with the ability to tighten the action. It was mentioned in regard to the statement by Fox which strongly implied the gun with the fewest parts was always the simplest & best. The large hook serves three purposes, it cocks the hammers, serves as the check hook & cams the extractors. The earlier models with a separate extractor cam were far smoother & more efficient.

I have an H grade Lefever with a large hook. I ran across it some rs back as a parts gun for $25.00, so bought it. It has a busted stock, sort of held together by electrical tape, a crack in the left barrel 14 inches ahead of the breech & the bores resemble a sewer pipe they are so pitted. The top lever is well left of center. Amazingly, though the ball joint screw can be totally removed & the barrels placed on the action & closed & it is tight & on the face by the action of that square-shouldered Doll's Head alone.

The rotary bolt guns have the reputation of once they become a bit worn of being the worst of any double ever made anywhere in the world of any design of "Blowing Open" upon firing. They are an absolute nightmare to properly fit up & most were not, even from the factory. For the most part, they only hold the barrels shut & do not provide the secondary purpose of providing axial support to reduce the flexing of the frame. This, as noted, is done exquisitely by the Lefever Doll's Head.

The entire axial load on the 21 is carried by the hinge pin it Alone, thus I stand by my statement it has No superior design element. This is normally sufficient, but a little added "insurance" is often appropriate.

Getting back to the Fox, is it the general consensus that though the Fox lockup is a good design once it wears out to the point of lever left of center, it’s basically unfixable?

If your gun is tight and on face I would suspect problems with the yoke ( the connector between the lever and the rotary bolt). I had one that the pin was bent, worth a check.

None of my Fox guns have come up off face and I don't know how secure the lockup really is. However the sound they make when I close the action seems very similar to the clank of a Diebold safe at the bank...Geo

rotary bolts are replaceable...

Everything said so far makes me appreciate the Lefever design more & more. I have never had a Lefever show any signs of primer drag after firing. The inertia hammer design takes care of that. Lefever catalogs call it as a rebounding lock, but it is not truly rebounding. The mainspring itself is halted "just" prior to the hammer striking the firing pin. There is no rebound action imparted to the hammer, but it is not under tension from the spring so it is free to Float back on opening giving no drag.

As mentioned, by a slight turn of the ball hinge screw it can always be put back on face. I will note, this is the extent to which it should be tightened. It should "NOT" be used to compensate for bolt wear to bring the top lever back on the center. This will disturb the fit of the barrels to the standing breech. If the bolt is so worn it no longer can move enough for the gun to lock up tight, assuming the rest of the gun is in satisfactory condition, making a new thicker bolt is not a big deal & is what should be done.

The gun can be taken down either cocked or uncocked, no matter. Never a problem with forgetting & removing the forend with the hammers down & then having to wrestle it back on, or figure out how to recock the hammers to do do so. On most all of the various types, it is a simple matter to lower the hammers without snapping them or using a snap cap or something if desired.

Of all doubles I have ever dealt with it is the easiest to disassemble & reassemble that I am aware of.

I simply no of no other double either made in America or anywhere else that combines "All" these desirable features.

For whatever its worth, Yes I own several Lefevers & "NO" I do not own a Win 21. I have handled them I have examined them I have studied their parts breakdown & operating instructions.
Bottom line I have Absolutely NO desire to change that status & I am "NOT" in the slightest bit Jealous of those who own one of the cheapest looking Over Priced shotguns in existence.

FWIWIP-- I think the existence of the M21 in the WRA product line, from 1931 to about 1960, anyway- owes that existence to the John Olin money that bought WRA in the early years of the Great Depression- WRA originally marketed the M21 in an effort to "be ahead" of the move towards conservation of a dwindling waterfowl resource- in 1935 when FDR moved us into Federal duck stamps and a 3 shot plug in our M1897's and M12's--You might maybe surmise the same thought behind John M. Browning's Superposed, perhaps he foresaw his A-5 auto-loader as being restricted, and UMC making its Remmie-ton copy in the M11 autoloader, with a 3 shot capacity.



By the 1930's, WRA had taken the Green Weinie on the M12's and M54's with stainless barrels- so they worked with US Steel again, only this time to "improve" their Nickel barrel steel- and in 1931 Winchester Proof Steel was their choice- a Nickel-Chrome-Moly that was heat-treatable, as compared to the other US double gun makers with the 1018-1020 AISI steels that were case-hardened, and required "double fitting" by the assemblers at Parker, A.H. Fox, etc.

My late Dad bought the used field grade 12 bore M21 in 1948 for several reasons: (1) He had 2 Model 12's- a 20 gauge made in 1931, and a 12 gauge Tournament Grade made in 1936--
Both have solid ribs (an extra) the 20 is 28" Mod, the 12 is 30" full- plus he had a SG M70 30-06 which he bought new in 1939-- I have these Winchesters, plus his M21- If he hadn't have bought, and used them, I most likely would not have inherited them. Thanks, Dad!!

When he bought the M21, the gun shop had several 12 gauge Parker and Fox doubles for sale, in the same price range- Trojan and VH, and a Sterly or two-all with double triggers. Why did he pick the used 21? Because his other Winchester shotguns had one trigger, not two- made sense to me then, still does today.

My 21 shows "wear with care"- but is it worth what some dealers are trying to get for one of that Vintage are asking- as for the
later Custom engraved and flat sided receiver series, some made by CSM-- I'll pass and keep my $ "sub rosa"-- Not my cupa tea- much like the late Ernest Hemingway- who once wisely said: "A gun is to shoot"-- RWTF

You are right, oh Ed-ster of the "blue flame wrench" gruppen. Miracles do, indeed, sometimes happen.. RWTF

You don’t have to sell me on Lefevers, I already own a nice DS grade which I love, but I love my LC Smith FW more, it just fits me better. Now I’m looking at the Fox, not to replace but to supplement my other shotguns.

Welcome John.
Short to-the-point thoughts:
Fox guns are not hard to tighten. I've had 2 done for not a lot of money. Unfortunately no Fox specialists near you, but someone might send a PM with a recommendation. ANY > 100 year old gun certainly deserves an internal check and clean, and check for cracks at the head of the stock.
Please be sure the reblue was a classic rust blue and not hot caustic salts.
Also, shiny bores in a well used gun suggests honing; be sure you can return the gun if the wall thickness is inadequate, as measured by a smith with the equipment and interest in carefully doing so. The chambers should be 2 5/8". If not, end of chamber wall thickness is critical.
Merry Christmas, hope things work out and please give us a follow up.

Thank you!!!

Certainly. With enough time and enough money, you can replace every part on the gun. Then you have a refinished and repaired non-original Fox Sterlingworth, and a great deal of any true collector value, because it is a fairly rare ejector pin gun, just went out the window.

A lot of the inexpensive fixes for getting the top lever back to the right on rotary bolt guns involve peening the rib extension. That isn't gunsmithing. It's a crude fix that usually won't last, and often looks like crap.

If money is no object, and going under water isn't an issue, then it can certainly be fixed.

There are several good ways to repair a rotary top lever that are both undetectable and will not break the blank. The rotary bolt is internal and not that costly to replace, additionally the rib extension can be built up with TIG and refit. I am not interested in taking on the repair. The lever being to the left certainly indicates plenty of use as does the lever being hard to open. The description of the gun sounds like one I would pass on but the the lever issue is not the end of the world.

Right now, in the For Sale forum, Jason Peck is selling a 30" 12 ga.Sterlingworth ejector pin gun for an asking price of $850.00. He says the condition is good and the lever is well right of center. The bores are shiny, and bore diameters are under nominal 12 ga. size.

So you can ask all the experts here what it would cost to find and buy a replacement rib (If you can find one).... remove and relay it, and then refinish the barrels.... buy and replace the rotary bolt, and probably still need to TIG weld and refit the rib extension... plus shipping if you don't have a competent local double gun gunsmith nearby.

I'm betting the initial cost of the Sterlingworth you are considering, and the necessary work, parts and labor, will set you back a lot more than buying one that's ready to go,

That sounds like a no-brainer to me. I’ll definitely check that out.

I just bought that Jason Peck Sterlingworth pin gun. It looks like a good one!

This is a good story with a happy ending. It's refreshing when things work out.

Btw, thank you to Keith for bringing that gun, and the whole For Sale forum to my attention.

My pleasure John. I hope you get many good years of pleasurable use out of your new/old Fox.

I've seen a number of guns sold by Jason Peck, and it always seems that his descriptions match his photos, and his asking prices are not out of line.