doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com AH Fox vs. Rem 1894 action strength

Happen to have a Fox CE and a B grade Rem 1894 on my bench right now. Both boxlocks but very different actions. The Rem is a classic A&D action. The Fox is homegrown. The Rem is a lot easier to strip...the Fox is a PITA esp. the toplever assy. Never seen such a complicated toplever in any other gun. Even Parker managed to get it simpler. The ejector mechanism is the other way round. Fox with linear hammers is much simpler than the Rem with its finicky interlock (ever time one of those?), leaf springs and rotating hammers that are hell to reassemble. But what struck me was the very thin action walls on the Fox compared to the Rem. There is a LOT of metal hogged out on the Fox action, and the sidewalls are visibly thinner than the Rem. The pin for the sears is closer to the corner of the action as well (point of maximum stress).



BTW does anyone know how to remove the coil mainsprings from a Fox action? They look like they should just pull out but they don't.

Remington may have had some problem with the Model 1894/1900 because along about 1903 or so they moved the sear pin about 1/8 of an inch closer to the hammer pin. I have guns with the pin way down in the corner and guns with it farther in and I haven't noticed any difference. Then about 1906 or so Remington went to firing pins seperate from the tumblers. Could it have been cheaper to make a seperate firing pin and thread a hole for a screw to keep it in place then to continue making them integral with the tumbler?!?

I use a pair of tweezers and pull the mainsprings out. Never had a problem getting them out.Fox is a strong and simple action and easy to work on in my opinion. Try putting an L C Smith top lever back in properly! Tough to get the toplever bottom screw back in correctly with all that pressure from the toplever flat spring on it Bobby

I've done LC Smiths....you are right about the end screw but I found a technique that works quite well. I use a tapered punch to get it lined up working from under the action, then hold it in place from the inside while I switch to the screw.

Rem switched to floating pins I think to prevent the action binding up. But not sure. It's also easier to replace a pin that the whole hammer.

Notice the Rem hammers are much narrower than the Fox's...that alone accounts for the wall thickness.

We have seen several pics of Fox's with cracked actions on this site...not surprising when you look at how much metal is left to counteract the bending stresses.

I have never bought into the idea of drilling holes in the stock of an LC to install this screw, a small nail-set polished on the tip works well, after all the maker didn't have to drill the stock.

The trick to removing a Fox toplever is to make a tool to depress the return spring before removing the connecting screw, after that it is easy. My own thoughts are that a Parker is the easiest action to disassemble as long as you have screwdrivers that fit, but then I have done a lot of them.

Measure the thickness of a Fox action between the top of the action flats and the cutout for the cocking arms, very thin, it kind of reminds me of a Flues Ithaca. ( really going to get some flak for that statement)

Got the mainsprings out of the Fox with some PB Blaster...the problem was (ejector gun) the thimbles have a split guide rod that clamps onto the ejector actuators and this was all rather gummy so they resisted coming out. Exacerbated by the fact that you can't get a grip on the thimbles. Apparently it's impossible to get the knuckle bushings out that hold the ejector actuators in place. I am not even going to try.

What really bothers me about the Fox action is the fact that not only are the sidewalls thin and the sear pin located in the most vulnerable spot, but also the hammer recesses extend almost all the way up to the water table so in reality it should be called a Box not a Fox. The front part of the action, which is subject to tension and downward bending under firing, is attached to the back part of the action by three thin walls of a box (four if you count the bottom plate..). I used to like Foxes (mainly because they are easy to sell) but I have to say I am have reservations about their strength. They made the hammers unnecessarily large and this requires large cavities in the action.

Parkers are easy to take apart, but lots of parts and lots of screws to mar...complex design. I haven't really paid much attention to the thickness of the metal in the high stress areas, but I will the next time I take one down. I have found Parkers hard to sell. And I don't understand why nobody wants/likes damascus or hammer Parkers, while at the same time they positively go nuts over a gun that has a lot of case color remaining. That's just silly. Case color is about the most superficial thing on a gun. Well that and stock finish.

Both Foxes and Parkers usually require that the sears be removed before you can get the stock off...this is really poor design.

Remington takes five minutes to strip and I really like the fact that they marked the internals (R) and (L). Sturdy action too. Too bad they are mostly plain guns, the higher grade guns have very elegant engraving.