doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com How can authenticity of Win Mdl 21 be established?

Jack did a lot of hunting with a 30-06. He did a lot of writing about a .270. He probably figured most people who read his stuff never got out of the region they lived in to hunt, and wouldn�t cross paths with him in Alaska, India, Iran or Africa.

He was probably right. American white tailed deer don�t try to kill you when they are wounded, either.

Dad was a regular reader of Jack, and claimed if Jack had lived long enough, he would have been hawking the Remington .280.

I did just enough deer hunting in the late 1970s to figure out it wasn�t my cup of tea, and didn�t care what Jack thought about rifles. If Jack was hawking model 21s, it wouldn�t have mattered much either, as neither my Dad or I could have afforded one in that era.

Best,
Ted

Thank you, Samuel. I do not have the Schwing book on the M21, and I believe what you have stated. If I were a serious M21 collector I might want to own a copy, and he is a well-known authority on Winchesters.

My two "anchor points" in my gunning library are not quite as accurate as Schwing- (1) I have a copy of a WRA Salesman's Handbook, 1938- and on the section detailing the M21, the pages state the minimum net weight of a finished M21- in 12-16 and 20 gauges- with varying barrel lengths and other factors: recoil pads, style of forearm, rib styles, etc. I think it is safe to say that the M21 of that pre-War era was "over-built" for strength, just as was the M12 Heavy Duck Gun, which came out about 1936--

I did go to my copy of Gene Hill's "Shotgunner's Notebook" and he touches on M21's on pages 84-85: "It's often a personal evaluation, but, for example, I don't find that something extra in the old Parker 12 bores. They strike me as a touch clubby. Most 20 gaughe Model 21's are a bit heavy, while most 16-gauge 21's are almost perfect, using the classic standards."

It was from the late Gene Hills' comment that I inferred that the std. M21 in 16 and 20 gauges shared the same frame size. No big deal.

Joe- I hope you don't mean "cult" as in the sense of: Charles Manson, David Koresh and Jim Jones. But it does raise the question, to me at least, "Was there a M21 Collectors Website".. Seems to me there was, but somehow faded away.

My high school library in the 1950s (I graduated 1956) kept both Outdoor Life & Field & Stream mags so I began reading them. I subscribed to both for a few years following. Jack wrote predominately of the .270 in a Win 70 as I recall. Page wrote up the Mashburn 7mm Short Magnum.

In shotguns Jack praised the 21, while Warren liked O/Us, don't recall his preferred brand. Both did an extensive write up on the 21 when Win "Introduced" the 3" 20 gauge Magnum. It was originally loaded with 1 3/6 oz of #4 or 1 1/8 oz of #6. Both sizes were soon stepped up to 1� oz.

I couldn't afford a 21 either, at the time was shooting a pre-WWI J Stevens Arms & Tool Co 12 gauge double, I "Think" a model 325 but not sure now. I consoled myself by the fact it was equally as ugly as a 21 with its flat backed frame with cigar box-shaped bar. It used pushrods through the bar for cocking with surrounding coil mainsprings much like the 21. One could easily say the WW stole the design from Stevens. Once I got hold of a decent looking shotgun I traded it off & to this day have never had a desire to own another or a 21 either.

In all honesty though, in spite of its shortcomings, I will have to say it started me down the road to ruin. I still have little desire for any shotgun which isn't a SxS double.

PS; It was flat sided, didn't have those stupid points on the side that looked like they were chopped on with a Foot Adz.

Right, Buzz, and that's not counting the 28 and .410.

I too read everything Jack wrote. About the .270 and being young did not take much of it with a grain of salt. I went moose hunting in Alaska, when a Brown Bear and I crossed paths. It attacked. Bears are so much faster than you can imagine and this one was not in the mood to be a teddy bear. Against all odds I killed it with a .270 which I was foolishly carrying that day. My lucky, desperate shot was against very long odds.

It was not Jack�s fault, but thinking what he wrote about the .270 being a wonder caliber and capable of taking a moose I never considered the many worst case situations. Wounded animal, charging bear or in my case surprised bear with a nasty disposition. While a .270 was capable for taking a moose cleanly, under the right conditions, it was about as poor a choice as possible for dealing with any bear. For that matter a wounded moose in thick covered would have been no picnic with a .270. After that experience I never again went hunting under gunned unless you consider a .410 as a under gunned.

Model 21 site --

http://bluepike.tripod.com/index.htm

Researcher:

Thank you for posting that link. Lots of good info.


Merry Christmas

Other than the Galazan Model 21�s which are built on scaled or �Baby� frames,
the Winchester 28 and 410�s were built on the 20 gauge frame.
20 gauge tubes were used and drilled to the appropriate 28 and .410 bores
resulting in extremely heavy and poorly balanced sub gauge guns.

Didn't Dave Carlson, Mgr. of the WRA Custom Shop, receive a order from John Olin to built a .410 M21- after seeing one "customized" M21 into that midget caliber, assembled by Ernie Simmons, of Olathe, KS.

The M42, some refer to it as the "Baby Model 12", is correct to scale for its smallish gauge, but most .410 bore double guns built on 20 gauge frames, look almost freakish, to my eyes anyway. Like the late Nash Buckingham, I view the sub-bore .410 as a great crippler of game birds- with the caveat that two of Ernest Hemingway's sons, Patrick and Gregory, ran high scores on live pigeons at the Club in Cuba, with .410 shotguns-against grown men using 12 gauge shotguns.

I have been collecting and shooting Model 12's for 40 plus years, and have turned down any and all offers on Model 42's--Not my "cup of tea" I guess.