|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,469
Posts545,147
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,335
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680 |
Perhaps the 1940 shooters bible did publish an average or target weight most probably based on input from Savage's marketing people and we all know how accurate/honest they can be now don't we. But Mr. Brown you are dead wrong in your statement that the barrel weight stamped on the barrels will determine the final finished weight it is an indicator but nothing more. You suppose those folks at Savage (and Fox before them) spent any time trying to balance those guns before they sold them, TB? I do. If they didn't do that, they would have been putting out some guns with some very unusual (read undesireable) handling characteristics--like the balance point out close to the forend, if you have really long, heavy barrels matched up to a really light piece of stock wood. Somehow, I don't think that would've been real good for their reputation. Here's a little experiment for you to conduct: Get yourself a good scale (like electronic postal) and a handful of doubles, preferably as they came from the factory. I just did that (although 2 of mine have pads), and here's what I found: the greatest difference between the weight of the barrels and forend, together, and the stock and receiver was . . . 4 ounces. In one case, less than an ounce difference between the two. Now if you consider that Fox had 12 ounces difference to work with, at any given barrel length between heaviest and lightest, I'd say barrel weight is a whole lot more than an "indicator" of final weight--because if Mr. Smith wants his 28" Sterlingworth to weigh as close to 7# as possible, it's a dead certainty Fox/Savage would not slap heavy #1 (4/2) or #2 (3/14) barrels on that gun; highly unlikely even #3, at 3/10. And yes, I know wood density will always cause variations of 2 or 3 ounces one way or the other . . . but don't you suppose those guys could find a stock and forend that would match up nicely with Smith's desires--and yes, one could order a Sterlingworth just like one could order a graded Fox--and, together with those barrels weighing 3/4, give him something awfully close to 7#? And would you think, even in a gun that's not special ordered, even shipped to Acme Hardware, those guys at Fox would take a set of 4# 28" barrels, slap on a forend . . . and then mate it up with a 3 1/2# stock/receiver? Sterlingworths (and Trojans, and Ithaca and Elsie Fields) may have been the "knockabout" guns made by those companies, but they did not do stupid stuff like turn out guns with godawful balance. So you give me the overall weight of a Fox as it came from the factory, tell me if it's splinter or beavertail and whether it has ejectors or not, and if you give me the length of the barrels, I'll tell you what # they are. Could possibly be off one number, either high or low (maybe someone cleaned out pits, opened chokes, etc), but I think it's that good of an "indicator". Larry I have no interest or intent in participating in your silly little "experiment" because it has absolutely no bearing one way or another on the facts that that I have presented. Dave Noreen or Mr. John Callahan are the two preeminent experts on Foxes that I know. If they fail to corroborate my statements I will change my opinion but remember there are two statements that need to be commented on ("The numbers assigned to barrels prior to striking was done to assist the joiner in selecting barrels of like weight to facilitate finishing) and "the weight number assigned to the raw barrels before striking is an indicator of final weight but nothing more in fact is was common that when lighter weight barrels were not available heavier barrels were heavily struck to obtain the desired weight". Additionally contrary to McIntosh's statement that "weight stamps are nearly always clear and crisp on heavy guns, decidedly faint and blurred on lighter guns" is opposite of my own observations as my heavy weight barrel gun which is most likely a 2 is almost totally obliterated and the barrel weight codes on my four of my 3 weight barreled guns are very clear and distinct The barrels on my two 16 gauges that have the weight code obliterated most likely started life as 3 weight barrels a full 6 1/2 and 5 1/2 ounces heavier than their final finished weight if Fox would have been attempting to make these barrels to a specific weight they could have easily select 4 weight barrels and saved a whole lot of filing and polishing so as with Lefever guns with Fox guns the exception is often the rule and one should really avoid making broad sweeping proclamations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
I'd say, more likely, you don't want to verify what I've found because you're afraid it will upset your preconceived notions.
Straight from McIntosh, on Fox barrel-making: "But just as frames take time to file and finish, so do barrels, and the hand-work needed to strike a set of heavy tubes into a pair of lightweight barrels could eat up a sizeable chunk of company profit." Right . . . they just hammered away, costing the company more worker time, which = money. Why not just start with the correct weight tubes in the first place?
Last sentence in that chapter: "According to factory standards, barrels could not vary more than one ounce per pair from the weight specified." Thus, assuming barrels that haven't been cut or reamed significantly, if you put them on a scale, they ought to come out very close to the weights listed on pp 152-154. I have weighed a few sets of Fox barrels (certainly not dozens), and have found those tables to be quite accurate. And given the variation available in barrel weights, the best indicator of the overall weight of the gun will be . . . the weight of the barrels.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,377 Likes: 105 |
Rocketman or 2-piper, Would either of you please answer rabbit's question about the high pressure lube for older guns. My gunsmith had treated special lubes with scorn,reading this thread has me questioning a man I never doubted.
And, are there any words to live by coming out of this discourse. At what point will loads damage our vintage guns or at least hasten their wear? Thanks,Justin Justin, that's probably the key question! We can debate all day about whether it's pressure or recoil we need to worry about, but it seems to me that the BEST solution--which should leave you on safe ground on both counts--is to stick to loads no heavier than those available when your gun was made, and within the then-established service pressure standards. For example, if you own a 12ga originally chambered 2 5/8", 1 1/8 was the heaviest shot charge available. Velocities in the 1200-1250 range, depending on whether you chose the 3 1/4 or 3 DE load. The beauty of reloading for vintage guns is that you can come up with a bunch of formulas that will get you there, easily under 9,500 psi. And if you're talking target loads, you can go a whole lot lighter on shot and much lower on pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
Rocketman, I've been using plain baby oil,wiped clean after shooting. I don't know how this compares to the #28 grease but I'm sure ii's much thinner. I was warned about grit staying in the lube being the worst offense, so the thinner the better. I don't know what to think,but I will look at the grease.
I also keep my psi in that 7500 range but opt for the 1oz. loads. It's when I have the chance to go pheasent hunting that I wish for the bigger shot charge. Still keeping the psi at around 7500 I look for the 1&1/8 oz loads. Those damn western birds seem awfully tough to bring down,even with #4s. So will a couple of boxes of do much damage? That seems a pretty tricky question.
Being cheap in this game is a virtue to me. Unfortunately I've become hooked on IMR 7625 which is one of the more expensive powders out there. It was Bell's articles on the virtues of 7625 having the same pressure curves as black powder that attracted me and now I can't quite it. Is there a viable alternative that is just as soft. I haven't found one yet.
Thanks for answering,Justin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 610 |
L.Brown, Thanks for the advice. As you see from my post above I keep the pressure low. It's the shot charge that's vexing. My guns were all built pre 1898 and are proofed for the 1oz loads poular at that time. I don't think I can nail a No Dakota pheasent to the ground with 1 oz of shot. So I shoot the 1&1/8 load and it seems to work. At least it keeps me from thinking about it when I pull the trigger. Justin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
As you no doubt know, Larry, sonic shock was worse for the loader [of recoilless rifle] than for the gunner because the loader faced the tube which put his ears in line with the shot and the backblast. When I was the loader, it seemed to be about the closest thing to "hot noise" I'd ever heard.
I've gone from a mixture of 3-in-1 and Vaseline [RIG lookalike] to Mobil 1 20w50 as a hingepin, hook, rulejoint knuckle and lockbolt lube. May try that Mobil grease. I also like IMR7625 for loading 16 ga., Justin.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
It's easy to blame cracked stocks and loose actions on recoil or pressure.....it could just as easily be blamed on improper care.
I'm undecided if I like Ken Owens hinge pin lube or a light film of Sperm Whale Oil better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
justin, use the grease and wipe it clean after shooting or exposure to grit. Grease does not "attract" grit, but will, as will oil, hold it.
A box here and there of thoughtful heavier loads is not the issue. The steady diet is. Like a car engine, we usually don't run it at full power for very long. Full power is there and has its uses when needed, but not as a steady diet. Heavy target guns are, like some stationary engines, made for full time high output.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 680 |
Straight from McIntosh, on Fox barrel-making: "But just as frames take time to file and finish, so do barrels, and the hand-work needed to strike a set of heavy tubes into a pair of lightweight barrels could eat up a sizeable chunk of company profit." Right . . . they just hammered away, costing the company more worker time, which = money. Why not just start with the correct weight tubes in the first place?
Hey Larry what do you want the workforce to do when they don't have the proper materials to do the job as efficiently as planned? Are they supposed to sit around on their butts waiting for the next batch of proper weight barrels to show up? Come on Larry think
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,123 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,123 Likes: 198 |
Miller is saving me a lot of reading time, mostly because he is brief and to the point, and, more important, he agrees with me. Regardless of all this pressure and recoil stuff and a wordy dissertation on the workings of the Fox and Savage gun companies, Miller says it all in part of a sentence. "they just keep going on and on". In fifty plus years of high volume shooting and high volume gun buying, I have yet to have a problem with wear or damage caused by firing in a well maintained shotgun. End of story. Oh, not really the end. I use oil, not grease, and I have never bought a container of gun oil, use the stuff that comes in quarts at about $2.49 for enough to last several years, maybe decades. It's never failed me.
|
|
|
|
|
