3" chambered 16 ga.

[Stan Hillis]

Were there any 16 ga. guns chambered by Fox with 3" chambers?

SRH

[Researcher]

As I recall there were nine 16-gauge production cards that requested 3-inch chambers (one being our October 2013 Card of the Month) and one for 2 7/8 inch shells (April 2012 Card of the Month). A lot more 20-gauge guns were ordered chambered for long shells.

ARROW 16-gauge 3-inch 02.jpg (34.93 KiB) Viewed 8504 times

[Stan Hillis]

Thank you, Dave. There is a stunning 16 ga. custom Fox for sale on Jay's site that has three sets of barrels. The 28 and 30 inch sets are chambered 2 3/4", but the 32" set is chambered 3". Gun's serial number is 356589, so it began life as a Sterlingworth, evidently.

It got me to wondering if the 32" barrel set is as originally chambered. Sounds like it may be.

SRH

[Researcher]

In theory, a Fox barrel ordered chambered for 3-inch shells would have a 2 7/8 inch chamber.

[Stan Hillis]

I would really like to know who the parties are that did the work on this gun. The engraving and piercings are as flawless as I have ever seen. If there is anything I would change it would be the checkering pattern ........... but I could live with it.

SRH

[ROMAC]

Interesting topic.

Tom Archer wrote an article in the Double Gun Journal, Spring 2011, that was about 20 gauge Super Foxes.

In the article on page 131 he stated "Also of interest is that the Fox Gun Company also attempted to develop a Super Sixteen, but in spite of their best efforts, were never able to discover the correct chamber, bore, and choke configuration that would consistently produce an 80% pattern; so the Super Sixteen project was terminated."

Has anybody ever seen or heard of the existence of these experimental Super Sixteens? Were they just experimenting with barrels? Is there any evidence that they were then destroyed? Is it possible that the parts were just reused in production guns?

I don't recall this topic ever being discussed.

[Stan Hillis]

I remember that article, Roger. It is a mystery. It seems that the 16 has been, and likely always will be, considered as being primarily an upland gauge.

SRH

[Silvers]

It should be remembered that the HE-Grade Super 20 was developed for the 2-3/4-inch/1-ounce Super-X progressive load. The 3-inch/20 ga progressive shell wasn't introduced until after the last Super 20 left the factory.

Regarding an hypothetical HE-Grade Super 16, that would be for the 2-3/4-inch Super-X or equivalent progressive load = 1-1/8 ounce of shot. Capt Askins who was one of the developers of the Super-Fox wrote that: The Fox Company, by the way, were very successful in boring a Super 20 gage {sic} and made no headway, so far as I know, in improving the shooting of a sixteen bore. The reason was always a mystery to me, and I was there trying out chamber, bore, choke and cone changes until I got tired, never being able to produce an average pattern of 80% with factory cartridges.

frank

[Researcher]

When Western Cartridge Co. added the 16-gauge 1 1/8 ounce Super-X load to their offerings in 1923, it was put up in their 2 9/16 inch FIELD shell.

1923 Super-X folder 16-gauge.jpg (43.29 KiB) Viewed 8422 times

From my research of Western Cartridge Co. catalogs I don't see a 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge Super-X load being offered until 1938. However, as soon as the Olins took over Winchester and changed the Winchester "Speed Loads" to the Super-Speed they were putting up these 16-gauge progressive burning powder loads in both the 2 9/16 and 2 3/4 inch hulls.

The 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge shell really began to get some traction when Remington Arms Co., Inc. introduced their Model 11 and "Sportsman" autoloaders in 16-gauge in 1931, chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells. While Remington's regular Nitro Express 16-gauge progressive burning powder load was put up in a 2 9/16 inch hull with a load of 3 drams equiv. pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot, for their new 16-gauge autoloaders they introduced the slightly faster Auto-Express with a 3 1/4 drams equiv. charge pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot --

16-gauge Auto Express.jpg (22.22 KiB) Viewed 8422 times

While I don't see extra length cases offered for their progressive burning powder loads by Winchester, Western or Remington, Peters offered to put their High-Velocity loads in any length case the customer wanted.

1927 Peters Cartridge Co. catalog

20-gauge 3-inch High-Velocity

20-gauge 3-inch.jpg (55.52 KiB) Viewed 8422 times

I've never found these Remington ARROW EXPRESS 3-inch 20-gauges offered in any catalog, but here they are --

20-gauge 3-inch ARROW EXPRESS

[ROMAC]

Stan, I agree with you about the 16 be considered as primarily an upland gun. It does seem pointless to turn out a 7 lb. plus super 16 to fill the gap between the 12 and the 20 gauge even if they could have worked out the patterning issues.

In my opinion some 16's (but not all) lose their edge in handling qualities right around 6lbs. 8 ounces. Some 2 weight barrel guns I can deal with, others they start to feel clunky. I like my 16's to be as light as most 20's, and I like shorter barrels (26 to 28 inches). My favorites all fall around 5lbs 15 ounces to 6 lbs. 4 ounces.

I have a 16 Sterly ejector gun with 30 inch barrels and it weighs in at 6lbs. 13.5 ounces. It feels very heavy and is ok for doves, not so much for grouse and woodcock in the thickets. My XE 12 handles a lot better than that gun and it weighs more so go figure.

[Stan Hillis]

Since my main use of 16s is doves, I tend to like them longer and a shade heavier than you, Roger. Were I using them walking up quail, woodcock or grouse I think I'd like them under 6 - 8 as well. My favorite 16 dove gun is my 32" barreled L C Smith Featherweight, which weighs in at a shade over 7 - 5 ............and second is my Fox AE with 30" barrels which is much lighter about 6 - 9. I have to shoot the Fox much differently than the Smith, on doves. With the Smith I track a very short piece then pull ahead and shoot. With the Fox it is just shoot asap after it hits my cheek. This is primarily because of the weight difference, I think. They both fit me well. I shoot my .410 doubles like I do the lightweight Fox 16, so that tends to verify for me that it is a weight/handling thing.


Another difference ............the 32" Smith handles 1 oz. loads a lot nicer than the much lighter Fox. I like to stay with lighter payloads in it when I can, like 7/8 oz.

Best, SRH

[Donholt]

FWIW, The 16 ga. Model 21 Winchester could have been ordered with 3 inch chambers. This option was offered between 1932 and 1949.

[Researcher]

Many of the same Winchester catalogs that offered the 3-inch chambers for the 16-gauge Model 21, showed their progressive burning powder, high velocity, 16-gauge Super-Speed 1 1/8 ounce loads offered in 2 9/16 and 2 3/4 inch shells. Their LEADER "specified" loads, topping out at 2 3/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or the equivalent in dense smokeless powder pushing 1 ounce of shot came standard in the 2 9/16 inch shell, and could be ordered in a 2 3/4 inch case at no extra cost. They could also be put up in a 2 7/8 or 3-inch case at extra cost. A LEADER 16-gauge 3-inch shell --

Leader No. 16 3-inch Side.jpg (16.74 KiB) Viewed 7937 times

Leader No. 16 3-inch Head.jpg (42.45 KiB) Viewed 7937 times

Historically, from the beginning of factory loaded (1891 for UMC, 1893 for Winchester) paper shotgun cartridges the longer shells didn't offer heavier loads than could be had in the 2 3/4 inch shells. What they offered was more/better wadding which many serious competitive shooters believed an advantage.

[Sporrns]

I think the quest for a high performance 16 ga. load in a SuperFox chamber and choke configuration was a good example of a "reverse ballistic anomaly", e.g. a search for a load combination that simply would not come to fruition in terms of performance despite careful attention to detail in contouring and boring chambers and chokes for a given gauge. Bob Brister pointed out in his great work "Shotgunning; The Art and the Science" that two loads in particular out-performed all expected parameters so far as pattern density, distribution, and cohesion at progressively increasing ranges. The loads were the venerable 12 ga. 2 3/4". 3 1/4 dram 1 1/4 oz. "decoyed duck" load and the 2 1/2 dram 28 ga. 3/4 oz. load. In Brister's words, they simply performed way beyond their projected capabilities as forecast by computer modeling and pattern counts. Conversely, performance for the 16 ga. in the SuperFox configuration seemed to be significantly less than the sum of its parts so far as guaranteeing even, dense, consistent patterns at long ranges. Kevin

[kgb]

Has anyone encountered vintage reviews of either 16ga barrels or 16ga ammunition and getting effective long range patterns from them? Either earlier generations before plastic shells and wads or later when shell development should have made for patterns as tight as one would want for the given shot charges.