Pics of my "A" Fox
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
thanks, blind duck. I'm still trying to digest what I have here. Feels good, and shoots great, though I think I may have used some abusive loads through it. I ordered, and just received, some RST loads. Looking forward to shooting them. Get my gun back from Dan Rossiter Sat, Nov 10th, and look forward to shooting it. Plan to shoot lots of clays, and game. Game meaning, pheasants, turkey, and such. Have a pheasant hunt I want to take it on the weekend of the 17th, so Dan is doing a bit of stock bending and other tweaking, making the gun fit to my dimensions. The gun needs no restoration per se. I really believe I lucked out with this Fox, as it doesn't appear it was used very much. I hope to honor this gun by taking good care of it, and maintaining it in top condition, so that whomever it gets passed on to, will give it the same respect. I feel blessed to have been able to get it. It certainly was a happy accident. And yes, the engraving is really pretty and crisop. The gunsmith stated that the case colors were at 40%. Whatever, the gun is in excellent shape.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Eightbore, I just (maybe a couple of weeks ago) joined the AHFCA. Not quite sure how to request an order card. Really would like to. Near as I can figure my Fox was built very late in 1927, but there is nothing like getting as complete a history as possible. I am very curious as to where it was sent went it left the factory. Sure would like to know what kind of adventures it had. Doesn't seem to have had much wear, though. Maybe mostly a safe queen?
Dalgo
Dalgo
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Eightbore, Just requested a letter from J T Callahan. Don't know if it is the same thing as an order card. We'll see what he comes up with.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
I can't wait to get the Fox back from Dan R! Need to shoot her and get in sync w/the RST rounds I got last week, so as to be ready for my pheasant hunt the following week. I posted on the MEMBERS FORUM, "Card Request", and Fox Admin was kind enough to explain the difference between the letter and card, and to offer to email me the card info. Looking forward to learning some of the history of my gun, and making new adventures with it.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Eightbore, according to the card it was sent to Shenk Bros (don't know who they are/were, nor where located). Be interesting to know who bought it and the journey it took through life before I got it.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
-
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:12 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 227 times
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
I remember Shenk and Tittle from the sixties. However, it is now a chain sporting goods retailer with no hint of its history on the website except that it was founded in 1922. I may be wrong, but think that the sixties Shenk and Tittle store was in downtown Harrisburg, PA. Our PA members may be able to confirm this.
-
- Posts: 3018
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:12 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 227 times
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
I looked back in my hunting license collection and see that my 1959 and 1961 Pennsylvania hunting licenses were purchased at Shenk and Tittle. I don't remember seeing an A Grade Fox on the gun rack. Looks like your gun never got far from home.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Probably didn't go too far from home. Being that it is about 85 years old, I'm figuring that it was picked up at a gun show, such as Split Rock, from a vendor that may have obtained it from an estate sale somewhere in the area. It was used some, but not much. It came with a leather lace-up slip-on recoil pad, which was really deteriorated with age, and not salvageable. Dan measured the chambers, and they are for 2 1/2" shells. I purchased from RST a mixed flat of 2 1/2" and a mixed flat of 2 3/4" shells. Guess I'll have to use the 2 3/4" shells in my "modern" O/U, lol. Took her out for a spin on Sunday. Shot her with my new "shorties," she really performed. We'll see how well I do this coming weekend on pheasants. I know the Fox won't let me down. I hope I don't let her down. I'm pumped.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
-
- Posts: 5750
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 301 times
- Been thanked: 1543 times
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
FOX CHAMBERS --
The only two A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalogues, that I have seen, that state chamber lengths are the 1913 and 1914. They both state 12-gauge guns are regularly chambered for 2 3/4 - inch shells, 16-gauge 2 9/16 – inch shells and 20-gauge 2 1/2 - inch shells. That being said, virtually every 12-gauge Ansley H. Fox gun made in Philadelphia (other than the HE-Grade Super-Fox) that I've run a chamber gauge in shows about 2 5/8 - inch. The chambers of unmolested 16-gauge guns seem to run about 2 7/16 inch and 20-gauge guns a hair over 2 3/8 inch. A very few graded guns were ordered with longer chambers. Savage began stating chambered for 2 ¾ inch shells in their 1938 Fox catalogues.
All this being said there is a good body of evidence that back in those days chambers were held about 1/8 inch shorter than the shells for which they were intended. In the book The Parker Story the Remington vintage specification sheets on pages 164 to 169 call for a chamber 1/8-inch shorter than the shell for which it is intended. Also in the 1930's there were a couple of articles in The American Rifleman (July 1936 and March 1938) on the virtue of short chambers. A recent issue of The Double Gun Journal carried an article on tests showing no significant increase in pressure from shooting shells in slightly short chambers. IMHO I don't much sweat that 1/8-inch in 12-gauge guns. On the other hand when one gets a 20-gauge chambered at 2 3/8-inch likely intended for 2 1/2-inch shells I do worry about folks firing 2 3/4-inch shells in such guns.
Chamber depth is considered to be the distance between the breech end of the barrels and the joint between the chamber body itself and the forcing cone, which reduces down to bore diameter. This is loosely based on the length of the "Fired" shell. Today, theoretically when the crimp opens on the shell being fired the end would land at the junction of the chamber and cone. Prior to WW-II many companies had the practice of holding the chamber about 1/8 inch shorter than the shell for which it was intended. Fly in the ointment is nominal measurements often differ from actual ones in both chambers and shells. A very good method I have found of measuring chambers without much outlay of cash, and is quite accurate enough for virtually any situation, is a common 6" flexible machinist's scale which you likely have. Hold the barrels with muzzles toward a light source, not necessarily a concentrated one a window is great, while looking into the breech and the cone will be thrown in a shadow. May have to move the barrels around a little until it is distinct. While still looking into the chamber simply slide the scale in until you observe the end coming flush with the shadow line & mark position of breech end with your thumb. Remove and read the scale. I usually repeat this a few times to insure I am getting a consistent reading, but you will be amazed how accurate this can be done. While I own a Galazan chamber gauge, I use this more often than not. The chamber body itself has a taper of about .005" per inch. Sometimes chambers were cut with slightly worn reamers giving a slight undersize chamber. If the chamber is a bit undersize a gauge made to "industry" standards will not go in to the true depth of the chamber. A.H. Fox Gun Co. shotguns are known for having tight chambers. The machinist’s scale method can be more accurate.
The only two A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalogues, that I have seen, that state chamber lengths are the 1913 and 1914. They both state 12-gauge guns are regularly chambered for 2 3/4 - inch shells, 16-gauge 2 9/16 – inch shells and 20-gauge 2 1/2 - inch shells. That being said, virtually every 12-gauge Ansley H. Fox gun made in Philadelphia (other than the HE-Grade Super-Fox) that I've run a chamber gauge in shows about 2 5/8 - inch. The chambers of unmolested 16-gauge guns seem to run about 2 7/16 inch and 20-gauge guns a hair over 2 3/8 inch. A very few graded guns were ordered with longer chambers. Savage began stating chambered for 2 ¾ inch shells in their 1938 Fox catalogues.
All this being said there is a good body of evidence that back in those days chambers were held about 1/8 inch shorter than the shells for which they were intended. In the book The Parker Story the Remington vintage specification sheets on pages 164 to 169 call for a chamber 1/8-inch shorter than the shell for which it is intended. Also in the 1930's there were a couple of articles in The American Rifleman (July 1936 and March 1938) on the virtue of short chambers. A recent issue of The Double Gun Journal carried an article on tests showing no significant increase in pressure from shooting shells in slightly short chambers. IMHO I don't much sweat that 1/8-inch in 12-gauge guns. On the other hand when one gets a 20-gauge chambered at 2 3/8-inch likely intended for 2 1/2-inch shells I do worry about folks firing 2 3/4-inch shells in such guns.
Chamber depth is considered to be the distance between the breech end of the barrels and the joint between the chamber body itself and the forcing cone, which reduces down to bore diameter. This is loosely based on the length of the "Fired" shell. Today, theoretically when the crimp opens on the shell being fired the end would land at the junction of the chamber and cone. Prior to WW-II many companies had the practice of holding the chamber about 1/8 inch shorter than the shell for which it was intended. Fly in the ointment is nominal measurements often differ from actual ones in both chambers and shells. A very good method I have found of measuring chambers without much outlay of cash, and is quite accurate enough for virtually any situation, is a common 6" flexible machinist's scale which you likely have. Hold the barrels with muzzles toward a light source, not necessarily a concentrated one a window is great, while looking into the breech and the cone will be thrown in a shadow. May have to move the barrels around a little until it is distinct. While still looking into the chamber simply slide the scale in until you observe the end coming flush with the shadow line & mark position of breech end with your thumb. Remove and read the scale. I usually repeat this a few times to insure I am getting a consistent reading, but you will be amazed how accurate this can be done. While I own a Galazan chamber gauge, I use this more often than not. The chamber body itself has a taper of about .005" per inch. Sometimes chambers were cut with slightly worn reamers giving a slight undersize chamber. If the chamber is a bit undersize a gauge made to "industry" standards will not go in to the true depth of the chamber. A.H. Fox Gun Co. shotguns are known for having tight chambers. The machinist’s scale method can be more accurate.
Share the knowledge
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Researcher, you're right. Dan measured the chambers out at 2 5/8". I took that to mean that the gun was designed for 2 1/2" shells. Dan said it would not make any difference. So, I will use the 2 3/4" low pressure RSTs. It's good to know. Thank you for that information. The barrels are #2 weight barrels, so they are pretty stout. I was trying to err on the side of caution. However, I won't continue to shoot those high pressure AA handicap loads I initially put through it. With respect to those, Dan said the gun would definitely take them, but the wood might not. My shoulder is even softer than the wood. So they are out. I definitely won't sweat that 1/8" then, and will use the 2 3/4" RST Falcon Lights, and Pheasant loads that Dan initially recommended. I really appreciate your valuable input here. You folks here are an invaluable resource!
Pierre
Pierre
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.
Re: Pics of my "A" Fox
Well, here is a pic of my first hunt with the Fox. Central PA pheasant hunt, Sat, Nov. 17. A stellar performance for the Fox. That's me on the right w/Rusty, my friend's brittany. Great hunt, great friends.
A fox is more a fox from experience, than because it is a fox.