Hi,
I just picked up my first Fox Sterlingworth, a 16 gauge 26" barrel choked IC and full. I have some questions about the camber size of this shotgun. Namely, its chambered for 2.5inch shells, and I would like to know if it is possible to bore it out for the standard 2.75 inch shells without compromising safety or creating unnecessary issues.
The serial number is 359127-any idea to determine the age of the gun by the serial number?
The barrels are stamped:
Sterlingworth fluid compressed steel
Made by A.H, Fox Gun Co. Phila. PA. U.S.A.
the receiver is stamped w/ the serial # on one side and opposite it is stamped as follows:
Pat'd AUG. 16-04
UG 1-05 OCT. 17-06 JAN. 16-06
AY 11-09 MAY 2-11 JUNE 11-12
one the sides of the receiver it is just stamped Sterlingworth with light engraving on the edges.
Any advice on boring out the chambers or the the age of the gun is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
-Chris
Questions on chamber size and serial number
-
NHGrousehunter
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:20 am
-
Researcher
- Posts: 5733
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 291 times
- Been thanked: 1515 times
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 recently published 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.
In my younger days I had guns like yours bored out when I got them, but now I don't. There are really great short shells available from RST, and I've lost interest in removing metal from vintage shotgun barrels.
The only way to know for sure when your gun was made/shipped is to get a letter on it from the Savage historian --
http://www.foxcollectors.com/factory_letters.htm
Fox serial numbers are in blocks by gauge and whether Sterlingworth or graded gun --
12-gauge Graded Guns -- 1 to 35280
12-gauge Sterlingworths -- 50000 to 161556
16-gauge Graded Guns -- 300000 to 303875
16-gauge Sterlingworths -- 350000 to 378481
20-gauge Graded Guns -- 200000 to 203974
20-gauge Sterlingworths -- 250000 to 271304
Single Barrel Trap Guns -- 400000 to 400568
I have some real problems with the published Fox serial number list, which was originally put out in 1976 by Lightner Library.
For 16-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths they are showing 500 (1931), 600 (1932), 600 (1933), 700 (1934), 1100 (1935), 1500 (1936), 700 (1937) and then 1600 for 1938. Then the serial numbers from 374800 to 378481 are given for 1939 up to the last gun made 8/9/1939. I don't believe there is any way they all of a sudden pumped out 3681 16-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths in eight or nine months!!! From my 18 or so years of recording serial numbers of observed Sterlingworths, guns in the 375,xxx, 376,xxx, 377,xxx and 378,xxx range certainly exist.
On the 12-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths they estimate the highest serial number for 1937 as 145000, for 1938 as 150000 and for 1939 as 155000. Again from my years of observing and recording serial numbers, I haven't recorded a gun between 143802 and 160195, leading me to believe there were about 16000 serial numbers skipped. Perhaps the high 143xxx range was the end of regular production and the guns in the 160xxx and 161xxx range were cleanup of parts and barrels on hand?!? All of the guns I've recorded in that range are 26-inch barrels except one two-barrel set that also has a pair of 28-inch barrels.
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 recently published 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.
In my younger days I had guns like yours bored out when I got them, but now I don't. There are really great short shells available from RST, and I've lost interest in removing metal from vintage shotgun barrels.
The only way to know for sure when your gun was made/shipped is to get a letter on it from the Savage historian --
http://www.foxcollectors.com/factory_letters.htm
Fox serial numbers are in blocks by gauge and whether Sterlingworth or graded gun --
12-gauge Graded Guns -- 1 to 35280
12-gauge Sterlingworths -- 50000 to 161556
16-gauge Graded Guns -- 300000 to 303875
16-gauge Sterlingworths -- 350000 to 378481
20-gauge Graded Guns -- 200000 to 203974
20-gauge Sterlingworths -- 250000 to 271304
Single Barrel Trap Guns -- 400000 to 400568
I have some real problems with the published Fox serial number list, which was originally put out in 1976 by Lightner Library.
For 16-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths they are showing 500 (1931), 600 (1932), 600 (1933), 700 (1934), 1100 (1935), 1500 (1936), 700 (1937) and then 1600 for 1938. Then the serial numbers from 374800 to 378481 are given for 1939 up to the last gun made 8/9/1939. I don't believe there is any way they all of a sudden pumped out 3681 16-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths in eight or nine months!!! From my 18 or so years of recording serial numbers of observed Sterlingworths, guns in the 375,xxx, 376,xxx, 377,xxx and 378,xxx range certainly exist.
On the 12-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths they estimate the highest serial number for 1937 as 145000, for 1938 as 150000 and for 1939 as 155000. Again from my years of observing and recording serial numbers, I haven't recorded a gun between 143802 and 160195, leading me to believe there were about 16000 serial numbers skipped. Perhaps the high 143xxx range was the end of regular production and the guns in the 160xxx and 161xxx range were cleanup of parts and barrels on hand?!? All of the guns I've recorded in that range are 26-inch barrels except one two-barrel set that also has a pair of 28-inch barrels.
Share the knowledge
Chris,
It may be possible to increase the chambers in your gun to 2 3/4" but you, or your barrel smith, need to do some measureing to make sure your have enough metal to do the job. You need a minimum of .100" wall thickness at the end of the chamber when the job is finished. This is a problem with the lighter (#4) barrels. A better solution is to lengthen the forcing cones. The standard Fox forcing cones are short and can be safely lengthened in most barrels. This will allow a greater choice of ammunition because it will decrease the chamber pressure by about the same amount as lengthening the chambers would. Double Gun Journal did a series of articles on this a few years back. This was a properly equiped and controlled procedure where shells of known charge were fired in a instrumented test gun with differing chamber dimensions. It should be required reading for anyone shooting classic double guns. The results, simplified, are that the chamber length does make a pressure difference but not a big one. If the shell was of a pressure that the gun was designed for, it will be safe to shoot it in shorter chambered guns. They even went so far as to shoot 3" shells in 2 1/2" chambers without huge presure increases. But if the shell was loaded to a pressure that the gun was not designed for it will be unsafe no matter how long the chamber is. Punching out your chambers to 2 3/4" does not mean that you will be able to shoot all the 2 3/4" 16g shells out there. We can buy some fairly nasty ammunition that are totally legal that will beat up our classic guns.
I hope this helps. One needs to be careful with what we feed our guns and where we remove metal in the barrels.
Cheers, DoubleGun
It may be possible to increase the chambers in your gun to 2 3/4" but you, or your barrel smith, need to do some measureing to make sure your have enough metal to do the job. You need a minimum of .100" wall thickness at the end of the chamber when the job is finished. This is a problem with the lighter (#4) barrels. A better solution is to lengthen the forcing cones. The standard Fox forcing cones are short and can be safely lengthened in most barrels. This will allow a greater choice of ammunition because it will decrease the chamber pressure by about the same amount as lengthening the chambers would. Double Gun Journal did a series of articles on this a few years back. This was a properly equiped and controlled procedure where shells of known charge were fired in a instrumented test gun with differing chamber dimensions. It should be required reading for anyone shooting classic double guns. The results, simplified, are that the chamber length does make a pressure difference but not a big one. If the shell was of a pressure that the gun was designed for, it will be safe to shoot it in shorter chambered guns. They even went so far as to shoot 3" shells in 2 1/2" chambers without huge presure increases. But if the shell was loaded to a pressure that the gun was not designed for it will be unsafe no matter how long the chamber is. Punching out your chambers to 2 3/4" does not mean that you will be able to shoot all the 2 3/4" 16g shells out there. We can buy some fairly nasty ammunition that are totally legal that will beat up our classic guns.
I hope this helps. One needs to be careful with what we feed our guns and where we remove metal in the barrels.
Cheers, DoubleGun
DoubleGun Cases
-
eightbore
- Posts: 3003
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:12 pm
- Has thanked: 48 times
- Been thanked: 204 times
That was a great post with the exception of the statement about lengthening forcing cones. Why would anyone worry about a minor increase in pressure from an original forcing cone and short chamber? Safety? Well, in my opinion, safety is more compromised by removal of metal than it is by shooting a shell 1/4 inch longer than the original chamber. Besides, it is a royal waste of money and many barrel drillers are no better at it than you are. I vote for "leave them alone".
2.5" vrs 2.75" shells
Thanks so much for your replies.
What do I lose if I stick w/ 2.5" shells as opposed to lengthening the chamber or forcing cone for a 2.75"shell? In short, what do I lose if I use a 2.5" shell as opposed to the standard 2.75"? Sure 2.75" shells are more available, but as per the prior post from Researcher I've already found a supply of 2.5" shells on the net.
Whats the difference between the two? Power? # of pellets? Velocity?
Thanks again for you responses.
-Chris
What do I lose if I stick w/ 2.5" shells as opposed to lengthening the chamber or forcing cone for a 2.75"shell? In short, what do I lose if I use a 2.5" shell as opposed to the standard 2.75"? Sure 2.75" shells are more available, but as per the prior post from Researcher I've already found a supply of 2.5" shells on the net.
Whats the difference between the two? Power? # of pellets? Velocity?
Thanks again for you responses.
-Chris
-
fullchoke16
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:17 pm
- Location: Western PA
- Been thanked: 1 time
The standard/ideal load for the 16 ga. is 1 oz. Recoil is mild and pattern and shot string is good with this payload. If you can get that in the 2 1/2" shell, that should be quite satisfactory. It will take birds as big as pheasant cleanly and works well at target games. I'm with Bill, I wouldn't mess with it, at least until thorough field and pattern board testing was done. By the way, that's a good choke combination and one that's not often found in a Sterlingworth.
Recoil is most noticed when I miss
Extending the forcing cones does reduce pressure, some where around 1000 psi according to the DGJ study. That is 10% in a 10,000 psi shell. That is significant and worth considering. No matter what you are shooting that decreased pressure will translate into less abuse of yourself and the gun. I load 7/8 oz 16's and they are a real treat to shoot. They also kill/break what I'm shooting at as long as I do my part. Lengthening the cones does not remove a lot of metal and does not, according to English proof rules, render the gun out of proof. That means that whatever metal is removed does not weaken the barrels. If you lengthen the chambers you render the gun out of proof, which means that this outfit, whose only business is understanding gun barrels, says that lengthening the chambers can weaken the barrel while lengthening the forcing cones does not. I'll take their word for it. Sticking to 2 1/2" shells of proper pressure is a fine alternative. Loading your own 16's is another good alternative. I use the black Remington promo hulls. They are available and fairly cheap. Just be sure that whatever you put in the gun is what it was designed to shoot. The 16 is a great upland gun as long as you don't try to make it shoot heavy 12g loads. Then it becomes a kicking sob that is abusive to both the gun and the shooter.
Cheers,
DoubleGun
Cheers,
DoubleGun
DoubleGun Cases
-
Researcher
- Posts: 5733
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 291 times
- Been thanked: 1515 times
RST loads wonderful 7/8 and 1 ounce 16-gauge loads that can handle most situations. Anything more is definately going to punish the shooter of a lightweight Fox 16-gauge and likely not going to do the gun's 70 to 96 year old wood any good either.
When the Super-X 16-gauge load of 1 1/8 ounce of shot over 3 drams equiv. of progressive burning powder came out in 1923 it was put up in the standard of that time 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge case. Remington with their Nitro Express, as well as Peters and U.S. followed the same path. I'm sure that most 16-gauge guns of the day, including most 16-gauge Sterlingworths, digested lots of them from 1923 until 1962 or 63 when 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge loads disappear from both Olin (Winchester & Western) and DuPont (Remington and Peters) ammo catalogues. About 1931 Remington brought out their autoloading guns, the Model 11 and "The Sportsman" in 16-gauge chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells. Remington upped the load in the 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge hull to 3 1/4 drams equiv. of progressive burning powder still pushing 1 1/8 ounces of shot, and called the load the Auto-Express.
Around 1955 the ammo companies brought out the 2 3/4 inch "magnum" shot shells with shot loads of 1 1/2 ounces in 12-gauge, 1 1/4 ounces in 16-gauge and 1 1/8 ounces in 20-gauge. Much to the discomfort of their stock's thin wrists, I imagine quite a few Sterlingworths digested a fair number of these loads too.
It seems to me nobody even began thinking about the chamber lengths in these old doubles until the late 1980s, and the guns were getting fed pretty much anything the North American nimrod could get in the chambers. I've even known folks to ream out chambers of Fox 20-gauges to 3-inches and shoot those Jack O'Connor/Francis E. Sell ballistic misfits in them!
Now that I've rambled on, what was the question?
When the Super-X 16-gauge load of 1 1/8 ounce of shot over 3 drams equiv. of progressive burning powder came out in 1923 it was put up in the standard of that time 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge case. Remington with their Nitro Express, as well as Peters and U.S. followed the same path. I'm sure that most 16-gauge guns of the day, including most 16-gauge Sterlingworths, digested lots of them from 1923 until 1962 or 63 when 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge loads disappear from both Olin (Winchester & Western) and DuPont (Remington and Peters) ammo catalogues. About 1931 Remington brought out their autoloading guns, the Model 11 and "The Sportsman" in 16-gauge chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells. Remington upped the load in the 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge hull to 3 1/4 drams equiv. of progressive burning powder still pushing 1 1/8 ounces of shot, and called the load the Auto-Express.
Around 1955 the ammo companies brought out the 2 3/4 inch "magnum" shot shells with shot loads of 1 1/2 ounces in 12-gauge, 1 1/4 ounces in 16-gauge and 1 1/8 ounces in 20-gauge. Much to the discomfort of their stock's thin wrists, I imagine quite a few Sterlingworths digested a fair number of these loads too.
It seems to me nobody even began thinking about the chamber lengths in these old doubles until the late 1980s, and the guns were getting fed pretty much anything the North American nimrod could get in the chambers. I've even known folks to ream out chambers of Fox 20-gauges to 3-inches and shoot those Jack O'Connor/Francis E. Sell ballistic misfits in them!
Now that I've rambled on, what was the question?
Share the knowledge
-
Silvers
- Posts: 4760
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:28 pm
- Location: Between Phila and Utica
- Has thanked: 827 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Dave's replies are very comprehensive. RST's excellent line of short length, low pressure shells is a quick fix for those who don't want the hassle of reloading. I've used them exclusively in 16 and 20 gauge and can say without qualification that the 7/8 ounce 16 gauge load is a winner for clays and appropriate game shooting. They are available in plastics and paper hulls for traditionalists. Likewise with non-tox shot for waterfowling or where required otherwise Silvers
http://www.rstshells.com/
http://www.rstshells.com/
extending the forcing cons vs lengthening the chamber
Whats the difference between extending the forcing cone and lengthening the chamber? Is the forcing cone extended by drawing out its taper? I had not thought of what either would do to the patterning (SP?) on the gun, but wouldn't any modification to the chamber or the forcing cone have an impact on the form of the shot string or how the gun patterns? Am I wrong to assume that I could still fire 2.75" shells so long as I use one once loads, but in any event wouldn't the longer shell still cause problems with the shot flowing into the forcing cone?
-Chris
-Chris
Chris,
Lengthening the cones gives them a longer taper while the end of the chamber stays in the same place. The gentler taper makes life easier on the shot and gives the crimp more room to straighten out. This means the shot suffers less deformation and the barrel should pattern better. Long tapers in choke cones do the same sort of thing.
The history of the mini-mag 16 loads is very interesting. I always wondered why is was easier to buy 1 1/4oz 16 loads than what the gun was built to shoot. I firmly believe that these hyper 16g shells created the "shoots like a 20 and kicks like a 12" reputation the gauge had. Now I know where those loads came from. Thankyou, Researcher.
I shoot the 2 3/4" 1 oz low velocity Rem promo loads for phesants and reload the hulls with 7/8 oz for targets and lesser birds. Works well for me.
I agree that RST makes some really nice 16's. They are well made, low pressure and have a good rep. As long as you are willing to settle for what they load, their shells will work well for you.
Cheers, DoubleGun
Lengthening the cones gives them a longer taper while the end of the chamber stays in the same place. The gentler taper makes life easier on the shot and gives the crimp more room to straighten out. This means the shot suffers less deformation and the barrel should pattern better. Long tapers in choke cones do the same sort of thing.
The history of the mini-mag 16 loads is very interesting. I always wondered why is was easier to buy 1 1/4oz 16 loads than what the gun was built to shoot. I firmly believe that these hyper 16g shells created the "shoots like a 20 and kicks like a 12" reputation the gauge had. Now I know where those loads came from. Thankyou, Researcher.
I shoot the 2 3/4" 1 oz low velocity Rem promo loads for phesants and reload the hulls with 7/8 oz for targets and lesser birds. Works well for me.
I agree that RST makes some really nice 16's. They are well made, low pressure and have a good rep. As long as you are willing to settle for what they load, their shells will work well for you.
Cheers, DoubleGun
DoubleGun Cases
I have fired countless standard length shells through both my 20, 16 ans 12 GA Sterlingworth guns, without any adverse effects on the guns. High brass loads are often used for grouse, pheasant, and bandtail pigeons, but most of my shooting involves local doves and quail. For those, low brass federal shells are my choice. All hulls, no matter the manufacturer, eject easily and do not show signs of being fired in a "short" chamber. I have not needed, nor fired, any "magnum" loads in these guns, only standard field loads. What would be the advantage of suddenly switching to the overpriced RST short shells?
What would be the advantage of suddenly switching to the overpriced RST short shells?
Simple answers:
1. Being kinder to the old wood on these guns!
2. Being kinder to the action and keeping the barrels on face.
3. Being kinder to you, with less felt recoil.
IMHO: RST's are priced quite reasonably when compared to gunsmith work. They are a heck of deal if you need to have your action tightened up and the barrels put back on face,or you have to repair or replace a stock.
I just received four flats of RST's in the mail today. I'll pay that little extra for ammunition and be kinder to my guns.
Simple answers:
1. Being kinder to the old wood on these guns!
2. Being kinder to the action and keeping the barrels on face.
3. Being kinder to you, with less felt recoil.
IMHO: RST's are priced quite reasonably when compared to gunsmith work. They are a heck of deal if you need to have your action tightened up and the barrels put back on face,or you have to repair or replace a stock.
I just received four flats of RST's in the mail today. I'll pay that little extra for ammunition and be kinder to my guns.
Life Member A.H. Fox Collectors Association Inc.
I sincerely appreciate your sentiments FRBRIT, but my old Philly Foxes still shut like a bank vault and have nice, uncracked wood. These are not collector grade guns, merely old field grade Sterlingworths that are well cared for and used as intended. I have other shotguns to hunt waterfowl, but prefer the old doubles for upland work. I might consider the RST ammo, if it can be located nearby. Live ammunition cannot be shipped to this area, the County has an ordinance forbidding it.