Fox Collectors

Bought these today at a local auction. If we ever wondered what kind of pounding our short chambered Foxes took in the day take a look at these. 3.5 drams, 1 1/4 oz. 4 Boxes were papers and one plastic. Guessing from the 50's, but don't know for sure. Wonder what the pressures were?

The 2 3/4-inch Magnum loads in 12-, 16- and 20-gauge appeared in all four brands December 1954 price lists -- Western. Winchester, Remington & Peters. The 12-gauge 2 3/4-inch Magnums may have been introduced a bit earlier as the Olin cover letter with this poster is dated October 1954 -
Interesting that these loads are a "conservation measure."

Wonder how many 16-gauge Ansley H. Fox doubles have cracked stocks from the likes of those shells Tom pictures!!

Researcher wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:35 pm The 2 3/4-inch Magnum loads in 12-, 16- and 20-gauge appeared in all four brands December 1954 price lists -- Western. Winchester, Remington & Peters. The 12-gauge 2 3/4-inch Magnums may have been introduced a bit earlier as the Olin cover letter with this poster is dated October 1954 -

Poster 2 3-4-inch Magnum front.jpg

Poster 2 3-4-inch Magnum inside.jpg

Interesting that these loads are a "conservation measure."

Wonder how many 16-gauge Ansley H. Fox doubles have cracked stocks from the likes of those shells Tom pictures!!

Have a friend who bought a pretty beat up 16 Gauge CE with a Kautsky single trigger from a dealer in California. Gun has 30" barrels. It was literally beat to death. Off face with both ribs sprung. I surmised it was a duck gun pounded with heavy heavy loads (like these). Fortunately the barrels themselves were in good shape. Once he gets it totally restored, I'll see if I can get his approval to post some pictures. Its currently at G&H.

The shells Tom pictured will indeed produce heavier recoil but not because of their firing pressure.

All too often fellas incorrectly equate high pressure with heavy recoil. We see it all the time when guys post about looking for "low pressure" shells when in fact they want low recoil shells. Recoil is mainly a function of the mass (weight) of the shot charge and the muzzle velocity of said shot charge. 1/2 mass x velocity^2. Now, depending on the powder and other components that velocity can usually be attained with a range of pressures, lower to higher. Hence high pressure within the SAAMI limit for that cartridge is an insignificant factor as regard recoil.

Regarding that CE/16 that's off the face and with loose barrel ribs, I'd have to see and learn more about the gun before opining that was caused by shooting a steady diet of higher recoil shells.

frank

Silvers wrote: ↑Sun Oct 23, 2022 7:50 am The shells Tom pictured will indeed produce heavier recoil but not because of the firing pressure.

All to often fellas incorrectly equate high pressure with heavy recoil. We see it all the time when guys post about looking for "low pressure" shells when in fact they want low recoil shells. Recoil is primarily a function of the mass (weight) of the shot charge and the muzzle velocity of said shot charge. 1/2 mass x velocity^2. Now, depending on the powder and other components that velocity can usually be attained with a range of pressures, lower to higher. Hence high pressure within the SAAMI limit for that cartridge is an insignificant factor as regard recoil.

Regarding that CE/16 that's off the face and with loose barrel ribs, I'd have to see and learn more about the gun before opining that was caused by shooting a steady diet of higher recoil shells.

frank

No idea Frank. I saw the gun and the bottom and top rib were loose at the muzzle. I mean grab the end of the top and bottom ribs and move them up/down. The gun was so off face that when the forearm was off the barrels wobbled from side to side and the lever was very much to the left. Gun was very loose even with the forearm on. Dan Rossiter said he was one of the worst condition guns he had ever seen at the time. Still, the engraving was pretty good and the barrels had plenty of wall thickness and still had short chambers. The gun had sold at auction and been returned to the seller as it didn't pass the 3 day inspection. Wonder to this day if another member bought it and returned it.

I think the fellow is going to have well over 10K into the restoration, not counting the price of the gun itself. He went the whole enchilada as they say. New killer piece of Turkish, recut engraving, Turnbull colors etc etc. He doesn't sell any of his Foxes and he has quite a few including 3 CSMC guns. One of these days when he is gone there will be one nice auction somewhere. He's got 3 or 4 bird dogs and shoots a lotta clays as well.

I have an 1904 Ithaca Lewis with a two barrel set, 28" & 32"; both barrel rib extensions ripped loose. Now expertly repaired. One can only surmise that these "magnum" duck and goose loads to be responsible.

Tom, those shells would be perfect for my #3 frame Parker 16. Nine pounds to soak up the recoil.

csthraen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:27 pm I have an 1904 Ithaca Lewis with a two barrel set, 28" & 32"; both barrel rib extensions ripped loose. Now expertly repaired. One can only surmise that these "magnum" duck and goose loads to be responsible.

how are the rib extensions affixed in manufacture,was repair same process,thanks Fred

Ithaca used a one piece rib with locking extension when introduced with the Crass and Lewis styles. Entire rib including the frame extension soft soldered and not hard or brazed as a separate piece as was the practice with other makers.
When ripped loose, expert repair short of a complete stripping and relaying is possible when completed by a competent gunsmith with experience.

thanks for the reply Csthraen,sounds desireable to have integral locking extension,also nice looking barrel,regards Fred