New member with a Fox Sterlingworth

[pepperbelly]

I came across an old shotgun while pawn shop crawling. It's a Fox Sterlingworth 12ga with 28" barrels.
It has some wear but locks up tight. When I put it to my shoulder it just fits- much better than my Remington 1100 or any of the o/u shotguns I have tried. I can close my eyes, mount it, and when I open my eyes I have a perfect sight picture.
If I looked it up correctly it was made in 1915.
I like the idea of taking a shotgun hunting that is 100 years old.
If I looked things up correctly this is a "Field" model since it has 28" barrels, so it has full/modified chokes. Will the full choke be the left barrel?

Are there any markings I should look for to tell me, and y'all, more about it? I love learning about old firearms almost as much as shooting them.

For $329.00 I couldn't leave it there. It feels like it was made for me.
I will take pics this weekend.

How did I do?

[vaturkey]

If its in any kind of condition at all you did real well for sure. Normally that model would have full and mod chokes, with full being the left barrel (back trigger). Assuming the chambers haven't been opened up you should shoot lite loads with low pressure. A particular load that can normally found at lots of places is the Winchester Super-Target Xtra-Lite target load which is loaded to moderate velocities and with a light payload (1 oz). The best load to stick out of that gun IMO is RST or Polywad Vitagers, which are loaded lite and they are also loaded in 2 1/2" as well.

This is far from scientific, but if a dime won't go into the ends of the barrels then quite often the gun is full choked.

PS. Go back to the information on this website. Quite a bit of info on Sterlingworths posted.

[Mike of the Mountain]

I'd shoot pretty much any 2 3/4 dram or less, 1 oz loads in that gun. I really like, besides RST shells, the Fiocchi Shooting Dynamics @ 1175 fps. Same for the Rio @ 1200-1250. All shoot soft and will crush targets and kill birds quick/clean. Congrats on your "new" Fox!! You stole that gun for $329!!

[Researcher]

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 chronology available various places on the internet, which was originally put out in 1976 by Lightner Library.

For 16-gauge Fox-Sterlingworths they are showing production of 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 20 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.

Like the 12-gauges, there is a gap in the observed 20-gauge Sterlingworth serial numbers from guns in the mid-266xxx serial number range, observed specimens jump to the 270xxx range. A gap in serial numbers of about 3500 guns.

Congrats on a good buy on your Sterlingworth. How about posting some pictures.

[pepperbelly]

I will take some pictures sometime this weekend.
I took it to a local gunsmith who has chamber gauges- it is short chambered so I either find some 2 1/2" shells or have the chambers lengthened. I am not really wanting to alter the chambers.
Someone said I could try light 2 3/4" loads. If that won't cause damage I may do that until I find the 2 1/2" shells. I really want to take it out to shoot.

Them serial number is 77133. The info I found showed that in a block of numbers made in 1915. If this is truly collectible I may pay for the letter from Fox.

It has little to no case hardening left on the receiver, but has at least 90% of the bluing on the barrels. The stock has a few small dings, but no other damage.
Someone had installed a Pachmeyer recoil pad. I may change that- it just doesn't look right.

[Researcher]

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. From the 1914 A.H. Fox Gun Co. catalogue --



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 by A.P. Curtis in The American Rifleman (July 1936 and March 1938) on the virtue of short chambers. A series by Sherman Bell in The Double Gun Journal showed 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.

[pepperbelly]

I guess I may as well try shooting it with my regular 2 3/4" dove loads and see what happens.
What problems can a short chamber cause? Does the restriction make the wad hang up when exiting the hull? If so will that just make the shot charge slower, scatter more, or anything at all?

From that article/catalog it sounds as if Fox intended this to be used with 2 3/4" shells and intentionally left the chamber 1/8" short. It is an interesting subject.

Is there any reason to not use modern shells? I will probably never use buckshot, and usually only shoot dove loads. Would high brass heavy dove loads risk anything? If so I can shoot lower speed loads.

[pepperbelly]

Is there any reason to restrict how much I shoot it? I won't be using it to shoot sporting clays in a league, but would an occasional 100 round session risk damaging it? These sounds like they were very well made, and it's hard to believe they were using soft steel in firearms even 100 years ago.
I would really like to keep this in good condition and pass it down to my kids so they can continue to enjoy it.

[vaturkey]

IMO try to shoot 1 oz loads with less then 1200 FPS velocity. The wood itself on that gun is 100 years old and no doubt its got some oil soaking in the head of the stock.

[pepperbelly]

A quick look at shotshells show most regular dove loads that are 1oz as being 1290fps. I usually shoot 7 1/2 shot size.

If I stick with low brass, try to use 1oz loads, and avoid heavy dove loads, should that work?

[Researcher]

No one can tell you over the internet what ammunition may or may not be safe in a given gun. That requires hands on by a qualified double gun smith with the proper tools to measure bores, chokes and barrel wall thickness. That said these guns were made with good quality Fluid Steel barrels which was some of the very best available in those days and is still good today for lead loads. Around 1915 when your gun was made, our North American ammunition manufacturers offered a staggering variety of smokeless powder 12-gauge shells from as lite as 2 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 20 grains of dense smokeless powder (such as Infallible or Ballistite) pushing 1 ounce of shot up to 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 28-grains of dense smokeless powder (such as Infallible or Ballistite) pushing 1 1/4 ounce of shot. Also, 12-gauge paper shells were offered in 2 5/8, 2 3/4, 2 7/8, and 3 inch lengths. Generally only 1 and 1 1/8 ounce loads were offered in the 2 5/8 inch shells, but the heaviest loads offered were regularly put up in 2 3/4 inch shells. The longer shells offered more and better wadding which many serious trap and Pigeon shooters considered beneficial.







According to a couple of DuPont smokeless shotgun powder booklets in my collection these old heaviest loads were pretty hot the 3 1/2 drams 1 1/4 ounce going 11,700 pounds and the 28-grains of Ballistite going 12,600 pounds!! Over today's SAAMI specs!! "Modern" progressive burning smokeless powders, introduced in the early 1920s, Western Cartridge Co.'s Super-X loads leading the way, could move that 1 1/4 ounce 12-gauge shot charge out at a considerably higher velocity and considerably lower pressure than the old bulk or dense smokeless powders.



While for high volume shooting like clay targets or Doves, I stick to lighter handloads, my 12-gauge loads being 7/8 ounce at 1200 fps and 6300 psi. On the other hand, when hunting Pheasants with my old 12-gauge A-Grade of 1914 vintage, with 2 5/8 inch chambers, I normally carry a 3 dram equiv. 1 1/8 ounce #7 1/2 Federal paper in the right (improved cylinder) barrel and a 3 3/4 dram equiv. 1 1/4 ounce #6 Super-X/Nitro Express in the left (improved modified) barrel. On needs to use some common sense. I certainly wouldn't use those Super-X/Nitro Express in my extremely light 1906 vintage C-Grade which weighs only 6 pounds 5 ounces.

[pepperbelly]

I took it to the range today to, err, function check it. I really just wanted to shoot my new gun. I used some 2 3/4" 1oz loads dad had loaded years ago to shoot sporting clays.
I set a makeshift pattern board up at 25 yards- I wasn't actually checking the pattern but rather making sure it went bang. I used some old NRA targets used in our CMP/Garand matches. They have a good size black bullseye. I held the bead in the middle of the black. The left/full choke barrel kept almost all pellets in the black. The right/,modified(?) barrel kept almost all pellets withing the 7 ring. Both groups were centered perfectly. I just fired 2 rounds through each barrel.
I will pattern it better at 40 yards sometime later, but this is very encouraging.
The action opened easily and the shells came out easily.

I like it!

[pepperbelly]

Just a couple of pics until I can take better ones.

[eightbore]

Federal Top Guns are available in 1200 fps loads, both 7/8 ounce and 1 ounce. Remington Gun Club loads are available in 1200 fps 1 ounce. The 1290 loads are a little more than you want to shoot.

[pepperbelly]

Were these made with mild steel? Everyone says to only use soft target liads.
The reason I ask if that I used to collect and shoot old milsurp rifles. My favorites were old Swedish M96 Mausers. Some of those were older than this shotgun and were safe as long as the headspace was still good.
I don't want to use high brass heavy loads in this but why only light target liads? It seems to be a well made strong firearm. If it was made with mild steel or not properly heat treated like some early '03 Springfield rifles it would make sense.