Fox Collectors

I have a current topic about an old Sterlingworth I just bought. Most guys are siding on caution using 2 3/4" ammo and I accept that so was there a vintage of the later Fox 16 ga that allowed 2 3/4" shells. I mean prior to the Savage Fox/Stevens guns.

Someone smarter then me will chime in I'm sure. I think by the mid 1930's all 16 gauge Foxes were chambered for 2 3/4".

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. I haven't searched the graded gun records for 16-gauge guns ordered for 2 3/4 inch shells, but there were eight or nine ordered chambered for 3-inch shells and a grand total of one ordered chambered for 2 7/8 inch shells ( see April 2012 Card of the Month). 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.

16-Gauge History lesson --

From the late 1890s until after WW-I, the heaviest 16-gauge loads our North American ammunition companies offered were 2 3/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 22 grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite, pushing 1 ounce of shot. Those loads could be had in the "standard" 2 9/16 inch case or any of the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 or 3-inch cases. In late 1922 or early 1923, Western Cartridge Co. added the 16-gauge to their progressive burning powder, high velocity loads called Super-X, but unlike the 1 1/4 ounce 12-gauge and 1 ounce 20-gauge Super-X loads which were put up in Western's 2 3/4 inch FIELD shells, the 1 1/8 ounce 16-gauge Super-X load was put up in their 2 9/16 inch FIELD shell. When the Lubaloy shot Super-X loads were introduced in July 1929, they were put up in Western's high brass RECORD shell, but the 16-gauge still in a 2 9/16 inch length case.

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 --
I'm thin on Winchester ammo catalogues, but for sure by 1934, they were offering a similar 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge load.

The 2 3/4 inch Magnum shells with 1 1/2 ounce in 12-gauge, 1 1/4 ounce in 16-gauge and 1 1/8 ounce in 20-gauge first appear in the December 15, 1954, Western Cartridge Co. catalogues.

Western Cartridge Co. added a 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge to their Super-X offerings for 1938. From 1938 through 1942 they called this 16-gauge 2 3/4 inch Super-X shell "Magnum", even though it was still a 1 1/8 ounce payload. By Western Cartridge Co.'s March 7, 1946, catalogue the term "Magnum" was gone from this 2 3/4 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell. In Western's January 2, 1947, catalogue, the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell was gone from both the chilled shot and the Lubaloy offerings, and their only 2 9/16 inch shells being offered were Xpert. This may have been an oversight, as the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X shell with chilled shot is back in Western Cartridge Co.'s April 8, 1948, catalogue and price list, and the 2 9/16 inch 16-gauge Super-X loads remained until their last appearance on Western Cartridge Co.'s January 2, 1962, catalogue and price lists, where it is "available until stocks depleted." By Western Cartridge Co.’s January 2, 1963, catalogue and price lists the new Mark 5 was introduced and all the 16-gauge Super-X offerings are 2 3/4 inch. By the January 2, 1964, Western Cartridge Co. catalogue and price list the 16-gauge 2 9/16 inch Xpert shell is gone as well.

As always, great write-up Researcher.

Thanks for the history lesson or as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of The Story". Like I said, I understand why advice on 2 3/4 shells for this gun has to be given on the caution side. However, here is the deal. I am 74, with another 10 shotguns to use so I will be lucky to shoot 3 boxes of shells through this gun in a year and this is only because I like to hunt doves with a 16. So, what could happen if I do that with 2 3/4" shells. Does the gun break and/or am I in danger?
I know someone will say with only 3 boxes, just buy some RST ammo. I happen to have a bunch of 16ga. ammo(more than I will ever need) from a friend who sold me all he had for $2 a box so I would like to use this ammo.
Si

The cost to fix the gun is circa $400 and that wouldn't include extending the chambers if the smith involved concluded they could be safely extended. Bottom line is I personally wouldn't shoot it if its off face currently and I certainly wouldn't shoot it with shells that weren't intended to be used with the gun.

PS. If you are a paid member of the Fox Collectors forum you can sell it here in the "member's only" forum.

Hi Guys my 16 gauge AE grade . Serial number 300581 Shipped on 04/08/1915 to the U.S. Cartridge company was chambered from the factory with 2 3/4 inch shells , as per the card look-up and a factory letter .

So, why would my 1920 Sterlingworth 16 be any different structure-wise other than my chambers are shorter?

whisperbow wrote:So, why would my 1920 Sterlingworth 16 be any different structure-wise other than my chambers are shorter?

The A grade had the option of 2 3/4" chambers and could be was special ordered that way. The Sterlingworth was a stock gun and as such the chambers were short until all of them were switched to 2 3/4" chambers per Researcher in the late 1930's.

So if all early Fox guns are the same internally then why can't I have the chambers lengthened in my Sterlingworth and shoot 2-3/4" shells assuming there is adequate thickness to do the reaming?

whisperbow wrote:So if all early Fox guns are the same internally then why can't I have the chambers lengthened in my Sterlingworth and shoot 2-3/4" shells assuming there is adequate thickness to do the reaming?

There is no reason IMO if you are talking about having a shooter and not a collector grade gun. Long as you have adequate thickness in front the the chamber you should be fine. This isn't really any different then what Fox did when gun were sent back for service in the late 1930's. They extended the chambers if it was safe to do so and if it wasn't safe they provided the option of rebarreling the gun at a discount.

PS. Should consider becoming a paying member if you aren't already. All of this has been discussed in forums you don't have access to.