Sterlingworth barrel weight?

JRAnderson · Post by **JRAnderson** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:35 pm

I purchased a 16 GA Philly Sterlingworth for a custom project. It has 28" barrels and 361XXX serial #. I was wondering what barrels were available. Having heard talk of 3, 4 weight barrels, there's no numbers on the bottom of the barrels. Is there any way to tell what weight # these are?
Thanks

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:30 am

You can weigh them and compare with the chart in MacIntosh's book; I'd post the weights but I'm at work - maybe someone has the chart handy. The listed weights are before barrel striking, but mine have been quite close to the weights shown in the book.

JRAnderson · Post by **JRAnderson** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:44 pm

The barrels without forend weigh 3# and the complete gun weight is 6.2#

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:49 am

Forgot to look at the book last night! I believe that would make them #4 barrels; my 28" 16ga barrels weigh 3lbs-1.5oz.

Silvers · Post by **Silvers** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:49 pm

16 gauge SW on the bench now, Utica gun, 28", total 6 lbs. 6 ounces, barrels weigh 3 lbs. 4 ounces. The barrels are not weight stamped.

Personally I think the barrel weight number is somewhat irrelevant. There is often a variation in weight (mass) even when they are stamped with the same number and have the same length. I chalk it up to different bore diameters, O.D. contours, and how aggressive the striking was. Silvers

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:00 pm

From Mac's book:

16 ga, 28" barrels: #1 - 4/1; #2 - 3/12; #3 - 3/6; #4- 3/1

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:51 am

Haunt Fox wrote:where do Fin's 3/1.5 barrels fit in this picture? 4.5 oz struck from # 3 barrels? wow! # 4 barrels done on Friday after noon when lathe man was watching the clock?

Maybe they added a half-ounce to #4's

.

JRAnderson · Post by **JRAnderson** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:02 am

Thanks for the info guys. I also had a Utica 16ga 28" here and it weighed 6.6 as well. The strange part is the balance points of the Utica and Philli guns were similar with different barrel weights. About 3/4" in front of the hinge pin.

eightbore · Post by **eightbore** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:48 pm

This is an easy mystery to solve. Initiate a thread requesting that readers weigh the barrels on marked guns. A nice touch for the first post on the thread would be a copy of McIntosh's chart to compare. Too bad so few collectors own a scale. I own many scales but very few marked guns.

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:32 pm

None of mine are marked; weighed them at work on a Pitney Bowes postage scale which I would assume is pretty accurate. 20ga are 2-11.8, total gun weight a whisker under 6lbs. 16's @ 3-1.5, total gun weight 6-8. 12ga are 3-7.1, total gun weight 7-4. All are Utica Sterlingworths, 28". I'll try to post the chart from the book tonight.

Fin2Feather · Post by **Fin2Feather** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:01 pm

Per Mc's book, barrel weights previous to striking.

12ga:
#1 - 26", 3-14
28", 4-0
30", 4-2
32", 4-4
#2 - 26" 3-10
28", 3-12
30", 3-14
32", 4-0
#3 - 26", 3-6
28", 3-8
30", 3-10
32", 3-12
#4 - 26", 3-2
28"- 3-4
30", 3-6
32", 3-8

16ga:
#1 - 26", 3-15
28", 4-1
30", 4-3
32", 4-5
#2 - 26", 3-10
28", 3-12
30", 3-14
31", 4-0
#3 - 26", 3-4
28", 3-6
30", 3-8
32", 3-10
#4 - 26", 2-15
28", 3-1
30", 3-3
32", 3-5

20ga:
#1 - 26", 3-14
28", 4-0
30", 4-2
31", 4-4
#2 - 26", 3-7
28", 3-9
30", 3-11
32", 3-13
#3 - 26", 3-0
28", 3-2
30", 3-4
32", 3-6
#4 - 26", 2-10
28", 2-12
30", 2-14
32", 3-0

For what it's worth

Silvers · Post by **Silvers** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:11 am

Fin, thanks for posting the information. I'm sure it took some time to put in this format.

I'll weigh in

one more time. Mr. McIntosh states clearly in his Fox book that the charts are extracted from a factory blueprint dated 1912. That is a good snapshot at that point in time, but things change. Anyone familiar with the manufacturing of machinery - guns included - knows the parts for same are all shown in detail on individual mechanical drawings/blueprints that have a part number and date. The normal convention is to use a suffix "-1" for the first issue of the part, and ANY changes due to improvements, material changes, cost cutting or whatever, are then dated and indicated with the next numerical suffix: -2, -3, etc. For example, the first time a print for rough barrel machining dimensions was issued it might be named print #12345-1, and the 4th time anything was changed after that it would be shown #12345-5. I have seen prints for parts that have suffix 60's while in one role I held during my career. Nope, not in the gun business but nonetheless in a manufacturing operation. Anyway, back to the factory blueprint dated 1912, who know how many times the individual tube machining prints and thus their weights (mass) were changed from 1912 into the 40's?

Sorry for the diatribe but the 1912 blueprint is only one snapshot in the history of the A H Fox Company.

That's why I personally don't put much emphasis on the weight-stamp number, if any, on the bottom of the barrels. A number and/or comparison with the charts in Mr. McIntosh's book will get you close. But I've measured the bores, O.D's and profiles of too many barrels now and have learned the charts are not exact if you subtract an average allowance for finishing work before bluing.

For me, the bottom line is how the barrels handle and swing for their length. I don't like buggy whips nor crowbars, anything in between is fine for me. Silvers

EDITED to read better

birdawg · Post by **birdawg** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:02 am

I tend to agree with Frank. I think we sometimes tend to get a bit obsessive about these details. Not that the numbers don't have meaning but they are only a general reference point.

When I look at barrel weights. I think #0 I have to have it, #1 good for waterfowl and targets, #2 still doable for targets and waterfowl, #3 nice for uplands, #4 perfect in 28 and 30" tubes for my upland guns.
To me the rest is immaterial.