Barrel weights
- Fin2Feather
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:15 am
- Location: Kansas High Plains
- Has thanked: 233 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
-
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 1798 times
IMHO there is something amiss in those barrel weight charts in McIntosh's book. Note that the 1 weight 16-gauge barrels weigh more then the 1 weight 12-gauge barrels, and the 0-weight (?!?) 20-gauge barrels weigh the same as the 12-gauge 1-weight barrels. Also, the 2-weights for 12- and 16-gauge are the same.
Share the knowledge
- Fin2Feather
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:15 am
- Location: Kansas High Plains
- Has thanked: 233 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
-
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 1798 times
1-weight were the heaviest barrels down to 4-weight as the lightest. There were also 0-weight barrels for the 12-gauge Super-Fox, and for some reason the 20-gauge chart had 0-weight instead of 1-weight?!? Maybe these were weights for a pair of rough tubes, not even assembled into a set of barrels.
Share the knowledge
- Silvers
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:28 pm
- Location: Between Phila and Utica
- Has thanked: 968 times
- Been thanked: 1397 times
Interesting topic. I have 5 Foxes with weight stamped barrels in my records, and all 5 checked out within an ounce of the weights shown in Mac's Fox book. However all 5 were 12 gauge guns. From that admittedly limited database I've concluded the weights shown in the book for 12 gauge are for finished barrels, not for rough tubes. Silvers
Aan
Interesting. I will have to check mine against the book weights. I don't have the book here but I thought it said that the weights were rough barrels.
Darn wrong again
Darn wrong again

"I have more than I need, but not as many as I want"
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
- Silvers
- Posts: 4933
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:28 pm
- Location: Between Phila and Utica
- Has thanked: 968 times
- Been thanked: 1397 times
Here you go. 12 gauge graded gun, 3-weight barrels, 28 inch, 1927 mfr. The chart in MacIntosh's book lists 3 lbs, 8 ounces. My scale shows 3 lbs. 7 ounces. Sure, the scale isn't scientific quality but I've used it for postal weighing and it compares well with the digital one at the post office.
As I said earlier, I don't have enough data on smallbore Fox barrels but the 12 gauge ones I've checked seem to align, within +/- one ounce, with the chart weights in Mac's book. I've concluded the chart for 12 gauge at least, shows the weight of finished barrels.
Think about it, what good would the chart/weights be for rough barrels? Used in manufacturing to be sure the correct barrel blanks were taken from the bin? Maybe. But IMO a chart with weights would be more likely used by salesmen and customers wanting to order their finished gun ready for the field. Silvers

As I said earlier, I don't have enough data on smallbore Fox barrels but the 12 gauge ones I've checked seem to align, within +/- one ounce, with the chart weights in Mac's book. I've concluded the chart for 12 gauge at least, shows the weight of finished barrels.
Think about it, what good would the chart/weights be for rough barrels? Used in manufacturing to be sure the correct barrel blanks were taken from the bin? Maybe. But IMO a chart with weights would be more likely used by salesmen and customers wanting to order their finished gun ready for the field. Silvers


Silvers,
Just a little food for thought.
The weight's listed may still be for rough blanks. After striking the ejector rod would be fitted, the cocking shoe it's spring and screw would be added and possibly the beads and forearm loop added to bring the weight back to that before they were struck.
Just thinking out loud!
Just a little food for thought.
The weight's listed may still be for rough blanks. After striking the ejector rod would be fitted, the cocking shoe it's spring and screw would be added and possibly the beads and forearm loop added to bring the weight back to that before they were struck.
Just thinking out loud!
Life Member A.H. Fox Collectors Association Inc.
After checking, my 12 ga #4 30" barrels are right on, per the chart.
My 16 ga 28" #3 are 5 ounces lighter than the chart. My 16ga 30" #2's are 4 ounces lighter than the chart.
These are all Philly un cut guns.
Possibly it does have something to do with how much metal was removed in finishing. The 16's do have a relief area ground out near the water table for frame clearance.
Another barrel note is it seems that the orientation of the numbers to the plane of the barrels is not consistent.
Some guns have the numbers in line with the barrels and some are perpendicular to the length.
My 16 ga 28" #3 are 5 ounces lighter than the chart. My 16ga 30" #2's are 4 ounces lighter than the chart.
These are all Philly un cut guns.
Possibly it does have something to do with how much metal was removed in finishing. The 16's do have a relief area ground out near the water table for frame clearance.
Another barrel note is it seems that the orientation of the numbers to the plane of the barrels is not consistent.
Some guns have the numbers in line with the barrels and some are perpendicular to the length.
"I have more than I need, but not as many as I want"
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
"The search continues on many fronts"
Life Member, A.H. Fox Collectors Association.
-
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 1798 times
-
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 1798 times
-
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:18 pm
- Location: WA/AK
- Has thanked: 353 times
- Been thanked: 1798 times