Fox Collectors

I'm fairly new to Foxes. I sometimes see barrel designations (#3, for example). Is there a list of all the variations and what they mean?

Has to do with the weight of the barrels. There's a chart in MacIntosh's book; if you don't have the book PM me; I've got it somewhere.

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.

Yeah, I've noticed that too. Maybe we could contact Mike and have him give us the scoop?!

Just for example: Are 1's heavier or lighter than 2's?

You should remember those are not finished weights they are just a guide to organize the rough stock barrel blanks.

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

Headrick and I weighed about 40 barrels, when Mike was working on the book, and the only conclusion we could make was that it was for pairs of rough tubes.

The workers at the Fox factory when selecting the pieces to make a gun of a given finished weight.

On drawing number D-204 dated August 26, 1912, that these weight charts were copied from was the following --

note: Allowance for finish is included in given dimensions
Barrels must be marked on under side at point indicated by "A" with our weight number 1,2,3, or 4.