| Author |
Message |
| < 16ga. Guns ~ Flues 16 |
|
 Posted:
Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:11 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 741
Location: Long Island, NY
|
|
Mr. Larry Brown.
Since you have some knowlege of the german guns, where do they stand, pressure wize? I know the Suhl proof house was/is the toughest of all proof houses on that side of the pond. Can I shoot traditional 1 1/8 oz (hi-brass) loads through my 6 1/2 lb. 16 ga. 1927 Sauer? The barrel flats are stamped Nitro.
P.S. When I had my motor home I kept only 3 books on board. Your "From a Pheasant Hunters Notebook" was flanked by Jim Fergus's "A Hunters Road" and George Bird Evans "The Upland Shooting Life". Anyone who I mention in the same sentence as George Evans should consider himself complimented. |
_________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ... Dr. Seuss
"There aint nothin' better than huntin' with a Setter" |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:06 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Oregon
|
|
| Larry Brown wrote: |
|
There's a definite difference between a Flues and a Savage Sterlingworth. The Flues guns were designed before the transition to "modern" shotshells, the first of which was the Super-X in the 20's. Some of them are very light, some not so light--but they were from an era when shells developed lower pressures. By the time Savage bought out Fox (1930), modern shotshells had been around a few years. Savage made some minor design changes to the Foxes they made, and they have performed well over the years with modern loads--although they're pretty light (16's built on 20ga frames, many of them with very light barrels), and if you're not used to a light gun, typical factory 1 oz loads can be a bit stiff.
|
Larry, are sure about the Fox's that Savage built? I posed this same question on the Doublegun BB a couple of years ago to cover all Fox's in general after 2 3/4" shells were first introduced and Researcher said there were no changes. In fact isn't it true that Savage routinely lengthened the chambers on any Fox gun that came back for repairs to 2 3/4"? If that was the case, that implies to me that Savage thought the older Philly guns with short chambers tough enough for modern 2 3/4" shells.
Larry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:43 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Bozeman, MT
|
|
| Prussian Gun Guy wrote: |
|
Duncan... you're a kid in a candy store. You remind me of someone... oh, me.
|
PGG, I resemble that remark!  |
_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans"....... anonymous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:47 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Bozeman, MT
|
|
| Larry Brown wrote: |
|
There's a definite difference between a Flues and a Savage Sterlingworth. The Flues guns were designed before the transition to "modern" shotshells, the first of which was the Super-X in the 20's. Some of them are very light, some not so light--but they were from an era when shells developed lower pressures. By the time Savage bought out Fox (1930), modern shotshells had been around a few years. Savage made some minor design changes to the Foxes they made, and they have performed well over the years with modern loads--although they're pretty light (16's built on 20ga frames, many of them with very light barrels), and if you're not used to a light gun, typical factory 1 oz loads can be a bit stiff.
|
Larry, it came, it's great, needs a little work (see the post on "guns for sale" about the 1930 Fox Sterlingworth by jig )....now.....how can I get a copy of your bok?? |
_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans"....... anonymous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:43 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 124
Location: Kansas City
|
|
| When I see all those pictures of blow Fox barrel it gets me to wondering can we blame them all on base wads or after 70 years of use are those barrels getting weaker. When I was down at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia in 87 I got into a discussion, with a range instructor about barrel obstructions. I was surprised by what he told me, to test the results of barrel obstruction or maybe boredom they had obstructed the barrel of a old beater 870 with a variety of different materials including mud. The result upon firing whatever was in the barrel just went down range with the shot with no apparent damage to the gun. It probably helped that the 870 was cly. choked but I think the strength of modern steal helped a lot. I know the Fox's had stronger frames then the Flues but I'm not so sure about the barrels. Also when these guns were built did anybody dream people would still be shooting them 80 years later. I'll stick to low pressure loads in any old gun if for no other reason then extending their life and fewer repairs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:05 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Bozeman, MT
|
|
I am heeding these warnings and reservations, and plan to "ease in" to any real hot load shooting in this Sterlingworth, even though I've measured the wall thicknesses and they are oink oink piggy thick, the stock is very straightgrained and strudy, and the gun locks up as tight now as it did in 1930! I know this ain't no Model 21, but it sure is a hardy specimen, I know that the boys were shooting the same loads thru these Fox guns as they were their 21's, and I am optimistic about it's abilities to handle the occasional "high brass" cartridge. To the best of my abilities, this gun has been carried some, but actually shot little......I value the gun, but moreover, my eyesight and fingers!! All your words of caustion have been duly noted, highly respected, and deeply appreciated......
Duncan |
_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans"....... anonymous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:27 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743
|
|
| IFL16's wrote: |
| Larry Brown wrote: |
|
There's a definite difference between a Flues and a Savage Sterlingworth. The Flues guns were designed before the transition to "modern" shotshells, the first of which was the Super-X in the 20's. Some of them are very light, some not so light--but they were from an era when shells developed lower pressures. By the time Savage bought out Fox (1930), modern shotshells had been around a few years. Savage made some minor design changes to the Foxes they made, and they have performed well over the years with modern loads--although they're pretty light (16's built on 20ga frames, many of them with very light barrels), and if you're not used to a light gun, typical factory 1 oz loads can be a bit stiff.
|
Larry, are sure about the Fox's that Savage built? I posed this same question on the Doublegun BB a couple of years ago to cover all Fox's in general after 2 3/4" shells were first introduced and Researcher said there were no changes. In fact isn't it true that Savage routinely lengthened the chambers on any Fox gun that came back for repairs to 2 3/4"? If that was the case, that implies to me that Savage thought the older Philly guns with short chambers tough enough for modern 2 3/4" shells.
Larry
|
It's true that Savage SOP was to lengthen the chambers to 2 3/4" on any Fox, Philly or Savage, sent to them for work. Not sure that always happened, but that's the claim, in McIntosh's book, and it seems to be fairly well documented. But there were indeed changes to the Savage-era guns. Savage used a radically different forend design, to pick the most obvious change. And they also added a bunch of different models to the Fox line (and, I think, got rid of a couple). They didn't do anything really radical, like Ithaca did in dropping the Flues and replacing it with the NID. And based on everything I've read, I'd have to say that I haven't heard of any Foxes with cracked frames, like with Flues guns, even if they were Philly guns with lengthened chambers. But the Philly guns tended to be lighter--if for no other reason than the extra weight in the forend on the Savage guns--so I expect you'd notice recoil more. I think some of them also had stocks with more drop than the Savage guns, which again causes you to feel more recoil. But the Fox was a great design--lightest of them all, on average, yet quite rugged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:47 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 743
|
|
| britgun wrote: |
Larry, it came, it's great, needs a little work (see the post on "guns for sale" about the 1930 Fox Sterlingworth by jig )....now.....how can I get a copy of your bok??
|
Duncan, looking to hear more about your SW. email me at miclarry@netins.net and I'll tell you how to get a copy of my book. (I don't like to advertise on other people's websites!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:08 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Bozeman, MT
|
|
| Larry Brown wrote: |
| britgun wrote: |
Larry, it came, it's great, needs a little work (see the post on "guns for sale" about the 1930 Fox Sterlingworth by jig )....now.....how can I get a copy of your bok??
|
Duncan, looking to hear more about your SW. email me at miclarry@netins.net and I'll tell you how to get a copy of my book. (I don't like to advertise on other people's websites!)
|
the forend is quite trim on mine, snap on job, maybe it's the earlier style, as it was the first year of Savage production.... |
_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're making other plans"....... anonymous |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:56 am
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 20
Location: South Carolina
|
|
| I am not sure if this is not little off the post focus but I would like to know. What are your options if you notice hairline crack on frame of your Flues. Is it dead, done for or there is something that could be done with it to fix it? I have such gun. This crack could being there since case hardening of new frame and never noticed. Gun was shot a lot without any ill effect. But after becoming aware of it I am not sure I would be confident to shot it again. I have spare receiver that will need some fitting in order to work as replacement. Did anyone ever atempted to weld these cracks with any success? Thanks in advance for reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
