I just acquired another 16 ga. Nitro Special S#1302XX and it weighs #7 lbs. 5 oz! Barrels go 3-3/4Lbs. My other NS in 16 ga. mfd 1940 goes a racy #6-1/2 lbs. Its tubes weigh just #3.0. Can anyone explain such a differential in barrel and gun weight? Both guns have 28" bbls and are choked M&F. Paid $300 for the heavy and thought it a good buy. 90% blue, frame going to patina, original uncracked wood with original varnish. What say, ye experts? Chopper

7 pounds & 5 ounces sounds a trifle light to me. I stay away from the racy guns < 7 pounds. They swing like buggy whips and are too light to do anything but poke & hope scattergunning. It's too bad we've been fed all that stuff about short barrels and light weight for all these years; repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

Chop, my 1923 NS 16ga w/ 28" tubes weighs in at 6-9.

Can it be by the time 1940 rolled around modern higher pressure ammo was available so they beefed up the old girl? I know that late producton Flues were much heavier than the early ones, albeit a different time frame.

Rob, it's the 1940's gun that goes #6 lbs and some ounces. The 1923 gun is the heavy one. Ans, I agree with Cherry Bomb that super light guns are whippy. I don't want a 20 that weighs less than #6-1/2 lbs. Feels just right with 28 tubes and 7/8 oz. field loads. Thanks for your input. I love these old blue-collar Yankee hardware store doubles. They conjure images of Uncle Harry going after rabbits during the great depression of '29.
If the old guns could only tell us the things they've seen and been through! Chops

Different Strokes for Different Folks as they say. A lot has to do with intended purpose. My main use of a shotgun has always been Southern upland game. Of all the guns I ever hunted such game with (read that primarily quail, with a smathering of woodcock, & some rabbit hunting thrown in) the best shooting I ever did was with a 28" bbl'd 12ga weighing in just over 6 3/4lbs. I have used from 26" 6lbs to 30" 7½ lbs guns, but that one was simply the best for my hit-a-bility. Just cause one that feels like a crosstie, suits you "Don't" mean it does us all. Call it a lie if you like, but at least I have enough intelligence to not say you have to like what I do.

Well Cherry, guess you won't be hitting on any of those 6 1/2lbs. lite-weight 12b Brit 30" barrel gameguns then?

This is a interesting question about how or why a guns specs were allowed to vary so much. One thought is that lighter guns became the norm in small gauges in the later years. One or two ounces can be accounted for by different densities of the wood. But the only major area of weight that can be altered is metal in the end. Either by making the barrels shorter or lighter by thinning them.

It would be interesting to see if catalog weight specs. got lighter in the later years for guns.

What you end up with in this case is a very nice late season gun for heavy loads. Should be no problem with recoil in a gun that goes as heavy as many 12 gauge guns.

This is indeed an interesting question! I did some checking on my Nitro Specials. In 12 ga, the weight spread from high to low was only 3 oz for guns of the same barrel length, with an average weight of 7 lb. 5 oz.

In 16 ga, I see just what you did - a weight spread of 8 oz. for the same barrel length with an average of 6 lb. 8 oz. There was not any apparent correlation with age (date of mfr.)

In 20 ga, the spread was only 1 oz., with an average of 6 lb. 4 0z.

Don't know why the 16's have such variation. I'll try to look into this a little further and see if I can identify any common factors in the 16 ga. guns.

Roy

And Roy, the 1923 #7-1/2 lb. gun has the same hollowed out butt stock that the 1940 gun does. So the weight difference seems to be primarily in the barrels: #3.0 as opposed to #3-3/4 lbs. The gun is very well balanced though and handles lots better than current cheap doubles. I will next caliper the width of the barrels at the breech and report back if there is significant difference between the light and the heavy. Thanks for your input. I see nothing about this in Walt's books. I wonder if he is aware of this anomaly. Chops

Roy, the older gun has barrels 1/16" wider at the breech than the 1940's NS. That doesn't seem enough of a difference to account to 3/4 of a lb. I suppose the frame has to be wider as well. The late gun has the sculpted bosses on the frame; the old gun has the plain NS frame. Chops

Say what you want about to each his own but some day take a look at the very best sporting clay shooters and you'll find very few have guns that are < 30 inches and < 7.5 pounds. And, before someone says they don't shoot in heavy brush let me ask when was the last time you hit a tree with the last 4" of that 28 or 30 inch barrel? That's right I won't be looking for any super light weight British game guns. Go shoot one at skeet or 5 stand and you'll find the barrels heat up so much except in the dead of winter that you'll be roasting your fingers. Oh, that's if you don't buy one of those stupid barrel insulator contraptions. What a joke. Make the barrels heavy and long enough and you won't need an expedient like that. Mr Miller, with respect go back and read what I said. You are on a tangent. I never said you have to like what I do.

Sproting Clays and Skeet are different animals than upland hunting. I agree, 30 inch barrels and 7.5 pound gun swings nicely when the gun is of propoer fit. The clay target games generally have gun racks at each station, the shooter doesn't have to carry or hold the gun for long periods. Whether it be over hill and dale when hunting upland birds or standing at the ready near a crow caller, I'll take a 6 something pound 20 ga every time. Lighter is often better when you have to carry or hold the gun for long periods of time. In fact lighter gets better with each passing year.

My favorite 16ga weighs 6-8; my favorite 20 weighs right at 6 pounds. Reckon that's about right. I'd prefer they not be any lighter but I don't obsess about a few ounces either way.

Cherry Bomb; I think you are the one who needs to "Re-Read" your own post. The fact of the matter is I do not find my 6 3/4lb 28" bbld gun "A LIE", but one of the best handling uplan guns I ever brought to shoulder.
There is a "Major" difference in stating what one likes for their purpose & in saying every one else who differs has "Bought A LIE".
Even for Ducks I have in the past done some very good shooting with a 12ga with only 26" bbls, though they are heavy bbls & the gun weighs in at 7½lbs on the nose. It has a feel & balance similar to many 30" bbl'd guns, actual length of bbls is of minor consideration in the handling qualities of a gun, it's weight distribution that counts.
Incidently I don't choose my family car by what the winning NASCAR driver uses either.

Chops:

A little bit more information:

There were 3 distinct NS frames. One from 1921 to 1926. The next was about 0.4 shorter and was built from 1926 to 1937. The third from 1937 to end of production was the "stepped" frame, more in the NID style.

There is some correlation. The 3 heaviest ones I have are in the first 2 frame styles. The heaviest 2 are with the 2nd frame.
I did not do a barrel wall measurement, but it is notable, the the heaviest ones have the tightest bores, .660 to .662, compared with .670 in the lighter ones. This does not account for the weight difference but does account for about 2-3 oz. of the difference. I SUSPECT that more detailed wall thickness measurements would provide the answer. Apparently, the later NS guns had a larger bore, and PROBABLY, a somewhat thinner wall. Just speculation on the wall thickness. The frame differences are irrelevant, since you weighed the barrels. The chamber length change from 2-9/16 to 2-3/4 is a pretty small weight difference!

Roy

Roy, the earlier gun has the first frame style (mfd. 1923), so that would account for some of the weight increase. Also has an old Pachmyer pad which would account for another few oz. but there must still be a more definative reason for the variance.
Frame on my '40's gun is the stepped and shorter one, maybe a few ounces there. I have no means of measuring bores but I suspect the barrel walls are thicker than the later guns. Early gun is tight, on face, ready for another 84 years! Thanks for all your valuable Nitro Special input as I know you are a fan of these old girls as am I. My early gun has 2-2/4" chambers by the way.
Chops

While Savage actually slightly upped the catalogue weights of their Ansley H. Fox guns, I have found examples of late Philadelphia and Savage era guns that run much lighter then catalogue weights. For example a 30-inch 12-gauge Sterlingworth was catalogued at 7 1/2 to 7 3/4 pounds but I have 100% original both late Philly and Utica 30-inch 12-gauge guns that weigh right at 7 pounds!?!

Cherry! Lowell did say Brit "gameguns," and you started your rave-up about target guns. Gotta get things right!

Dang. I guess my 6 lb 12, and my 5lb, 12 oz 20 won't work for bird hunting now. That 16 at 6 lbs 4 ozs must be no good either.

All these years of shooting my personel limit of two birds per trip, and now look. They just won't work. I have to go find a 7 lb (or more) gun.

What am I going to do? My snowshoeing shotgun, with 30" tube (single shot) and 5 1/2 lbs of weight can't be any good either.

I can't believe I ever hit anything. What was I thinking?
Best,
Ted

Ted, you were just darn lucky to kill anything with those guns! As everyone knows, the real test of a game gun is how many you see on the target ranges. Perhaps they can be saved with a little lead in the stocks. Now go get some fancy britches, a strange little hat and hang around "high fiveing" folks wishing they were shooting birds. Now, about those pump guns...

Cary

The Remington 17 with the short barrel installed only weighs 6 lbs, too...must have killed 10,000 birds, feathered and clay, with the thing back when I was guiding, and all the little kids, and, sometimes, mom or dad too, used it at gun safety class to blast their first clay pigeon.

I guess I can't imagine someone built like Jesse Ventura shooting with light guns, but, I can't imagine hunting with someone like him, either....
Best,
Ted

Just a little more information on this subject. I measured some wall thicknesses on a 1934 and 1938 16 ga., 28" NS. The older is bored at .662 and the newer one at .670. The difference in wall thickness ran from .006 to .008 with the heavier walls in the older gun. These measurements are pretty sketchy, just taken in one line at 4" intervals. However, if you add all that up, the newer barrels calculate to about 4.5 oz less than the older ones. The measured weight difference in these two in just under 6 oz.

So, if any conclusion can be drawn, it appears that Ithaca made significantly lighter barrels in conjunction with the third frame style.

Roy, I think you've nailed it on the head! My very late 16 with the last frame style (stepped) must have the thinner tubes. It handles much quicker than the 1923 gun (and kicks a hell of a lot harder with 1 oz. loads). And so I'll use the heavy one for doves and the light one for fast flushing upland game. Thanks a lot for your valued input. Choper