|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 members (canvasback, 2 invisible),
1,004
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,445
Posts544,844
Members14,406
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9 |
Geoff,
Did you take any pictures of the trigger when you had the buttstock off the gun?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,583
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,583 |
I think the checkering and the concave top section of the barrel divider (on the inside) look like factory work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
The raised spine does look like it was run with a moulder or scraper--pretty sophisticated cf. to Lowell's rifle stock cap on the end. Perhaps it is Penn. Crude combined with Fox. But if it's half factory, the transition to the iron is about the nastiest thing I've seen.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I know nothing of Foxes...but I say it's non-factory.
I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9 |
But if it's half factory, the transition to the iron is about the nastiest thing I've seen.
jack jack, There have been some repairs under the iron (soft, punky wood replaced & new screw), and the 'nastiest' part appears to mostly be dents from 80 years of handling. I am not arguing that it is original, I had never thought it was. Just seeking out opinions. The checkering and concave section on the underside of the forend are what folks pointed at as being 'factory'. Hopefully the eventuall letter will clear things up.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9 |
PA trap and pigeon shooters are fond of "working on the wood" and using Miller Triggers. Their guns are easy to identify even when far removed from their state of origin. Murph, Did Miller usually s/n the triggers to the guns? Why do PA shooters get so much 'credit' for working on their guns as if the rest of the shooting community shot bone stock guns? Are they getting even for the Kentucky Rifle?
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 343 |
Geoff,
Did you take any pictures of the trigger when you had the buttstock off the gun? Sorry, didn't take the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 13,879 Likes: 15 |
I have no particular expertise with Fox guns to draw from, but there's something about the forend wood that differs from the butt that makes me thing the forend is not factory. The grain is more open or not filled as much, gouges in the barrel channel, the wood is proud of the FE metal while not on the butt, and that funky shape...looks very 50's-60's, much like my restocked LC Ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,588 Likes: 9 |
Chuck,
It may be the shadows in the pictures, but there are no gouges in the barrel channels. All pictures were taken with a flash which may have an affect on the wood 'color'. I don't think the finish on the FE or buttstock is original, but it is consistent.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 236
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 236 |
I Believe the reason the wood looks proud is because it comes up above the center of barrels, couldn't be any narrower than the widest part of the barrels.
|
|
|
|
|
