|
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
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,504
Posts545,544
Members14,417
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405 |
What bothers me most about these guns is the 3 or 4 separate engraving patterns utilized on different areas of the gun. The only fox appropriate treatments are on the sides of the frame. And the breech balls and top tang are nothing like anything on a fox. And why not match all the other areas of the gun to that???
B.Dudley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103 |
I was under the impression that Savage owned the Fox name and Tony was the licensee...Geo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
I do like the frame sculpting of the original fox guns. What they lacked though in having the most beautiful looking box lock ever was to get rid of that flat back line. The simple shallow arch on the back of the "New Lefever" crossbolt guns added tremendously to their appearance IMHO. This same shape was carried all the way down to their lowest grade. Personally I do not fel this arched in back in ny way particularly alters the function or cost of fitting but it adds substantially to the appearance of the gun. I admire this over the truly fancy scalloped backs which can only be properly fit up at a substantial increase in cost. If these are properly fitted they really add nothing except showcasing the workmanship of the fitter, but if not properly fitted they greatly detract from the usefulness of the stock.
Others with more experience may strongly disagree with me here but I find a Fox to be a quite difficult gun to work on internally. As it stands at present I would much prefer to install the dread top lever spindle of an L C Smith than to install the hammers on a Fox. Over my years of experience I have found that "ALL" guns are a compromise, each have their good points & each have their bad points, there is "NO" perfect one. Some folks admire one feature while others admire another feature. Original Foxes are nice guns & I can understand why so many admire them, they just don't happen to be my personal favorite, no offence meant to those who hold them as their favorites, you probably don't like mine either & no offence taken. As they say Different Strokes for Different Folks"
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,491 Likes: 395
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,491 Likes: 395 |
I was under the impression that Savage owned the Fox name and Tony was the licensee...Geo George, depends on the terms of the license. But unless Tony is a dummy, his license probably covers all firearms or all shotguns and if Savage wanted to do something, they would have to license it back. Have seen that before.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,096 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,096 Likes: 336 |
What bothers me most about these guns is the 3 or 4 separate engraving patterns utilized on different areas of the gun. The only fox appropriate treatments are on the sides of the frame. And the breech balls and top tang are nothing like anything on a fox. And why not match all the other areas of the gun to that??? Brian, you need to understand that this thing is a Fox in name only. There is literally no effort made to replicate an A.H. Fox other than the attempt at making the pointed frame sides. It is an RBL with a few cosmetic changes. Don't try to make it into anything resembling Ansley's original. JR
Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106 |
A bit heavy aren't they? A 20 b at, or close to 7 lbs, or even more. I saw a 20 on gunsamerica over 7 lbs (7.6 lbs). Seems kind of heavy for a game gun.
Last edited by buzz; 11/23/17 08:17 PM.
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,379 Likes: 105 |
A bit heavy aren't they? A 20 b at, or close to 7 lbs, or even more. I saw a 20 on gunsamerica over 7 lbs (7.6 lbs). Seems kind of heavy for a game gun. Buzz, if you're speaking of the new A Grade, I can't imagine enough weight variation, gun to gun, that there's one out there at well over 7 pounds. The one I handled wasn't anywhere close to 7#. I'll put one on my postal scale as soon as I get it. But my guesstimate is that the gun I had in my hands--20ga, 28" barrels--would've gone 6 1/4, tops. I believe the Savage promotional material suggests 6 pounds. And I can believe that before I'd ever give any credibility to 7 pounds plus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,405 |
What bothers me most about these guns is the 3 or 4 separate engraving patterns utilized on different areas of the gun. The only fox appropriate treatments are on the sides of the frame. And the breech balls and top tang are nothing like anything on a fox. And why not match all the other areas of the gun to that??? Brian, you need to understand that this thing is a Fox in name only. There is literally no effort made to replicate an A.H. Fox other than the attempt at making the pointed frame sides. It is an RBL with a few cosmetic changes. Don't try to make it into anything resembling Ansley's original. JR Well of course. Im just saying that a little extra step could have been taken for a better package cosmetically.
B.Dudley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106 |
Larry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but check out this Gunsamerica listing: Item # 947927269. It's a Savage Fox Model A 20b w 28" barrels for $4995 which they say weighs 7.6 lbs. In addition, if you look at the Savage website regarding these guns, I don't see where they talk weight of the guns. One would think they would be touting a 6 lb 20 bore weight as a huge selling point if that's what the 20's weigh. I will be interested in what your test gun weighs. Take care, hope you are doing well. Buzz. PS, I hope you are right, a 6 lb or sub 6 lb 20 b would be pretty sweet.
Last edited by buzz; 11/24/17 11:28 AM.
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,096 Likes: 336
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,096 Likes: 336 |
Larry, I don't mean to be argumentative, but check out this Gunsamerica listing: Item # 947927269. It's a Savage Fox Model A 20b w 28" barrels for $4995 which they say weighs 7.6 lbs. In addition, if you look at the Savage website regarding these guns, I don't see where they talk weight of the guns. One would think they would be touting a 6 lb 20 bore weight as a huge selling point if that's what the 20's weigh. I will be interested in what your test gun weighs. Take care, hope you are doing well. Buzz You can be sure that's either a 12 ga., or a weight mis-print. I assure you the 20 will NOT weigh anywhere near 7.6 lbs. JR
Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
