Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I purchased this rifle about 10 years ago, because I really loved the checkering job. When I bought it, the seller, who was in his 50’s, told me it came from the estate of his wife’s step-father, who had been an executive at Ford Motor co.. Around 2014 I picked up Micheal Petrov’s volume 2 Custom Gunmakers of the 20th Century. When I read the chapter on James Howe and saw the pictures of Howe’s work I realized my 52 had a similar pattern. I got a hold of Howe’s two volume work The Modern Gunsmith. When I saw the checkering patterns in volume 1 pages 181 &182. I found my rifle had the exact same patterns for the grip and forend as pictured in the book. In Petrov’s book there is a letter published in the May 1928 American Rifleman from James Howe stating he was refusing all work as he was going to work for Mr. Ford putting his collection in order for the museum exhibits and carrying out Mr. Fords “ideas regarding rifles”.
The rifle receiver was serial numbered 8/28, and the barrel is dated 29.
I can’t say for sure but I believe the work was done by Howe.
See what you think.
Tom
That’s a one-of-a-kind checkering pattern–I’ve never seen anything remotely like it. It’s conceivable that another master stockmaker could have seen the pattern in Howe’s book & copied it, but when you combine the pattern with the provenance, I think you have an airtight case for it being Howe’s work.
Fabulous rifle, which I especially like because the brl band was retained. In fact, the stock looks to me like the original slow-lock stock–appears to have the same drop at heel & beavertail fore-end, & from what I see in your photo, lacks the fancy grain you’d expect in a complete restocking job. Buttplate also looks original. But as you probably read in Petrov’s book, during the Depression when orders for new stocks began to dry up, even the very best stockers began remodeling factory stocks as a way to build more affordable guns.
I’m almost positive it’s the factory stock. I don’t know if you can tell from the photo, but the tip of the forend I think is ebony or horn. The screw heads are even engraved. The buttplate is the original 52 part. The forend was originally thinner with finger grooves. It has been widened by splicing in a piece of wood on each side.
Tom
tom in michigan said
I’m almost positive it’s the factory stock. I don’t know if you can tell from the photo, but the tip of the forend I think is ebony or horn. The screw heads are even engraved. The buttplate is the original 52 part. The forend was originally thinner with finger grooves. It has been widened by splicing in a piece of wood on each side.
Tom
Looking more closely at the bottom of the fore-end, I see the straight lines where the splices was made; beautiful work. What he did was create almost the same contour of the new stock designed by Laudensack in 1929–that confused me. Coincidence, or was he consciously imitating the Laudensack pattern? Though I recognize the handling advantage of a beavertail, I’m crazy for finger-grooves!
1 Guest(s)
