My Model 21 Skeet: Good news and bad news|Page 3|Winchester Shotguns|Forum|Winchester Collector

I will confess ignorance of how Parker, Browning, and the London and Birmingham gunmakers avoided splitting the forearm with the forearm iron. However, after owning and using various Olin Kodensha, Miroku, and FN double shotguns in 12, 20, and 28 gauges over the last half-Century, I’ve never experienced or heard of a forearm splitting from a design error – or any other reason — except for the Winchester Model 21. 

That is especially surprising because of the reputation the 21 has for withstanding brutal overloads at John Olin’s requirement. The action itself is regarded as tank-like robust. The barrels are joined on a long mechanical dovetail very expensive to build but almost bulletproof. 

But Schwing tells us forearm splitting was a known tendency on guns made to the original design,  a problem not finally solved until after 1950,  when a “forearm recoil abutment” — essentially a crossbar embedded in the forearm ahead of the iron and connected by a steel rod to the forward mounting screw of the iron, to serve as an anchor holding back the iron from moving against its inletting — became standard in all Model 21 forearms. Also, the beavertail forearm was redesigned to increase its thickness and wrap around the barrels more tightly. 

The prewar Model 21 furniture was still being made by craftsmen who were paid by the piece. Even though their finished forearms were subject to rigorous inspection, that method of compensation is not necessarily the best way to ensure adequate strength of a component that  relies so heavily for that strength on perfection of fitting steel into wood — when the degree of that perfection is not inspectable once the forearm iron assembly is installed. That is to say, the iron may appear to be in complete contact with its Walnut surrounding but, if the walls of the cavity are undercut and the actual steel-to-wood contact is inadequate, rearward movement of the iron is being resisted only by its two small attachment screws and what may be a thin edge of wood. This is exacerbated by the long narrow shape of the iron. 

You can call that a failure of execution, or a failure of design. Because apparently not every prewar Model 21 suffered forearm splitting, perhaps it is most accurate to call instances of splitting a design-induced failure of execution. 

We must keep in mind that high strength epoxy resins did not become commercially available until the late Nineteen Forties and the idea of adding milled glass fibers to make a rock hard, shrink free bedding compound was at least that recent. At the time the Model 21 was designed, its designers has two ways to keep the forearm iron from destroying the wooden furniture: perfect inletting or mechanical resistance.  Perhaps if the rear of the iron had been made less knife-like, imperfect inletting would have sufficed. 

Those familiar with the late Harold Johnson of Coopers Landing, Alaska and his rebarreling of the Winchester Model 71 to his wildcat .450 and .50 Alaskan cartridges in the Nineteen Fifties, know that the forearm of his modified rifle had to be glass bedded to its receiver, in addition to being secured to the barrel by adding a steel barrel band. Otherwise, the forearm would depart the rest of the gun in recoil. 

A heavy recoiling bolt action rifle, although perfectly inletted into a 5X Circassian Walnut stock by a fine custom gun maker, usually and prudently has the back of the recoil lug glass bedded to the mating inletting. 

I don’t expect to have further trouble with this forearm but I’m curious how other makers have avoided the problem by different designs. I’d appreciate enlightenment by anyone with actual knowledge. 

If I understand your question, you are asking whether the forearm on my Model 21 Skeet Gun would have been protected from splitting had Winchester installed a recoil abutment device (like the one shown in Schwing) when my gun was manufactured. 

My answer is, yes, I think so.  These devices were installed sporadically until 1950 and then as a matter of policy in all new Model 21 guns.  To me, that Indicates the devices must have helped, although the forearms were also re-designed to make them thicker in cross-section and to wrap around the barrels more tightly. 

In the case of my gun, the best method of ensuring no further splitting was the one Ron employed while repairing the existing crack. High strength epoxy compounded with milled fiberglass strands is harder than the hardest wood species and, if judiciously applied and properly cured, is superior in effectively and permanently resisting movement to Winchester’s mechanical brake. Note that the brake removes wood to install the embedded crossbar and still  relies on bare wood to absorb the rearward force transmitted to crossbar. In fairness,  modern bedding compounds were unknown at the time it was designed. 

Michael B. said
Zeb,
For a lighter target load, I would recommend you try the Winchester AA Low Recoil Low Noise Target Load.  It is very kind to the arthritis in my neck and shoulders. 
Michael
  

Thanks, Michael. I’d been looking for that very load several weeks ago but my Usual Suspects were out of stock. However, as a result of your post this evening, I decided to try again and Cabela’s just took my order for a case, although the item is listed as “low stock” in both their North Texas stores. I’ve had them before “process” a low stock order and then cancel it a day later, so it’s not a sure bet. 

Not being the soul of patience, I decided to look for backup. Midway had some, “in stock” same price and we are well acquainted, so I just bought a case from them, too. Both orders are free shipping. 

I’m pretty confident about the Midway order. If I wind up with 20 boxes instead of 10 — well, just throw me in that briar patch…

Best, 

Bill