Reshaping the Stock on a Marlin Golden 39 A

A few years ago, I purchased a used Marlin 39 A .22 with the idea that it would provide an understudy to my Marlin lever actions in .45-70 and (my favorite) .38-55.  Carbines have their good points, but these two lever guns were rifles, so I wanted the relatively long 24" barrel of the 39 A.  (If you want a carbine, look for the Marlin 39 M, the Mountie model, and be prepared to pay more for it.)

I didn't think to take a photo of my rifle when I acquired it, but (except for the scope) it looked almost exactly like the one illustrated here in an earlier Marlin advertisement:

Following the Marlin 39, introduced in 1921, the 39 A was introduced in 1939.  My Golden model with its gold trigger was manufactured in 1971 (and thus is now a so-called early model, the newer model dating from 1983).  Typically for its time, it had a butt stock and fore end that to my eye called out for reshaping.  The fore end was an exaggerated beavertail; the butt stock had an exaggeratedly long pistol grip.  The curve from the wrist to the nose was slack, and the fluting at the nose of the comb was clunky. Both fore end and butt bulged outwards from the slim receiver, giving the rifle an oddly wasp-waisted look when viewed from above or below.  A minor point was that I didn't like the Marlin icon of a bull's-eye in white and black plastic near the butt's sling swivel.  It could be argued the bull's eye complements the white spacers at the grip cap and buttplate, but they were going to go.  So, too, was the bull's eye.  In addition, I needed a longer length of pull.

The fore end was a reasonably quick fix.  The earlier Marlin 39's had considerably slimmer fore ends, so I removed the fore end and simply planed down its width and depth until they corresponded to the dimensions of the receiver and the fore end cap.  

As for the butt, getting rid of the white spacer and then adding a red rubber recoil pad gave me the length of pull I wanted.  A pad of course is not needed to reduce recoil on a .22 rimfire, but the friction from the rubber pad can keep the rifle from falling down when it's stood upright on a smooth surface.

Slimming down the butt stock was more of a challenge.  I reduced the width of the comb until my eye was looking down the barrel when the rifle came up to my right shoulder (I also followed the same procedure for my left shoulder).  I then tapered the sides of the comb to eliminate the fluting at the nose.  Filling the cavity where the bull's eye had been with a matching piece of wood was straightforward.  I cut back and slimmed down the pistol grip until its diameter felt comfortable and substituted for the rounded black plastic grip cap a flat piece of ebony, attaching it with black epoxy.  Rubber bands made clamping easy:

Sanding and whiskering  were straightforward.  Next came dying the stock to give it more color.  I used a blend of aniline dyes (3 parts Dark Walnut, 1 part Red Mahogany, and 1/2 part Antique Cherry) because they don't have pigment to obscure the grain.  I then added a coat of home-made walnut brew.  Here's the result:

The last steps were adding a coat of alkanet oil.  I let that dry for three days, then steel-wooled the stock to make sure no oil remained on the surface.  After burning off the tiny particles of steel wool, I started applying very thin coats of Tru-Oil, sanding them in until the pores were filled, and rubbing down the last coat of Tru-Oil with auto rubbing compound.

Checkering came next.  The black walnut was rather coarse, so I used 18 LPI, adding a narrow border.  The checkering wraps around the fore end.  The checkering pattern for pistol grip came from the illustrations of the Marlin Fire Arms catalog from June 1897 (available very reasonably from Cornell Publications) and from William S. Brophy's photographs in Marlin Firearms: A History (Stackpole, 1989).  Here is a shot of the checkering in the white, rather a contrast to the butt with its richer colors from the dye, alkanet oil, and coats of Tru-oil:



After completing the checkering, I carefully scraped inadvertent over-runs and then sanded the divots smooth with 400 grit paper.  I dyed the panels as before with my aniline blend and my walnut brew, rubbed in a coat of alkanet oil, and then brushed on a finishing coat of satin spar varnish diluted 50-50 with mineral spirits.  Touching up with Tru-Oil completed the job.



My friend Mike Bennett drilled and tapped its tang for a Marble's tang sight.  This is a tricky job, because it's illegal to deface any part of the serial number on the tang.  He used a shotgun bead drill fixture and a tap guide from Brownell's to line everything up and keep the drill and tap straight.

This is a shot of the receiver, checkered grip, and tang sight:

This 39 A is now considerably trimmer.  Here, again, is where I started:







And here's the outcome:  a sleeker stock with a shortened pistol grip, a slimmer fore end, and checkering.  The Marble's tang sight now complements its resemblance to earlier Marlin 39's.





Word has it that the quality Marlin Firearms has long been known for is becoming a thing of the past. If you've ever thought of owning a 39 A, now might be the time to buy a used one.  Older ones are still reasonably priced, but they're getting more expensive.  If current build quality continues to deteriorate, prices for the older model could jump dramatically.

Post-Election Depression

From the Newsletter of Cornell Publications http://www.cornellpubs.com/old-guns/newsletters/ :



Duly Noted: Useful References for Proof Marks

I've just discovered that Rob and Abby Mouat's Cornell Publications offers a free listing of proof marks at http://www.cornellpubs.com/Catalog/proof-marks-intl.pdf. 

Not only do the Mouats offer something like 5,000 reprints of gun catalog from makers and merchandizers, but their newsletter is free and filled with interesting material, some relevant to firearms and some not:  the current one has a video of a Toyota SUV being driven on two wheels while five or six Saudis take off and then replace the two other tires--incredible!  I'm hoping my grandson doesn't see it!  And the Rants and Raves every month are always worth a chuckle. 

Check them out:  they provide a wonderful service at very reasonable cost.

Added 8/11/2016:  Another useful reference is Gerhard Wirnsberger's Standard Directdory of Proof Marks, With WWII Germand Ordnance Codes.  Translated by R. A. Steindler, it's distributed by Blacksmith Publishers Corporation.

William Greener's "The Gun" (1835)

This post is not about W. W. Greener's The Gun and Its Development, first published in 1881 and commonly available in the 9th edition of 1910.  That book deserves to be in every gun enthusiast's library because it contains a truly extraordinary amount of information, all readily accessible because of its index. 

Instead, this is about William Greener, the father of W. W. Greener, and the rather smaller book he published in 1835, The Gun; or, A Treatise on the Various Descriptions of Small Fire-Arms, now available as a reprint of 240 pages from that wonderful firm Cornell Publications for the bargain price of $19.95.  I won't say that every enthusiast should own it, but it does offer some intriguing insights into the early percussion era.  (If you buy it and decide to try some of Greener's recommended loads, do please note the errata on the title page!)

William Greener had worked in London for the legendary Joe Manton but then went back to his home town of Newcastle to set up as a gun maker, eventually moving to Birmingham in 1844.  Although the tone of The Gun is at times exasperated, its arguments are always rational, the outcome of Greener's involved and prolonged experiments.  Apparently, once he had arrived at an opinion, he was not easily induced to change his mind:  he and his son so disagreed about the value and future of breechloaders that they were estranged for some time (it probably didn't make it any easier for Greener Senior that his son turned out to be right).

Again and again, William Greener condemns the shoddy practices of contemporary gun makers.  According to him, lots of workers were unemployed after the Napoleonic wars came to an end, wiping out the demand for military muskets (about which he also has some forthright opinions, most of them highly critical). "These men," he declares, "now make a living by manufacturing guns of the most rubbishly and dangerous description." 

Greener believed not only that the proof houses were not rigorous enough, but when even those low standards could not be passed, it was a common practice to forgo or to forge the proof marks on the very cheapest guns.  And the markets for these shoddy guns?  There were two major ones.  One was Africa.  To his credit, Greener waxes indignant about these practices:  "These guns were manufactured for the dealers in slaves, by whom they were carried to Africa; and there a gun untested, and without strength, was given in exchange for a man!  Numbers of mutilated wretches were to be seen in that country; and we have the testimony of travelers, that multitudes have lost their lives by the explosion of these worthless guns, the victims of the avarice of men denominating themselves Christians" (p. 77). 

The second market for these shoddy guns?  The other major market was America.  So if you find a bargain English muzzleloader by an unknown maker and want to shoot it, lashing it to a tire and testing it yourself with proof loads at a safe distance might be in order!

Several other topics are interesting.  Greener goes into the deceptive versus the proper way  of "staining" ("browning") gun barrels and why someone ordering a gun almost certainly will be cheated unless he insists on the proper way.  "For the benefit of amateurs," he lucidly explains how to make "alkanut" ("alkanet") oil to color walnut and how to use nitric acid (aqua fortis) and iron filings to darken maple stocks.  Finally, for anyone shooting sitting ducks or geese, he describes a method that will produce better results--but for that information you'll have to read the book.

Dating a Scott Double-Barreled Hammer Gun

Faithful readers of "Hits and Misses" will doubtless recall my earlier post, "Dating a Double-Barreled Hammer Gun" (http://gerardcox.blogspot.com/2013/07/dating-double-barreled-hammer-gun_29.html).  That post concerned a 10 gauge double with the virtually unknown name of C. K. Weston on its bar action locks.  This post is about dating a 12 gauge hammer gun by the well-known and prolific maker W. & C. Scott & Son.  This firm not only sold guns world-wide under its own name but furnished barreled actions and guns in varying degrees of completion to other firms.  To adapt John Campbell's phrase in The Double Gun Journal (Spring 2011), W. & C. Scott & Son was gunmaker to the gunmakers. 

Here is the 12 gauge in question.  This gun has 30" Damascus barrels and weighs a tad under 6 3/4 pounds.  A Jones underlever locks the barrels to the action.

 

 

 

On the rib is "W. & C. Scott & Son London."  In 1862, William Middleditch Scott took over the Birmingham firm established in the 1840's by his father William Scott and his uncle Charles Scott. 

Here, courtesy of that wonderful resource, Cornell Publications, is the cover of Scott's 1872 catalog, and, except for fastening the fore end with a wedge, the upper gun on the right (front ) cover is very close to mine:





Although my Scott has a moderate degree of engraving, it has no street address preceding the "London" on the rib, an indication that it is what the 1872 catalog terms a "plain gun."

It's easy to identify a Scott gun when the firm's name is on the locks and on the barrel rib.  It's more difficult, however, to come close to when a given gun was manufactured by this firm.  For one reason, the second half of the nineteenth century was a time when one innovation in gun making rapidly succeeded another.  For another, sportsmen-and-women tended to be conservative, then as now, except, of course, when they weren't.  And third, what we might take to be old-fashioned or outmoded features were often retained in the less expensive but sturdy guns offered by a firm to gamekeepers, or to those in the service, civil or military, or to explorers and travelers planning to be far from civilization and its attendant gunsmiths.  It's difficult to distinguish who bought what, in other words, although David J. Baker suggests in Heyday of the Shotgun (Safari Press, 2000) that a strong clue to a gamekeeper's gun  is a stock so worn that the checkering is nearly gone--and that is true of my gun:  only the border lines remain of the checkering.

So how should we proceed to date this Scott?  By following the same procedure I described in my earlier post: first, by looking at the proof marks (assuming there are some, that is: there won't be on guns made in America); and second, by trying to date the gun's salient features.  Obviously, a gun can't be earlier than its latest feature.

As the next picture illustrates, it has back action (the main spring is behind the hammer) rebounding locks (which means that as soon as the hammer hits the firing pin, it springs automatically back into a half-cocked position, so you don't have to lift the hammer off the striker to open the barrels).

Scott's 1872 catalog shows this model as "The Double Grip Breech Loader Back Action Locks," noting that it is known as "The Trade action," and describing it as "a sound and firm gun, and one much used in this country."  The catalog also notes that it can be ordered with rebounding locks like this gun.

The proof marks of this Scott are straightforward:

 





 

 Looking at Diggory Hadoke's useful chart from his Vintage Guns, we can see that despite the "London" on the rib the barrels were proofed in Birmingham.  The "13B" and "14M" plus the "NOT FOR BALL" correspond to the 1875-1887 period.  The "13" and "13B"means that the nine inches from the breech the diameter of the bore is that of a 13 gauge, or .710".  (A 12 would be .729".)  The "14M" means that the muzzle diameter is .693".  The proof marks thus reveal that the bore is choked slightly.

 

Why, then, were the barrels not marked "Choke"?  Because the proof marks tell us that this gun was made in the interval before choke became widely accepted.  Although Greener did not discover the benefits of choke, he was the first gunmaker to perfect and publicize it, and he himself states that he only began to experiment with choke in the spring of 1874.  The chart below indicates that "CHOKE" did not  appear as a proof mark until 1887.

 

 

And, from 1887 on, NOT FOR BALL was no longer used as a proof mark.

 

So much for the proof marks.  They establish that Scott made this gun sometime between 1875 and 1887.  [Afterword, 5/31/2015:  Or so I thought.  My reasoning was right, but polishing the barrels for re-browning revealed that "CHOKE" was stamped on the left barrel.  It had been invisible before.  The chart above gives 1887 as the earliest date for this mark, and it continued in use until the early 1900's.  Adhering to the rule that a gun can be no earlier than its latest feature, this Scott hammer gun can't have been proofed before 1887.  Yet its barrels also are marked "NOT FOR BALL," and that mark was not used after 1887.  So what date is indicated by these proof marks?  1887, or perhaps just a wee bit later if an inspector stamped "NOT FOR BALL" out of habit.] 

Given that this gun was proved in Birmingham and that the Scott factory was in Birmingham, the "London" on the rib might have been a sales inducement, but not its place of manufacture.  Scott did have a salesroom in London, however, at 10 Great Castle Street in Regent Circus.

 

What are the other characteristics that would help date this gun?  To start early and progress chronologically, the underlever was patented by Henry Jones in 1859.  It remained in use despite its slowness relative to a snap action closure because it was both silent in operation and strong.  This gun, for example, used hard, still locks up tight. The strength of the Jones underlever made it especially popular on guns for waterfowl and big bore game rifles. 

 

The butt does not have the iron plate characteristic of muzzleloading guns and relatively early breechloaders like the C. K. Weston.  Instead, it has heel and toe plates with, originally, checkering in between.  Heel and toe plates were popular in the late 1860's, largely giving way in the 1870's to checkered butt pates made out of horn or ebonite. 

 

 The fore end is held to the barrel by a simple catch, one step forward from a wedge through a barrel loop (as on the catalog cover) but not as refined as one of the mechanisms like the Deeley/Edge lever in the fore end or the Anson push rod at the fore end's tip.  Those catches date from the early 1870's.

 

All the features so far are rather behind the times for a gun that, as the proof marks demonstrate, can't be earlier than 1875.

 

What features suggest a date more in keeping with the 1875-1887 period?  I see two such features, the engraving and the low hammers.  

 

The engraving is not large or florid, as on earlier guns, but small and controlled. 

 





 

The hammers' position is low enough when they are cocked that they aren't even visible in the line of sight.  Hammers began high and became progressively lower (and then, of course, gave way to hammerless actions), so these low hammers would suggest a date in the 1880's.

 



 

But that date in the 1880's can't be after 1887 at the latest, or the proof marks would be different.  Taken all in all, therefore, despite its conservative use of Jones underlever and heel and toe plates, the later features of the small-scaled engraving and, especially, the low hammers suggest a date sometime in the 1880's but no later than 1887, when the proof marks no longer indicated "NOT FOR BALL" but did include "CHOKE."  [As noted above, the combination of "NOT FOR BALL" and "CHOKE" dates this gun to 1887.]

 

This may be the place to note that this style of gun could well have had even later proof marks.  This conformation remained popular not only for gamekeepers but anyone else who placed a premium on good value.  Baker's Heyday of the Shotgun has a catalog illustration from Pape of Newcastle showing "The Keeper's Gun" for six pounds, ten shillings--in the mid-1890's!  That illustration noted as an improvement the gun's low hammers below the range of sight.  And given that Scott sold guns in the white to the trade, it's quite possible that this Pape had begun as an even later W. & C. Scott & Son gun in the white.

-------------------------------------------- 



Subsequent posts will deal with the gentle restoration of this shotgun.  I need to recut the checkering and to brown the Damascus barrels, but the last thing I want to do is make it look new.  Right now, as Shakespeare's Lord Chief Justice tells Falstaff, "every part about [it is] blasted with antiquity."  I want to find a happy medium between "blasted with antiquity" and "like new," so it still looks well-used but also well-loved.  Its lines are long and lean, and I hope once more it can be lovely.

Any and all suggestions about a gentle restoration are most welcome.