Actually, the serial numbers play in the salt wood problem because the serial numbers tell you the year of manufacture. Before 1965 and you are safe. You are likely,not absolutely,safe after 1972. Any Browning firearm with walnut stocks made after 1964 should be suspect, period. The poor man's way to tell salt wood is by removing a screw on the butt plate. The way to cheat those people is to switch butt plate screws.
Even a redone salt wood gun is still a salt wood gun that's been redone. Salt wood is bad,very bad. Which is why I believe that the pre 1965 guns are worth more. Why worry about a 1968 Browning Superposed when a 1962 model is prettier in the first place and completely risk free as far as salt goes?
Superx1-Agree completely. What caused the question is a few have shown up and when ask about the gun the answer is 'oh 60s or 70s'.
How to Determine the Year of Manufacture on a Browning A5 by Serial Number by Paul McCormick The date of manufacture of a Browning A-5--sometimes known as the 'Auto-5'--can be determined by means of the serial number of the unit. I found a long history of Browning firearms with serial number info at 'sportingarms.freeservers.com' and stored the document on my phone. I can't get back to the original URL but here is the quote on the Belgian T-bolt. 'First introduced in 1964, the date of manufacture for this model will be found with the serial number.
Adding to this is the opinion in some of the threads I found that salt wood was more likely in the higher grade Browning guns and in some US Army M1As, and some Winchester guns. Thank you for your input. Ken Schafer Bull Run Shooting Instruction [email protected] B-R-S-I.COM NSCA Level 2, Instructor NRA Level 2, Shotgun Coach CSM/TRACS Instructor Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
The problem with a 1965 through 1972 Browning are these: 1. The salt wood era guns also got cheapened. Flat knobs, glossy finishes, less workmanship and less features,such as going over to U tangs instead of Y tangs, short tangs instead of long tangs.
Even after new wood is put on,it's simply the same cheapened gun that Browning tried to cut quality in order to avoid escalating prices. Has the wood been replaced?
![]()
After you pay the bill to Art's, you know. But does the buyer know? The buyer reacts to replaced ANYTHING the same way that a buyer of a classic car reacts to any kind of replacement. He wants the original box, papers, hang tags, and the original store receipt to accompany an unopened box with the gun never assembled. Replaced wood on a shotgun is like telling a buyer to your house that you had to spend a lot of money fixing up the basement when it caved in. They don't like hearing it. It doesn't impress them.
They want the gun to be 100% totally the same as it was the day it was first sold. If the wood has not been replaced, or it's unknown if it has been, then the buyer is faced with dealing with a salt wood gun.
He knows there were LOTS of them out there during the time period. I don't have any silver nitrate handy with me all the time.
I can't run to Wal Mart and buy silver nitrate to test the gun. Again, it's sort of like a pretty girl telling you not to worry about any STD's,that was her sister who had that awful problem there for awhile,and it's not her,trust her,she's telling the truth. Salt wood is bad. An open question regarding the salt guns: we are talking about guns that were manufactured 40-47 years ago; if a gun has the original wood and has not shown any signs of salt damage since new, isn't it reasonable to assume that it does not have salt wood?
It is my understanding that the salt wood was mostly in the higher grade guns and that many standard grades are OK. I would think it would be illogical to pass on a nice gun that appears to be in good condition because of fear of getting salt wood. No dog in the fight, just wondering out loud & would like to hear from those more knowledgable than I. Salt wood was a strange thing and was a widespread problem that wasn't confined just to Browning and wasn't only found on higher grade guns. I have seen a lot of T bolts with severe salt damage and they weren't high grade guns. I have also seen a lot of Safari guns and field grade Superposed guns with salt wood. These weren't the higher grades either.
Some of these guns have rusted to the point they are really only suitable for wall hangers. A friend of mine has a 1968 A5 20ga. That has salt wood, even though A5's are not supposed to have salt wood. It has some very fine cracking in the finish, but no damage to the steel underneath the wood. I would not hesitate to own that gun or one just like it.
There were also guns made during the salt wood years that did not have salt wood on them. I have a 1969 Superposed Magnum that does not have salt wood.
If a person is looking at buying a Browning made between 1966 and 1973, just be careful and really check it out good. If the seller will allow it, pull the wood and verify there is no damage under the wood line. You can find some really good deals on guns from these years, but you have to be careful. If I remember some of the details correctly, the salt process for drying the wood involved essentially burying pallets of wood under salt. The salt draws the moisture out of the stock and you have a process for drying the wood that doesn't take as long as air dry. I've read that the saltwood problem is worse for wood on the bottom of the pallet as the water and moisture tended to accumulate towards the bottom creating more of a brine solution.
Wood exposed to the brine was more prone to salt leaching into the wood. Stocks made from wood toward the top of the pallet are less of a problem then stocks made from blanks on the bottom of the pallet.
NRA Life Member One of Many. If I remember some of the details correctly, the salt process for drying the wood involved essentially burying pallets of wood under salt.
The salt draws the moisture out of the stock and you have a process for drying the wood that doesn't take as long as air dry. I've read that the saltwood problem is worse for wood on the bottom of the pallet as the water and moisture tended to accumulate towards the bottom creating more of a brine solution. Wood exposed to the brine was more prone to salt leaching into the wood. Stocks made from wood toward the top of the pallet are less of a problem then stocks made from blanks on the bottom of the pallet.
I wonder what became of the person who decided this faster process was a good idea. Even a redone salt wood gun is still a salt wood gun that's been redone. Salt wood is bad,very bad. Why would it not just be a 'Restoration'?
Because saltwood can't be sealed, covered up or contained. The salt wood will eat through the finish, or cause the finish to peel or crack. It may look good for a time, but eventually the salt problems will return. Browning tried many different ways of fixing the salt problem short of replacing the wood. None of them worked. Only an idiot would try to fix a salty stock. Replacement is the only solution.
Once replaced and whatever metalwork be done, no more 'Saltwood gun', only a restored Superposed remains. Art Isaacson has a very unique way of 'deactivating' a salt wood stock. He removes the butt stock from the gun and WHACKS it on the side of his workbench thereby breaking it to smithereens. The best shooting happens without conscious thought.
The orign of the Salt Wood era was based on the tremendous demand for Superposed's in the 1960's. Browning just could not keep up with the demand. Furniture companies were working with Morton Salt to dry furniture wood much faster and in larger quantities, so Browning took notice. I'm not sure how well or poor the furniture wood stood the test of time. It is a common on-line belief, and one I believe to be true, that if a Superposed has a long tang and Y top-tang, it can be assumed to be salt-free. I have a 1966 Pigeon, long tang and Y-tang, that is fine.
No hard evidence of this belief, but I don't hear many people saying otherwise. An assumption might be that air-dried blanks were kept elsewhere, and those were used to make the long-tang guns, while the salt wood blanks were used for the 'quicker, easier' short tang and U-tang guns.911 calls the men that draw the white chalk lines.1911 determines who they draw the lines around.
Your thinking is spot on. In most cases, if degradation hasn't reared its' ugly head by now, it most likely wont. There's nothing wrong with a late 60's gun, check the buttscrews, inspect everywhere wood meets metal and enjoy your Superposed.
That seems logical to me; obviously anyone should do their due diligence before purchasing a gun that old, but I have to chuckle at blanket advice to pass on a fine shotgun only because it was made in the so-called salt era. A good inspection and disassembly should answer any doubts. If buying sight unseen, I would certainly want a right of refusal after said inspection, however. If I remember some of the details correctly, the salt process for drying the wood involved essentially burying pallets of wood under salt. The salt draws the moisture out of the stock and you have a process for drying the wood that doesn't take as long as air dry.
I've read that the saltwood problem is worse for wood on the bottom of the pallet as the water and moisture tended to accumulate towards the bottom creating more of a brine solution. Wood exposed to the brine was more prone to salt leaching into the wood. Stocks made from wood toward the top of the pallet are less of a problem then stocks made from blanks on the bottom of the pallet.Accurate and excellent description of the problem. Guns were selling well, high-grade guns were highly profitable, and the demand for higher grade walnut far exceeded the supply of dried blanks - hence the attempt by wood suppliers to short circuit the process. There was a graduated effect as blanks at the tops of the pallets were essentially unaffected, because the brine drained away, while blanks at the bottom suffered badly from being continuously soaked in brine solution.
Because of that graduated effect 'salt gun' forearms and buttstocks may be randomly and independently affected mildly or seriously or not at all. A crazed finish on an A5 of that era was not uncommon is not a sign of salt wood. A5's were not affected as essentially all the Brownings with salt wood were higher grade guns and/or higher grade wood. I've been following the ^^ discussion and it would seem to indicate that 'saltwood' is a complete problem or not. Might a degree of 'saltwood' damage be an important issue in a Superposed restoration or not?
Personally, I would stay away from any degree of 'saltwood' infestation. For example, below. Currently, Art has on his site for sale a Browning Safari 300 Win Mag where he states ' tests positive for salt in one small part'. (or something close to this). To me, the implication is this remains a sweet rifle that does not need restoration- 98%. Am I missing something?.02 David.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |